כל מכירים, כי רעיון אחדות הבורא הוא אבן-פינה ליהדות ותרומתה העיקרית לעולם. רעיון זה נתון ביסוד כל השקפה וכל מחשבה בחיי היהדות ועובר כחוט השני בכל הספרות היהודית העצומה. ואולם אין לך מקום בו ניתן ביטוי עז ועמוק להשקפה זו של "ייחוד השם" כבקבלה. בתחום המיסתיקה היהודית אין לראות את "אחדות הבורא" אך ורק בחזקת אחד הרעיוגות רבי-ההשפעה ביותר, אלא כמושג שנעשה למציאות חיה, ואולי כמציאות היחידה. רעיון אחדות הבורא אינו נראה כהנחה אריתמיטית בלבד, אלא כמכלול כל ההווייה, על כל השוני הנורא-הוד שבה, כפי שהוא מתגלם באלוקים. בקבלה מסתמל רעיון זה באחדותו של אלוקים בו-בעצמו. והנה לרעיון אחדות זו, כפי שדנו בו והסבירוהו, רוממוהו ופירשוהו המקובלים למן ה״זוהר" ועד לרב קוק המנוח, זקוק העולם המודרני שלנו כלצורך דחוף ביותר. מעולם לא היה צורך גדול יותר לאשר מחדש רעיון זה, הדוחה מדעת כל ניגוד וכל שוני וכל פיצול, כבימינו אלה, כאשר עומדת האנושות מוכנה ומזומנה לפוצץ עצמה לרסיסים, אם לא בגוף ממש, הרי לפחות בנפש. במסה זו נבדוק את דרך דיונה של הקבלה ברעיון אחדות הבורא, ובעיקר כפי שהוא משתקף ב״זוהר" ובכתבי מפרשה בדור האחרון, הוא הרב קוק המנוח, שהיה הרב הראשי הראשון בארץ-ישראל (לא לתכלית מניין היסטורי), שעמד על התועלת שיכולים אנו להסיק ממנו בדרך ההוראה: את משמעותה בשביל האיש המודרני.העולם המפורדה"זוהר", מקור הקבלה, רואה את העולם הגשמי שלנו כ"עלמא דפרודא", העולם המפורד והמפוצל: את איחוד ההודיה וההתגברות על פיצול זה יש לבקש בהקמת ה״עלמא דיחודא", האחדות הנעלה שבאלוקים גופו. האחדות האמיתית, הנעלה מכל האחרות, היא זו של ה״קודשא בריך הוא״ — הקדוש ברוך הוא — ו״שכינתיה", והשכינה שלו. (עולם האחדות הוא זה של עשר הספירות שבקבלה — בניגוד לרעיון ההשפעות האלוהיות לפי התורה הניאו-אפלטוגית — אינן דרגות סטאטיות, המתווכות בין האלוקים המוחלט ובין העולם הקיים. האמת היא, שהן מצויות באל עצמו׳ והריהן כ״יקום המאוחד" של חיי אלוקים עצמו. הקדוש ברוך הוא מיוצג על- ידי עולם הספירות העליונות, ששיאן הוא "יסוד", בעוד שהשכינה מיוצגת על־ידי "מלכות", האחרונה שבעשר הספירות. הפירוד הגלוי-לעין הקיים בעולמנו, הוא האחראי למצב העגום של ענייניו. כשלון האנושות נעוץ ביסוד "עולם מפורד" זה. תפקידו של אדם עלי אדמות הוא לסייע להתגבר על "פירוד" זה ולה…

It was never easy to be a Jew, but it was never as hard as it is to-day. I do not refer to the restrictions and prohibitions that limit the activities of the observant Jew. For the Jew who believes, these practical regulations are a joy, an expression of love. Nor do I mean the exposed political position of the Jew in modern society, a role that has, to some in extent, become even more difficult for him in the Diaspora because of the State of Israel. For the Jew who chooses to identify himself with his people, these obstacles are all part of the unfolding of the great and long-awaited drama of redemption.I mean, rather, that it is hard to feel like a Jew, to experience the depth of Jewish religious emotion that scans the spectrum from fear and awe to love and joy. It becomes more and more difficult seriously to engage G-d in a dialogue which will lift us above the commonplace and the pedestrian to a new level of vision and purity. Oar hearts have run dry. The spirit is parched. The soul is overladen with the dreaded dust of despair.Our society and culture are composed of many elements, and all of them conspire against us. Protestantism tells us to look Into ourselves first for the source of religion. And so we look and we find nothing. The pay-chologiats tell us to consider only the experience of religion, rather than its practice or creed, but we experience nothing. Scientists present us with a cold, depersonalized world, in which man's eyes turn heavenward only to follow the orbit of the newest satellite. And 80 it 18 not worth looking at all. G-d seems to have vanished from dis world, to have packed a suit-case filled with all the pleasures and agonies, the awe and the ecstasy, formerly reserved for Him by His people, and to have left without so much as saying "Goodbye.”What, then, are wo to say to the Jew, enstranged from the sources of the Jewish tradition, one who feels himself awkward in the milieu of maximal Jewishness but yet pines for some sensation of pi…

א. בהתאם לנטייה המודרנית, אני מסתייג מ"אידיאולוגיה" ומ"שיטה" בעלת צורה שלמה וסיסטמטית. אני מזניח את הרעיון שהיהדות היא שיטה פילוסופית עקבית. בתור דרך חיים שניתנה לנו מסיני, יש לה הוראות וערכים מרחיקי לכת, ואפשר למצוא בה – על ידי ניתוח דק – כמה וכמה יסודות מחשבתיים לרבות פילוסופיים, אולם אין לנסות להתאימה למיטת סדום אידיאולוגית. מגמתי היא להכיר את העיקרים של היהדות התורנית כפי שאני מבינם, למיינם ולבררם. ב. לדעתי, ההלכה הפורמלית היא החומר היסודי להשקפת היהדות על האדם – השקפת עולם מצומצמת למסגרת אנתרופוצנטרית, וכל הוראה בתורת האדם צריכה לנבוע מן ההלכה. באשר למשנה תיאוסופית כוללת יותר, ההלכה מציבה גבולות – אף שאינה קובעת הוראה פסוקה, היא שוללת תפיסות שגויות מתוך סובייקטיביות או מדרש בלבד. ג. המעשה הדתי, כפי שהוא מוגבל על ידי ההלכה, משמש מסגרת ומכוון לחוויה הדתית. המעשה הוא המפתח לעולם הרוחני וכרטיס הכניסה לקרבת אלקים – ועם זאת, הוא גם המסגרת המובילה את האדם בדרך ישרה ומגינה עליו מן האנטינומיה. המינימום: תגובה לצו אלקי. המקסימום: גשר אל האינסוף – כדברי ריה"ל: "אין האדם מגיע אל הענין האלקי אלא בדבר האלקי". ד. ההלכה מושרשת במציאות – "לא בשמים היא" – ויש לה מנגנונים פנימיים להסתגלות, הדורשים אומץ קדוש. אולם אם ה"מציאות" היא הזיה סובייקטיבית, יש להגן על ההלכה מפני פגיעה. מכל מקום, הסמכות לקבוע היא בידי גדולי התורה בלבד. ה. השלב הראשון הוא "תורה עם דרך ארץ" (הרש"ר הירש), אך שיטתו אינה מייצרת דיאלוג פנימי בין קודש לחול. לעומת זאת, הראי"ה קוק ראה בקודש והחול שני ממדים של מציאות אחת – אין הבדלה נצחית ביניהם, אלא תהליך של קידוש החול. התורה לא רק "עם" דרך ארץ – אלא פועלת "על" דרך ארץ. חינוכו של קוק אינו רק חינוך אלא חזון קוסמי. ו. יש להשתחרר מן המיתולוגיה הרעיונית – גאולה, אתחלתא דגאולה, גלות – ולהכיר בכך שהעובדות ההיסטוריות והערכים הדתיים אינם משתנים על ידי פלפולים סמנטיים. מדינת ישראל אינה הגאולה השלמה – אך היא תופעה היסטורית חשובה. אם יבוא משיח ויתברר שהיא אתחלתא דגאולה – מה טוב; ואם לא – לאו. בכל מקרה, היא מדינתנו. ז. היחס אל הזרמים הלא־אורתודוקסיים: 1. אי אפשר לראות בתנועות הכופרות בתורה מן השמים יהדות דתית – העיקר הוא נאמנות להלכה. ההתבוללות אורבת מאחורי המילים היפות של קונ…

Rabbi Gotthold is a native of Germany and has studied at Yeshivoth in Poland and United States of America. He was ordained at the Rabbi Issac Elhanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University, New York. He is a graduate of New School for Social Research, New York. He has served as a Rabbi for many years in U.S.A, and Canada. The distingueshed Rabbi has taught Rabbinics Talmud and other subjects at various Yeshivoth in U.S.A. and Israel. He has contributed to scholarly papers in the fields of Talmud, History, Music and Sociology. He is a regular contributor to the monthly journal published by the Chief Chaplain of the Israeli Armed Forces, Tradition, etc. Among others, he has translated into English "Meditations on the Torah" which is a Religious best seller in America. He is also a lecturer on Religion at the Afro-Asian Institute for labour studies and co-operation.The Rabbi has come to India (on 27th May 1963) at the invitation of the Orthodox...TO BE A JEW1It was never easy to be a Jew. But it was never as hard as it is to day. I do not refer to the restrictions and prohibitions that limit the activities of the observant Jew. For the Jew who believes, these practical regulations are a joy, an expression of love. Nor do I mean the exposed political position of the Jew in modern society, a role that has, to some extent, become even more difficult for him in the Diaspora because of the State of Israel. For the Jew who chooses to identify himself with his people, these obstacles are all part of the unfolding of the great and long-awaited drama of redemption.I mean, rather, that it is hard to feel like a Jew, to experience the depth of Jewish religious emotion that scans the spectrum from fear and awe to love and joy. It becomes more and more difficult seriously to engage G-d in a dialogue which will lift us above the commonplace and the pedestrian *to a new level of vision and purity. Our hearts have run dry. The spirit is parched. The soul is over-laden with the dr…

The way out of the dilemma, then, is to reverse the order to which we have become conditioned by modern life. First live like a Jew, so that later you may love like a Jew. Begin with a full life of Torah and Mitzvot, so that afterwards you may experience the mighty range of feeling that is reserved for the truly devout. One cannot possibly be uplifted by the majesty and mystery of the Shabbat until he has first fully observed its regulations. The pleasures and the wonders are incommunicable; we can only talk about them, we cannot transmit them themselves. Only a personal participation can accomplish that. So, he who waits for inspiration to pray—will not pray. He who prays anyway may yet rise to full inspiration. The Halakhah does not demand full kavvanah before one begins his prayer (except for the beginning of the Shema and the first blessing of the Amidah); it demands only that nothing be present which will hinder kavvanah should it arise.But we must go one step further. In order to be a Jew, one must not only act like a Jew in practice. One must also act as if he were experiencing the emotional wealth of Judaism. In other words, what is recommended is a bit of conscious self-delusion. We must emulate the outward manifestations of religious experience in order to arrive at the experience itself. We must convince ourselves that we have kavvanah so that we may indeed ultimately possess it. We must, in good conscience, tell ourselves that we love G-d and fear Him, that our hearts are filled with awe and joy, so that in the end they really will be.Norman Lamm

Orthodox Jews have generally taken a detached and unalarmed view toward the successive fads and fashions in contemporary apikorsut. But when such movements are sponsored by theologians, and are widely discussed in the daily press and in weekly news magazines, it is important to understand them and evaluate them in the light of the sacred sources of the Jewish tradition. A number of Christian theologians, climaxing a development that has been some years in the making in their circles, have put forth their ideas in a manner as shocking as it is honest, and as scandalous as it is forthright. Instead of clothing their atheism in artificial, long-winded, technical terminology, they have accepted the slogan first coined by a German philosopher of the last century: “God is dead.” The very blasphemousness of this impression explains why it makes such good copy for the pseudo-sophisticated weeklies, and tempts young professors of theology to break out of the stifling atmosphere of the ivory towers and into a breathtaking sensationalism. These theologians have made so much noise with their smart slogan that nowadays one expects to look for news of theology not in the Religion section of the press, but in the Obituary columns.Their criticism of the “old-fashioned religion"—especially if we seek to apply it to Judaism—is crude cari-cature, almost vulgar in its insinua-tions. They have set up a straw man and now knock it down. No intelli-gent Jew ever thought of G-d as a man with a long white beard who lives in a castle beyond the sun. No half-sophisticated human being who believed in G-d ever imagined Him as orbiting the globe in a space ship, somewhere out there.Any imputation of such primitive concepts to religious folk of ages past is merely a species of intellectual dishonesty.believe they are saying three things.First, they are preaching atheism, pure and simple. Second, they areasserting a form of deism. Tiiat is, they reject the idea of divine person-ality. They believ…

I have always felt that Shammai’s policy was wiser than Hillel’s in their respective reactions to the Gentile who challenged them to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. It is probably better not to try at all than to risk all the ambiguities that must necessarily attend a condensation of one’s religious outlook to a couple of thousand words. Nevertheless, out of deference to the preference of the Jewish tradition for Hillel, I am willing to take my chances and come armed with naught but naive trust in the reader’s fairness, no matter what his convictions. (1) I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By “God-given,” I mean that He willed that man abide by His commandments and that that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction – and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivocal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah. I do not take seriously the caricature of this idea which reduces Moses to a secretary taking dictation. Any competing notion of revelation, such as the various “inspiration” theories, can similarly be made to sound absurd by anthropomorphic parallels. Exactly how this communication took place no one can say; it is no less mysterious than the nature of the One who spoke. The divine-human encounter is not a meeting of equals, and the kerygma that ensues from this event must therefore be articulated in human terms without reflecting on the mode and form of the divine logos. How God spoke is a mystery; how Moses receiv…

I have always felt that Shammai’s policy was wiser than Hillel’s in their respective reactions to the Gentile who challenged them to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. It is probably better not to try at all than to risk all the ambiguities that must necessarily attend a condensation of one’s religious outlook to a couple of thousand words. Nevertheless, out of deference to the preference of the Jewish tradition for Hillel, I am willing to take my chances and come armed with naught but naive trust in the reader’s fairness, no matter what his convictions. (1) I believe the Torah is divine revelation in two ways: in that it is God-given and in that it is godly. By “God-given,” I mean that He willed that man abide by His commandments and that that will was communicated in discrete words and letters. Man apprehends in many ways: by intuition, inspiration, experience, deduction—and by direct instruction. The divine will, if it is to be made known, is sufficiently important for it to be revealed in as direct, unequivo- cal, and unambiguous a manner as possible, so that it will be understood by the largest number of the people to whom this will is addressed. Language, though so faulty an instrument, is still the best means of communication to most human beings. Hence, I accept unapologetically the idea of the verbal revelation of the Torah. I do not take seriously the caricature of this idea which reduces Moses to a secretary taking dictation. Any competing notion of revelation, such as the various “inspiration” theories, can similarly be made to sound absurd by anthropo- morphic parallels. Exactly how this communication took place no one can say; it is no less mysterious than the nature of the One who spoke. The divine- human encounter is not a meeting of equals, and the kerygma that ensues from this event must therefore be articulated in human terms without reflecting on the mode and form of the divine logos. How God spoke is a mystery; how Moses rece…

In revelation, the Divine meets the human: It does not remain in inaccessible transcendence. While meeting the finite human, It yet remains in divine infinity: the finite is not idolatrously deitied. And It enters into the human situation: It does not force the human into a mystic surrender of its finitude. The Divine commands, and commands humans in their humanity. . . But it cannot do so except by singling out particular humans in their particularity. A philosopher may rise above his particular situation to the perception of a timeless truth. Every prophet must remain tn his situ- ation, in which the divine word singles him out. And the same is true of the whole people Israel. A Jew may wish to abandon his belief in the chosen people (1 would prefer: his covenant with God), and seek to transform, in the style of philosophy, his Judaism into a set of timeless universal truths to which he has risen. To do so. however, is to fragment the one reality of lhe covenant into two realities only accidentally connect- ed- a Judaism reduced to purely universal principles, and a Jewish people reduced to a merely accidental particularilv. To some this fragmentation is a modern necessity. To the believer in a singling-out revelation it is a religious impossibility. To the believer, a Jewish self-understanding of Jewishness as a merely accidental manifestation of humanity-in-gcncral, only accidentally having a special obligation to the ”universal principles of Judaism, is not a rise to a higher level of humanity. It is a betrayal of the Jew ish position. Thai the chosen-people concept has nothing in common with racism is shown by the traditional doctrine concerning converts, who become sons of Abraham. That it is diametrically opposed to racism- as well as to the religious tribalism which may be viewed as its ancient countcrpart-follows from the bcing-singled-out which is the chosenness. Tribal deities, as finite as the tribes themselves, are bound to their respective tribes. On…

The fundamental concept that captures the whole essence of Judaism – the idea of God, the obligations of man to Him, the interdependence of human beings – in one word, is that of mitzvah, commandment. The noun, in its different forms, appears about 180 times in Scripture; in its various verbal forms, perhaps twice that number. This is, of course, only a minor indication of the vast significance of what is apparently so simple an idea. The term mitzvah implies the existence of a Metzaveh – One who commands. The divine Metzaveh must obviously be theistic, i.e., a personal God, not an impersonal deistic or pantheistic deity – only a personal God is sufficiently concerned with men to command them. Mitzvah additionally implies that man lives under obligation to the Metzaveh, and that his life must be regulated in accordance with His express will. Furthermore, the very existence of mitzvah tells us that the will of Metzaveh formulated in the mitzvah was made known to man – hence, some form of revelation had to take place. The derivation of mitzvah from Metzaveh rules out the identification of mitzvah with generalized virtue, which may be self-motivated, a utilitarian ethic, or merely a reflection of contemporary mores. Similarly, it is a distortion of the concept of mitzvah to define it as religious folkways or customs. Folkways may be charming, even very valuable, but they do not presuppose an origin external and transcendental to man – on the contrary, their source is the folk, not God. The Jewish tradition cherishes customs and folkways – at least it values most of them – but takes pains to distinguish between mitzvah and minhag, custom. Despite the prominence given to the latter, it does not supersede the former – at most, it helps guide us to a proper interpretation of the mitzvah.