On the Chanukah Miracle and the Nature of Divine Infinitude

If the deity is infinite and omnipotent, can the deity simultaneously combine two mutually-exclusive events?

The true nature of the divine self is difficult to conceptualize or explain. I do not wish to embroil myself or the reader in an abstract and convoluted philosophical discussion. Instead, I will focus on two illustrative text samples, drawn from the vast corpus of Chabad Chasidic thought.

The first statement is from Hemshech Samach Vov (Vayolech Hashem Et Ha-yom, P.223), by Rabbi Shalom DovBer of Lubavitch.

"The concept of infinitude (ain sof), literally without limitation, is that no property can be ascribed to the deity, and the deity cannot be defined with any description at all... Even the most wonderful and lofty description cannot be applied - even the description "without limit." Conversely, one cannot preclude anything from the deity, for the deity carries all things (potentially but not actually...) and the deity is precluded from everything. This is the concept of infinitude (ain sof): the preclusion of any description; the preclusion of limitation; the preclusion of any affirmation and the preclusion of any negation; the inclusion of all by default. All this is only possible for the very essentially of the divine self (bechinat ho-atzmut mamash), whose being is of its own self, and who is the true being whose being transcends actual being (aino be'bechinat metzi'ut nimazah)."

The second selection is from Kuntras Mai Chanukah (P. 24), a compilation by Rabbi Yoel Kahn from the talks of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The context here is the famous question of the Beit Yosef as to why eight days of Chanukah are celebrated; if there was actually enough oil for one day apparently no miracle occurred on the first day? The following answer is offered:

"Since the miracle was made in order that the lighting of the menorah could be done in the finest possible way (for according to the law they were entitled to light using impure oil, [and a miracle was unnecessary, accept to allow them to avoid any legal lope-holes]), it makes sense to say that the miracle occurred in a form that allowed the oil to remain completely natural oil [as prescribed by law], without any quantitative or qualitative addition. 

In other words: When the Beit Yosef writes "that they found the lamps filled," the intention is not that the oil was first burned up, and afterwards new oil was created ("miracle oil"), but that the miracle was that the oil had never been burnt up at all, just like the burning bush about which the verse says, "behold the bush burnt in fire, and the bush was not consumed." Accordingly, they fulfilled the commandment to light the menorah with completely natural oil, which remained utterly unchanged (not quantitatively or qualitatively).  

According to this explanation, the combination of the natural and the miraculous is further highlighted. It transpires that the very fact that they had natural oil specifically was achieved via a wondrous miracle that completely transcends the limitations even of a regular miracle. The light of the lamps must come from the oil, and the oil must be turned [by combustion] into fire and light. If the oil is not consumed it follows, however, that the light did not come from the oil. If so, we must say that the miracle was such that although the oil was turned into fire and light, it nevertheless remained untouched. This is a most transcendent miracle, simultaneously embodying two mutually-exclusive events. It transpires that through a completely transcendent miracle specifically they were able to light the oil with completely natural oil."    

For a fun, humorous, entertaining, deeply illustrative and thoughtful re-imagining of how this miracle occurred see The Menorah Files by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman.

     

Tohu, Tikun and Divine (Im)perfection

In a recent post on the New York Times Opinionater Blog “The Stone,” Yoram Hazony discussed the question, “Is G-d perfect?” While I didn’t find the article as a whole particularly compelling, I did find his discussion of the problems of perfection illuminating. The following passage gives us a very accessible way to visualize the failure of tohu:  

“What would we say if some philosopher told us that... a perfect horse would bear an infinitely heavy rider, while at the same time being able to run with perfectly great speed? I should think we’d say he’s made a fundamental mistake here: You can’t perfect something by maximizing all its constituent principles simultaneously. All this will get you is contradictions and absurdities. This is not less true of God than it is of anything else.”

Indeed, tohu is the simultaneous maximization of all the constituent principles of existence. The result of such perfection is the contradictory absurdity of the terrestrial realm. The following discussion of tohu and tikun is based on a discourse by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Torah Ohr, 8c-10b). 

* * *

Tohu

Tohu and tikun may best be described as two alternative blueprints for the inner workings of reality. While these two systems are very different, they both are composed of the the ten modalities (sefirot) via which G-d chooses to be manifest. Moreover tohu and tikun actually function in tandem; the physical world that we inhabit exhibits much of the divisive chaos that results from tohu, and yet can be subjected to a regime of order and cohesion that stems from tikun.

Paradoxically, the divisive chaos of tohu actually represents a more intense manifestation of divinity. Here, each of the ten sefirot is manifest with such intensity that no other form of divine manifestation can be tolerated. As Rabbi Shneur Zalman explains in the present discourse, “The illumination and vivification is manifest with great intensity... Therefore the different modalities [of the ten sefirot] did not harmonize with one another... the one could not be balanced in accord with its opposite, and each was isolated onto itself...”

Due to its intense illumination, tohu fails to communicate the full panorama of divine manifestation. Consequently, each individual modality acquires an autonomous identity and loses its transparency to the divine source. The physical world as we know it is filled with a multiplicity of apparently discordant beings, each of which asserts its individual presence, autonomy, power and importance, and tries to grab our full attention. All of this immense diversity stems from the failure of tohu, and yet holds within it all the vast potential that tohu embodies. Tohu is intense illumination and unity masquerading as intense darkness and discord.   

* * *

Tikun

Tikun is the antidote to tohu. As Rabbi Shneur Zalman explains, “In order for creation to survive there must be tikun - limited streams of illumination, different forms harmonized and tempered with one another... The illumination and vivification is not manifest with intensity... therefore... it is manifest with tolerance and, contrary to tohu, two complete opposites can coexist.” In the normal order of things, divinity can only be manifest in a limited form. Each of the sefirot must recognize and validate the role of the other forms of divine manifestation, though in doing so its own intensity is minimized. In the normal order of things, divinity is not manifest in a manner that fully reflects the infinite, absolute and eternal potency of G-d’s most essential being.

Ultimately, however, the purpose of tikun is to repair tohu, and allow the true intensity of the divine self to be fully manifest. The soul of man is an agent of tikun. When the soul is forced to struggle with the burden of making a living, and other worldly endeavors, it is brought into direct contact with a more intense expression of divinity than it could ever have experienced in the celestial realms. This intensity is often perverted, giving rise to the banalities and profanities of earthly existence, but tikun empowers the soul to turn the failure of tohu around. Through prayer, acts of charity and the performance of the ritual commandments, the soul unleashes the vast reservoir of divine potential that lies dormant or misused in the mundane realm, and gives full expression to the absolute intensity of divine essentiality.

For a post on Yud Tes Kislev, see here.

Education, Postmodernism and the Challenge of Tradition

Reflections on the Enduring Relevance of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson’s Religious Thought

First posted at hasidology on chabad.org
[I haven't posted on this blog for several months, but have published several articles on  hasidology. In future I will repost all articles published there on Chabad-Revisited too. Hopefully I will continue to publish shorter posts here too, as in times bygone.]


A couple of months ago (March 28-29, 2012), a small group of academic and rabbinic scholars, along with educators and activists, held a deliberative conference[1] at the University of Pennsylvania to discuss the educational philosophy of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson.[2] In his opening remarks, Rabbi Menachem Schimdt, director of the Chabad on Campus International Foundation, and one of the conference hosts, made the following observation: “Many many people, most people, as a matter of fact, know what the Lubavitcher Rebbe looked like. A lot of people know that Lubavitch has a built a lot of buildings, runs a lot of programs and does a lot of outreach. But in terms of the amazing intellectual riches of Chabad philosophy there remains a lot of work to be done...”

That statement is true across the board. Over the course of two centuries, seven successive Chabad Rebbes were prolific exponents of complex mystical and philosophical paradigms, tackling such issues as the purpose and nature of existence, the relationship between G-d and Man, the nature of divinity, moral authority, the problem of evil, and a host of other theological conundrums. While several hundred volumes of original Chabad chasidic texts have been published, and continue to be studied within the Chabad community, the enduring relevance of Chabad’s vast intellectual contribution is only beginning to be noticed and is little known in the wider world.[3]

This statement is especially true in regard to the last Rebbe, who ascended to the leadership following the passing of the his father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Shneersohn in 1950, and led the movement from his New York headquarters for over forty years. During this era, many leaders of Jewish orthodoxy recognised scientific, technological, social and philosophical progress as a threat to traditional beliefs and the traditional way of life. Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, however, saw the potential challenges as opportunities for the advancement of religion. He harnessed new technologies for the dissemination of religious teachings, and as a religious thinker displayed a deep sensitivity to the contemporary zeitgeist and to the changing paradigms of modern thought. For Rabbi Schneerson, the new frontiers being broken did not place religion on the defensive, but on the contrary, provided a unique opportunity for religious development.[4] Indeed, he may have been unique in utilizing deconstructionist strategies as a medium for the affirmation, dissemination and assimilation of theological axioms.

Rethinking the Significance of "Rebbe Stories"

I just watched this video account by Jerry Levine of his "encounter with the Rebbe".

In general I'm not one for miracle tales, nor for "Rebbe stories" in general. Not because I don't believe in miracles, but because I do not believe that miracles display the true greatness of a Rebbe. To me the greatness of a Rebbe, and especially the greatness of my Rebbe, lies in the mystic transcendence transmitted in his teachings.

Jerry's story is not a classic miracle story, in the sense that no unexplained change in the natural order of things occurs, but it certainly does point to some kind of transcendent insight on the Rebbe's part.

But what really grabbed my attention though was the insight pointed to by Jerry himself:

Rather than think of this story in terms of the mystical statement it makes, we need think of it in terms of what it reveals abt the Rebbe's concerns and agendas.

He entirely transcended the mundane concerns anyone coming from a practical / rational perspective, would expect him to address. Instead, he addressed himself to an apparently irrelevant - or solely mystical concern. Only once that issue had been satisfactorily been dealt with did he address the more practical issue with understated simplicity.

Hasidology: Studies in Chasidic Thought & History

I'm very pleased to announce that my new blog Hasidology: Studies in Chasidic Thought and History has now been launched at chabad.org/academia 
You can follow Hasidology using this rss feed (paste it into your reader):
http://www.chabad.org/tools/rss/blog_rss.xml?aid=1723575
I may post occasional on this blog, but Hasidology will now become my main platform. Readers can expect to see fuller, more thoughtful and better researched efforts. Be sure to take a look at my first posting entitled On the Eternal Unfolding of the Transcendent Torah, all comments welcome!

"Light and Life" - Celebrating Yud Tes Kislev

Last night I sat with a few friends in a small shul in an anonymous corner of Crown Heights. We had gathered there on the evening before Yud Tes Kislev[1] to Farbreng, and we didn't leave till the wee hours of the morning. 

It is very difficult to describe or capture the intimate atmosphere, the other-worldly spirit of truth and open honesty, the strangely unremarkable mix of self criticism and celebration that makes a Farbrengen. But I can highlight some of the themes that I came away with last night.

This year is the 110th year since Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn, the Rebbe Rashab, termed Yud Tes Kislev the Chasidic "Rosh Hashanah". In a letter penned from Moscow to his son, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak (later known as the Rebbe Rayatz) in Lubavitch on the 16th of Kislev 5662, he described it as "the day upon which the light and life of our souls [ohr v'chayut nafshenu] was given to us, and one might say that it is the Rosh Hashanah for the Word of the Living G-d [i.e. the teachings of Chasidism] bequeathed to us by our holy forebearers..."[2]

Light. Transcendent windows onto the super-rational, which may yet be assimilated intellectually via the thousands of Chasidic discourses recited by the Rebbeim and studied by their Chasidim for centuries. 

Life. The immanent actualization of those lofty ideals, in the mind, heart and actions of the individual - in the all encompassing service of G-d.

In the words of the Rebbe Rashab, we must "draw the depth and innerness of G-d's Torah and G-d's Commandments from the innerness and essence of the Infinite blessed-be-He, that it should shine in the innerness of our souls, that our entire essence (that is, the entirety of our being - both the essence and also its manifestation) should be dedicated to Him alone... all our activity and purpose (whether in matters of service... or in worldly matters...) shall be with true intent for the sake of heaven, that this is G-d's desire."

Chabad Chasidism requires that the most abstract of Divine realities be made manifest within the most concrete of human endeavors. In Lekuttai Sichot Vol. V (172-9), the Rebbe explained that herein lies the boundless celebration and joy that is made manifest on Yud Tes Kislev, for it is only with the power of the Truly Infinite that the transcendent secrets of the innermost part of the Torah - embodied in the teachings of Chasidism - can be rendered immanently accessible and applicable in the concrete realm. Can an elephant fit through the eye of a needle?! The continued manifestation of the inexpressible essence warrants a truly boundless celebration.

In a similar vein I have often thought that in the famous Kuntras Inyanah Shel Toras Hachasidus, delivered by the Rebbe on Yud Tes Kislev 1965, in which he articulated "the essence of Chassidus", he manages to articulate that which really cannot be articulated or clearly defined - to me there isn't a single line or sentence in that masterly thesis where I can put my finger on the central point, but somehow by the time you have assimilated all the components the essential light shines through...

Here is some footage from that historic farbrengen:

Le'chaim! Le'shonah Tovah Be'limud Ha'chasidus U'be'darchai Ha'chasidus!  

__  __  __    

[1] The day upon which Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi was released from Tsarist imprisonment in the winter of 1798-9. Here is an article on the subject by Prof David Assaf drawing attention to the documentation of these events by Chabad Scholar Yehoshua Mondshine (available here). Click on images to enlarge. 

[2] Here is a facsimile of the relevant section of that historic letter as published in Kuntras U'mayon (see there, pages 14-16, for a description of the circumstances under which the letter was written and received). Click on image to enlarge.

S'vent'zich vu me'redt - A Question of Context?

A couple of posts back I wrote about the complex depth of Jewish Mysticism, in general, and Chabad Chasidism in particular, as reflected in Prof. Elliot Wolfson's rather challenging style of delivery. I now feel compelled to compare his style to that of Prof. Don Seeman as exemplified in this lecture:

Indeed, Seeman himself (beginning at approx. 38:40) draws attention to an essential difference between what I will call their respective "styles of reading". According to Seeman, Wolfson readings emphasize "the coincidence of opposites and the sense of paradox", Seeman goes on to explain how he disagrees with this reading. "In my reading... there is actually very little focus on paradox, what there is - is a focus on the sense that opposites are often both true, which is then absorbed [or rationalised] in a kind of Lithuanian manner - 'two dinim'; this is true in this context and that's true in that context..." Thus, two contradictory statements within Chabad literature are usually to be interpreted as both being true. 

The Ultimate Chasid

I just came across this passage (from Habad: the Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, by Roman A. Foxbrunner) describing the ultimate Chabad Chasid: 

Scholarly yet sociable; reticent, yet a capable singer of Hasidic melodies and relater of Hasidic tales and traditions; austere and somewhat ascetic, yet possessing a refined appreciation of this world’s pleasures; earnest but not humorless or somber; deeply religious but not unctuous or pietistic; modest but self-confident; devoted to RSZ [R. Schneur Zalman], but fully capable of thinking for himself: this Hasid personified the profound and paradoxical system that came to be known as Habad Hassidism. 

Personally, I think this is a very insightful description. The more one studies Chabad Chasidus, and the rich oral and written literature describing the history and nature of the Chabad Chasidic ideal, the more one becomes aware of the sophisticated inner world that the Chabad Chassid must attain: A controlled balance between worldliness, intellectual and critical awareness - what might be called "class", on the one hand - and the utilisation of that sophistication for the attainment of a higher purpose; an end to which all the worldly self awareness is but a necessary means. Chabad is a path of discipline and intellectual rigour, which harnesses the best and fullest qualities of humanity in the service of G-d. Thus the Chabad Chasid must live life fully, but the fullness of his or her self expression must itself be a manifestation of Divinity. The ultimate Chabad Chassid achieves self-renunciation in the medium of self-completion.

I am reminded of a letter penned by the Rebbe Rayatz and printed in Hatamim, where he describes the novelty of the Chasidic ideal as making an "inner light and life" manifest within the medium of the complete and healthy self. Only once the individual has achieved human completion can the true ideal of Chasidus be realised. Readers are invited to read the letter themselves, its three pages can be viewed here I, II, III.  

The Foxbrunner passage is cited in an article by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, well worth reading in its own right, and available here.

Immanent Transcendence

I've just finished watching a great lecture (embedded below) by Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, author of Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson (2009). The main theme (if I am reading him right) is that central to each mystical movement is its distinct path, whose boundaries and limitations must be adhered to in order to arrive at the ultimate manifestation of the Infinite and the Unbound. In oisies hachasidus we would say that the only way to be toifus atzmus or ain sof is through the hagbolo atzmis of mitzvos. (The only way to grasp the Essence of Divine Infinitude is via the essential limitation of the Divine mandate - the fulfilment of the Commandments.)   
Unfortunately, Wolfson's vocabulary is somewhat obscure, presenting quite a barrier to the average reader/listener (in Wolfsonian terms, the veil of darkness via which one perceives the light). In an interview with MyJewishLearning, Wolfson claimed that "the delivery of a complex message demands a rhetoric that is commensurately complex and too often Jews outside the academy are not willing to be pushed to think harder and to expand their vocabulary." While I am not sure I agree with him on the first point, and would like to see scholars make the attempt to express themselves in more accessible terms, I do agree that this is rather a tall order.
At any rate, this lecture and the question and answer session that follows is studded with pearls of insight (and humour), and I highly recommend that the effort be made to listen to what is being said and to think about what is meant (don't jump to any hasty conclusions, the ideas are as deep as they are broad). 
One important point that he touches on in the question and answer session is the fact that when we conceive of different levels of reality, or of Divine Manifestation, we must not conceive of them as being completely separate from one another. To enlarge on this idea for a moment: The realm of limitations and boundaries in which we function is not distinct from the realm of the Infinite (indeed, it cannot be, for if it was not itself a manifestation of - and a key to - the Infinite, then the Infinite could not truly be describe as Infinite). These are variant perspectives on the same reality. More-so, it is specifically in the finite world that we can experience the ultimate reality of the Infinite. As we said earlier, the only way to be toifus atzmus or ain sof is through the hagbolo atzmis of mitzvos. In Wolfson's words, the transcendent is within the immanent. 
If the embed feature doesn't work please click on the link below.   
         
Elliot R. Wolfson: The Path Beyond the Path: Mysticism and the Spiritual Quest for Universal Singularity on Vimeo.

The Divine Source Of Atheism

A story: The fifth Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi Sholom DovBer Schneersohn was once asked, “it is known that all earthly realities stem from a Divine archetype, what then is the Divine source of atheism?” Rabbi Sholom DovBer replied, “The atheist does not believe that God exists as empirical realities exist, and in this he is closer to the truth than many a believer. In truth, the nature of the Divine reality is of a quality entirely different to that of physical existence.”          

The issue of how to reconcile current scientific theory with the 1) belief in G-d and 2) the Torah's account of creation, has been on the table for decades, but the intensity of the debate does not seem to dissipate with the passage of time. The most recent contribution of note is The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. While I have not yet read it  I certainly intend to. I usually find Rabbi Sacks to be eloquent and fairly penetrating. A couple of weeks ago the UK's BBC Radio 4 hosted a discussion between Rabbi Sacks, Richard Dawkins and Lisa Randall. On this occasion I was to be disappointed; while Rabbi Sacks was as eloquent as ever, I felt that he could have done a better job of expressing the Jewish concept of G-d, and defining the role He plays in reality.
The central issue that I would like to address is this: Often, in the course of such discussions, an appeal is made to (one or more variations of) the Argument from Design or (more broadly) to "the wonder of nature", rather than to the Cosmological Argument. Both of these approaches can be found in Jewish sources, but there are two major distinctions between them. 

1) In the language of a Talmudic debate: The Argument from Design is a svarah - its a good idea, it resonates, but its not conclusive; the Cosmological Argument is a hochachah - a conclusive argument. When I say conclusive I do not mean that it cannot be debated; of course one or anther component of the argument may be subject to criticism, but if we except the logical veracity of the Cosmological Argument we must except its conclusions (See here for an earlier post describing the version of the Cosmological Argument made in Choives HaLevovos). On the other hand, the Argument from design will always remain a matter of opinion; for some it has resonance for others it has none. (On a related but slightly different note, the theory of  evolution has absolutely no bearing on the Cosmological Argument, while it does weaken the Argument from Design.)


2) The Argument from Design says that there is an Intelligent Designer, but it doesn't say that their is a Creator, nor does it say much about the nature of the relationship of the Designer with the universe He designed. We may very well conceive of physical existence as an autonomous reality, which has been manipulated by an "external" Designer. Both G-d and physical reality may exist on equal terms, only that physicality has no "intelligence" of its own so G-d supplied some.

The Cosmological Argument, on the other hand, concludes that physical matter cannot have existed for ever (indeed, time itself must have a beginning), it must have been created (not just designed). In this light the reality of Divine existence is shown to be of a very different quality, entirely transcending the limited (time and space bound) reality of physical existence. G-d cannot be defined only in relation to the reality we know, His being is of another quality entirely, existing with or without us. In Chasidus there is an oft quoted saying, "The fact that He creates worlds is not the essence of Divinity". (I can't find the original source right now.)

On a different note, physical reality is shown to be a product of Divinity, its very presence, its own reality, is a function of the Divine reality that makes it be. We can no longer conceive of G-d and the universe as being separate realities that somehow interact to some degree or another. Rather there is no reality aside from G-d, the physical reality that we experience is no more and not less than a limited manifestation of a truer reality; that of the Divine Himself. (This last point is one of the central themes of Chasidus, to which the second part of Tanya, Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah is dedicated.)            
    

The Argument from Design may be prettier, more poetic, and if it happens to resonate for you, then it is more accessible; but while the cool-headed logic of the Cosmological Argument, may demand more intellectual effort, the rewards are greater. The rigours of reason provide clarity and a depth of perspective that is far more compelling.