Far Away, So Close

By Yosef Yitzhak Lifshitz

How the commandments bridge the unbridgeable gap between God and man.

Of course, a rapprochement between the human and the divine is only one of the many objectives that the commandments strive to achieve. Halacha comprises, after all, an extensive normative system covering the full range of human existence: Interpersonal, familial, and communal relationships; economics and business dealings; politics; recreation; and even basic physical functions. Obviously, such a complex structure cannot rest solely on a single theological principle. Nonetheless, the commandments discussed here touch upon a theme underpinning much of halacha, and help us to understand the basic drive that imbues it with so much vitality and tenacity. This drive is a powerful longing to “be with God”-that is, to break through the mental and physical barriers of human experience and connect with the Creator himself. Thus, while Judaism does not accept the possibility of a merger between man and God, it does acknowledge the passion of the finite for the infinite, and strives to give it appropriate expression.

In this essay, I have delineated between two ways of “being with God”—or “cleaving” to him—within the Jewish religion. The first is by bringing the divine down to the human plane, a process that occurs primarily in the consciousness of the believer who senses the “presence” of God in the course of performing the daily religious rites. The second is by elevating humans to a divine level by deepening the identification of the believer with the moral attitude of God and encouraging divine emulation through creative activity—and, upon its conclusion, through ceasing from work.

Each way underscores a different strategy for achieving the ideal of deveikut. Yet each also represents a certain point of view in respect to man’s status before God: On the one hand, those commandments that serve as a permanent reminder of the divine-including prayer, affixing the mezuza, and laying tefilin—are solemn declarations of loyalty and obedience to the kingdom of heaven, and of our desire for its presence in our daily lives. The human image reflected in these rituals is that of a faithful and humble servant who surrenders always to the will of the Holy One. On the other hand, the notion of emulating God is rooted in the idea that man is a superior being, created in God’s image. Therefore, he has vast, almost unlimited potential for spiritual and moral development.⁷⁴This duality of the human condition has pervaded Jewish thought from its earliest days, but perhaps none has expressed the idea better than King David, who writes in the Psalms, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? Yet thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and thou dost crown him with glory and honor.”⁷⁵

Ironically, it is the sublime qualities that man acquires when attempting to bridge the gap between himself and God that testify to the positive value of such a gap in the first place. While we strive to reduce the distance between the heavenly and the earthly, we should not forget the distinct advantages that distance holds for humanity: Though the belief that man is the apex of creation understandably fills us with pride and spurs us to undertake astonishing tasks, the knowledge that we are weak mortals, mere flesh and blood, grants us a humility that has merits of its own. If anything, human greatness is nurtured by the tension between these two established truths. The longing for the divine that plays such a central role in every religious experience is therefore not necessarily a symptom of a cosmic crisis or a metaphysical rift in need of repair. Rather, it is simply the price we must pay for the grace God bestowed upon us when he created us in his image, gave us free will, and sent us to find our own way in this terrible and wonderful universe he made from nothing.

Joseph Issac Lifshitz is a fellow at the Shalem Center.

Notes

The author wishes to thank Assaf Sagiv for his assistance in the writing of this article.

1. Solomon Ibn Gabirol, “The Royal Crown,” in Israel Davidson, ed. Selected Religious Poems of Solomon Ibn Gabirol (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952), p. 84.

2. Israel Levin, “The ‘Keter Malchut’ of Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Gabirol and Man’s Struggle with Sin,” Haaretz, November 11, 2005 [Hebrew].

3. Ibn Gabirol, “The Royal Crown,” pp. 122-123.

4. Exegetic tradition maintains that such anthropomorphic descriptions are to be understood purely metaphorically.

5. Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), pp. 79-80. A contrary opinion is expressed by R. Moshe Taku in his “Sefer Ketav Tamim,” in Otsar Nehmad (Vienna: Yitzhak Blumenfeld, 1848), pp. 58-99 [Hebrew].

6. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (London, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1929), p. 64.

7. Karl Barth, The Formation of Christian Dogma, trans. Ran Hacohen (Tel Aviv: Resling, 2004), pp. 111, 114 [Hebrew].

8. A famous example of this approach can be found in chapter 4 of the fourteenth-century polemical work The Refutation of the Christian Principles, in which the Jewish philosopher Hasdai Crescas attacks the belief in Christ’s divinity because “man’s uniting with God is impossible, since it would involve a contradiction. This is clear since man is finite and God, may he be blessed, is infinite.” Hasdai Crescas, The Refutation of the Christian Principles, trans. Daniel J. Lasker (New York: State University of New York, 1992), p. 50.

9. Gershom Scholem and many of his disciples were of the opinion that the phenomenon of unio-mysticism was alien to the kabbalistic tradition, maintaining that “it is only in extremely rare cases that ecstasy signifies actual union with god, in which the human individuality abandons itself to the rapture of complete submersion in the divine stream. Even in this ecstatic frame of mind, the Jewish mystic almost invariably retains a sense of the distance between the Creator and his creature.” See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1946), pp. 122-123. Moshe Idel, a renowned scholar in the field of Kabbala, takes exception to this convention. He argues that it is possible to find unio-mystical expressions in the Judaism, specifically in the writings of the Kabbalist Avraham Abulafia and first-generation Hasidic writers. See Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perceptions (New York: Yale, 1988), pp. 59-73. It goes without saying that most of the writers on whom Idel relies are very far from mainstream. Abulafia, for instance, was excommunicated by Rabbi Solomon Ben Abraham Adret (the Rashba), and first generation Hasidim drew heavy criticism on account of their pretensions to unity with God.

10. Sukka 5a.

11. Deuteronomy 13:5.

12. See, for example, Sanhedrin 64a: “R. Judah said in Rav’s name: A gentile woman once fell sick. She vowed, If I recover, I will go and serve every idol in the world. She recovered, and proceeded to serve all idols.... But ye, O House of Israel, were not so, [as it is written (Numbers 25:5), ‘Slay ye every one his men] that were joined unto Baal Peor’: Ye were attached to it like an air-tight lid. Whereas (Deuteronomy 4:4), ‘Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God’ implies merely like two dates sticking to each other. In a baraita it has been taught: ‘That were joined unto Baal Peor,’ like a bracelet on the hands of a woman; whereas ‘Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God’ indicates that they were firmly attached.”

13. See Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, eds. and trans. Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin (New York: Continuum, 2005), pp. 190-193. According to Heschel, the controversy in question reflects the dispute between R. Ishmael the realist and R. Akiva the mystic. See also Idel, Kabbalah, pp. 38-39, and notes 9-11 on pp. 288-289.

14. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 123.

15. Judah Halevi, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel, trans. Hartwig Hirschfeld (London: Routledge, 1906), 2:46, p. 111.

16. The sages, however, argued that the divine presence did not reside in the Second Temple: “Surely R. Samuel Ben Inia said: What is the meaning of the
scriptural verse (Haggai 1:8), ‘and I will take pleasure in it and I will be glorified?’... To indicate that in five things the first Sanctuary differed from the second: In the ark, the ark-cover, the cherubim, the fire, the shechina, the Holy Spirit [of pro-phecy], and the urim-we-thummim [the Oracle Plate],” Yoma 21b; see also Rashi in his commentary on Haggai 1:8.

17. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. John W. Harvey (New York: Oxford, 1973), pp. 9, 12.

18. Otto, Idea of the Holy, pp. 12-13.

19. Otto’s letter is quoted in Rudolf Otto, “Buddhism and Christianity: Compared and Contrasted,” trans. Philip C. Almond, Buddhist-Christian Studies 4 (1984), p. 101.

20. Taanit 2a.

21. Sanhedrin 22a.

22. Joseph Karo, Shulhan Aruch, Orach Haim 98:1.

23. Berachot 6a.

24. Deuteronomy 6:4-9.

25. Deuteronomy 6:6-9.

26. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Tora: The Book of Adoration, ed. and trans. Moses Hyamson (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1975), Laws of the Tefilin and the Mezuza and the Scrolls of the Law 6:13, p. 129a.

27. In cognitive psychology, such a symbol is sometimes referred to as a “mnemonic device”: A device or method used as an aid in remembering.

28. See, for example, Rashi, Pesahim 4a, Introduction to Hovat Hadar: “As it comes under his protection.” See also Avoda Zara 11a and Yerushalmi Peah 1:1. This belief is connected with the events described in Exodus 12:21-22, when the Israelites were instructed to mark the lintels of their homes with the blood of a sacrificial lamb. This marking ensured that their homes would be “passed over” when God struck down the firstborn sons of all Egyptians.

29. Judah Halevi, The Kuzari, 3:11, p. 147.

30. Jerusalem Berachot 1:2.

31. Midrash Tehilim, Shoher Tov 90.

32. Avraham Isaiah Karelitz,Book of Faith and Trust Concerning the Hazon Ish (Jerusalem: Rav Shmuel Graynman Publication, 1997) [Hebrew].

33. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “And You Shall Search from There,” Halachic Man: Revealed and Hidden (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1979), p. 190 [Hebrew].

34. Leviticus Rabba 25:3.

35. Shabbat 133b; see also Zohar Hadash, vol. 2, and the Book of Ruth 51:1.

36. Moses Maimonides, The Commandments, trans. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Soncino, 1967), positive commandment 8, pp. 11-12. See also Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 75-79.

37. Leviticus 20:26.

38. Sifra Kedoshim, ch. 10.

39. Leviticus 20:12-23.

40. Sifre Numbers, sec. 157. See also Sanhedrin 106a.

41. Genesis 1:28.

42. See Erubin 100b: “R. Johanan observed: If the Tora had not been given, we could have learnt modesty from the cat, honesty from the ant, chastity from the dove.”

43. Isaiah 61:8.

44. Sukka 30a.

45. Leviticus 5:21-26.

46. Over and above the prohibitions on lechery and stealing, the laws of kashrut may also be cited as commandments aimed at establishing an identification with God. These laws are abstruse, thus, the Jew obeys them as he would a king’s decree-simply because God commanded him to. The Midrash states this very clearly: “R. Elazar Ben Azariah says, How do we know that someone should not say, I do not want to wear mixed fibers, I don’t want to eat pork, I don’t want to have incestuous sexual relations. Rather: I do want [to wear mixed fibers, I do want to eat pork, I do want to have incestuous sexual relations]. But what can I do? For my father in heaven has made a decree for me! So Scripture says (Leviticus 20:26), ‘and I have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.’ So one will turn out to keep far from transgression and accept upon himself the rule of heaven,” Sifra Kedushim ch. 10. There are some sources, however, which maintain that God views the eating of non-kosher food as an abomination. This belief is reflected in the Midrash that depicts the Exodus from Egypt as a liberation from the need to eat the food of the land of the pharaohs: “The Holy One declared, Had I brought up Israel from Egypt for no other purpose but this, that they should not defile themselves with reptiles, it would be sufficient for me.” Bava Mezia 61b.

47. Leviticus Rabba 25:3.

48. See Rabbi Haim of Volozhin in Nefesh Hahaim 1:2: “The Holy One blessed be he is called omnipotent because he is not of the same nature as flesh and blood. Because when a man constructs a building, for example out of wood, the builder does not create and invent the wood by his own efforts, but only takes trees that have already been created and arranges them in the building and once they have been arranged to his satisfaction, if his power is removed and taken away from them, the building nevertheless exists. But he, as at the creation of the entire universe, created and invented them ex nihilo by his unlimited power, and since then, every day and every moment, all their powers of invention and organization and existence are dependent on the power and the abundant new light that he impresses upon them every moment by his will. And if he took away the power of his influence even for a moment, everything would be instantly nothing and chaos.”

49. Rabbi Haim of Volozhin, Nefesh Hahaim 1:7.

50. The expression derives from the biblical description of the talents of the engineer appointed as chief architect of the Tabernacle: “Then Moses said to the Israelites, See, the Lord has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship” (Exodus 35:30-33). The various activities connected with the building of the Tabernacle represent the range of the “skills, abilities, and knowledge” with which the Holy One imbued its builders. These qualities are joined under the heading “workmanship,” which means, according to Rashi, craftsmanship “that was intended and that fulfilled its purpose,” or, in other words, work that has as its catalyst a will and a purpose. See Rashi on Hagiga 10b.

51. Shabbat 49b.

52. Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo, trans. Charles Duke Yonge (USA: Hendrickson, 1993), pp. 526-527.

53. Lifshitz, “Secret of the Sabbath,” Azure10 (Winter 2001), pp. 85-117.

54. Genesis Rabba 10:9.

55. Sabbath evening prayers. Emphasis added.

56. Yehuda Livai Bar Rabbi Bezalel, Gvurot Hashem, ch. 39.

57. Maimonides, The Commandments, positive commandment 11.

58. Maimonides, Mishneh Tora: The Book of Knowledge, Laws of Tora Study
1:3, p. 57b.

59. Maimonides, Mishneh Tora: The Book of Knowledge, Laws of Tora Study
1:4, p. 57b.

60. Maimonides, Mishneh Tora: The Book of Knowledge, Laws of Tora Study
1:8, p. 57b.

61. Pesahim 68b.

62. Rabbi Haim of Volozhin, Nefesh Hahaim 4:10.