Universalism vs. Cosmopolitanism
The Chosenness of Israel and their Universal Mission
We
continue our discussion of Avraham, his challenges, and his identity,
with the aim of understanding the concept of the chosenness of Israel.
In order to discern Manitou’s emphases in his commentary on Avraham’s
tests, we will first examine the simple, conventional view.
We tend to view Avraham as perfect from the moment that God commands him, in Parashat Lekh-lekha, to head for Eretz Yisrael.
We read the events and tests that he encounters from the moment he is
commanded and continuing when he arrives in the land as a series of
scenes that prove over and over again that he was perfectly suited from
the outset for his mission and for being chosen by God. Outwardly, there
is a test, but in terms of his own inner reality, it is obvious that
Avraham will pass all these tests because he is perfect to start off
with.
In contrast to this understanding, the preceding shiurim
have discussed the development of his identity from Avram to Avraham,
as well as the process that he undergoes over the course of his life,
gradually molding the core identity that will become the foundation of Am Yisrael.
As we have seen, Avraham might be compared to a seed in the ground,
which has the potential to grow into a huge tree, but a long process
must take place before that final result will be fully realized.
However, this image is not a complete reflection of Manitou’s teachings
on the subject. We need to address another element of his philosophy
that we have already encountered but which has not yet been addressed in
this context: the principle of free choice.
A
plant has no choice. All of its characteristics are already inherent in
it, and with time, patience, and the presence of the appropriate
physical conditions, its potential will be realized. Avraham has free
choice, and we cannot ignore the possibility of Avraham choosing
differently, instead of realizing his potential and the mission expected
of him.
Recall
the central place that Manitou awards to free choice. He emphasizes
that there is no fatalism in the Torah; man, through his free choice, is
a full partner in molding reality. At first this seems self-evident,
but as we shall see, this assertion has far-reaching implications. We
will first look at the foundations of this principle. Thereafter, we
will look at its ramifications for an understanding of Avraham’s life
story.
For
Manitou, free choice is profoundly bound up with the reason for all of
Creation –making room for the other, for creation, so that it can exist
in its own right. Through his moral choices, man earns his right to
exist. God, Who is perfect, deliberately created a world that is
deficient so that man might be a partner with God in leading the world
to perfection – thus realizing his purpose and acquiring his right to
exist. Man’s fundamental test takes place on the moral axis: Will he
make room for others, as God made room for the world at the time of
Creation? The growth and development of the world from deficiency to
perfection takes place over the course of history, and its course it
molded by man’s free choice. Man’s choices determine not only what
reward or punishment he will receive, but also which direction history
will take. God and man are partners in shaping events and history.
This
principle affects more than just the conceptual dimension. It molds the
way in which we understand the biblical text and interpret its events.
The narratives recorded in the Torah are not determined in advance.
Nothing about them are fatalistic. At every stage of the narrative,
there are different alternatives, and man chooses for himself. The plot
will develop in a direction that is derived from the specific
alternative that man chooses. Hence, as we study the Torah, we must
identify at each junction what the alternatives are, which is chosen and
why, and what would have happened if a more perfect choice had been
made. There is always a possible choice that would have changed the
continuation of the story. This explains the importance of the “fresh
reading” and the “alternatives theory” that Manitou proposes, as
discussed in our earlier shiurim.
In
light of this principle, we must understand the significance of the
process that Avraham undergoes. In fact, we may extend our inquiry to
include the lives of all three forefathers: Was the appearance, growth,
and development of Am Yisrael
determined in advance? Or is everything the result of the choices made
by Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, such that the origin of the nation
could have come about in an entirely different way?
A Different "Am Yisrael"
Manitou
states explicitly that things could have been different. A different
Avraham could have passed on the Israelite identity to a different
Yitzchak, who in turn would have handed it down to a different Yaakov.
Had Avram not decided to become Avraham, and had Yaakov not chosen to be
Yisrael, God would have had to choose other forefathers in their stead.
Perhaps there were possible candidates before Avraham, but we know
nothing of them because they did not succeed in developing the Israelite
identity. Perhaps there were other figures prior to Moshe who passed by
the burning bush but failed to notice anything out of the ordinary. Who
knows how long the “Owner of the palace,” as per the famous metaphor,
waited for someone to realize that “the palace must have an owner,”
before revealing Himself to him?
The
impression arising from the way Manitou writes all of the above is that
there is still some dimension of necessity in our reality. The
forefathers, it seems, had to cover a certain path – meaning that there
is a specific, defined Divine plan. Indeed, Manitou argues that the
possibilities for the creation of the Israelite nation are not endless
and infinite; there is a logical path, and there are certain foundations
that have to be built in order to establish a complete, moral way of
life. The question is who will cover that path. Who will succeed in
making his way through all the necessary stations in order to found a
nation? There will be an Avraham, who is charged with being the father
of a multitude of nations, and there will be someone who bears the name
Yisrael. The question is, who will God give these names to? There is no
certainty that the Avram who is born in Ur Kasdim will come to bear the
name Avraham, and it is not inevitable that Yaakov, his grandson, will
merit to become Yisrael. Each of them has free choice, and the question
that hovers over all of Sefer Bereishit
is whether Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov will make the right choices.
In other words, there is no way of knowing in advance that Am Yisrael will indeed become Am Yisrael.
Three stages are necessary to build the Israelite identity: the building of the element of chesed, the building of the element of din, and the building of the element of rachamim,
which merges the former two. Only with hindsight does it turn out that
Avraham is in fact Yisrael. This happens at the moment when Yaakov
receives the name Yisrael. Up to that point, Avraham and Yitzchak belong
to the world of the sons of Noach. Had Yaakov not merited to receive
the name Yisrael, the Torah would have told a different history, in
which a different “Avraham” produced a different “Yitzchak,” who in turn
begot a Yaakov who would indeed have received the name Yisrael. Only
after the fact, when God tells Moshe, “Yisrael is My firstborn son,” can
we know that the choice of Am Yisrael as God’s “firstborn” is irreversible and sealed by God Himself.
It
is important to clarify that “free choice” does not mean a tabula rasa.
Manitou doesn’t mean that a person (even biblical figures) have no
“starting point,” no inborn traits and life circumstances, such that one
becomes that which he is solely by exercising free choice. Humanity was
divided among the three main branches represented by the three sons of
Noach, and each son has his own significance and character. The
Israelite identity would be built by a descendant of Shem – but there
was no way of knowing in advance who it would be.
The
fact that human choice decides which way things will develop is the
reason that the Torah recounts all that happens from Adam to Yaakov, and
later on also what happens in Egypt. This is recorded for a reason;
there are ramifications for the rest of history, although these become
increasingly restricted.
The
principle of the Torah is that at every stage, in every generation,
from Adam until the End of Days, everything is open… Over the course of
history, there is less and less choice, because certain things have
already happened, and they are irreversible. Still, however, on both the
individual and the collective level, we have the right to choose
between the different alternatives. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot II, p. 158)
However, “When the time of the reunion [between Am Yisrael and God, at the end of history] approaches, God runs the world differently, and – at least on the collective level – it is no longer dependent on the question of (this) right.”
Manitou vs. Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda
In
this respect, Manitou takes a different approach from two major
philosophers who influenced him greatly – Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda
Ha-Kohen Kook. R. Zvi Yehuda, continuing the teaching of Maharal (Netzach Yisrael
11), emphasizes that the choice of Avraham appears in the Torah with no
explanation, and it precedes the story of his life’s journey, meaning
that the choice of Avraham is apparently not grounded in his own free
choice and actions. The centrality of God’s choice of Avraham arises
here from the fact that it is a nation – a collective entity – that is
to be built, and the essence and significance of the collective is more
than just the actions of each individual. As we say in our prayers, “…
Who chose us from among all the nations, and gave us His Torah” – Am Yisrael
was created from the outset with the characteristics necessary for the
nation to receive Torah. The Divine choice preceded all else.
This leads us to the well-known teaching of the Maharal in his Netzach Yisrael, chapter 11: There is no mention in the Torah that Avraham is a tzaddik prior to God’s command to him – “And God said to Avram: Go forth…” – in contrast to Noach, concerning whom we are told that he was a tzaddik. We must learn not only from what is written in the Torah, but also from its style. Maharal comments that the Torah deliberately omits and conceals Avraham’s righteousness because the essence of Avraham Avinu does not begin with his own personal righteousness. Among the righteous of the nations, their greatness is an individual matter, from bottom up, by virtue of their human effort and sanctification. But this is not so concerning Avraham. His greatness appears from top down. His essence has its origins in the heavens, by virtue of the Divine formation of his special soul. He is chosen by God, as it is written, “You… chose Avram….” And this is drawn down since then to ourselves. Our essence, too, has its origin in heaven: “You have chosen us…” The foundation of our existence is You, “Who called the generations from the outset” (Yeshayahu 41:4). Our worth is divinely decreed, a Divine order. (Sichot Ha-Rav Zvi Yehuda Ha-Kohen Kook, Sefer Bereishit, p. 151)
With
regard to this point, as noted, Manitou adopts a view that differs from
that of the teachers who molded his worldview. The importance of free
choice in the Torah is so central to Manitou’s thought that he parts
ways on this point with Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda, arguing that the
choice of Am Yisrael was not necessarily dictated in advance.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
The Ivri (Hebrew), the Adversary, and the Competitor
Let
us continue the discussion of Manitou’s thesis that the narratives of
the forefathers describe processes of identity formation, which serves
to clarify the logical progression of their life stories. We have
already mentioned the processes of transition from Avram to Avraham, as
well as the ten tests that gradually mold layer upon layer of his
character. In this shiur, we will look at another axis in this development, which Manitou discusses under the heading, “The Ivri,
the Adversary, and the Competitor.” Each of the forefathers has to deal
with an adversary who seeks to destroy him, as well as a competitor who
is like him in some important respect and who claims to be the proper
bearer of his identity (i.e., the competitor attempts to steal his
identity).
In
order to understand the processes that Manitou describes, let us recall
the “fraternity equation” that occupies a prominent place in his
teachings: All of Creation progresses towards its moral purpose, and one
of the challenges along the way is the repair and resolution of
relationships between people, as individuals and as nations. Am Yisrael,
as we discover in the narratives about the forefathers, encounter two
kinds of tests vis-à-vis other nations – dealing with those who oppose
them and dealing with those who believe that they are a substitute for
them.
Adversaries
Avraham’s most prominent opponent is Nimrod. According to Chazal,
Nimrod was the first in the long chain of those who have tried to
destroy Avraham and his descendants. He was also the standard-bearer for
the cosmopolitanism discussed in the previous shiur.
Both Avraham and Nimrod are unhappy about the fragmented state of humanity. Each
tries in his own way to spearhead a project aimed at consolidating and
uniting the human race. Nimrod seeks to place at the helm a powerful,
totalitarian human force that will rule them from the top of the Tower.
He manages to draw many people to join his project (in the same way that
many Jews have been drawn to other grandiose social projects throughout
history), and he succeeds in his aim of instituting a cosmopolitan
dictatorship. Avraham, in contrast, seeks to bring about the unity of
all of humanity, a mosaic in which every nation could contribute its
unique gifts, with Am Yisrael
serving as the heart connecting and unifying them. As opposed to
Nimrod’s cosmopolitan approach, Avraham’s vision is universalist:
“Through you shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Bereishit 12:3). The “families of the earth” will continue to exist. They will not be erased under the leadership of Am Yisrael. Rather, each can fulfill its own special function within the overall framework of humanity.
Nimrod
opposes not only Avraham himself, but also the morality in the name of
which he operates, since Nimrod aspires to aggrandize himself. He is not
willing to put God at the center. He channels his dissatisfaction with
reality into rebellion against God. Avraham channels his dissatisfaction
into loyal service of God in order to repair humanity. Nimrod’s
rebellion against God makes him an enemy and adversary of Israel –
meaning, of Avraham and his message – and he tries to kill Avraham in
the furnace. This opposition continues for all generations.
The other forefathers likewise faced adversaries. Yitzchak is opposed by Avimelekh concerning Eretz Yisrael. Later, Yaakov has to contend with Lavan, who “sought to uproot everything.”
The
opponents wage an ongoing battle, using sophisticated strategies.
Barefaced annihilation is not the only means employed by adversaries
(like Nimrod, and eventually Amalek). There are other strategies. Both
Pharaoh and Avimelekh adopt the path of taking Avraham’s wife for
themselves – i.e., destroying the masculine aspect of the Hebrew nation
and dominating the feminine aspect. The same approach is manifest later
in Egypt in Pharaoh’s decree to kill all the baby boys and to leave the
girls alive. In the case of Hagar, who is given to Sara by Pharaoh, the
situation is reversed; here it is via femininity and the womb that the
attempt is made to overpower Avraham’s purpose. (Other examples include
Bila’am’s counsel and the marriages of Ruth and Orpa.) If we add to
these two strategies the basic, default option for dealing with Am Yisrael – i.e., attempts at obliteration – we have the three major familiar threats to Am Yisrael: annihilation, assimilation, and mixed marriage.
Competitors
Competitors do not try to annihilate Am Yisrael,
but rather to imitate them with a view to replacing them. The
competitors are close and similar to the forefathers, and they presume
to take on their identity, but they are eventually rejected and
distanced. The competitors of Yitzchak and Yaakov are, of course,
Yishmael and Esav; Avraham’s competitor is Lot. It is easy to miss this
in a superficial reading of the narrative, but in the background to the
stories of Avraham there lurks the question of whether Lot, too, is
worthy of fulfilling Avraham’s role. This possibility expresses itself
in Avraham’s offer that Lot choose himself a portion of the land –
indicating that he views him as a competitor for the land, on an equal
footing. We also see it expressed in the description of Lot’s
hospitality, which starts off sounding similar to Avraham’s hospitality,
but ends with Lot offering his daughters to the mob clamoring outside
his door – a shocking and repugnant gesture according to Avraham’s
principles. The challenge of competitors becomes increasingly difficult
and complex over the course of Sefer Bereishit;
while Lot is merely a nephew, Yishmael is a half-brother, and Esav is a
full-blood brother. In each instance the competitor is eventually
pushed out, and it becomes clear who is the genuine figure and who is
merely imitating.
Each
of the competitors of the forefathers wages a different type of battle.
Lot struggles with Avraham over the question of who will establish Am Yisrael.
Avraham is childless, while Lot, who has a family, seems poised to
replace him. Yishmael competes with Yitzchak – to this day – over the
inheritance of the land. Esav’s conflict with Yaakov concerns the
spiritual world. The nation, the land, and the Torah are at the center
of the struggles of Sefer Bereishit. And these struggles continue throughout history: Am Yisrael
contend with Bil’am – a descendant of Lot – and Yishmael and Esav
eventually give rise to Islam and Christianity. (One of Esav’s
descendants is Amalek, who serves as both opposition and competition.)
Avraham
has to deal with Nimrod, who opposes him, seeking to establish a
kingdom of his own. There is competition between two human projects that
continues throughout history: the “kingdoms project” of the gentiles,
and the “generations project” of the Jews. This competition continues
until it is ultimately settled by history, on the Day of Judgment, as
described in the gemara at the beginning of Massekhet Avoda Zara.
In
addition to Nimrod, Avraham also has to deal with his own nephew, Lot,
who competes with him. Two nations emerge from Lot – Amon and Moav –
each of which has its own argument as to why it represents the real
“Israel.” Ruth, who emerges from Moav, joins Am Yisrael, thereby putting an end to her people’s attempt at replacing Am Yisrael.
There is no parallel development in the case of Amon. And so it
continues in every generation. The competitor who presents himself as an
alternative to Yitzchak is Yishmael, and ultimately he becomes the
father of Islam. The figure who opposes Yitzchak is Avimelekh, and the
conflict with him is over Eretz Yisrael. (In Avimelekh’s encounter with Avraham he declares, “Behold my land is before you; dwell where it please you” – Bereishit 20:15).
In the next generation, Yaakov’s competitor is Esav, his brother, and
the opposition takes the form of Lavan the Aramean. In the generation of
the redemption, the generation that leaves the Egyptian exile, a
seventh figure appears – Amalek, who seeks both to destroy Am Yisrael
and to replace them as the leaders of history. At the time of the
Exodus, it was Amalek himself who came to fight against Israel at
Refidim. At the time of the Return to Zion, after the Babylonian exile,
it was Haman, son of Hamedata the Agagite, who played this role. In our
times, for over a century already, we have witnessed repeated attempts
to annihilate Am Yisrael, while at the same time different people claim to be the bearers of world history and hope. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot IV, pp. 75-76)
Manitou
notes an interesting difference between the forefathers and their
competitors: The competitors have no difficulty establishing families
and producing potential nations. He explains that with respect to the
command given to Adam – “Be fruitful and multiply” – they fulfill the
second part and multiply increasingly, as evidenced in the genealogical
lists of Yishmael and Esav. In contrast, the forefathers undergo a
lengthy process before they are able to produce offspring, since their
great challenge is to “be fruitful” – i.e., to produce new fruit, to
give rise to the next essential stage that will move the world towards
its perfection. Thus, while the competitor is occupied with
“multiplying,” the authentic identity-builder concerns himself with
“being fruitful,” which is a much harder and more complicated process,
as expressed in the state of barrenness.
The Adversary, the Competitor, and the Fraternity Equation
In conclusion, if we recall the issues discussed in previous shiurim,
we might view the adversary and the competitor as movements that are
opposed to the ideal of fraternity, since they set themselves up against
the Ivri
instead of pursuing fraternity with him. We note further that in view
of the challenges posed by the adversary and the competitor, the
fraternity equation within Am Yisrael
is gradually enhanced. We find this, for example, in the marital bond
between Avraham and Sara in particular (which leads, in step with the
completion of the identity of Avraham and Sara, to the birth of
Yitzchak) and between the patriarchs and matriarchs in general, as
discussed in the shiur on the fraternity equation as expressed in their lives.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
“The Sin of Adam Has Already Been Repaired”
In this shiur, we will examine a significant statement by Manitou that we have not yet discussed, although it has hovered the background since the start of this series – the assertion that the sin of Adam has already been repaired.
We often hear that the essence of the repair [that we are expected to carry out in this world] is repair for the sin of Adam, but in truth this repair was already completed by King David on the collective level, on the level of Creation as a whole. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot I, p. 137)
It is difficult to find a source for this statement among the sages of previous generations. A glance at the relevant passage in his book shows that the editors, too, had trouble finding explicit support; they refer only to sources that might at most be considered as inspiring his statement. No one seems to have suggested this prior to Manitou himself. In contrast, the opposite assertion, awarding great significance and weight to Adam’s sin, is found in countless sources both in the Talmud and in Kabbala.
The Problem with Attributing all Deficiencies to Adam
First of all, we must understand what disturbs Manitou about defining the repair of Adam’s sin as our mission. One problem is related to his ongoing polemic against Christianity, which inflates and magnifies the idea of primordial sin, resulting in its view of all of humanity as sinners. Manitou argues that Judaism disagrees with this view and that it seeped into Jewish thought from the Christian world:
In this regard, the dispute with Christianity is a most fundamental one. Christianity argues that since Adam’s sin, every human being is by definition sinful. Unfortunately, there are Jews who have not studied enough and who express similar ideas. According to Christianity… man fell from his level and is unable to overcome [sin] unless he is granted Divine grace, and this is dependent not on his behavior, but rather on an arbitrary decision by the Creator.
The Torah’s position is entirely different. Whoever sins, sins. He sins because he decides that his own will takes precedence over God’s command. No one is forced to sin because of some primordial sin. King Solomon, the wisest of all men, says that “God made man upright” (Kohelet 7:29). It is a fact that when Bnei Yisrael received the Torah at Mount Sinai and declared, “We shall do and we shall obey,” they reverted to the state of Adam prior to the sin and the contamination of the serpent was ended. Afterwards, through the sin of the golden calf, they upset things again. The person who sins is the one who has to deal with his own sin – he and no one else. (ibid.)
Another issue relating to the concept of primordial sin that troubles Manitou is the idea that one man sins and other people suffer the punishment. Perhaps other individuals repeat Adam’s sin, and as such will need to repair their sin, but on the collective level it is impossible that all of humanity is punished for the sin of a single individual. According to Manitou, this is unjust and is not the way that God works.
Why Doesn’t Manitou Resolve the Difficulties?
One might seemingly have resolved these difficulties using solutions that Manitou himself proposes elsewhere – for instance, his emphasis on the centrality of free choice in guiding the course of history. According to this principle, we might attribute the necessity of historical repair to the sin of Adam, without going as far as the Christian view. Christianity maintains that the sin cannot be repaired; Judaism maintains that we have the ability to repair the sin through our free choice. Manitou could have pointed to this distinction between Judaism and Christianity, but instead he proposes a different model for which primal sin should be emphasized.
The question about the seeming injustice could likewise be resolved from within Manitou’s own teachings. We have seen how he explains Chazal’s teachings that appear at first glance to view the subjugation in Egypt as a punishment for the sins of Avraham. Faced with the question of how Am Yisrael could be punishment for a sin that they themselves did not commit, Manitou proposes the identity principle: The “sins” of Avraham reflect a deficiency in the Israelite identity that he built, and Am Yisrael, which inherits and shares that identity, must repair that deficiency. In a similar way, we might have suggested that Adam builds the identity of humanity as a whole, and therefore humanity manifests in expanded form the same deficiency that he suffered from and must work to repair it.
Thus, the questions that Manitou raises do not lead us inexorably towards his assertion that Adam’s sin was already repaired on the universal level by King David. It therefore seems that he is opposed in principle to viewing all of our repair work as being directed towards that sin. We need to understand the reason for his opposition.
We also need to understand how the alternative model that he proposes resolves his questions. Manitou maintains that mankind’s task is to repair the sin of Kayin and Hevel. This assertion appears to raise the same questions that he raises about the sin of Adam. What, then, is its meaning and intention?
Deficiency is Inherent in Creation
The question of whether and why we are required to repair the sin of Adam is treated at length in Kabbala, but it arises even on the plain level of the biblical text and pertains to a more profound and fundamental question: What is the source of deficiency in the world? Why is the world deficient? As we have seen, one of the conventional answers to this question is that the world was created perfect and whole, but Adam sinned and spoiled it. But close examination of the opening chapters of Bereishit leads to a different answer.
The foundation of the answer is actually to be found in the second verse of the Torah. God creates a world, and the second verse of chapter 1 of Bereishit already tells us that “the earth was unformed and void.” All the rest of Creation is the process of emerging from that “void.” The next verse tells us, “God said, ‘Let there be light… and God separated between the light and the darkness.” This tells that that light came into existence – but where did the darkness mentioned in the verse come from? The “darkness over the face of the deep” is present already from verse 2, and the light comes to contend with it. On the third day God commands, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear….” Once again, it would seem that the dry land already existed; what that was required was merely for it to be revealed. But when was it created? The answer is that it was created when God created the heavens and the earth, but at that point, the earth was “unformed and void.” Only now does the dry land, which was covered over with water, become visible.
We see that the need for repair arises from the gap between verse 1 and verse 2 – a gap referred to in Kabbala as the “shattering of the vessels.” This tells us that the deficiency of the world goes all the way back to the beginning of Creation. It did not appear as a result of a sin on the part of Adam, who destroyed a world that had previously been perfect. Rather, the world was deficient before Adam himself appeared – all with the purpose that he would be a partner in its repair. It is true that Adam sins in Chapter 3, but the problem that is created in the wake of his sin is simply the continuation of the deficiency that was already manifest in the world. Hence, says Manitou, the question is not how to repair the sin of Adam, but rather how to repair the world, how to repair the deficiency that we were created to repair. On the long road to this repair, we sometimes commit additional sins, and we have to repair them too, but the essence of our mission is to move forward in the general repair of the world.
This view runs counter to the Christian view, according to which all the deficiencies of the world stem from the disorder and disharmony created by Adam. Manitou maintains that this is one of the ideas that seeped into Judaism over the course of our exile. According to Judaism, if there is sin, one atones and moves on. He draws the same message from the structure of Sefer Vayikra: The sinner brings a sin offering and achieves atonement, but Sefer Vayikra does not start with sin offerings, but rather burnt offerings, which are not a response to or result of sin. Our connection with God is not limited to atoning for the sins we have committed. We have a more general, over-arching mission; we are partners with God in repairing the world.
Adam vs. Kayin and Hevel
Although the source of all deficiency in the world goes back to Creation, Manitou nevertheless defines the sin of Kayin and Hevel as a fundamental, formative sin that humanity must repair. In what way is this different from the sin of Adam? Manitou argues that the sin of Adam lies outside of our world. It occurred in the Garden of Eden, in a reality that is mysterious and beyond our grasp, completely different from the reality that is known to us. The story of Kayin and Hevel is the first episode that is described in the world as we know it. The great challenge facing Kayin and Hevel, as we saw in our discussion of the fraternity equation, is how to conduct oneself in a reality in which two human beings share the same space. This is the fundamental challenge of our reality. Our lives are full of conflicts and collisions between people and between nations. Therefore, we should view the task of moral repair, which has echoed on in the world since the episode of Kayin and Hevel, as the foundation of our lives:
The moral criterion is a key to understanding the biblical narrative from the beginning of chapter 4 of Sefer Bereishit. I usually start my Chumash instruction with a study of this chapter, since it presents, for the first time in history, a moral problem, in the form of the story of Kayin and Hevel. This problem remains to be solved over the course of history. I know that many people emphasize the sin of Adam, but that is a mistake, because on the collective level this problem was resolved already by King David. All of world history is a repair of the sin of Kayin, and this is the problem that should concern us on the collective level throughout the generations: repairing the fraternal relations between people. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot III, p. 151)
The crux of our work is to be partners with God, out of free choice. This principle turns the world into a place for optimism and, in contrast to the despair that Christianity seeks to impose, inspires us with hope for progress.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
Adam's Sin and the Repair of the World
Let us elaborate further on Manitou's assertion, as set forth in the previous shiur, that the sin of Adam was fully repaired by King David. Although this assertion is based on Chazal's teaching that seventy years of Adam's life were given to David, nowhere do we find any explicit statement by Chazal that David repaired Adam's sin. On the contrary, a great number of important sources outline the very long and arduous road that humanity will have to travel until the sin is repaired. These sources, first and foremost among them the writings of the Ari, suggest that the sin will be repaired only at the End of Days.
Manitou himself mentions the Ari's approach. Apparently the kabbalist teachers with whom he studied conveyed oral traditions handed down from the Ari, from which he deduced – or which included sources supporting his assertion – that Adam's sin had been repaired by David. In any event, Manitou shifts the focus from the story of Adam backwards in time, to the beginning of Creation and the "chaos and void" that existed at the outset, as well as forwards, to the sin of Kayin and Hevel:
I know that many people emphasize the sin of Adam, but that is a mistake, because on the collective level this problem was resolved already by King David. All of world history is a repair of the sin of Kayin, and this is the problem that should concern us on the collective level throughout the generations: repairing the fraternal relations between people. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot III, p. 151)
This shift of focus from Adam to Kayin and Hevel is of great significance for many reasons. One is that while the sin of Adam belongs to the relationship between man and God, the conflict between Kayin and Hevel belongs to the interpersonal realm.
David’ Repair of the Sin of Adam
In their attempts to provide sources for Manitou's view, the editors of his works refer twice to an excerpt from the Shelah (Parshat Toledot, Torah Or):
We see from the above that both Yaakov and Yosef repaired damage caused by the "the ruddy one" since both hated Esav. What our sages said about Adam giving 70 years of his life to David is also true. The whole point of granting life to David was to repair the damage done to G‑d's universe by Adam… Adam's divine image needed to be restored first and foremost through the constructive lives of the Patriarchs. In other words, the 70 years Adam donated to David were "illuminated" – i.e., they assumed positive meaning – through Yaakov and Yosef having donated 70 years of their already meaningful lives. We have explained earlier that the "beauty" of Yaakov was of the same quality as the beauty of Adam [before his sin]. The Torah (Bereishit 39:6) describes Yosef as having handsome features; he evidently inherited these from his father, seeing as Yosef is viewed as his father's replica. We see that David's features are described in similar terms (Shmuel I 16:12). When Mashiach comes, Adam will achieve his complete repair, as hinted to in his name, which is an acronym for Adam, David, Mashiach.
The Shelah does indeed mention David as a stage in the repair of Adam's sin, but he very clearly refers to the repair being completed only by Mashiach, in the future. There may still be a long road to cover before this is achieved.
What underlies the connection between David and the sin of Adam? Adam wanted to be like God and to place himself at the center, rather than obeying God's command. David, as king, stands at the center but nevertheless subjugates himself to God's command. David fulfills that which was required of Adam; now no further process of repair for Adam's sin is necessary. All we need to do is to recall and recreate the level of David. This requires work, but no innovation, since the model already exists in the world.
Life of Atonement vs. Life of Partnership in Repair
Man is faced with two fundamental questions: his purpose in the world and why both he and the world were created deficient. Manitou argues that we cannot trace deficiency as a whole back to Adam. Recall his words, quoted in the previous shiur, concerning the Christian view that lurks in the background of such a view:
On the individual level, the identity of each person corresponds to a greater or lesser extent with the Creator’s command via the mitzvot, and there can be a situation in which a certain individual repeats the sin of Adam and rebels against the Creator. This is his own sin, committed out of his own free will; it is not the inevitable result of any primordial sin. In this regard the dispute with Christianity is a most fundamental one. Christianity argues that since Adam’s sin, every human being is by definition sinful. Unfortunately, there are Jews who have not studied enough and who express similar ideas. According to Christianity… man fell from his level and is unable to overcome [sin] unless he is granted Divine grace, and this is dependent not on his behavior, but rather on an arbitrary decision by the Creator. The Torah’s position is entirely different. Whoever sins, sins. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot I, pp. 137-141)
According to Manitou, the deficiency goes further back in time and is a consequence of the way in which the world was created. Adam did indeed sin, but even prior to his sin, deficiency was built into Creation. The Torah presents two pictures: Chapter 1 depicts the deficiency that is part of Creation itself; chapters 2-3 depict Adam's sin. In chapter 1, the world is chaos and void, and it is God who repairs it and creates order in it over the course of Creation. In chapters 2-3, the world is whole and perfect, and man spoils it.
These two pictures are also presented in two midrashim in Bereishit Rabba:
All that was created during the six days of Creation requires human action. For example, mustard requires sweetening, peas require sweetening; wheat requires grinding; even man himself requires repair. (Bereishit Rabba 11)
R. Berakhia said in the name of R. Shmuel: Although things were created perfect, when Adam sinned they were spoiled, and they will not return to their state of perfection until the arrival of the descendant of Peretz [Mashiach]. (ibid. 12)
According to the first midrash, the world was created deficient, and even after the work of Creation is completed, the world is still in a state that requires action in order to bring it to completion. According to the second midrash, the world that exists after the process of Creation is complete, and all deficiencies in it arise from the sin of Adam. These are two different approaches among Chazal. The latter places Adam's sin at the center; the former views the source of deficiency in Creation itself, an idea developed by the Ari as part of his teachings concerning the "shattering of the vessels."
The real difference between the two views concerns our understanding of man's position. Is man’s mission limited to repairing sin, or is he God's partner in the task of repairing the world? According to Manitou, man is here in the world to do more than just repairing failure and sin. He has a role to play in the project of completing the purpose of Creation.
As noted, Manitou emphasizes the sin of Kayin and Hevel, thereby shifting the focus from the opaque and mysterious reality of the Garden of Eden to our own world and our own reality. The story of Kayin and Hevel occurred in a long-gone time, but nevertheless in our world, outside of the Garden.
Thus, Manitou turns from the sin of Adam in two different directions: the more metaphysical dimension of the "shattering of the vessels" and the more realistic, human dimension of Kayin and Hevel. Is there any connection between these two dimensions?
This question will occupy us in the next and final shiur in this series.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
Adam's Sin and the Repair of the World
Let us elaborate further on Manitou's assertion, as set forth in the previous shiur, that the sin of Adam was fully repaired by King David. Although this assertion is based on Chazal's teaching that seventy years of Adam's life were given to David, nowhere do we find any explicit statement by Chazal that David repaired Adam's sin. On the contrary, a great number of important sources outline the very long and arduous road that humanity will have to travel until the sin is repaired. These sources, first and foremost among them the writings of the Ari, suggest that the sin will be repaired only at the End of Days.
Manitou himself mentions the Ari's approach. Apparently the kabbalist teachers with whom he studied conveyed oral traditions handed down from the Ari, from which he deduced – or which included sources supporting his assertion – that Adam's sin had been repaired by David. In any event, Manitou shifts the focus from the story of Adam backwards in time, to the beginning of Creation and the "chaos and void" that existed at the outset, as well as forwards, to the sin of Kayin and Hevel:
I know that many people emphasize the sin of Adam, but that is a mistake, because on the collective level this problem was resolved already by King David. All of world history is a repair of the sin of Kayin, and this is the problem that should concern us on the collective level throughout the generations: repairing the fraternal relations between people. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot III, p. 151)
This shift of focus from Adam to Kayin and Hevel is of great significance for many reasons. One is that while the sin of Adam belongs to the relationship between man and God, the conflict between Kayin and Hevel belongs to the interpersonal realm.
David’ Repair of the Sin of Adam
In their attempts to provide sources for Manitou's view, the editors of his works refer twice to an excerpt from the Shelah (Parshat Toledot, Torah Or):
We see from the above that both Yaakov and Yosef repaired damage caused by the "the ruddy one" since both hated Esav. What our sages said about Adam giving 70 years of his life to David is also true. The whole point of granting life to David was to repair the damage done to G‑d's universe by Adam… Adam's divine image needed to be restored first and foremost through the constructive lives of the Patriarchs. In other words, the 70 years Adam donated to David were "illuminated" – i.e., they assumed positive meaning – through Yaakov and Yosef having donated 70 years of their already meaningful lives. We have explained earlier that the "beauty" of Yaakov was of the same quality as the beauty of Adam [before his sin]. The Torah (Bereishit 39:6) describes Yosef as having handsome features; he evidently inherited these from his father, seeing as Yosef is viewed as his father's replica. We see that David's features are described in similar terms (Shmuel I 16:12). When Mashiach comes, Adam will achieve his complete repair, as hinted to in his name, which is an acronym for Adam, David, Mashiach.
The Shelah does indeed mention David as a stage in the repair of Adam's sin, but he very clearly refers to the repair being completed only by Mashiach, in the future. There may still be a long road to cover before this is achieved.
What underlies the connection between David and the sin of Adam? Adam wanted to be like God and to place himself at the center, rather than obeying God's command. David, as king, stands at the center but nevertheless subjugates himself to God's command. David fulfills that which was required of Adam; now no further process of repair for Adam's sin is necessary. All we need to do is to recall and recreate the level of David. This requires work, but no innovation, since the model already exists in the world.
Life of Atonement vs. Life of Partnership in Repair
Man is faced with two fundamental questions: his purpose in the world and why both he and the world were created deficient. Manitou argues that we cannot trace deficiency as a whole back to Adam. Recall his words, quoted in the previous shiur, concerning the Christian view that lurks in the background of such a view:
On the individual level, the identity of each person corresponds to a greater or lesser extent with the Creator’s command via the mitzvot, and there can be a situation in which a certain individual repeats the sin of Adam and rebels against the Creator. This is his own sin, committed out of his own free will; it is not the inevitable result of any primordial sin. In this regard the dispute with Christianity is a most fundamental one. Christianity argues that since Adam’s sin, every human being is by definition sinful. Unfortunately, there are Jews who have not studied enough and who express similar ideas. According to Christianity… man fell from his level and is unable to overcome [sin] unless he is granted Divine grace, and this is dependent not on his behavior, but rather on an arbitrary decision by the Creator. The Torah’s position is entirely different. Whoever sins, sins. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot I, pp. 137-141)
According to Manitou, the deficiency goes further back in time and is a consequence of the way in which the world was created. Adam did indeed sin, but even prior to his sin, deficiency was built into Creation. The Torah presents two pictures: Chapter 1 depicts the deficiency that is part of Creation itself; chapters 2-3 depict Adam's sin. In chapter 1, the world is chaos and void, and it is God who repairs it and creates order in it over the course of Creation. In chapters 2-3, the world is whole and perfect, and man spoils it.
These two pictures are also presented in two midrashim in Bereishit Rabba:
All that was created during the six days of Creation requires human action. For example, mustard requires sweetening, peas require sweetening; wheat requires grinding; even man himself requires repair. (Bereishit Rabba 11)
R. Berakhia said in the name of R. Shmuel: Although things were created perfect, when Adam sinned they were spoiled, and they will not return to their state of perfection until the arrival of the descendant of Peretz [Mashiach]. (ibid. 12)
According to the first midrash, the world was created deficient, and even after the work of Creation is completed, the world is still in a state that requires action in order to bring it to completion. According to the second midrash, the world that exists after the process of Creation is complete, and all deficiencies in it arise from the sin of Adam. These are two different approaches among Chazal. The latter places Adam's sin at the center; the former views the source of deficiency in Creation itself, an idea developed by the Ari as part of his teachings concerning the "shattering of the vessels."
The real difference between the two views concerns our understanding of man's position. Is man’s mission limited to repairing sin, or is he God's partner in the task of repairing the world? According to Manitou, man is here in the world to do more than just repairing failure and sin. He has a role to play in the project of completing the purpose of Creation.
As noted, Manitou emphasizes the sin of Kayin and Hevel, thereby shifting the focus from the opaque and mysterious reality of the Garden of Eden to our own world and our own reality. The story of Kayin and Hevel occurred in a long-gone time, but nevertheless in our world, outside of the Garden.
Thus, Manitou turns from the sin of Adam in two different directions: the more metaphysical dimension of the "shattering of the vessels" and the more realistic, human dimension of Kayin and Hevel. Is there any connection between these two dimensions?
This question will occupy us in the next and final shiur in this series.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
Conclusion
Let us review our journey and summarize what we have learned. This will shed light on the connection between the beginning of the series and its end.
Summary of the Foundations of Manitou’s Thought
We introduced our series with a discussion of Manitou’s view of Creation. We saw that Creation can be viewed in two different ways – as whole and complete, or as essentially imperfect. Manitou sides with the latter view: God is perfect, and He deliberately created a world that is imperfect. There is an inherent and unbridgeable gap between Divine thought and the actual world. This gap gives rise to two central concepts: history, the axis that leads the world through constant movement towards perfection until the Divine purpose of Creation is achieved, and messianism, the ultimate perfection to which the world progresses. These two concepts might sound self-evident to us, but they are not part of the other religions and cultures with which we are familiar; where they are to be found, they have usually been borrowed from Judaism.
At this point we make mention of Manitou’s approach that prescribes first studying the Torah and its conceptual foundations, and then observing reality and cultural perceptions in light of the Torah, rather than trying to adapt the Torah to the prevailing wisdom and culture. While there had been other figures, such as Maharal, who maintained that Jewish philosophy should be developed from within Torah, rather than as an adaption to other worldviews, Manitou emphasized and highlighted this point.
There are many schools of thought that did not and do not believe in the idea of the world progressing towards its ultimate perfection. Others, such as Christianity, may accept the idea of ultimate perfection but do not believe in man’s ability to move the world in this direction. Some have posited that man can progress alone, without God and without Torah, but this approach largely collapsed. Its most prominent version was modernism. Countering all of these views, Manitou insists that man’s purpose is to move the world forward, towards realization of the Divine thought behind Creation.
The reason for the world being created deficient and requiring work in order to achieve perfection is God’s desire that man attain his completion by his own efforts, so that he can truly “own” it. The path to achieving completion and perfection is through morality, the essence of which is making room for the other. This is the definition of morality according to Manitou, in contrast to two prevailing philosophical views – the morality of Aristotelian utilitarianism and Kantian morality as arising from the law. Manitou maintains a polemic with both of these views and points to their dangers. He argues that the foundation of morality, implanted by God in Creation itself, is making room for the other.
The idea of acquiring one’s own perfection by his own efforts necessitates the principle of free choice. Here, too, Manitou’s view contrasts with central philosophical systems, especially those that claim that all is pre-determined. He shows that almost all schools of thought outside of Judaism, both ancient and contemporary, whether openly or covertly, do not truly believe in free choice.
According to Manitou, our choices must be meaningful. He means this not just in terms of the reward that the individual will eventually receive for his choices, but also in terms of the effect that our choices have on molding the future. A person’s path is a long series of junctions where a decision has to be made to follow one or another direction. In the biblical narrative, these points affect not only the reward/punishment and fate of the individual, but also influence the way in which history progresses from that point onwards. The Divine purpose and destiny of the world will eventually be realized no matter what, but the question is how complicated the path will be until that purpose is reached. The biblical narratives should be read not as a predetermined plot, but rather from a fresh perspective: at every junction that the forefathers encounter, the continuation of the story is determined by their choice. Had they made a different choice, history would have followed a different course. According to the Divine plan, there will be an “Israel” that will lead the world; the question is who this will be. The candidate who starts his life as Avram might successfully deal with all the challenges he faces in molding the identity of this nation, thus becoming Avraham and being the one chosen to establish the nation tasked with leading the world to its ultimately aim.
The foundation of morality finds expression in the world along two main axes: the “fraternity equation” and the unification of attributes. The fraternity equation starts with Kayin and Hevel, where for the first time brothers are challenged to make room for one another. Kayin is meant to make room for Hevel, rather than dominating the entire arena, and Hevel is supposed to stand up for his existence and cause Kayin to make room for him, rather than nullifying himself. Both fail in their tasks, and Kayin kills Hevel. Later on, in the generation of the Tower of Bavel, there is an attempt to bring about the repair of humanity through cosmopolitanism – a single leader who consolidates all of mankind around him. Countering this trend, Avraham upholds the universalist model – a nation that will be at the center and allow each force in the world to fulfill its proper function in the overall picture. This nation is built up through the balance and unification of attributes, leading to the molding of an Israelite identity that is neither absolute chesed nor absolute din. This molding takes place over the course of the forefathers’ lifetimes, from Avraham via Yitzchak to Yaakov, and through the various stations that each of them passes individually on his life’s journey.
Avraham’s most fundamental attribute is absolute chesed, and in the process of building up his identity (reaching a climax at the akeida) he has to integrate din, so that Yitzchak will be able to continue from him. From this process we see that the moral principle is not limited to the theoretical realm; the process is realized through actual people who represent these values and display these attributes. They do not just speak about ideas, but live them. The process that is gradually undertaken by all of mankind throughout all of history, generation after generation, eventually leads to Mashiach at the End of Days.
The Theme Running Through: “Making Room”
Before concluding, let us return to the question we raised in the previous chapter: Is there any connection between the two directions that Manitou takes, shifting the focus from Adam and the Garden of Eden both backwards, to the Creation of a world that is intentionally deficient, and forwards, to the sin of Kayin and Hevel and its ramifications?
The repair of Creation from its state of “void and chaos,” the fraternity equation, and the balance and unification of attributes are all connected by a common theme. All three are examples of awarding everyone and everything its proper place, a transition from conflict between different forces to a situation that is complete, balanced and perfect. In the case of Creation, it is God Himself Who removes the world from a state of void and chaos, in which each force seeks to dominate the others, bringing order and balance. Since that time, man is entrusted with removing all of humankind from a similar void and chaos, giving each individual, each nation, and each attribute its precise and proper place.
The repair of the world is not connected in any way to the question of man’s atonement for his sin, over the course of the effort he makes in order to repair the world so as to complete the task that the Creator entrusted him with at the end of the Six Days of Creation. The repair of the world is necessary in any case. It is an ontological, inherent need on the part of the Creator Himself, in order that His thought be realized…
The Ivri knows that ultimately he will succeed in his task. He knows that the world is progressing in a successful direction, towards realization of the Creator’s thought in reality. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot IV, pp. 67-69)
Manitou’s teachings show how the Torah presents an alternative to many other approaches that exist in the world. It is an alternative that carries hope, optimism, morality, a mission, and confidence in man and in mankind. His teachings explain the narrative of the Written Law and the foundations of Kabbalah. They place history at the center, and interpret its events. His teachings flow from within the Torah, and in light of the Torah they imbue reality with meaning and significance for our times.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario