I
As some of you may know, I have an ambivalence about all things mystical. Maybe, however, this will surprise you as I tend to get a bit type-cast. When I told my old housemate (only half jokingly)that if I were to label myself it would have to be “neo-chassid” he would laugh and basically accuse me to telling fibs.
He: “You know you are not, you don't have a Chassidic bone in your body, you are always making objections”
I: “I only object when they are led to talk nonsense”
He: “But they can’t help but talk nonsense”
I: “Often, perhaps. But necessarily? Maybe. I don’t know but I hope not”
He, as an exceedingly “Modern Orthodox” Jew, can’t necessarily assign any value to such pursuits as mussar, Chassidut or the simple spirituality and faith. Modern Orthodoxy tends to be quite elitist focusing, as it does, on Talmud Torah, the pursuit of philosophy and other rational endeavours. For some, it is very emotionally and intellectually satisfying. However, Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t fare well amongst the masses which, on the whole, leads to one of two outcomes. One is that they will start pursuing a meaningless Orthopraxy simply on the basis “this is how things are done”. The other is that they will find more spiritually satisfying options in the form of Chareidi Judaism, Zen Buddhism or non-Orthodox forms of Judaism.
Whilst I may sociologically be a Modern Orthodox Jew, I cannot on principle share this rationalist vision of Judaism. I couldn't live the ascetic life of a philosopher, such as a Rambam, or a Brisker such as the Solovei(t)chiks (both Chareidi and non-Chareidi versions). I am not the 'disembodied head' that so many ancient and new rabbis call upon you to be. I should live Judaism in the real world, in every act, with all my faculties. Why should I see G-d as completely (and only) transcendent, or see the only form of Devekut as being in text-study, or live wholly inside the a-historical world of the bet midrash? Instead, I should see G-d as intimately involved in my life, become close to Him through performance of the mitzvot and see G-d's redemptive action through history.
II
The following is a wonderful description, from 'The Wind in the Willows' of the mystical experience, the having of which is the pre-requisite for religion making sense:
“Then suddenly the Mole felt a great Awe fall upon him, an awe that turned his muscles to water, bowed his head, and rooted his feet to the ground. It was no panic terror- indeed he felt wonderfully at peace and happy- but it was an awe that smote him and held him and, without seeing, he knew it could only mean that some August presence was very, very near. With difficulty he turned to look for his friend [Ratty], and saw him at his side cowed, stricken, and trembling violently. And still there was utter silence in the populous bird-haunted branches around them; and still the light grew and grew."
In those moments of inspiration we feel G-d's nearness and meaning pervading creation. We are both at peace and simultaneously trembling. We feel both love of G-d and fear of G-d. We feel like the pinnacle of creation and like a speck of dust in an infinite universe.
We all get these moments of inspiration. I do when I look up at the stars on a summers night. When I do so, I am looking directly into the past and at the creation of the world. I'm seeing the star as it was millions upon millions of years ago, as it has taken the light that long to get here. It may have gone supernova by now and not even exist any more! This fills me with awe and wonder for the universe and makes me want to shout:
"The heavens recount the glory of G-d and the firmament declares the work of His hands... There need be no speech, nor words; their voice is heard without it... where the world of man ends, their words speak, 'He has sent a tent in them for the orb of the sun'"
As I say, everyone has these experiences. Richard Dawkins is right that an atheist can still experience wonder at the universe. It is not, in itself, a cognitive endeavour an so is open to all. However, the key point is how we respond to such an experience. How is that experience translated? What are its consequences? Whilst the above experience of creation is the start of a religion it is not the end. We must bear in mind that:
"He who is walking by the way and studies and breaks off his study and exclaims: 'How beautiful is this tree! 'How fine is that field!' is regarded as he had sinned against his own soul"
I will expound upon that quote in a later post in this series. However, at present it means we must examine the link between the experience of creation and the outcome of revelation. Having experience this awe, are we led to accept that "the ordinances of G-d are truth, they are eternally just" or do we thereafter build a Golden Calf? Will we adequately express it in our prayer, or will we simply interpret the experience how we want? Can we accurately represent it in our philosophy or will we simply talk nonsense?
One response I believe is correct is the one emphasised by chassidut. When we have that experience we feel 'close' to G-d and ultimately, we should experience this 'heavenly fire' the whole time. However, this 'heavenly fire only resides on an altar made from the ground' (so Matisyahu sings). As such, we should elevate both ourselves and the physical world through all our actions. We should see the G-dliness in all things. The whole world should be utilised in G-d's service. This way the experience described above is not just a transitory inspiration but is perpetuated through everything that we do.
III
The chassidic movement started in protest to the elitism of Judaism at the time. The 'few' were learning 24/7 whilst the 'many' were completely disconnected from Judaism. The mitnagdim were incredibly ascetic- such as fasting Monday and Thursdays- which left them out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. The lay folk were liable to be swept along with false messiahs such as Shebbati Zvi and the rabbinic scholars were unable to give political leadership when this dream fell apart.
Against this background, the Chassidim provided a religion that was much more relevant, more meaningful and more accessible through people's everyday lives. One could be ecstatic in prayer and sing, dance and cartwheel. One could find meaning in your work and other 'mundane' activities. One could experience G-d through the world. As the Ba'al Shem Tov said, it is perfectly acceptable to admire the beauty of a woman so long as that 'leads you back to the source'. Amen to that! The popularisation of Judaism was naturally going to import popular superstitions into a pristine Judaism. However, one should easily assent to their overall vision of Judaism.
These days it is almost impossible to tell between the chassidic and chareidi worlds. The chareidi world has imported certain superstitious beliefs of the chassidim, and the chassidim have adopted the ascetic lifestyle of the chareidim. Absolutely, the Vilna Gaon was right to insist that the they should fully keep with halacha and not be 'lax with their prayer times'. I am trebly perplexed as anyone by the concept of an 'aveira lishma'. However, this shouldn't have meant that it is forced to adopt a lifestyle only appropriate for the 'few' than for the 'many'. G-d should be experienced through every aspect of a person's life as was the original intention of chassidut.
IV
The above has partly explained why I view 'Chassidut' as a hashkafa one should hold, as opposed to rationalist Judaism. This may beg the question for some of you as to where I stand vis-a-vis rationalist philosophers such as Rambam and Soloveitchik. As far as you were aware, these were major influences on me and I always quote them. This is absolutely true. You probably inferred from this that I was a rationalist, which may leave you confused now.
The full answer will be forthcoming in future posts. Suffice it to say here that just because I'm not a rationalist, doesn't give any license whatsoever to be irrational. Where one has to philosophise or intellectualise Judaism, one should do so like Rambam and Soloveitchik. Such intellectualisation has to be done in somewhat foreign terms and should at least use people who know how to use these terms! However, intellectualisation isn't the goal of Judaism. We shouldn't become 'disembodied heads' but instead, the end point requires consummation in the world.
V
Come back to see future posts where I discuss:
- How one can talk about a 'mystical experience'
- Why certain chassidic or kabbalistic beliefs taught today result in nonsense
- The appropriate context for such beliefs.
- The difference between rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism (as evidence by the Fast of Tevet) and how this relates to a Chassidic Hashkafa
- How the views of Rambam, Soloveitchik and Hirsh relate this hashkafa
- Why, in galut, I don't think I could ever accept the haskafa that I strive to accept.
One of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the last century, Franz Rosensweig, used a very simple device in his book "Star of Redemption". On three on the points he laid out three key elements: G-d, man and the world. On the intervening prongs he laid out the relations between them. The relation between G-d and the world is creation; the relation between G-d and man is revelation; and the relation between man and the world is redemption.
I think this is a correct characterisation: redemption is a matter of you and the world being correctly aligned and in harmony. It is one where you have the 'correct vision' with regard to the world and act accordingly; and also where the world is such that this is possible. This relationship is the chassidic-like one I am discussing. Unfortunately, we will see that in a pre-redeemed world, we cannot artificially manufacture this relationship without making errors regarding creation or revelation. Thus, while in a pre-redeemed world I could not be chassidic, it gives the most sublime notion of what redemption itself consists in.
No comments:
Post a Comment