236) THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN?

THE PERSECUTION OF LEVI BEN AVRAHAM.

MAIMONIDEAN CONTROVERSIES – PART III:

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Levi ben Avraham ben Chaim (1245-1315) was a southern French rationalist who followed the ways of Rambam (1135-1204) and like his exemplar, he too was persecuted for his views.

He was the grandfather of R. Levi ben Gershon, also known as Gersonides or Ralbag (1288-1344).

R. Levi ben Avraham’s[1] mastery of Torah study should not be underestimated, as according to Yehudah Mosconi in his supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, R. Levi was regarded as one of the most prominent scholars of his time.

Besides being a Torah scholar, he was particularly interested in science and astronomy, and later championed a synthesis between Torah and secular study. Unfortunately for him, this occurred during the height of the anti-Maimonidean controversies of 1304-1305, when Rashba (R. Shlomo ben Aderet) issued a ban against Rambam’s philosophical writings.

The ban was directed against:

“...any member of the [Barcelona] community who, being under the age of 25 years, shall study the works of the Greeks on natural science or metaphysics [a veiled reference to Rambam’s philosophy][2], whether in the original language or in translation.”[3]

The Rashba’s ban, originally intended only for Barcelona, also included a prohibition against any allegorical interpretations of the Torah until the age of 25.

Rashba tried to get the rabbis of Southern France to officially enact the same ban as he had instituted in Barcelona, because: “[t]he [Jewish] people are split in two [as a result of the Maimonidean rationalists].”[4] 

This ban, in the form of a letter, was dramatically read out by R. Abba Mari on a Shabbat morning in a synagogue in Montpellier (Southern France) on Erev Rosh haShana in 1304. And R. Levi ben Avraham was singled out as one of its chief targets.

An objection was immediately raised by R. Yaakov Ibn Tibbon, and chaos and confusion ensued in the synagogue and the community.

When the Jews of Southern France refused to accept such a ban, Rashba himself imposed it directly on them, going over the heads of their own rabbinic leadership.[5]

Within days of the issue of the ban, a group of enraged southern French rabbis excommunicated Abba Mari (who also hailed from southern France) for recruiting and inciting Rashba against them. In response, Abba Mari excommunicated them.

In all this chaos, R. Levi ben Avraham remained the centre of Rashba’s attention. Why was he singled out for such persecution?

NORTH VERSUS SOUTH:

Geographically, much of the opposition to Rambam was based in Northern France and Germany which was a stronghold for the (often mystical) Baalei haTosafot. Supporters of Rambam, however, were generally based in Provence located in Southern France. This unfortunately created a vicious north and south divide.

[For more on the conflict, see Maimonidean Controversies Part I and Part II.]

THE EXCOMMUNICATION:

Before Rashba’s ban was issued, Levi ben Avraham had been staying with the wealthy Shmuel haSulami[6] in Narbonne in Southern France, but immediately after the ban became known, Shmuel felt pressured to expel his guest from his home.

The Rashba, in a letter to Levi ben Avraham, gave him the option either to solely occupy himself with Talmud and reject secular studies - or face excommunication. R. Levi chose to continue his secular studies and was soon excommunicated.

Being poverty struck, R. Levi then went to stay with his father-in-law until the Rashba wrote to his new host who was forced to expel him for the second time.

This despite the fact that R. Levi was: “very reserved and was communicative only to those who shared his views.”[7]

WHY SINGLE OUT R. LEVI BEN AVRAHAM?

According to a communication between Don Crescas Vidal and Rashba, Crescas was amazed that Rashba attacked R. Levi ben Avraham because:

“What novelty is now in their land [of southern France][8], in the camp of the Hebrews, that has not long been, that they now bring their case before [you, Rashba] the judge? What do those who slander this country say such that [their countrymen] might be called the first to study philosophy and non-Jewish works? From long ago until now they have grown up with a mixture of [holy books and] the books of the Greeks.”

This appeal had no effect on Rashba and continued relentlessly:

 “Regarding the books that any one of those among them wrote, we judge its owner a heretic and the books as the books of the magicians. They and anyone who owns them stand in excommunication until they burn them completely and no longer mention their name [contents].”[9]

THE MATTER OF ALLEGORIZATION:

Rationalists lean towards allegorization while mystics lean towards mysticization. It is not clear if any mystics were ever condemned for over-mysticization[10] but R. Levi was certainly hounded for his strong tendency to rationalize and to allegorize. He took his cue from Rambam who believed that it was necessary, for example, to allegorize all the scriptural references to G-d having a body.

It is interesting to note that according to Rabbi Shmuel of Marseilles, most of the rabbis of Northern France were of the belief that G-d comprised some type of bodily form or corporeality.[11]

[See The Notion that G-d has a Body.]

Rashba was fanatically opposed to the allegorists or darshanim of his time, writing that:

“Let the spirits of these people be snuffed out, and may a fire that never dies consume them. May their forms flit about in Sheol [hell][12], for the merit of the Patriarchs is insufficient to redeem them.”

Rashba wrote specifically of Levi ben Avraham:   

                                

“A Mohammedan is far dearer to me than this man...

[who] is not ashamed to say openly that Abraham and the other patriarchs have ceased to exist as real personages and that their places have been filled by philosophical concepts...

Levi and his adherents are enemies not only of Judaism, but of every positive religion.” [13]

The attack got even more graphic:

“The other nations would punish them as heretics,
For even just one of the things - the corrupt teaching - that they write in their books!
If any [Christian or Muslim] would say that Abraham and Sarah represent Form and Matter,
They would put him on the pyre and burn him to lime!”[14] 

This was nothing new because a generation earlier, R. Yona Gerondi (the teacher of Rashba) went to the Christians – first the Franciscans and then the Dominicans - pleading:

“Look, most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by R. Moses of Egypt [Maimonides] who wrote heretical books. 

You exterminate heretics, exterminate ours too.”[15]

So too now, it was hoped that by presenting red meat to the non-Jewish base, they would take care of people like R. Levi ben Avraham in an appropriate manner.[16]

A.S. Halkin describes R. Levi as follows:

“Undoubtedly Levi indulges extensively, - one might say: excessively – in allegorization.”[17]

According to R. Levi ben Avraham, the entire biblical Flood story, for example, was also about a flood or overpopulation of humans who did not indulge in intellectual pursuits and the Ark and all its details were woven into an intricate tapestry indicating how man can indeed rise above the floodwaters of debased humanity.

(It should be noted that Mystical and Chassidic interpretations of various biblical events and personalities also indulge in extreme allegorization, albeit in a Kabbalistic or Sefirotic sense. Thus Avraham, for example, relates to the attribute of Chessed etc.)

According to Minchat Kena’ot, some of the southern French rationalists were indeed quite outspoken, and he refers to them as ‘youths’:

“[One of the darshanim] announced in a loud voice that anyone who believes that the sun actually stood still in the time of Joshua is making a mistake, a fool who believes in any impossible thing.”[18]  

A MORE MODERATE R. LEVI BEN AVRAHAM:

In fairness though, R. Levi, aware of perhaps a fundamental and radical form of over-allegorization taking hold, often introduced his allegorical interpretations with the statement:

“Although the literal meaning is undoubtedly true, however, the words of Torah take on several meanings, being like a sledge-hammer which splits a rock.”

                                                                                        

                                                                                            

Regarding the Revelation at Sinai, R. Levi writes:

“Moses saw things clearly, without parable or riddle...Therefore those who convert the miracles or the precepts and laws into symbols, and discover illegitimate meanings in the Torah are heretics and Epicurians, and alter the words of the living God.”[19]

RASHBA DID NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF R. LEVI:

It should be pointed, however, out that Rashba did not have firsthand knowledge of R. Levi’s writings, and acknowledged that he based his impressions on hearsay.[20]

RASHBA, ABBA MARI AND ROSH:

Nevertheless, Rashba was joined by R. Abba Mari (who recorded 127 letters of correspondence in his Minchat Kena’ot, or Offerings of Zeal.[21]) and Rosh who all declared R. Levi to be an apostate.

R. Abba Mari was also concerned that the allegorists had gone too far. Although he rarely mentioned any of the allegorists by name, he wrote:

“They have nearly stripped all the literal meanings from the Torah and displayed her naked.”

The Rosh wrote:

“It is known to Your Honor that it was with unhappiness that I signed this document [of cherem]. How could I sign that they not study it until the age of twenty-five, thus implying that after twenty five I am permitting it, while in fact I believe it is prohibited to study it at all in this generation. But, it is only not to discourage others from signing that I signed.”[22]

THE OTHER DARSHANIM (ALLEGORISTS) OF SOUTHERN FRANCE:

R. Levi ben Avraham did not act or write in isolation but was part of a French group of followers of Rambam which included R. Moshe ben Shmuel Ibn Tibon[23], R. Yaakov Antuli, R. Yitzchak de Lattes, and of course his grandson, the Ralbag. He was also praised by the Meiri and Yedaya Bedarshi.[24]

IMPLORING THE RASHBA TO RESCIND THE BAN:

In Yedaya Bedarshi’s letter to Rashba in defence of Levi ben Avraham, he says that he investigated the matter and found that the accusation was based on a misunderstanding of the role of a darshan (allegorist) and that even when an allegorical interpretation is presented it does not exclude the literal meaning. He goes on to quote a principle from Rambam[25] that where a literal meaning is quite tenable, there is no need to seek out an allegorical interpretation.

Rashba, however, wasn’t convinced. Instead, he furthermore claimed that R. Levi did not believe in any miracles. When he was informed that the only miracle he denied was the Talmudic[26] claim that the letters in the Ten Commandments were suspended in air, Rashba responded that this was sufficient to prove that he denied all the other miracles as well.[27] 

R. Levi claimed that small supporting stone braces prevented the middle of the mem and samech from falling out of the carved tablets of stone.

Yedaya Bedarshi implored the Rashba to withdraw his ban against studying Rambam. He pleaded with him to understand that the only reason the Christians and Moslems of his time respected the Jews, was because they were intelligent in matters of science and philosophy which they had also learned particularly from the Rambam’s influential Moreh Nevuchim.

Yedaya Bedarshi wrote:

“And despite their [the non-Jewish][28] hatred of us, they are not ashamed to admit the truth. And out of respect for him [Rambam], they even show honor to those Jews who identify with his works. How can we rise up and estrange ourselves from this honor and the source that remains to us and our Torah as protection from disrespect amongst the nations and our enemies who insult Israel and attribute to us ignorance of all knowledge and of all truth?

How can G-d cause us to act foolishly, to destroy from our midst, and to the benefit of our enemies, that residue of truth and honor that has remained with us? There can be no greater profanation of the Name than this.”[29]

THE REAL REASON FOR THE BAN:

Asher Bentzion Buchman explains what he considers to be the real reason for the ban, and it relates to the ongoing conflict between the mystics and the rationalists:

“Rashba, a master of kabbalah...therefore exhorts the scholars of Provence [who were followers of Rambam’s rationalism][30] who have immersed themselves in science and philosophy to turn instead to the true wisdom of kabbalah to understand the secrets of the Torah.”

UNPUBLISHED LETTERS:

The fact is that it was the collator of Minchat Kena’ot, Abba Mari himself, who pressured Rashba to issue his anti-Maimonidean ban. Rashba is recorded in Minchat Kena’ot as saying that there were three rabbis in Provence who were ‘endangering the survival of the Torah.’[31]  

However, although R. Levi ben Avraham wrote a letter in defence of himself to Rashba, his

letter was never published. Only Rashba’s response was published!

Nor did R. Abba Mari publish the arguments against the ban which were presented by the Meiri![32]

THE WRITINGS OF THE FOLLOWERS OF RAMBAM VANISH FOR CENTURIES:

The mystics wanted nothing to do with the rabbis of Southern France and according to Asher Benzion Buchman:

“It seems that for centuries the works of the followers of Rambam in Provence vanished from the public scene; only in this century was the invaluable work of Meiri published for the first time. Was this a result of the cherem of 1305?”[33]

A GRAVE INJUSTICE:

Halkin concludes his textual study of Levi ben Avraham’s various writings with the following observation:

“[A] grave injustice has been done to Levi ben Abraham...in branding him a heretic, a seducer and a subverter. His love for his faith, coupled with his admiration for philosophy, impelled him, as it did his fellow intellectuals, to strive zealously to demonstrate that Judaism contains all wisdom, nay, that it is the mother of all the learning which is now the proud possession of others.”

According to Dr Gregg Stern:

“There is nothing hateful or antinomian about the interpretations of this Jewish community [of southern France][34]; they are quite Maimonidean. It is striking to see that – in the shadow of Maimonides – Rashba mistook the philosophic interpretation of the Commandments as antinomian.”

ANALYSIS:

This article dealt with the systematic elimination of Maimonidean thought in Provence, Southern France, in the early 1300s.

However, within significant circles of religious Judaism today, there still exists a strong opposition to reading secular literature and even to studying Maimonides’ philosophical writings. [See Halachic Attitudes Towards Secular Studies, and Secular Education – A Great Divide.]

Asher Benzion Buchman writes that even today, there are: “...rabbis who are idolized in certain circles [who] utter such phrases as ‘the Rambam could say it; we cannot.’ 

In other words what Rambam wrote 850 years ago is too religiously controversial for our sensitive modern minds today.

Rambam’s philosophical teachings continue to be subverted precisely at a time when this generation of searchers from without, and especially from within the religious community, need them more than at any other time in Jewish history.

Buchman pleads, as the history of suppression of Maimonidean thought continues to repeat itself:

“Let us hope that [the silenced voice of][35] Provence is poised to rise again.”

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

RESTORING A 'LOST WISDOM':

Rashba used a metaphor to describe how the rationalists of France were behaving: “They have taken foreign women into their homes and cast aside the daughter of Yehudah.” (Minchat Kena’ot. no. 20.)

Buchman comments:  

                   

“According to Rambam’s approach, such a metaphor would be totally inappropriate...the other wisdoms are the wisdoms that were once known by Torah scholars and are part of Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereishis. All wisdom is part of the same whole...These wisdoms are a part of Torah itself.”

It is interesting to see that even R. Abba Mari was not comfortable with Rashba’s analogy of the ‘foreign woman’ being applied to secular wisdom. He believed the ‘foreign women’ analogy should only apply to absolute heresy - and he wrote to Rashba for clarification which apparently never came.

R. Levi, basing himself on classical Maimonidean thought, maintained that knowledge of science and philosophy was originally held by the Jews but then became the province of the Gentiles. He writes that: “The sons of Japhet adorned themselves with the learning they took from Shem and the Hebrews.” And that this knowledge was then forgotten by its originators. (See R. Levi’s Batte haNefesh ve’haLechashim.)

R. Levi and the followers of Rambam believed they were restoring a component of Torah to its rightful owners.

---

[1] He is also referred to sometimes as Levi ben Chaim.

[2] Parenthesis mine.

[3] Responsa of Rashba 1, no. 416. See Avraham and Sarah in Provence, by Asher Bentzion Buchman. 

[4] Minchat Kena’ot p. 730.

[5] Minchat Kena’ot p. 734.

[6] Also known as Samuel l’Escaleta. Meiri praised R. Shmuel as being one of great Halachists of southern France.

[7] Minchat Kena’ot, no. 121.

[8] Parenthesis mine. Translation Dr Gregg Stern.

[9] Minchat Kena’ot p. 737. Translation Dr Gregg Stern.

[10] Besides the opponents to Hagshamah (the belief that G-d has a body), although not to the same vitriolic extent.

[11]“rov chachmei tzorfat magshimim”

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Minchat Kena’ot, no 14.

[14] Minchat Kena’ot p. 412. Translation by Dr. Gregg Stern: Allegorizers of the Torah and Story of their Persecution in Languedoc (1305).

[15] Iggerot Kena’ot III, 4c. (Leipzig 1859).

[16] Minchat Kena’ot p. 383.

[17] Why Was Levi ben Hayyim Hounded, by A.S. Halkin.

[18] Minchat Kena’ot p. 408.

[19] Translation by A.S. Henkin.

[20] Rashba admits this in one of his letters which is published in Minchat Kena’ot (Shut haRashba).

[21] R. Abba Mari explains why he compiled his Minchat Kena’ot: “I became enraged with zeal for the Lord, God of Israel when I saw a man of the Holy Seed defiling himself with ‘the food of the gentiles,’ destroying the narrative of the Torah [with allegory], while she had no one to inquire and save [her].” (MK p. 225.)

[22] Ibid. Avraham and Sarah in Provence.

[23] He was from the famous Ibn Tibbon family who translated, amongst other writings, Rambam’s Arabic writings into Hebrew.

[24] In the latter’s Iggeret Hitnatzlut.

[25] Moreh Nevuchim 2:25

[26] Shabbat 104a.

[27] Minchat Kena’ot , no. 42.

[28] Parenthesis mine.

[29] Yedaya Bedarshi’s letter to Rashba, translated by Asher Benzion Buchman.

[30] Parenthesis mine.

[31] Minchat Kena’ot, nos. 50, 94, 105.

[32] R. Levi’s unpublished letter is lost but Meiri’s letter still survives.

[33] Ibid. Avraham and Sarah in Provence.

[34] Parenthesis mine.

[35] Parenthesis mine.

208) RAV KOOK ON: WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE STUDYING GEMARA?

INTRODUCTION:

People can say what they like about R. Avraham Yitzchak haCohen Kook (1865-1935) - also known by the acronym HaRAaYaH - but one thing is certain: he had courage.

He touched on issues which go directly to the heart, soul and psyche of contemporary Judaism and he did not back down. He was so outspoken that even members of his own family censored his teachings and withheld many aspects of his spiritual and intellectual legacy.

Although he was both a mystic and a Talmud scholar, much of the religious right has not only ignored his thinking but has ridiculed him and relegated him to the waste bin Jewish religious leadership. I too was guilty of such an attitude.

DEFINING THE ESSENCE OF TORAH STUDY:

It is important to point out that the default setting for Torah study has essentially become Gemara.

Any serious place of learning, whether school, Yeshiva or Kollel would offer Gemara as the main subject matter for study. Other topics may be thrown in here and there as well but serious Torah study is generally defined by Gemara.

As we shall see, Rav Kook had some interesting observations about this.

In this article, we shall look at Rav Kook’s bold definition of the parameters of Torah learning - and particularly Torah study-material.

His views on this topic were subject to much censorship and it only recently that they are being discovered and published.

Some sensitive Readers may take umbrage to Rav Kook’s controversial views, particularly on this matter - but it must be borne in mind that it was for these very reasons that he was so severely censored.

This article is written for those who struggle with relating to Gemara in a meaningful manner, not for those who are nurtured by it.

THE SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION OF RAV KOOK:

I have drawn from The Spiritual Revolution of Rav Kook by R. Ari Ze’ev Schwartz[1], which offers an introduction to, and translation of, some pertinent and important writings of Rav Kook – many of which were unknown until now.

In his introduction[2], R. Schwartz concurs that Gemara is the main focus of Torah study which is emphasized in most learning institutions. He says:

“...I spent eight years in yeshiva, and the majority of time was spent on Gemara. I do not wish to diminish the importance of this form of learning, but there are many who connect to other parts of the Torah, yet are forced to spend their time on topics they feel least connected to...

Unfortunately, many have not been introduced to most areas of the Torah...

...Rav Kook encourages us to find a personal Torah – and to realize that there is not only one type of Torah, but an endless variety that can speak to countless individuals.”

WHY SOME JEWS LEAVE RELIGION:

We shall quote from parts of the severely cropped and censored section of Orot haTorah (9:6) of Rav Kook, which R. Schwartz now presents and translates as follows:

“Many people have left religion because in their learning and spiritual perfection, they have betrayed their unique personalities.”

This is a most powerful analysis of contemporary religion. 

Contrary to the belief of many religious leaders, not everyone is happy to be the proverbial sausage in the sausage factory.

Imagine; Rav Kook is telling us that the root cause of many people turning their backs on Judaism is because their learning - the very glue which bonds them to their faith - is betraying their true inner personalities!

In other words, according to Rav Kook, there exists a certain regimen of Torah study which jolts roughly against the essential spiritual makeup of many individuals. This can be most damaging.

When this occurs, there are one of two options:

Either the student numbs his or her mind to their intuitive personality, and suppresses that mind as being the ‘evil inclination’, which then gets ‘rectified’ by even more intense study to quieten its protest.

Or the student adopts - ironically a more straightforward and logical approach - and leaves religion.

Rav Kook continues:

[Note that the terms Halacha, Gemara, Talmud are used interchangeably in this context.]

“For example, a person might be naturally talented in matters of aggadah [non-legal subject matter like philosophy and mysticism etc.[3]] and be unsuited to constant immersion in matters of halachah [minutia of laws].

Yet because he does not recognize his unique talents, he occupies himself in matters of Gemara and its commentaries, since he sees that this is customary in the religious world today.”

What strikes one about this statement of Rav Kook is his use of the word ‘today’. Is this reference merely incidental, and has this always been the practice within the religious world – or is he alluding to a particular overemphasis on Talmudic study which has taken place in relatively recent times and is now ‘customary in the religious world today’?

HATRED?

Rav Kook pulls no punches when he then writes with his typical intellectual honesty:

“But deep inside his [the Gemara student’s][4] soul he feels a hatred towards the material he is learning, since constant involvement in it does not suit his unique natural gifts.”

It is hard to think of any other leading rabbinic figure who has written of Gemara in such a manner.

‘HALACHIC DEPRESSION’:

Rav Kook writes about a type of ‘Halachic depression’ that can sometimes set in:

“Sometimes, one who has the type of soul that is capable of climbing to the greatest spiritual heights will become depressed and saddened when immersed in the little details of halacha.

Such a person may feel imprisoned, almost as if chained inside the law.

Nevertheless, the solution is not to abandon halacha. Rather, one must train oneself to seek the value of every detail until one finds its spiritual source and significance.”[5]

SEEKING ‘ANOTHER TYPE OF TORAH’:

Once a person reaches such a state of feeling spiritually 'depressed' and harbouring an inner ‘hated’ towards a religious study programme predominantly comprised of technical legalities, Rav Kook suggests that it is time to move on to ‘another type of Torah’.

Before he does this, though, he gets even more descriptively graphic, while at the same time careful not to criticise the important role of Talmudic study. And he weaves this bold yet extremely fine line all into one poignant paragraph:

“However, if he were to find the specific type of Torah that fits his unique talents and immerse himself in it, he would then immediately recognise that the nauseating feeling he experienced when immersed in matters of Halacha was not coming from any flaw in that holy and important type of learning. It was rather his soul expressing its desire to be absorbed in another type of Torah.

This person would then stay truly faithful to the Torah and become an expert in the type of Torah that is unique to him.”

Most would concur that ‘hatred’ and ‘nauseating’ are very unusual adjectives for describing Gemara, especially when used within rabbinic literature.

But, again, Rav Kook is careful to use these terms to describe the subjective feelings of the student (not the subject matter itself) whose soul just does not jell with a study curriculum primarily focussed on the intricacies of a legal disciple and code.

Besides being a mystic, he himself was also a great Talmudic scholar and he certainly upheld the primary position of such study. - Except that in Rav Kook’s mind, no one genre of study was to be considered the be-all and end-all of the mitzvah of Torah study.

SPIRITUAL 'NAUSEA'?

Notwithstanding Rav Kook carefully qualifying his position, he continues relentlessly:

“Unfortunately, because this person does not recognize the true reason for his feelings of nausea toward halacha, he forcefully ignores his nature.”

The point is that precisely because one ‘forcefully ignores his nature’, that the individual now becomes another victim of a system which has sadly been falsely defined, narrowed and limited. And no rabbinical authority alerted him or her to the fact that there are other equal but different avenues of Torah study which should rather be pursued which may be more appealing to the individual.

THE FOCUS ON HALACHA:

Rav Kook offers a brief historical perspective as to why Gemara rose to its position of pre-eminence:

“In the course of time, the concern with the work of the rabbis dominated over the work of the prophets, and prophecy ceased altogether. After some time, the prominence of spiritual and philosophical principles declined; although they were implicit in the details, they were not sufficiently explained.”

RAV KOOK’S PERSONAL STRUGGLES WITH THIS LIMITATION:

Perhaps Rav Kooks is writing so passionately because he is subliminally referring to himself as well. R. Schwartz reminds us about someone who once came to Rav Kook and mentioned that his son was not interested in studying Torah; to which Rav Kook responded:

“When I was young, I also was not excited to study halachah. My heart was drawn to aggadah. However, by studying aggadah, I came to study halacha. I suggest you teach your son aggadah...”

‘DIVERSITY OF WISDOM’:

Rav Kook then takes this notion even one step further.

Besides broadening Torah study into other non-Talmudic subjects, he furthermore encourages those individuals who are drawn to other branches of wisdom, including secular learning, to follow their minds as well.

He says:

 “There is a great diversity of wisdom that expands even greater than this. One may be strongly attracted to a certain secular wisdom.

Such a person must also follow his unique talents, while setting aside fixed time for learning Torah.

If he does this, then he will succeed in both, because ‘Torah together with the ways of the world is beautiful’ (Pirkei Avot 2:2).”[6]

[See 'Rav Kook's Jealousy of the Secular World'.]

‘ONE SHOULD NOT LIE TO ONE’S SOUL’:

All these views of Rav Kook, which would be considered radical (or worse) in some circles, stem from his desire for truth. 

He was acutely aware of what today we would call ‘Social Judaism’: This is where a strong culture of religious Judaism exists but has brought with it certain societal (as opposed to spiritual) constructs. Very often people are attracted to the heavily nuanced norms and constructs and not necessarily to the deeper and often hidden soul within the matter.

‘THE WHIRLWIND OF EXTERNAL APPROVAL’:

Rav Kook encourages people to think as individuals and to go beyond group. 

He also understands how difficult it is to break out of the cultural hold which sometimes can be like an invisible vice-grip or a ‘whirlwind’:

“One should not lie to one’s soul; one should not deny one’s inner emotions due to the whirlwind of external approval.

If one feels inspired and holy in a specific area of learning, then one must constantly satisfy oneself from this deep pleasure that one’s heart desires."

HIS MESSAGE TO THE RABBINATE:

Rav Kook felt that the Rabbanut was ‘too focused on Halacha.’ He wrote:

“The Rabbanut that I am trying to raise up...should not be boxed in and focussed only on the world of religious law...because matters of religion are in truth matters of life.”[7]

In a letter to Chairman of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis in America, Rav Kook wrote:

“We [the rabbis][8] have abandoned the soul of the Torah....

For too long the most talented among our people have focussed almost exclusively on the practical aspects of the Torah, and even then only on specific sections of it.

Yet the emotional, philosophical, and all the higher spiritual wisdom – where the secrets of redemption and salvation are hidden – we have totally abandoned...

...in our own camp of Torah and faith, we find only darkness”[9]

NOT TO BE INTIMIDATED BY ‘NON-SPIRITUAL RABBIS’:

Almost as if Rav Kook is pre-empting the next step: He seems to know that anyone reading this is going to immediately ask their personal rabbi whether these views are acceptable and whether they may indeed be implemented on a practical level. 

He knows what the answer is going to be, so he warns us not to be, as R. Schwartz puts it, ‘intimidated by non-spiritual rabbis’: 

“Even if one finds great rabbis...to whom matters of spirituality are not important...one’s heart should not despair over one’s inner hunger for ways of spirituality...”[10]

At the end of the day, Rav Kook’s message which has been largely censored and withheld from us till now, is that it is up to us alone as thinking individuals to determine what type of Torah we wish to immerse our souls in.

This is one of those fundamental teachings where there is no middle ground -  the Reader, depending on the individual, will either accept it wholeheartedly or absolutely reject it. 

[For more on Rav Kook's other ideas, see The Censored Writings of Rav Kook.]

SOURCES:

The Spiritual Revolution of Rav Kook by R. Ari Ze’ev Schwartz. (Gefen Publishing House.)

---

[1] Published by Gefen Publishing House.

[2] Chapter 2.

[3] Rav Kook was a mystic so obviously, he was referring to mysticism as a strong alternative.  It should, however, be equally obvious that for rationalists this would include areas of Rationalist Torah study like the philosophy of Maimonides and such similar matters. 

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] OT 9:8

[6] KYK1, Pinkas Acharon b’BVoisk, 52.

[7] IR 2, p. 28.

[8] Parenthesis mine.

[9] Letter to R. Yehudah Leib Seltzer.

[10] OT 10.4.