Parashat Teruma: "And Let Them Make Me a Temple, That I May Dwell Among Them"
CHASSIDUT
by Rav Itamar Eldar
Yeshivat Har Etzion
ParAshat
Teruma
"And
Let them make me a sanctuary,
that
I may dwell among them"
The upcoming series of
parashot (with the exception of Ki Tisa) deal primarily with the
building of the Mishkan. The fundamental command regarding the building
and purpose of the Mishkan is found at the beginning of the parashat
Teruma:
And let them make Me a
sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show you, the
pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all its vessels, even so shall you
make it. (Shemot 25:8-9)
The sanctuary, according to these verses, is the possibility of causing
God to dwell among Israel. It is a defined and sanctified site for the resting
of God's glory, through which Israel merits the presence of the Shekhina
within its midst.
And I will dwell among
the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the
Lord their God, that brought them out of Egypt, that I may dwell among them; I
am the Lord their God[1] (Shemot 29:45-46)
The expression "that I may dwell among them" is a gateway to one of the
most fundamental and profound discussions found in theology in general and in
Jewish thought in particular: the question of God's presence on earth. What is
the meaning of a defined place serving as the dwelling place of God? Does He not
dwell in other places as well? What does it mean that God dwells in a certain
place?
Along the axis of Jewish thought we find a variety of opinions, starting
with those that try to minimize almost entirely God's actual presence in the
world and ending with those that insist on an almost boundless presence. This is
the way the Rambam understands the concept of God's
"dwelling":
Shakhon. It is known that the
meaning of this verb is, to dwell. Thus "And he was dwelling (shokhen) by
the terebinths of Mamre" (Bereishit 14:13); "And it came to pass, while
Israel dwelt (bi-shekhon)" (Bereishit 35:22). This is well known
and generally accepted. Now dwelling signifies a permanent stay in a place of
one's abode. Accordingly, when a living being has his abode in a place, by which
either a general or a particular place may be meant, it is said of him that he
dwells in that place, even if he undoubtedly moves within it. This verb is also
figuratively applied to things that are not living things, and in fact to
everything that is permanent and is attached to another thing. Of all such
things the term dwelling may be used, even in cases in which the thing to which
they are attached is not a place and they themselves not living beings. Thus it
says: "Let a cloud dwell (tishkon) upon it" (Iyyov 3:5). For there
is no doubt that a cloud is not a living being, nor a day in any way a body,
being a portion of time. It is on account of this latter figurative sense that
the verb is applied figuratively to God, may He be exalted I mean to the
permanence of His Indwelling or His providence in whatever place they may
subsist in permanent fashion or toward whatever providence may be permanently
directed. Thus it is said: "And the glory of the Lord dwelt (va-yishkon)"
(Shemot 24:16); "And I will dwell (ve-shakhanti) among the
children of Israel" (Shemot 29:45); "And the good will of Him that dwelt
(shokhni) in the bush" (Devarim 33:16). In every case in which
this occurs with reference to God, it is used in the sense of the permanence of
His Indwelling I mean His created light in a place, or the permanence of
providence with regard to a certain matter. Each passage should be understood
according to its context. (Guide of the Perplexed, I,
25)
First of all, the Rambam asserts that "dwelling" denotes permanence in a
particular place.
Second, in order to lay the groundwork for applying the term to God, the
Rambam argues that the "dweller" or the "dwelled within" should not be limited
to a place or a body.
And third, the Rambam, proposes two interpretations of the
term:
First, providence and governance, when we are dealing with something that
is not a place.[2]
And second, the created light, when we are dealing with a
place.[3]
Using a new creation to bridge the transcendental abyss separating
between God and man was very common in the Middle Ages. This is what the
medieval thinkers did with regard to Divine speech, for it would have been
unthinkable to understand Divine speech in its plain sense. Thus, it was
suggested that Divine speech is actually a creation fashioned by God, and that
this creation connects, and at the same time erects a barrier between man, who
hears the voice of God (at Sinai and the like), and God Himself. With this
explanation, they were able to maintain the encounter between God and man
without undermining God's transcendent nature. This is also what some of the
medieval philosophers proposed regarding prophetic visions, and this is what the
Rambam did regarding God's dwelling in place. The Rambam concedes that
providence and governance do not suffice to describe God's dwelling in a
particular place, but nevertheless it is inconceivable that God Himself dwells
within the bounds of time and space. For this reason, the Rambam speaks of a
created light, which is the Shekhina that dwells among
us.[4]
The view that wishes to understand the concept of the Shekhina as
synonymous with providence rests on verses from the Torah and the Prophets.
Thus, Moshe declares in his speech to the children of Israel shortly before
their entry into the Promised Land:
For what nation is there
so great, that has God so near to them, as the Lord our God is in all things
that we call upon Him for? (Devarim 4:7)
God's nearness to us expresses itself in our ability to call out to Him
and in His attentiveness to and providence over us.
The Mikdash and the Mishkan,
according to this understanding, do no come to describe "dwelling in place"[5],
but rather personal Divine providence. From the moment that Israel builds the
Mishkan, the eyes of God are directed at them and at their prayers with
greater force, as King Shlomo states at the time of the establishment of
the Mikdash:
For will God indeed
dwell on earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of
heavens cannot contain You; how much less this house that I have built? Have
consideration therefore to the prayer of Your servant, and to his supplication,
O Lord my God, to hearken to the cry and to the prayer, which Your servant prays
before You today: that Your eyes may be open towards this house night and day,
towards the place of which You have said, My name shall be there: that You may
hearken to the prayer which Your servant shall make toward this place (I
Melakhim 8:27-29)
Surely the Mikdash is not the dwelling place of God, for if the
heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him, then surely this house
cannot do so. This house, however, constitutes a "channel" between God and
Israel that prays to Him.
We shall see that Chassidic thought tries to provide the concept of
Shekhina and God's presence among Israel with far greater meaning and
significance. With God's help, we shall analyze some of these
ideas.
A
chariot for the shekhina
We have seen that the
words, "that I may dwell among them" may be understood as an expression of
providence and the directing of God's countenance and eyes to Israel. This
approach wishes to exclude the possibility of perceiving the Mishkan
itself as the place in which God dwells. This perception would involve
anthropomorphism, and since the medieval thinkers were particularly sensitive to
this problem, they wished to restrict this idea in one of two ways. Either we
are not talking about "dwelling in a place" or we are not talking about God, but
only created glory or the like.
This perception, as we shall see, will now be attacked from the opposite
direction. The problem with "dwelling in place," according to Chassidut, lies
not in the fact that talk of God's presence in the world attaches materiality to
God, but rather that such talk limits God's presence to a particular place, and
thus it lessens the contact and conjunction that a person can enjoy with the
Shekhina.
Is the Shekhina found exclusively in the Mikdash? What
about me, the simple person? What about the synagogue where I
pray?
If we have seen that to a certain degree the medieval philosophers wished
to restrict the idea of "that I may dwell among them," now we encounter the
opposite phenomenon the desire to expand it. The first step taken within this
framework may be seen in the following:
And it will also be
understood according to our approach that Moshe Rabbenu of blessed memory
purified himself of all materiality to the point that he became pure
spirituality and a chariot of the Shekhina. He became the model for the
heavenly Mishkan, and the members of his generation could learn from him
how to serve God, blessed be He, so as to merit the apprehensions of Moshe
Rabbenu. This is the meaning of the verse, "And let them make Me a sanctuary,
that I may dwell among them." That is, that every member of Israel should
totally purify himself in order to be a chariot for the Shekhina.
However, not everyone knows in what way the light will dwell, to know from where
he will come to merit this apprehension. [Therefore] the verse states:
"According to all that I show you, the pattern of the tabernacle, etc." This
means: According to all that I show you, to the members of your generation, the
pattern of the tabernacle. That is to say, that you are the pattern of the
heavenly tabernacle. "Even so shall you make it." This means: And you shall
learn to do the same, that you should be a chariot for the Shekhina,
because every man can come to the apprehensions of Moshe Rabbenu. What emerges
for us from all these things is that the objective of the [Divine] service is to
purify oneself and become the chariot for the Shekhina, so that His
Shekhina will be in the lower worlds, as was the intention of the
creation, that His Shekhina would be in the lower worlds, and His kingdom
would speedily be revealed. Now we have said about the verse, "Your kingdom is
the kingdom of all worlds," that the attribute of kingdom is the vitality of all
worlds. However it is surrounded by kelipot and the holiness is
concealed, and we must raise the kingdom of heaven that it should become as one
with its beloved, and that His kingdom should be revealed over all the worlds,
and that God should be one and His name one. (Ma'or va-Shemesh,
Teruma)
The first expansion of the concept of Shekhina is from the
dimension of "world" (olam), that is, space, to the dimension of "soul"
(nefesh), that is, man.[6]
R. Kalonymus of Cracow teaches us that the words, "that I may dwell among
them" refers not to a defined place, to a house, or to a bounded area, but
rather to man.[7]
On its plain and manifest level, the command relates to the tabernacle of
wood and stone, but on a deeper level, it refers to the establishment of the
Mishkan in the soul. R. Kalonymus, however, teaches us how far this
aspiration is from us, the simple people, for we are dealing with a very high
level that must be learned from Moshe Rabbenu "that every member of Israel
should totally purify himself in order to be a chariot for the
Shekhina."
Using the expression, "chariot for the Shekhina," with respect to
man symbolizes the revolution that we have seen in the words of the Me'or
va-Shemesh.[8] The chariot described in the book of Yechezkel is the
chariot of the Shekhina, but there we are dealing with ofanim and
holy beasts, and not with man. The conversion of Yechezkel's chariot that deals
with an elevated and abstract spiritual experience into flesh and blood which
also serves as the chariot of the Shekhina constitutes the same expansion
of the concept of "that I may dwell among them."
In order to arrive at the desired destination of "chariot for the
Shekhina," contends R. Kalonymus, one must be at the level of Moshe
Rabbenu, the level that represents the removal of all barriers, all the
kelipot, and everything that separates between man and his Creator. The
manner in which the Mishkan is built is "according to all that I show
you." That is, in the same manner in which Moshe erected His Mishkan, so
must every individual erect his own Mishkan. Thus, Moshe Rabbenu's level
is the objective and model through which one may reach the level of "chariot of
the Shekhina."
The internal Mishkan is not built of wood and stone, but rather of
their removal. The aspect of kingdom, that is, the Shekhina dwelling in
the world, is wrapped and surrounded by kelipot. The building of the
Mishkan, according to R. Kalonymus, does not involve the preparation of a
place into which God will descend, but rather the exposure of His presence that
is already found in the world and waiting to be redeemed.
That which the Rambam wished to reject, R. Kalonymus sees as the
fundamental assumption and point zero situation. God dwells in the world, in the
midst of each and every member of Israel, but His presence is concealed and
requires redemption. Only one who can purify himself so that he may attain the
level of Moshe Rabbenu will merit the exposure of this presence. "That I may
dwell among them," according to R. Kalonymus, means: "That you may reveal the
fact that I already dwell among you."
THE WHOLE EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLORY
The Sefat Emet expands the idea of God's dwelling even further
than did the author of the Ma'or va-Shemesh:
Rashi writes regarding
"That they bring me an offering" (Shemot 25:2) let them set apart from
their possessions a voluntary gift, etc. This means that a person must give a
part of every thing to God, blessed be He. Even though the affairs of this world
are very distant, the will must be for God, blessed be He. As Rashi writes:
nedava good will. This itself is the nedava the desire that
one's will should always be for God, blessed be He. And the will supersedes the
act, for every human action arouses in the heavens, and the will [arouses] the
supreme will. And it is known that with God's will, blessed be He, everything
changes in a moment. A person must, therefore, believe that everything depends
upon his will. The holy Zohar interprets the Mishkan as referring
to man's daily prayers. Namely, a person must clarify how the Shekhina
rests in every thing. For surely the entire world is full of His glory. But
in accordance with a person's faith, he can feel the Shekhina. In the
Mikdash, it was in actuality. Now it is by way of belief, as stated
above. All of prayer relates to this, for a person testifies that everything
comes from the vitality of God, blessed be He. And to the degree that this
becomes clear to a person, he can clarify this in every thing. And to the degree
that a person truly wishes to clarify His kingdom, blessed be He, so too can he
incline all things toward Him, blessed be He. For material things have no will.
And everything must have a will for that is the main thing. This proves that
these things depend upon man who has a will. And with his will he can incline
every thing towards Him, blessed be He, as stated above. This is the meaning of
the verse: "And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them" -
among each individual. And as [the Sages] of blessed memory said that Moshe
Rabbenu asked how they could make a Mishkan for His glory, blessed be He.
And God, blessed be He, answered, that every member of Israel can make it. And
this is the resting of the Shekhina in every thing, that the belief
should be fixed that the vitality of everything is above nature, and this is the
Mikdash (Sefat Emet, Teruma, 5633)
The Sefat Emet opens his teaching with the personal responsibility
of each member of the people of Israel that precedes the command to construct
the Mishkan: "That they bring me an offering."
This responsibility places man in the center; and upon him falls the task
of bringing the Shekhina to rest in this world. Like R. Kalonymus, this
resting of the Shekhina goes beyond the delineated space of the
Mishkan and the Mikdash. But as opposed to R. Kalonymus, the
Sefat Emet does not view man as the vessel in which the Shekhina
rests, and from which it becomes exposed, but rather he sees man as the
instrument that exposes the Shekhina that rests in the entire world.
Man's awareness stands here to the test. Not only is it important for the person
himself that all his actions and functions should be for the sake of heaven and
come from an experience of the resting of the Shekhina. It is also
important for the entire world, which man encounters and elevates through his
consciousness. According to the Sefat Emet, man is not the chariot of the
Shekhina, but rather he who redeems the Shekhina from its
captivity in the inanimate world that can do nothing to expose
it.
The Sefat Emet is dealing here with the contradiction between
designating a specific place for the resting of the Shekhina the
Mikdash, the Mishkan, and the like and the fundamental principle
brought in the holy Zohar and constituting the foundation of all
kabbalitic thought and in its wake Chassidic teaching: "No place is empty of
Him" that is to say, there is no place where God is not, and there is nothing
in which the Shekhina does not rest.
This duality finds expression in the Sefat Emet's contention that
on the one hand, there is no place empty of Him, while on the other hand, the
entire material world, with the exception of man, is void of a will, and the
will is what connects each thing to its Creator. The will is an expression and
echo of the Shekhina resting within each thing and its constant movement
back to its root and source.[9] Thus when anything connects with the active
will, the Divine light resting within it is exposed.
While R. Kalonymus focuses on "According to all that I show you" as a
model for the building of the Mishkan, from which it follows that Moshe
Rabbenu about whom these words were stated is the model, the Sefat Emet
focuses on "Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring me an
offering," from which it follows that the responsibility falls upon each member
of Israel to bring his personal offering. The personal offering, according to
the Sefat Emet, does not involve striving for the level of Moshe Rabbenu,
but rather the individual's awareness that accompanies him in all his actions
and in all the places that he encounters the material
world.
Prayer, asserts the
Sefat Emet, is the gateway to this awareness, for when a person
prays on behalf of the entire world, he proclaims that they are all connected to
the Divine reality.[10] However, the essence of this awareness is not found in
prayer, but in "belief," as is stated by the Sefat Emet. The
belief that all things proclaim God's glory and that His kingdom extends to
everything connects, or in the Sefat Emet's words, inclines the material
object to the person's will, and from that to God's will, and in that way God's
kingdom, i.e., His Shekhina, is revealed in the
world.
The Mikdash,
according to the Sefat Emet, is not merely a building, but rather a
spiritual reality that goes well beyond the boundaries of the Temple Mount. We
are dealing with a reality in which the Shekhina is "actualized," that is
to say, the Shekhina's presence cries out from each stone and every
inanimate object. In the absence of the Mikdash, asserts the Sefat
Emet, it falls upon man to reveal this "crying out" by way of his prayer,
his belief, and his consciousness. "And let them make Me a sanctuary," says the
Sefat Emet, constitutes a Divine command issued to each individual to
sanctify all of his conduct, and to gather all his actions to the belief that no
place is void of Him, and that the Divine glory rests in
everything.
The Mikdash,
according to the Sefat Emet, is the world, and even when, with God's
help, there will be a physical Mikdash on the Temple Mount, it will be an
expression of the universal Mikdash of the entire world.[11] The demand
is made of man, especially in the absence of a physical Mikdash, to
expose this kingdom of the worlds in all his actions and in his conscious
"offering," giving part of every thing to God.
Mikdash
and
Mishkan
We have seen that the basic command constituting the foundation for all
the aforementioned ideas is "And let them make Me a sanctuary (Mikdash),
that I may dwell among them." Attention should be paid to the fact that the
command does not relate to the Mishkan, but rather to the
Mikdash.
The biblical commentators have already remarked upon the relationship
between these two expressions, Mishkan and Mikdash. Thus writes
the Or ha-Chayyim:
"And let them make Me a
sanctuary (Mikdash)." We must understand why He called it a
Mikdash, and immediately went back and called it a Mishkan, as it
is written, "the pattern of the tabernacle (Mishkan)." It seems that "Let
them make Me a Mikdash" is a positive precept that embraces all times,
whether in the wilderness or after their entry into the land, at all times that
Israel will be there for generations. And Israel was obligated to do so even
when they were in exile, only we find that God prohibited all [other] places
once the Temple was built, as it says: "For you are not as yet come to the rest
and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). Therefore, He did not say: "And
let them make Me a Mishkhan," which would have implied that this command
was only stated regarding that time. After He issued a general command, He
specified what should be done in the wilderness where it is inappropriate to
build a stone structure, that a Mishkan should be constructed as stated.
And we find that the Rambam writes in the first chapter of Hilkhot Bet
ha-Bechira (halakha 1): "There is a positive precept to build a house
for God
as it is written: 'And let them make Me a sanctuary.'" His reason is
the change in wording as we have written. (Or ha-Chayyim, Shemot
25:8)
The Mikdash, according to the Or ha-Chayyim, is the
fundamental command for all generations. The Mishkan is its temporary
application during the period of Israel's sojourn in the wilderness. The
difference between the Mishkan and the Mikdash, according to the
Or ha-Chayyim, is between a permanent place and a temporary
one.
It seems, however, that it is possible to distinguish between these two
concepts. R. Tzadok ha-Kohen goes in this direction:
The matter of the
Mishkan, the altar, and the order of the service is bringing the
Shekhina down to the lower worlds, and the order of the tikkunim,
and atonement for sin, and cleaning all kinds of filth, and beautifying and
adorning the bride, and this results from His Shekhina in the lower
worlds. For since there is a revelation of His Shekhina in the hearts of
the children of Israel, all the filth is cleaned and the evil is pushed away
This is the Mishkan, that is to say, the place of the Shekhina.
The Mikdash, however, that is to say, the place of holiness, is the very
opposite of the Mishkan. For holiness denotes separation and withdrawal,
His being something separate. But Shekhina denotes dwelling and joining,
not separation. As it is written: "Who dwells with them in the midst of their
impurity" (as we find in Yoma 56b). This is not the case with holiness,
i.e., separation from impurity. And we find that the Mishkan is called
Mikdash, and the Mikdash is called Mishkan (as is stated at
the beginning of tractate Eruvin), for they are all one, and the two of
them together are true, for the Holy One, blessed be He, dwells among the
children of Israel and is also separate from them. (Resisei Laila, no.
[24])
R. Yitzchak ha-Kohen of Lublin wishes to distinguish between these two
concepts and thus to distinguish between two Divine
revelations.
Mikdash, asserts R. Tzadok, denotes holiness, which implies
separation and withdrawal. It is precisely the Mikdash, argues R. Tzadok,
that gives expression to God's separation and His distance from the ordinary
person. Many curtains separate the Holy of Holies from the ordinary person. Only
the High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies, and even he may only enter once a
year; only the priests may enter the Holy, and so too there is a place for the
Levites, and then a place for the ordinary Israelites. "And the stranger who
comes near will be put to death" is a call that echoes all the time through the
Mikdash aspect of the Mishkan. This aspect deals with distance
that leaves a person in the experience of fear; not everyone who wishes to draw
near is permitted to do so.
The Mishkan, on the other hand, derives from the word
"Shekhina," which stands in contrast to "holiness" and reflects
revelation and appearance. Its mental movement is not distancing and separation,
but rather drawing near and establishing contact. Holiness gives expression to
separation and distance. Here the concepts of impurity, sin, and filth are
significant inasmuch as they set up a barrier between man and holiness. Until a
person removes them, he may not enter the Mikdash, and even then the
borders are clearly marked and the area closely guarded. The Shekhina, in
contrast, expresses God's presence "in the hearts of the children of Israel." In
this sense, there is no feeling of limitation. From this perspective, all
impurity, all barriers, and all evil disappear as if they had never existed
"who dwells among them in the midst of their impurity."
Over the entire course of this lecture we have seen the tension between
these two ends that R. Tzadok wishes to connect to the concepts of Mikdash
and Mishkan. However, R. Tzadok's truly novel idea, as opposed to all
those who came before him, is his adoption of both concepts together. "And we
find that the Mishkan is called Mikdash, and the Mikdash is
called Mishkan." The Mishkan is at one and the same time an
expression of Divine separateness and also a symbol of the Divine presence in
the midst of Israel. Thus, it is impossible to separate between the Mishkan
and the Mikdash; the two of them reflect both aspects. Even the
Mishkan contains an aspect of separation and distance, which comes to
expression, as we have seen, in the laws of guarding the area of the holy. In
this sense, the Mishkan is a Mikdash. The Mikdash also
embraces the aspect of God's presence in the midst of Israel and in their
hearts. In this sense, the Mikdash gives expression to the Shekhina
that dwells among Israel, and from this perspective, it is a Mishkan.
Elevation and exaltedness that express separation, and nearness and
revelation that reflect presence, characterize Divine governance as it comes to
expression in the Mikdash and in the
Mishkan.
Rabbi Yosef Dov
Soloveitchik follows a similar path when he interprets the call of the heavenly
Serafim, "Holy, holy, holy," as a declaration of the infinite abyss that
separates between man and the world, on the one hand, and God, on the
other:
Did not the angels sing
kadosh, kadosh, kadosh, holy, holy, holy, transcendent,
transcendent, transcendent. (The Lonely Man of Faith, p.
31)
In the very same place, however, R. Soloveitchik notes God's nearness to
man and the world:
Yet, Hashem Tzeva'ot
melo khol ha-aretz kevodo, He is the Lord of the hosts, who resides in every
infinitesimal particle of creation, and the whole world is replete with His
glory.
R. Soloveitchik describes the dichotomy between these two aspects and the
confrontation with it[12], and as we saw with R. Tzadok, these two aspects exist
side by side. R. Tzadok makes no attempt to bridge between these two poles, and
he leaves the separateness next to the presence, each retaining its full
character. The tension between presence and separateness, between Mikdash
and Mishkan, is built in to our standing before God with our entire
being.
Is prophecy an expression of external revelation from afar: "God appeared
to me from far away," or is it an internal spiritual
revelation?[13]
Does prayer reflect standing before a king or perhaps inner contemplation
and the exposure of the Divine will within a person?[14]
Does observance of the mitzvot serve the experience of accepting
the lordship of the commander, or perhaps direct a person to the inner essence
which finds expression in the mitzvot?
And finally, is our longing for the Mikdash a desire for a
building that will descend from heaven, or perhaps an inner process that will
grow within us?
The constant movement in each of these areas, from one side to the other,
from one extreme to the other, is what enervates and invigorates our being, and
what fashions the way we respond in each generation, every day, every hour, and
every moment to the Divine imperative that echoes above us and within us: "And
let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them"
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Thus states the
Midrash: "This may be compared to a king who had an only daughter. A
certain king came and married her. He wished to return to his land and take his
wife [with him]. [The first king] said: 'I gave you my only daughter. To part
from her I am unable. To tell you not to take her, I am unable, for she is your
wife. But do this favor for me. Wherever you go, prepare a small room for me
that I may live near you.' Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: 'I
gave you the Torah. To part from it, I am unable. To tell you not to take it, I
am unable. But wherever you go, make me a house in which I may dwell, as it is
stated: And let them make me a sanctuary" (Shemot Rabba 33, 1).
[2] "It says
accordingly, 'I will go and return to My place' (Hoshe'a 5:15), the
signification of which is that the Indwelling that has been among us is removed.
The removal is followed by a privation of providence, as far as we are
concerned. As it says by way of a threat: 'And I will hide My face from them,
and they shall be devoured' (Devarim 31:17). For a privation of
providence leaves one abandoned and a target to all that may happen and come
about, so that his ill and weal come about according to chance." (Guide of
the Perplexed, I, 23)
[3] Guide of the
Perplexed, I, 28.
[4] So too R. Sa'adya
Ga'on, Emunot ve-De'ot, II, 10. Interestingly, it is precisely R. Yehuda
ha-Levi, whose approach is more critical of philosophy than that of his
colleagues, who is more radical than the Rambam and R. Sa'adya Ga'on. He is
unwilling to deviate, even with respect to dwelling in a place, from the idea of
providence and governance: "The intention in this commandment (=
sacrifices) is the creation of a well-arranged system, upon which the King
should rest in the Mikdash, not a dwelling in place, but a dwelling of
status" (Kuzari, II, 26). In the continuation, he explains, just as the
soul governs the body, even though it has no defined place in which it dwells,
so too regarding the Shekhina.
[5] As was stated
earlier, according to the Rambam, there is a dwelling in place in the sense of
"created Divine glory." However the more radical approach, which is also brought
by the Rambam, describes the Shekhina as
"providence."
[6] Well-known are the
words of the Alshikh regarding the verse (Shemot 25:8), "And let them
make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them": Israel should not think that
God will dwell only in the Temple; the main thing is that the Shekhina
will rest in Israel. This is what He says: "And let them make me a
sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." That is, I will dwell among Israel, and
not only in the Temple (Kedushat Levi,
Shemini)
[7] In the continuation
of the passage, R. Kalonymus makes another connection between the physical
Mishkan and the resting of the Shekhina upon every member of
Israel in the world. When he refers to the sefira of Malkhut,
called by the Divine name Adonai, which is the Shekhina that is
present in the world, he relates to the linguistic connection between the name
Adonai and the adnei ha-Mishkan.
[8] It seems that the
beginning of the use of this concept, or at least the widespread use of it, is
found in the kabbalistic works, the Zohar and other sources. These
sources state that each of the patriarchs was a chariot of the Shekhina,
and that a tzadik, and sometimes even an ordinary person, can also merit
to be a chariot for the Shekhina.
[9] Rav Kook saw in will
the foundation of God's presence in the entire world. According to Rav Kook, the
task of man in this world is to elevate his will, purify it, and make it
correspond to the perfect Divine will. Like the holy Zohar, cited by the
Sefat Emet, so too Rav Kook sees prayer as the primary way to elevate the
will and refine it.
[10] In a certain sense,
this stage in the Sefat Emet is similar to the words of those thinkers
who see the Shekhina as an expression of governance and providence.
Prayer exposes the Shekhina in the world by turning reality into
something that is watched over. However, the Sefat Emet, in contrast to
the Rambam, does not stop here, as we shall immediately see, and moves from
prayer to belief.
[11] The tension between
the Shekhina in the Mikdash and the Shekhina in the world
is dealt with in a surprising teaching of R. Nachman (Likutei Moharan
Kama, 219).
[12] It should be noted
that even when R. Soloveitchik focuses on the aspect of "the whole world is
replete with His glory," he is not dealing with the kabbalistic/chassidic
concept, but rather with the more moderate position of the school of
Maimonides.
[13] This question comes
to expression in Rav Kook's question: "Prophecy and the holy spirit enter by way
of God's word into man's innermost parts, and from there they reach everything
that reaches the entire world" (Orot ha-Kodesh I, p. 23). The Rav
ha-Nazir, R. David ha-Kohen, who edited Orot ha-Kodesh, made a change in
the original manuscript of Rav Kook, who had written mipenimiyut
("from man's innermost parts"), and not lepenimiyut ("to
man's innermost parts"). This change reflects the tension surrounding the
question we have been dealing with, also with respect to
prophecy.
[14] Rav Kook in Orot
ha-Kodesh III deals at length with will and with prayer as a means to
elevate it. There the question arises with its full intensity. Chassidic thought
also deals frequently with this question, and the different schools proposed
different positions (at the two extremes stand R. Nachman of Breslov, on one
side, and the Maggid of Medzibezh, on the other).
(Translated by David
Strauss)
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!