As The Kohen Exits The Sancta: A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha-Tzadik

As The Kohen Exits The Sancta: A New Edition of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin’s Tzidkat ha- Tzadik By Josh Rosenfeld Josh Rosenfeld is the Assistant Rabbi at Lincoln Square Synagogue and on the Judaic Studies Faculty at SAR High School.

This is his fourth contribution to the Seforim Blog.

Tzidkat ha-Tzaddik Commentary, Notes, & Excurses Ne’imot Netzah by R. Aharon Moseson 2 Vols. 532 + 564 pp. Arad: Makhon Ne’imot ha-Tzedek, 2015 “The Books of the ‘Kohen’, written by the very own hand of our Master, the Holy man of God, the Kohen Gadol, without peer, Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin, may his merit protect us… have taken an important place amongst the works of Jewish thought and Hasidut amongst the legions of those who seek God in every place. They serve as a magnet for all those who desire [to know] God, who find in it a veritable treasury of general instruction and guidance in the service of God – especially in the area of refining one’s character traits, and [his words] contain entire frameworks for understanding verses in Tanakh and sections of Rabbinic stories in the Talmud and Midrashic literature.” With these words, R. Aharon Moseson introduces his impressive new edition of what is arguably the central work of the “Kohen,” Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin (1823-1900), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik.[1] There is much already written on Reb Zadok and various different aspects of his thought, such that it would be redundant for me to recapitulate here,[2] although before we discuss this particular work and it’s advantages over previous editions, it behooves us to spend a moment on the book Tzidkat ha-Tzadik itself. If the rest of Reb Zadok’s writings can be described as a sort of “Beit Yosef for Hasidut” (language of R. Moseson in the preface, on page 11), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik can be said to be a Shulhan Arukh, a type of concentrated version of Reb Zadok’s general ideas. R. Moseson categorizes Reb Zadok’s chief concerns into the following eight general categories, into which almost every single section of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik fall: (1) Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will (2) Repentance (3) Prayer (4) ‘Guarding the Covenant’ and Rectifying the Failure to do so (5) Human Inability to Fully Overcome Desire (=Yetzer) (6) The Interplay Between Physical Desire and Anger (7) The Trials of Desire (8) Positive Hutzpah. The reader is directed to the end of the second volume, where a number of short essays deal with some of these topics more fully. Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was first published by the son-in-law of Reb Zadok, R. Barukh Dovid ha-Kohen in Lublin, 1902. Since then, a number of different editions of the Sefer have appeared, some of them notably censored in a number of piska’ot, or sections.[3] Beginning with the Lublin, 1913 edition,[4] a Hasid by the name of R. Yisrael b. R. Yosef Yozel of Lublin added in source references that Reb Zadok omitted from the manuscript. Later, R. Abba Zvi Naiman of Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore published an index of the works of Reb Zadok, Mafte’ah Kitve Rebbe Zadok ha-Kohen mi-Lublin (2nd ed. Jerusalem, 2006), which aided locating particular topics and sources cited in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik along with many of Reb Zadok’s numerous other works. The most widely-used and available edition I know of today is the red- covered, anonymously printed Jerusalem, 1998 edition. This printing has a square (as opposed to “Rashi” script) typesetting and also contains a well done topical and source index in the back put together by one R. Chaim Hirsch. About thirty years ago, Yeshivat Beit El began to publish editions of the Reb Zadok’s major works, with major additions of full quotations of the sources cited in the works, and limited indices and additional works cited for comparison and further study under the imprint of Yeshivat Har Bracha. According to the title page, their edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik was based off of the 1968 Jerusalem printing of R. Oded Kitov, which itself was based off of manuscript. The reason the printings are important to us, as we shall see, is because of the following statement in the Har Bracha Edition: “printed…with the addition of deleted sections copied from the very handwriting [of Reb Zadok] that have previously not been published” (Emphasis mine). All previous printings have omitted several passages from the text of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik save for the Har Bracha, 1987 Yad Eliyahu KiTov, and now, the Ne’imot Netzah editions. In the chart below, I have outlined the various censored passages, and their omissions across four printings.[5]

One of the central reasons R. Moseson cites in the preface for the decision to include the various passages that were censored in many previous editions is borne of necessity due to the misinterpretation and danger inherent in an untrained and loopy presentation of these potentially explosive passages by neophytes or worse, deliberate misrepresentation of the Kohen’s words.[7] It is for this reason that R. Moseson prints these passages in an edition that enjoys the approbations of venerable Haredi authorities, although only the first two previously censored sections (nos. 54, 69) enjoy the introductions and cautionary words discussed in the preface in this new volume. All told, this new edition of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik truly pulls back the parokhet from what for many was previously a “closed book.” The explanations section, entitled Ne’imos Tzedek presents each section in a lucid, ArtScroll-esque manner, with the words of Reb Zadok bolded, and regular text filling in the various lacunae that typify this work, especially in the earlier sections. Footnotes and cross- references lead the reader to the parallel discussions in Reb Zadok’s other works. The often obscure references to Rabbinic, Zoharic, Halakhic, and Hasidic literature that underlie Reb Zadok’s writing are often presented in full, allowing the learner to fully grasp the paroxysm of religious revelation, the concentrated bursts of wisdom, founded upon a lifetime of deep Torah engagement that I believe is represented in each of Reb Zadok’s short passages in Tzidkat ha-Tzadik, as opposed to the protracted thematic presentations that are to be seen in some of Reb Zadok’s other works. Particularly helpful, especially for the latter sections of Tzidkat ha-Tzadik in which the passages become much longer, are paragraph headers containing short precis of the topic under discussion, and side notes that helpfully summarize key turns and points in the text of the elucidation. For whatever a neophyte dabbler in Reb Zadok’s works’ recommendation is worth, I enthusiastically encourage all those who desire to embrace and engage with the wisdom of the Kohen to explore this new, valuable edition of Tzidkat ha- Tzadik, and remain in tremendous appreciation of R. Moseson and Makhon Ne’imot Netzah’s scholarly efforts.

Notes: I am deeply indebted and grateful to yedid nafshi Reb Menachem Butler and the editors of the Seforim Blog for the fantastic platform the blog serves as a virtual beis va’ad l’hakhamim and for their willingness to consider this and my previous short pieces for publication on it. [1] While Reb Zadok’s written corpus is quite large, consisting of several original works written in his own hand, some point to the Torah she-Ba’al Peh (oral Tradition) of Peri Tzadik, a monumental 5 volume collection of Reb Zadok’s discourses on the Torah and Jewish calendar written by his students as the most comprehensive presentation of Reb Zadok’s thought. The Peri Tzadik is known as a “closed” book, due to the length and obscurity of the presentation of Reb Zadok’s discourses. Last February, a Talmid Hakham from Ashdod by the name of Y. Yakob began to release high-quality PDFs on the Otzar ha-Hokhmah forums with experimental, but extremely detailed and meticulously footnoted sections of Peri Tzadik, online here. To date, only a few sections of the discourses have received this treatment, and there is no indication from the representative of the author that there is a larger work in progress. [2] I am in full agreement with what yedidi Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here, writes that “[t]he academic study of Reb Zadok is surely in debt to Prof. Yaakov Elman, who brought the thought of Reb Zadok to the English speaking academic world in a series of articles published over the past twenty-five years. His analysis of many of the central themes simultaneously charted new grounds in Hasidic scholarship and remain the standard from which subsequent scholarship on Reb Zadok is measured.” See Yaakov Elman, “R. Zadok Hakohen on the History of Halakah,” Tradition 21:4 (Fall 1985): 1-26; Yaakov Elman, “Reb Zadok Hakohen of Lublin on Prophecy in the Halakhic Process,” Jewish Law Association Studies 1 (1985): 1-16; Yaakov Elman, “The History of Gentile Wisdom According to R. Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 3:1 (1993): 153-187; Yaakov Elman, “Progressive Derash and Retrospective Peshat: Nonhalakhic Considerations in Talmud Torah,” in Shalom Carmy, ed., Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 227-87; and Yaakov Elman, “The Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 2 (2003): 199-249; and also Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2002). More recently, see Dovid Bashevkin, “Perpetual Prophecy: An Intellectual Tribute to Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin on his 110th Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog (18 August 2010), available here; and Dovid Bashevkin, “A Radical Theology and a Traditional Community: On the Contemporary Application of Izbica-Lublin Hasidut in the Jewish Community,”Torah Musings (20 August 2015), available online here here. See, as well, the important work in Amira Liwer, “Oral Torah in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, 2006; Hebrew), and see, as well, her earlier work in Amira Liwer, “Paradoxical Themes in the Writings of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen of Lublin,” (MA thesis, Touro College, 1992; Hebrew), as well as in Me’At Latzadik: Anthology of Reb Zadok ha-Kohen, ed. Gershon Kitzis (Bayit Publishing, 2005), which contains essays from various Torah and Academic personalities in Israel on aspects of Reb Zadok Torah, including from R. R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (ShaGaR) and R. Yeshayahu Hadari. Finally, for an attempt at a systematic presentation of Reb Zadok’s thinking on particular topics across his written corpus, see R. Hanokh Ben-Arza, Tevel be-Tzedek (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1999). This attractive work culls from all of Reb Zadok’s works and weaves disparate statements into short, heavily footnoted essays in a clear presentation. There is also a beautiful approbation from R. Mordechai Eliyahu in the first volume. [3] Contrary to the longer, essay-like format of some of Reb Zadok’s other works (exceptions include shorter expositions like Divre Halomot, which are usually printed along with one of the more expansive works), Tzidkat ha-Tzadik is written in an almost aphoristic form, consisting of paragraph-length Torah ideas, usually prefaced with an opening line that encapsulates the Teaching. There are 264 such sections in the Sefer. [4] Photomechanical offset reproduction, B’nei Brak, 1973. [5] In an expanded version of this short review I propose to compare and theorize the various reasons for the specific omissions. Most, but not all of the censored piska’ot and passages deal with the doctrine of determinism and sin, or matters related to p’gam ve-tikkun ha-berit. On the latter, see for example Brill, Thinking God, 181-184. [6] R. Moseson cites, וכמה מדפיסים החזירוה“ as he does in other instances and ”ע״פ משהעתיק אחד ממקורבי רבינו מכב יד קדשו של רבינו זי״ע then refers the reader to Tzidkat ha-Tzadik ha-Malei (Yad Eliyahu Kitov, 1987) published by R. Avraham Eliyahu Mokotovsky (R. Eliyahu Kitov, 1912-1976, whose father was a close Hasid of Reb Zadok and), which I have been unable to locate a copy of, although it is cited by R. Moshe Wolfson in his Emunat Itekha vol. 1, p. 24 (Parshat Vayishlah) as his source for Tzidkat ha-Tzadik no. 54.

[7] Ne’imot Netzah ed., ,ב pp. 11-12. It seems that in note R. Moseson perhaps casts shade on the Har Bracha edition in אכן חדשים מקרוב באו והחזירו את השמטות אלו במהדורות :writing שלהם ואכן .בלי לבאר את יש מקום לסילוף גדול כאמור Screen for the Spirit, Garment for the Soul

Screen for the Spirit, Garment for the Soul by Josh Rosenfeld Josh Rosenfeld is the Assistant Rabbi at Lincoln Square Synagogue and on the Judaic Studies Faculty at SAR High School. This is his third contribution to the Seforim blog. His first essay, on “The Nazir in New York,” is available here, and his second essay, “The Princess and I: Academic Kabbalists/Kabbalist Academics,“ is available here. ב״ה אור לנר ג׳, חנוכה ה׳תשע״ו Recent years have witnessed a remarkable trend in the widespread study of Hasidic texts within Orthodox communities that themselves do not self-identify as traditionally Hasidic. Whether in much-discussed Modern Orthodox neo-Hasidic circles or amongst the National-Religious in Israel, Hasidic texts canonical and obscure merit serious teaching, engagement, and even reverence in these communities. One of the earliest expressions of this trend was the introduction of such texts into the curricula of Hesder Yeshivot, and arguably the man most responsible for this was R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (Shagar; 1949-2007). R. Shagar began his career in the Hesder Yeshivot first as a student at Yeshivat Kerem b’Yavneh, eventually returning from the Yom Kippur war to become a popular RaM at Yeshivat Hakotel, even filling in as interim Rosh ha-Yeshiva when R. Yeshayahu Hadari took a sabbatical. R. Shagar, known as a Talmudic prodigy, branched out to both found and direct other institutions on the cutting edge of the National Religious educational framework, such as Beit Midrash Ma’aleh and Beit Morasha, and finally, Yeshivat Siach Yitzchak in Efrat, with his longtime friend and study partner, R. Yair Dreyfuss (1949- ). After a difficult period of suffering, R. Shagar passed away from Pancreatic cancer on June 11, 2007, a month after the announcement of a committee to begin preparing his voluminous writings for publication. R. Shagar wrote and taught on a level characterized as “extremely deep”, and despite the resurgence of interest and posthumous publications of his writings, a close student of his once told me “it was not always such a great honor to be counted amongst his students.” There was some opposition to some of his ideas, especially those relating to education and Talmud pedagogy.[1] R. Shagar’s writings exhibit a sustained engagement with, in my opinion, three central themes: postmodernism and its challenge to traditional religion, spirituality and faith in the Modern Orthodox and National Religious, and the development of a viable language, a discourse – based upon traditional texts – to think and talk about the aforementioned themes. R. Shagar’s writings are as quick to quote R. Schnuer Zalman of Liadi as Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian cultural critic and philosopher. For English speakers, much of R. Shagar’s oeuvre remains a closed book,[2] despite the rapid pace with which new material of his – developed from the reportedly hundreds of files he left behind – is being published, and the resurgence in his popularity in Israel. Despite that, a few articles and introductions to his thought have appeared in English.[3] What follows is an attempt at translation of an excerpt from one of the most recent of R. Shagar’s works, To [להאיר את הפתחים).[Illuminate the Openings (4 The book is primarily a collection of R. Shagar’s discourses on the holiday of (לזמן הזה) ”Hanukkah, part of the “For This Time series of R. Shagars derashot on the cycle of Jewish holidays and festivals.[5] This particular essay, “Screen for the Spirit, Garment for the Soul” is an expansion and presentation of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s[6] phenomenological discourse on the candles of Hanukkah. R. Shagar uses the language of philosophy, Maimonides, and Lacanian psychoanalysis to explain the two religious paths that R. Schneur Zalman sees as represented in the candles, wicks, and flames of Hanukkah. In doing so, a rich tapestry of religious thought is woven, with R. Shagar characteristically bringing such diverse thinkers as the founder of Chabad Hasidism and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz in conversation with each other.[7] “Screen for the Spirit, Garment for the Soul” {A Translation and Annotation of R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg, “To Illuminate the Openings” (Machon Kitve ha-Rav Shagar: Efrat, 2014), 53-61}[8][9] כִּי אַתָּה תָּאִיר נֵרִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהַי יַגִּיהַּ חָשְׁכִּי (תהילים י״ח, כט). כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר (משלי ו׳, כג). נֵר יְהוָה נִשְׁמַת אָדָם (שם כ׳, כז). The Soul and the Commandment There is a well-known custom of many Hasidic rabbis on Hanukah to sit by the candles after lighting and to meditate upon them, sometimes for hours. This meditation washes over the spirit and allows the psyche to open up to a whole host of imaginings, gleanings, thoughts, and emotions – that afterward blossom into the ‘words of the living God’, to use the Habad formulation. Therefore, it is instructive for us to look at the physical entity, the elements of the candle and its light as crucial elements in the development of these words of exegesis – the meditation upon the candlelight. For example, in one stage of the discourse of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi[10] (1745-1812; henceforth, Admor ha-Zaken) that we shall discuss, Admor ha-Zaken distinguishes between two different types of light emanating from the candle: and the fact of the matter is that the candle consists of both the oil and the wick – two types of light: a darkened light directly on the wick, and the clarified white light.[11] This differentiation acts as a springboard for a discourse upon two pathways in religious life. To a certain extent, it is possible to posit that the discourse is the product of the Admor ha-Zaken’s meditation upon the different colors of light in the candle’s flame, and without that, there would be no discourse to speak of. The motif of the candle and the imaginings it conjures are a frequent theme in scripture and in rabbinic writing – The Mitzvah Candle; Candle of the Soul; The Candle of God – in its wake arise many Hasidic discourses seeking to [נר נשמה] ’explain the relationship between ‘The Soul and between ‘The ,[נר מצוה] ’and ‘The Commandment In our study of .[נר ה׳] Commandment’ and God the discourse of the Admor ha-Zaken, we will most importantly encounter the tension between the godly and the commanded – the infinitude of the divine as opposed to the borders, limits, and finitude of the system of However, prior to doing so, we .[תרי״ג מצוות] commandments will focus our attention for a moment on the tension between the soul and the commandment – the internal spiritual life of the believer relative to the externalized performance of the commandment. The emergence of Hasidism brought to the fore the following challenge – does the fact of an increased individual emphasis upon internal spiritual life mean that they will of necessity distance themselves from the practical framework of Halakha? In a different formulation, does the focus of Hasidism upon the ‘soul-candle’ mean that the light of the ‘commandment-candle’ will be dimmed? The tension between the two is clear: one’s obligation to do specific things affixed to specific times stands in opposition to one’s attunement with and attention to their own inner voice. Our own eyes see, and not just in connection with Jewish religious life, but that when one prefers their own personal truth, they do not behave according to the dictates and accepted norms of society at large. For example, one who desires to be ‘more authentic’ may be less polite, as the rules of etiquette are seen as external social constructions that dull one’s inner life. Similarly, for this type of individual, when it comes to Halakha, it will be approached and understood as a system that holds him back from his own truth, and not only that, but it sometimes will be perceived as a lie: from a Halakhic point of view, he must pray at specifically ordained times, but in his heart of hearts he knows that right now his prayers will not be fully sincere – but rather just ‘going through the motions’. Must this individual now answer the external call to prayer, or should they rather hold fast to their inner calling, thereby relaxing the connection to the outer Halakhic reality?[12] In truth, this question has yet another dimension, within which we may be able to sharpen our understanding – the chasm between objective and subjective experience. Should an individual seek out ‘The Truth’ through their own subjective experience, or should they rather find it in the absolutist objective realm of reality? Once a person apprehends ‘The Truth’ as a construction of their own subjective internal experience, the concept of truth loses its totality and becomes relativized. Truth instead becomes dependent upon one’s specific perspective, their emotions, feelings, and personal experiences. In this sense, Halakha is identified with the absolute and fixed sphere of reality – within which God commanded us, and this type of (א) .relativism is untenable in relation to it It is possible to argue that the ideal state is when the internal, personal truth is identified with the objective, external truth.[13] The meaning of this situation is that on one hand, the individual’s internal life is strong, on fire, and yet his sense of obligation to this internality is unassailable. This leads to a perspective where the inner life is understood as objective reality, absolute. A person in this type of situation loses their sense of relativity and their inner directives obtain the strength of an outside command, possessing no less force of obligation or truth. The problem with the situation within which we live is that our inner lives lack strength and force; Our inner lives are prone to ups and downs, steps forward and back. Because of the dullness of our internal lives, they are susceptible to all kinds of outside influences, and thus there is a subsequent lack of authenticity. This is the reason the Shulhan Arukh – not internal spirituality – is the basis for our religious obligations, it is the absolute cornerstone of our lives. To be sure, divine truth is revealed on a number of different levels and planes in our lives, and it is forbidden for an individual to think that this truth is obtainable only in one dimension – not in the internal or external life alone. An encompassing, total reality takes both lives into account and unifies them – both the internal and external; however, in an incomplete, non-ideal reality, to every dimension and perspective there are benefits and detriments, and we ignore either at our own peril. To this end, our rabbis taught us that we must serve God through both :[אהבה] ’and ‘love [יראה] ’fear‘ and so Hazal said, serve out of fear, serve out of love.'[14] Admor ha-Zaken Until now, we have seen the apposition between the mitzvah candle and the neshama candle, to wit – the conflict between the formal Halakhic system and the unmediated spirituality sought by Hasidism. This is a spirituality that has as a central prerequisite the authenticity of action, an authenticity that stands in opposition to the fact that the believer stands commanded to perform certain actions at appointed, limited times. In his discourse for Hanukkah, Admor ha-Zaken deals with yet another tension addressed by Hasidism, especially in the system of Habad Hasidism: What is the connection of physical actions – the performance of the commandments – with the metaphysical, spiritual ‘payoff’ they are supposed to engender, such as an attainment of closeness with God? Furthermore, the commandments, as they are sensed and experienced through action, are part of the world .the finite and created human reality – [יש] of tangibility Therefore, what connection can these have with faith in the divine infinity? As it appears, the progression of the Admor ha-Zaken is a dialectical approach: one on hand, he presents the commandments in a strictly utilitarian manner without any truly inherent value, but on the other, it is this very groundedness of the commandments in our reality that accords to them their roots in the pure divine will: It is written: ‘A Mitzvah is a candle and the Torah is Light,’ that the Mitzvot are called ‘candle.’ And it is also written: ‘the candle of God is the soul of Man’, that the soul is called ‘candle’. And in the Zohar it is explained that the Mitzvot are called ‘garments’… and in order to be fully clothed, the soul must fulfill all 613 Mitzvot… and to explain the matter of the soul’s garments… [that] there are boundless illuminations… for there are countless understandings of the light and the glow, which is an emanation of the infinite light of [God] Blessed be He… The delights that derive from the infinite light, which is the source of all delights, are without end. Just as we perceive with our senses even… physical delights are also without measure, for there are infinite ways to experience pleasure… Because of this, the soul – which is in the aspect of the finite – is unable to fully apprehend the revelation of this glow, which is the very being of the divine, except through a garment – a filter – and through that garment and filter [the soul] is able to receive the light and the glow.[15] The soul requires ‘garments’, for without these garments and filters, there is no comprehension. I will try to explain what I mean here: for example, when we speak of ‘eternal are we talking about remembering the ,[זכרון נצח] ’memory content of that person’s life, as if we are recording into a computer a reporter’s notes that are now being entered into the system? Of course that is not what we are referring to. All these moments of a person’s life are ‘garments’, a medium for the real that occurred in them. This real is not something specific, not a definable factor, but rather is the thing that grants meaning to the content of those experiences, even though it itself is undefinable.[16] Thus, ‘eternal life’ is life that retains with it the meaning of these experiences – something which can never be quantified or simply entered into a computer.[17] This undefinable thing that grants meaning, the ‘lifeforce’ to everything else, is what Admor ha-Zaken calls the ‘glow of .[זיו מאור אינסוף] ’the infinite light It is not simply ‘meaning’, but rather the ‘meaning of all meaning’. In the discourse before us, as well as in other discourses of his, Admor ha-Zaken draws a line, a parallel, between this glow and the actual substance of delight and pleasure that in our world always appears via a medium, some physical object. Pleasure will never materialize in this world in its pure state – like delight in the earthly realm that always devolves from something outside it, like when we take pleasure in some delicious food or in the study of some wisdom.[18] If so, the commandments are garments through which our world obtains its substance and standing – its meaning. In the language of Admor ha-Zaken, the commandments act as a conduit for the infinite light to penetrate into our world. That is to say, the commandments as an entire system of life form a space within which a person may (ב) .experience the eros of true meaning Through them, an individual may feel alive, that is sensations of satisfaction, excitement, longing, the joy of commandment, and intimacy – all these we may incorporate metonymically into the word ‘light’ or ‘holiness’, that which Admor ha-Zaken would call ‘delight’ or ‘pleasure’. In order for this light to be apprehended, it must be garbed in the outer trappings of the commandments. This is to say, that the commandments themselves are not the essence of the light and de-light, that they are not the meaningful point of existence, but rather only a garment, that receives its light only by dint of the fact that the subjective experience of holiness and pleasure are felt through it. As Admor ha-Zaken explains in the discourse we are studying: behold, the Mitzvah act… is not the way of the divine infinite light to be infused in them [Mitzvot] unless it is through… the Godly soul itself that performs the Mitzvah, and draws forth through them a revelation of the divine infinite light. As it is written [about Mitzvot]: ‘that the individual shall perform them’ – that it is the individual that makes them into Mitzvot, in drawing forth through them the infinite light.[19] The Source of The Commandments To be sure, it is possible to say that any way of life or cultural system is but a garment for the infinite light, for it is this system which bears the weight of the meaning of life and the essence of reality [for its adherents]. An individual experiences life through cultural constructs and the social systems – especially the most critical ones such as love, longing, lower/higher fears, loyalty, etc. – all these things grant to life meaning and purpose, something we wouldn’t trade for anything. Therefore, in Hasidism, recognition of this truth is related to the fact that the world that is – [עשרה מאמרות] ’was created through ‘ten utterances to say, even without a specifically religious language, such as the ‘ten through which the divine light is [עשרת הדיברות] ’statements revealed. For Admor ha-Zaken’s part, there remains a difference between these systems and the system of the commandments: while it is true that the commandments are a ‘human system’, ideally/from their very inception they are rooted in the infinite reality from which they devolved. At this point, Admor ha-Zaken ceases to see the commandments as merely a garment or tool alone, but rather that they themselves represent constitute a direct encounter with the presence of the divine in our reality. This is to say that the commandments are a system meant to signify and symbolize the infinite itself.[20] They don’t simply give expression to it, but direct us to it as well. How do the commandments symbolize? As a system, they point to the divine will itself, for as a closed system, they lack resolution, purpose. One might even say that it is not that we have here a symbol signifying something that we are meant to understand, but rather that the signified is חור] ’incomprehensibility itself, the void‘ within the void In order to understand these things, we .[שבחור must pay attention to the differentiation Admor ha-Zaken makes between ‘the and the ‘essential [אור אינסוף] ’infinite light [עצם רצון אא״ס] ’will of the infinite light : It is impossible for the essential will of the infinite light to be revealed to any created being, unless that divine will is embodied in some physical act, the performance of the Mitzvah… and the root of the Mitzvot is very lofty, rooted in the uppermost realms of the supernal crown, ‘Keter’… until it devolves into our realm through physical actions and things, Tzitzit and Sukkah, and it is specifically in these things that the divine will is revealed, ‘the final in deed is In action …[סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה]’first in thought heaven was [created] first… but in thought physicality came first… for the light is revealed from the aspect of divinity that encompasses all realms… Thus the performance of Mitzvot, whose root lies in this encompassing aspect of divinity – the supernal ‘Keter’ – cannot be expressed below in the aspect of ‘inner light’ ,[אור פנימי] [in finite and internal experience], but rather must find their expression in exterior, physical actions, as it is well known that that which in its essence is more lofty and elevated falls to the deeper depths. Therefore, through the performance of Mitzvot, there is created a covering, an encompassing screen, so that through the Mitzvot the [soul] may be able to delight in the delight of the infinite light…[21] Admor ha-Zaken locates in the commandments a type of dual identity based on the system he constructs: as a they are only a vessel through which the ,[לבוש] garment infinite divine light finds expression – the delight of the soul, holiness, all that is perceived as the essence of this world. The commandments themselves are not the inner aspect of life but rather a medium for this interiority. On the other hand, Admor ha-Zaken identifies them with the a reality that cannot be truly ;[מקיפים] encompassing’ lights‘ apprehended or experienced within ours. This is to say that the root of the commandments are as vessels, conduits of a reality beyond ours – ‘the essential will of the infinite light’. Manifest in this is a classic HaBaD teaching, which Admor ha-Zaken formulates thusly: that which in its essence is more lofty and elevated falls to the deeper depths. We locate the root of the commandments, which in reality are purely utilitarian and without their own essential, inherent meaning, in the very essence and core of the divine. The claim of Admor ha-Zaken is that the source of the commandments is to be found in the the divine will itself. The meaning of the commandments is not resolved through adhering to some system of rules, some ethical or moral ideal, or some historical-progressive idea through which they were conceived.[22] In the most simple sense, God ‘wanted’ commandments, and through this there developed a system with meaning and sense, ,[חכמה] ’which we might call ‘wisdom but that system does not fully define the will of the creator, nor is it necessary in the absolute sense. In the aforementioned discourse, Admor ha-Zaken holds that the actual ‘end’ action precedes the thought that somehow explains and gives it meaning, because in truth it is the action, the physical performance of the commandment is affixed to the divine will that warrants it to be done this particular way and no differently – for no humanly discernable reason. This is the way of the divine will, to ‘desire’ without dependence upon any externally motivating factor. One might say that as they [the commandments] are affixed in the divine will, the commandments as such signify a degree of arbitrariness and happenstance.[23] The commandments serve as a reminder of the ultimate unknowability of the divine will that tautologically ‘desires because it desires’. This is also the reason why the commandments primarily take the form of actions and not intentions. As actions, the commandments manifest themselves as closed, sealed objects, their meanings not easily teased out nor defined by the meanings attached to them – ultimately, there is just the [darkness and] light and the delight that we are able to attain through it. ______Notes: [1] For example, see “Shnayim Ohazin: A Conversation Between R. Aharon Lichtenstein and R. Shagar”, Shma’atin Journal vol. 136 (Nissan 1998); also appearing in Meimad, Vol. 17, August 1999; see further the synopsis and translation by Rachel Schloss for the Lookstein teacher’s resource archivehere ; See also questions posed to R. Uri Sherki, a popular National Religious lecturer and teacher on the topic of R. Shagar and postmodernism, here. [2] Two of R. Shagar’s monographs have been released in trans. Naftali ,(פור היא הגורל) English: Chance and Providence Moses (Efrat: Yeshivat Siach Yitzchak, 2005), 108 pp. and The Human and the Infinite: Discourses on the Meaning of Penitence trans. Naftali Moses (Jerusalem: Toby ,(על כפות המנעול) Press, 2010), 88 pp. [3] To my knowledge, the most extensive study of R. Shagar in English to date has been conducted by Miriam Feldmann Kaye of the Van Leer Institute and Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Dr. Kaye holds a PhD from the University of Haifa, and her doctoral dissertation deals extensively with the encounter of Judaism and postmodernism in the thought of R. Shagar and Tamar Ross. It is forthcoming as Jewish Theology in a Postmodern Age published by The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization [2017]. Kaye’s draft study, “Hasidic Philosophy in the Age of Postmodernism and Relativism: The Case of Rav Shagar” was discussed at the March 2015 Orthodox Forum, “The Contemporary Uses and Forms of Hasidut” chaired by R. Shmuel Hain and R. Shlomo Zuckier. Hopefully Kaye’s fascinating paper will see light in the upcoming volume of in the Orthodox Forum series. Ilan Fuchs deals, inter alia, with R. Shagar’s perspective on Torah learning for women and Orthodox feminism in Women’s Torah Study: Orthodox Education and Modernity (Routledge press: New York, 2014), 209-220 See Alan Jotkowitz, “And Now the Child Will Ask: The Post- Modern Theology of Rav Shagar,” Tradition 45:2 (2012); R. Yair Dreyfuss, “Torah Study in Contemporary Times: Conservatism or Revolution?”, Tradition 45:2 (2012); Admiel Kosman, “A Letter in Search of a Destination” [review of The Remainder of Faith] in Ha’aretz, 2/27/15, available here; R. Zvi Leshem, “Book Review: B’Torato Yehageh: Limud Gemara Kibakashat Elokim,” available here; Alan Brill has dedicated several fascinating posts to R. Shagar, his thought, and its larger ramifications for Israeli society on his blog, ‘The Book of Doctrines and Opinions’. A good starting point is his discussion of a curious film about R. Shagar produced by the Ma’aleh film school, available here. [4] l’Ha’ir et ha-Petahim (Efrat: Makhon Kitve ha-Rav Shagar, 2014) 242 pp. [5] Other volumes that have already been released include In on Sukkot, A Time for Freedom (בצל האמונה) the Shadow of Faith (זמן של חירות) on Israeli national (ביום ההוא) on Passover, and On That Day holidays. [6] In general, see Roman A. Foxbrunner, Habad: The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady(Jason Aronson, 1993); Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism (Brandeis University Press, 2015); Naftali Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990). [7] R. Shagar is accused of a certain naivete with regard to the possibility and rigor of this type of thinking, see Kosman, idem. and see also the editor’s introduction to R. Shagar, Luhot ve-Shivrei Luhot (Yediot Ahronot, 2013); 407 pp. for a discussion of the autodidactic nature of R. Shagar’s engagement with general philosophy, specifically postmodern thought. לכב׳ ראש השנה לחסידות יום שיחרור אדמוה״ז [8] .זיע״א י״ט כסלו ה׳תשע״ו [9] Thanks is due to R. Eli Rubin for his insight and comments. [10] R. Hershel Schachter once quipped that perhaps the name “Schneur” two lights), in =) שני אור was a portmanteau of the naming after two different people with the name “Meir” – quite appropriate for one who was able to draw such deep meaning from even the two lights within the candle’s flame. [11] Torah Ohr, Miketz 33a. [12] A prime example of this would be the controversy surrounding the practice of postponing prayer times. During the formative years of Hasidism, many Hasidic leaders (such as the the Seer of Lublin, The Holy Jew, and The Kotzker Rebbe) held that in order to focus the heart properly for prayer it is permissible to delay the time for prayer, despite violating the clear Halakhic guidelines governing it in the Shulhan Arukh. [13] Thus we reduce conflict between the soul-life and the practical-life. See further torah no. 33 in Lectures on Likkutei Moharan vol. 1, 295-310; torah no. 6, ad loc., 68. [14] Commentary of R. Ovadia Bartenura on the Mishnah, Avot 1:3. I will point out, however, that it is basically impossible to impose upon someone a completely external commandment, and so in this way even the ability to follow an external command is a matter of personal prerogative, and therefore related to the realm of personal freedom. This is to say that the internality of a person itself transitions between many different phases – sometimes appearing as the freedom to be unfree/limited and inauthentic. [15] Torah Ohr, ad loc. 32d. [16] We must differentiate between ‘sense’ and ‘meaning’ [english in the original; JR]. As we shall soon see, ‘the glow of the infinite’ [that is to say, the ‘spiritual background radiation’, the reflection of the infinite source of light illuminating our moon-world; JR] is what gives ‘sense’ to ‘meaning’ [without it, the slip into nihilism begins; JR]. As long as ‘sense’ is completely attached to the level of content – words, actions, situations – ‘meaning’ becomes the internal, animating force behind these, granting these things spiritual ‘weight’. [17] There is a touch of autobiography here. R. Shagar worked extensively on notes and files from his oeuvre, hundreds of which were saved on his computer, from which the Institute for the Publication of the Works of R. Shagar compiles, edits, and publishes his voluminous writings posthumously. [18] R. Schneur Zalman of Liady, Likkutei Torah, addenda to Parshat Vayikra, 52a. [19] Torah Ohr, ad loc. 33c. [20] This may be likened to the Lacanian idea of the real. [see Jacques Lacan, Symbol and Language: The Language of the Self (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1956); Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (London: Routledge, 1996), entry: “real”. JR] [21] Torah Ohr, ad loc. pp. 32d-33a. [22] The position of the Admor ha-Zaken here parallels in a certain sense the positions of Yeshayahu Leibowitz with regards to the commandments. See further R. Shagar, “Faith and Language According to the Admor ha-Zaken of Habad,” Nehalekh b’Regesh, pp. 175-178. [23] See R. Shagar, Pur hu ha-Goral; .(בענ׳ את יעקב אהבתי ואת עשו שנאתי) 32-37 The Princess and I: Academic Kabbalists/Kabbalist Academics

ב”ה The Princess and I[1] Academic Kabbalists/Kabbalist Academics לכב’ יומא דהילולא דרשב”י ל”ג בעומר by Josh Rosenfeld Josh Rosenfeld is the Assistant Rabbi at Lincoln Square Synagogue and on the Judaic Studies Faculty at SAR High School. This is his second contribution to the Seforim blog. His first essay, on “The Nazir in New York,” is available (here). The last few decades have witnessed the veritable explosion of “new perspectives” and horizons in the academic study of Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism. From the pioneering work of the late Professor Gershom Scholem, and the establishment of the study of Jewish Mysticism as a legitimate scholarly pursuit, we witness a scene nowadays populated by men and women, Jews and non-Jews, who have challenged, (re)constructed, and expanded upon Scholem’s work.[2] These men and women themselves have been variously praised and criticized themselves for sometimes blurring the lines between academician and practitioner of Kabbalah and mysticism.[3] Professor Boaz Huss of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev has done extensive work in this area.[4] One of the most impressive examples of this fusion of identities is Professor Yehuda Liebes (Jerusalem, 1947-) of Hebrew University, who completed his doctoral studies under Scholem, and rose to prominence himself by challenging scholarly orthodoxies established by his mentor. On a personal note, the initial encounter between so-called ‘traditional’ notions of Kabbalah and academic scholarship was a jarring one, calling into question aspects of faith and fealty to long-held beliefs.[5] In a moment of presumption, I would imagine that this same process is part and parcel of many peoples’ paths to a more mature and nuanced conception of Torah and tradition, having undergone the same experience. The discovery of scholar/practitioners like Prof. Liebes, and the fusion of mysticism and scholarship in their constructive (rather than de- constructive) work has served to help transcend and erase the tired dichotomies and conflicts that previously wracked the traditional readers’ mind.[6] It is in this sense, and in honor of the 33rd of the ‘Omer – the Rosh ha-Shana of The Zohar and Jewish Mysticism that I present here an expanded and annotated translation of Rabbi Menachem Hai Shalom Froman’s poem and pean to his teacher, Professor Yehuda Liebes.[7] Study of the unprecedented relationship between the two, and other traditional/academic academic/traditional Torah relationships remains a scholarly/traditional desideratum.[8] Rabbi Menachem Froman was born in 1945, in Kfar Hasidim, Israel, and served as the town rabbi of Teko’a in the West Bank of Israel. During his military service, served as an IDF paratrooper and was one of the first to reach the Western Wall.. He was a student of R. Zvi Yehuda Kook at Yeshivat Merkaz ha-Rav and also studied Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A founder of Gush Emunim, R. Froman was the founder of Erets Shalom and advocate of interfaith-based peace negotiation and reconciliation with Muslim Arabs. As a result of his long-developed personal friendships, R. Froman served as a negotiator with leaders from both the PLO and Hamas. He has been called a “maverick Rabbi,” likened to an “Old Testament seer,”[9] and summed him up as “a very esoteric kind of guy.”[10] Others have pointed to R. Froman’s expansive and sophisticated religious imagination; at the same time conveying impressions of ‘madness’ that some of R. Froman’s outward appearances, mannerisms, and public activities may have engendered amongst some observers.[11] He passed away in 2013. R. Froman was not known for his written output, although recently a volume collecting some of his programmatic and public writing has appeared, Sahaki ‘Aretz (Jerusalem: Yediot and Ruben Mass Publishers: 2014).[12] I hope to treat the book and its fascinating material in a future post at the Seforim blog. [13] The Princess and I Menachem Froman Translated and Annotated by Josh Rosenfeld II Samuel 6:12-23 And she saw him, dancing and leaping[14] amongst lambs and goats it troubled her[15] and she despised him in her heart that had opened to love she had com/passion and she sought from her father to be his wife[16] And she saw him, dancing and leaping with her in the ways of men amidst the longing of doves[17] it troubled her and she despised him in her heart at the moment of intimacy she had com/passion upon him like the embrace of parting moment[18] And she saw him, dancing and leaping amongst foreign matrons it troubled her and she despised him in her heart that he had left her in pain and she resorted to the honor of her father and the garb of royals He saw her, and he leapt and he danced in the presence of the glory of his God he was troubled and he despised in his heart conceiving the troubles in hers he had com/passion yet still returned to his flocks and his herds to the dancing and leaping he loved ______It is through this poem, written many years ago, that I wish to join with those who are honoring my teacher and Rebbe Muvhak [ =longtime teacher] Professor Yehuda Liebes, shlit”a [ =may he merit long life] (or, as my own students in the Yeshiva are used to hearing during my lectures, Rebbe u’Mori ‘Yudele’ who disguises himself as Professor Liebes…). This poem (at least according to its authorial intent), describes the ambivalent relationship between two poles; between Mikhal, the daughter of Saul, who is connected to the world of kingship and royalty, organized and honorable – and David, the wild shepherd, a Judean ‘Hilltop Youth’ [ =no’ar gev’aot]. Why did I find (and it pleases me to add: with the advice of my wife) that the description of the complex relationship between Mikhal, who comes from a yekkishe family, and David, who comes from a Polish hasidishe family, is connected to [Prof.] Yehuda [Liebes]? (By the way, Yehuda’s family on his father’s side comes from a city which is of doubtful Polish or German sovereignty). Because it may be proper, to attempt to reveal the secret of Yehuda – how it is possible to bifurcate his creativity into the following two ingredients: the responsible, circumspect (medu-yekke) scientific foundation, and the basic value of lightness and freedom. Seriousness and mirth (as he analyzes with intensity in his essay “Zohar and Eros”[19]), formality and excess (as he explains in his book, “The Doctrine of Creation according to Sefer Yetsirah“[20]), contraction and expansion, saying and the unsaid, straightness ( =shura) and song ( =shira). Words that stumble in the dark, seek in the murky mist, for there lies the divine secret. Maimonides favors the words: wisdom and will; and in the Zohar, Yehuda’s book, coupling and pairs are of course, quite central: left as opposed to right, might ( =gevura) as opposed to lovingkindness ( =hesed), and also masculinity as opposed to the feminine amongst others. I too, will also try: the foundation of intellectualism and the foundation of sensualism found by Yehuda. Do these two fundamental aspects of Yehuda’s creativity mesh together to form a unity? This poem, which I have dedicated to Yehuda, follows in the simple meaning of the biblical story of the love between Mikhal and David, and it does not have a ‘happy ending’; they separate from each other – and their love does not bear fruit. Here is also the fitting place to point out that our Yehuda also merited much criticism from within the academic community, and not all find in his oeuvre a unified whole or scientific coherence of value. But perhaps this is to be instead found by his students! I am used to suggesting in my lectures my own interpretation of ‘esotericism’/secret: that which is impossible to [fully] understand, that which is ultimately not logically or rationally acceptable. I will conclude with a story ‘in praise of Liebes’ (Yehuda explained to me that he assumes the meaning of his family name is: one who is related to a woman named Liba or, in the changing of a name, one who is related to an Ahuva/loved one). As is well known, in the past few years, Yehuda has the custom of ascending ( =‘aliya le-regel)[21] on La”g b’Omer to the celebration ( =hilula) of RaShb”I[22] in Meron. Is there anyone who can comprehend – including Yehuda himself – how a university professor, whose entire study of Zohar is permeated with the notion that the Zohar is a book from the thirteenth- century (and himself composed an entire monograph: “How the Zohar Was Written?”[23]), can be emotionally invested along with the masses of the Jewish people from all walks of life, in the celebration of RaShb”I, the author of the Holy Zohar? Four years ago, Yehuda asked me to join him on this pilgrimage to Meron, and I responded to him with the following point: when I stay put, I deliver a long lecture on the Zohar to many students on La”g b’Omer, and perhaps this is more than going to the grave of RaShb”I.[24] Yehuda bested me, and roared like a lion: “All year long – Zohar, but on La”g b’Omer – RaShb”I!” God’s secret is with/in those who fear him, and his covenant makes it known.[25]

[1] I wish to thank yedidi R’ Menachem Butler for his patient guidance and assistance in the preparation of this short essay. His expertise and erudition is something worthy of true admiration. Thanks, as well, is also due to the other editors at the Seforim Blog for their consideration of this piece, and for providing such a remarkable, long-running platform for the dissemination, discussion, and study of Jewish culture and thought [2] It is no understatement to say that there is a vast literature on the late Professor Gershom Scholem and for an important guide, see Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism, second edition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2014). See also Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, eds. Joseph Dan and Peter Schafer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 1-15 (“Introduction by the Editors”); Essential Papers on Kabbalah, ed. Lawrence Fine (New York: NYU Press, 1995); Mysticism, Magic, and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism, eds. Karl Erich Grozinger and Joseph Dan (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995);Kabbalah and Modernity: Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, eds. Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi and Kocku von Stuckrad (Leiden: Brill, 2010), among other fine works of academic scholarship. For a unique example of a non-apologetic traditional engagement with Scholem’s work, see R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (ShaGaR), Nehalekh be-Regesh (Efrat: Mahon Kitve ha- Rav Shagar, 2010), 75-97, especially 77-78 (Hebrew), which I hope to explore in a future essay at the Seforim blog. [3] While representing a range of academic approaches, these scholars can be said to have typified a distinct phenomenological approach to the academic study of Kabbalah and what is called “Jewish Mysticism.” See Boaz Huss, “The Mystification of Kabbalah and the Myth of Jewish Mysticism,” Peamim 110 (2007): 9-30 (Hebrew), which has been shortened into English adaptations in Boaz Huss, “The Mystification of the Kabbalah and the Modern Construction of Jewish Mysticism,” BGU Review 2 (2008), available online (here); and Boaz Huss, “Jewish Mysticism in the University: Academic Study or Theological Practice?” Zeek (December 2006), available online (here). [4] See Boaz Huss, “Spirituality: The Emergence of a New Cultural Category and its Challenge to the Religious and the Secular,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 29:1 (January 2014): 47-60; see further in Boaz Huss, “The Theologies of Kabbalah Research,” Modern Judaism 34:1 (February 2014): 3-26; and Boaz Huss, “Authorized Guardians: The Polemics Of Academic Scholars Of Jewish Mysticism Against Kabbalah Practitioners,” in Olav Hammer and Kocku von Stuckrad, eds., Polemical Encounters: Esoteric Discourse and Its Others (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 85-104. On the difficulty of pinning down just what is meant by the word ‘mysticism’ here, see Ron Margolin, “Jewish Mysticism in the 20th Century: Between Scholarship and Thought,” in Haviva Pedaya and Ephraim Meir, eds., Judaism: Topics, Fragments, Facets, and Identities – Sefer Rivkah (=Rivka Horwitz Jubilee Volume) (Be’er Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 2007; Hebrew), 225-276; see also the introduction to Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 1-31, especially 10-19, where Schäfer attempts to give a precis of the field and the various definitions of what he terms “a provocative title.” See Boaz Huss, “Spirituality: The Emergence of a New Cultural Category and its Challenge to the Religious and the Secular,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 29:1 (January 2014): 47-60; see further in Boaz Huss, “The Theologies of Kabbalah Research,” Modern Judaism 34:1 (February 2014): 3-26; and Boaz Huss, “Authorized Guardians: The Polemics Of Academic Scholars Of Jewish Mysticism Against Kabbalah Practitioners,” in Olav Hammer and Kocku von Stuckrad, eds., Polemical Encounters: Esoteric Discourse and Its Others (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 85-104. On the difficulty of pinning down just what is meant by the word ‘mysticism’ here, see Ron Margolin, “Jewish Mysticism in the 20th Century: Between Scholarship and Thought,” in Haviva Pedaya and Ephraim Meir, eds., Judaism: Topics, Fragments, Facets, and Identities – Sefer Rivkah (=Rivka Horwitz Jubilee Volume) (Be’er Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 2007; Hebrew), 225-276; see also the introduction to Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 1-31, especially 10-19, where Schäfer attempts to give a precis of the field and the various definitions of what he terms “a provocative title,” as well earlier in Peter Schäfer, Gershom Scholem Reconsidered: The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1986). [5] For an example of the sometimes fraught encounter and oppositional traditional stance regarding the academic study of Kabbalah, see Jonatan Meir, “The Boundaries of the Kabbalah: R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel and the Kabbalah in Jerusalem,” in Boaz Huss, ed., Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival (Be’er Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2011), 176-177. Inter alia, Meir discusses the adoption of publishing houses like R. Hillel’sHevrat Ahavat Shalom of “safe” academic practices such as examining Ms. for textual accuracy when printing traditional Kabbalistic works. See also R. Yaakov Hillel, “Understanding Kabbalah,” in Ascending Jacob’s Ladder (Brooklyn: Ahavat Shalom Publications, 2007), 213-240; and the broader discussion in Daniel Abrams, “Textual Fixity and Textual Fluidity: Kabbalistic Textuality and the Hypertexualism of Kabbalah Scholarship,” in Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism, second edition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2014), 664-722. [6] For a scholarly overview of Liebes’ work, see Jonathan Garb, “Yehuda Liebes’ Way in the Study of the Jewish Religion,” in Maren R. Niehoff, Ronit Meroz, and Jonathan Garb, eds., ve-Zot le-Yehuda – And This Is For Yehuda: Yehuda Liebes Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2012), 11-17 (Hebrew); and for an example of a popular treatment of Liebes, see Dahlia Karpel, “Lonely Scholar,”Ha’aretz (12 March 2009), available online here (http://www.haaretz.com/lonely-scholar-1.271914). [7] The poem and essay were first published in Menachem Froman, “The King’s Daughter and I,” in Maren R. Niehoff, Ronit Meroz, and Jonathan Garb, eds., ve-Zot le-Yehuda – And This Is For Yehuda: Yehuda Liebes Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2012), 34-35 (Hebrew). The translation and annotation of this essay at the Seforim blog has been prepared by Josh Rosenfeld. [8] For a sketch of the (non)interactions of traditional and academic scholarship in the case of Gershom Scholem, see Boaz Huss, “Ask No Questions: Gershom Scholem and the Study of Contemporary Jewish Mysticism,” Modern Judaism 25:2 (May 2005) 141-158. See also Shaul Magid, “Mysticism, History, and a ‘New’ Kabbalah: Gershom Scholem and the Contemporary Scene,” Jewish Quarterly Review 101:4 (Fall 2011): 511-525; and Shaul Magid, “‘The King Is Dead [and has been for three decades], Long Live the King’: Contemporary Kabbalah and Scholem’s Shadow,” Jewish Quarterly Review 102:1 (Winter 2012): 131-153. [9] See the obituary in Douglas Martin, “Menachem Froman, Rabbi Seeking Peace, Dies at 68,” The New York Times (9 March 2013), available online (here). Speaking to a member of the Israeli media at R. Froman’s funeral, the author and journalist Yossi Klein Halevi described “Rav Menachem” as “somebody who, as a Jew, loved his people, loved his land, loved humanity – without making distinctions, he was a man of the messianic age, he saw something of the redemption and tried to bring it into an unredeemed reality,” available online here (here). [10] R. Froman’s mystical political theology permeated his own personal existence. Even on what was to become his deathbed, he related in interviews how he conceived of his illness in terms of his political vision: “How do you feel?” “You are coming to me after a very difficult night, there were great miracles. It is forbidden to fight with these pains, we must flow with them, otherwise the pain just grows and overcomes us. This is what there is, this is the reality that we must live with.Such is the political reality, and so too with the disease.” (Interview with Yehoshua Breiner, Walla! News Org.; 3/4/13, emphasis mine) [11] See, for example, the short, incisive treatment of Noah Feldman, “Is a Jew Meshuga for Wanting to Live in Palestine?” Bloomberg News (7 March 2013), available online (here), who concisely presents the obvious paradox of “The Settler Rabbi” who nevertheless advocates for a Palestinian State, and outlines the central challenges to R. Froman’s “peace theology” from practical security concerns for Jews living in such a state to the challenges of unrealistic idealism in R. Froman’s thought.

[12] A presentation of some of the first translations of some of Sahaki ‘Aretz’ fascinating material, can be seen online (here). [13] A preliminary scholarly overview of R. Froman’s literary output and sui generis personality is the forthcoming essay by Professor Shaul Magid, “(Re)Thinking American Jewish Zionist Identity: A Case for PostZionism in the Diaspora.” To the best of my knowledge, Professor Magid’s currently unpublished essay is the first scholarly treatment of R. Froman’s writings in Sahaki ‘Aretz, although see the brief review by Ariel Seri-Levi, “The Vision of the Prophet Menachem, Rebbe Menachem Froman,” Ha’aretz Literary Supplement (9 February 2015; Hebrew). I would like to thank Menachem Butler for introducing me to Professor Magid. [14] King David is at times referred to as the badhana d’malka, or “Jester of the King” (see Zohar, II:107a); Liebes treats the subject at length in Yehuda Liebes, “The Book of Zohar and Eros,” Alpayim 9 (1994): 67-119 (Hebrew). [15] Gen. 41:8 [16] For an outlining of the parallel, sometimes oppositional, and rarely unified relationships between the two royal lineages of Joseph and Judah, see the remarkable presentation of R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica (1801-1854), Mei ha-Shiloah, vol. 1, pp. 47-48, 54-56. On these passages, see Shaul Magid, Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism in Izbica/Radzin Hasidism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 120, 147, 154, et al. The marriage of David to Mikhal, daughter of Saul, represented an attempted mystical fusion of the two houses and their perhaps complementary spiritual roots, as R. Froman alludes to later in his essay. [17] Song of Songs 2:14, 5:2. See, most recently, Michael Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary: Song of Songs (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015), 75-76, 133-135. [18] 1 Kings 7:36, see also b. Yoma 54b with commentary of Rashi. [19] Yehuda Liebes, “The Book of Zohar and Eros,” Alpayim 9 (1994): 67-119 (Hebrew) [20] Yehuda Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetzirah (Jerusalem: Schocken, 2000; Hebrew) and see the important review by Elliot R. Wolfson, “Text, Context, and Pretext: Review Essay of Yehuda Liebes’sArs Poetica in Sefer Yetsira,” Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004): 218-228. [21] See the start of this essay, where we defined Lag ba-Omer in the sense of the Kabbalistic/Mystical Rosh ha-Shana. For an overview of Lag ba-Omer and it’s unique connection to the study of the Zohar, see Naftali Toker, “Lag ba-Omer: A Small Holiday of Great Meaning and Deep Secrets,” Shana beShana (2003): 57-78 (Hebrew), available online (here). [22] See Boaz Huss, “Holy Place, Holy Time, Holy Book: The Influence of the Zohar on Pilgrimage Rituals to Meron and the Lag ba-Omer Festival,” Kabbalah 7 (2002): 237-256 (Hebrew). [23] Yehuda Liebes, “How the Zohar Was Written,” in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993), 85-139. For an exhaustive survey of all of the scholarship on the authorship of the Zohar, see Daniel Abrams, “The Invention of the Zohar as a Book” inKabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism, second edition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2014), 224-438. [24] Towards the end of his life, R. Froman delivered extended meditations/learning of Zohar and works of the Hasidic masters in a caravan at the edge of the Teko’a settlement in Gush Etzion. These ‘arvei shirah ve-Torah were usually joined by famous Israeli musicians, such as the Banai family and Barry Sakharov. One particular evening was graced with Professor Liebes’ presence, whereupon Liebes and Froman proceeded to jointly teach from the Zohar. It is available online (here). [25] Ps. 25:14; See Tikkunei Zohar 17b, 65a; For the connection of this verse with the 33rd of the ‘Omer, see R. Elimelekh of Dinov, B’nei Yissachar: Ma’amarei Hodesh Iyyar, 3:2. For an exhaustive discussion of the 33rd day of the ‘Omer and its connection with Rashbi, see R. Asher Zelig Margaliot (1893-1969), Hilula d’Rashbi (Jerusalem: 1941), available online (here), On R. Asher Zelig Margaliot, see Paul B. Fenton, “Asher Zelig Margaliot, An Ultra Orthodox Fundamentalist,” in Raphael Patai and Emanuel S. Goldsmith, eds., Thinkers and Teachers of Modern Judaism (New York: Paragon House, 1994), 17-25; and see also Yehuda Liebes, “The Ultra-Orthodox Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1982): 137-152 (Hebrew), cited in Adiel Schremer, “‘[T]he[y] Did Not Read in the Sealed Book’: Qumran Halakhic Revolution and the Emergence of Torah Study in Second Temple Judaism,” in David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz, eds., Historical Perspectives from the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 105-126. R. Asher Zelig Margaliot’s Hilula d’Rashbi is printed in an abridged form in the back of Eshkol Publishing’s edition of R. Avraham Yitzhak Sperling’s Ta’amei ha-Minhagim u’Mekorei ha-Dinim and for sources and translations relating to the connection of RaShb”I and the pilgrimage (yoma d’pagra) to his grave in Meron, see (here).

The Nazir in New York

ב”ה The Nazir in New York Josh Rosenfeld I. Mishnat ha-Nazir הוצאת נזר דוד שע”י מכון אריאל ירושלים, 2005 קכ’36+ עמודים הראל כהן וידידיה כהן, עורכים A few years ago, during his daily shiur, R. Herschel Schachter related that he and his wife had met someone called ‘the Nazir’ during a trip to Israel. R. Schachter quoted the Nazir’s regarding the difficulty Moshe had with the division of the land in the matter the daughters of Zelophehad and the Talmudic assertion (Baba Batra 158b) that “the air of the Land of Israel enlightens”. Although the gist of the connection I have by now unfortunately forgotten, what I do remember is R. Schachter citing the hiddush of a modern-day Nazir, and how much of a curio it was at the time. ‘The Nazir’, or R. David Cohen (1887-1972) probably would have been quite satisfied with that. Towards the end of Mishnat ha-Nazir (Jerusalem, 2005) – to my knowledge, the most extensive excerpting of the Nazir’s diaries since the the three-volume gedenkschrift Nezir Ehav (Jerusalem, 1978), and the selections printed in Prof. Dov Schwartz’ “Religious Zionism: Between Messianism and Rationalism” (Tel Aviv, 1999) – we see the Nazir himself fully conscious of the hiddush :(עמ’ ע) of his personal status נזיר הנני, שם זה הנני נושא בהדר קודש. אלמלא לא באתי אלא בשביל זה, לפרסם שם זה, להיות בלבות זרע קודש ישראל, צעירי הצאן, זכרונות קודשי עברם הגדול, בגילוי שכינה, טהרה וקדושה, להכות בלבם הרך גלי געגועים לעבר זה שיקום ויהיה לעתיד, חידוש ימינו כקדם, גם בשביל זה כדאי לשאת ולסבול and :(זכרונות מבית אבא מארי ,similarly (p. 22 נזיר הנני, מדרגה לנבואה. אילו זכיתי לבוא לעולם רק לשם כך, לפרסם מחדש שם זה, נזיר, כעובדת חיים בימינו, כדי להזכיר שאנחנו עומדים ערב תחיית הנבואה בישראל, דייני ______The basic outline of the Nazir’s life[1] finds a Yeshiva student from an esteemed Rabbinic family near Lithuania shuttling from place to place in interwar Europe, meeting with R. Abraham Isaac ha-Kohen Kook during his stay in Switzerland, and studying Western Philosophy in the University of Basel,[2] only to be consumed by a desire to reconnect with his spiritual master in the Land of Israel, which he was able to do some years later. Upon reaching Israel, R. David Cohen increasingly adopted ascetic practices[3], crowned by a Nazirite vow – a lifelong abstention from all grape products and from cutting his hair. The Nazir, as he would thereupon be known, was also a vegetarian,[4] did not wear leather shoes, and maintained a ta’anit dibbur, refraining from speech for forty days from the beginning of the month of Elul to after Yom Kippur.[5] His best-known published work was the systematic presentation of his understanding of the development of Jewish spiritual experience, or ha- higayyon ha-shim’i ha-Ivri, in Kol ha-Nevuah (Jerusalem, 1969). While beyond the scope of this short review, in that work, the Nazir set out to present the gamut of philosophy and Jewish mysticism, showing two contrasting and sometimes complementary systems with the main thrust of the Jewish system being the achievement of prophecy. ______This short book contains an introduction by the Nazir’s only son, R. She’ar Yashuv, followed by an even penned by the ,דבר המשנה shorter introduction, entitled editors, Har’el and Yedidyah Cohen. Following this are two separate introductory again ,בית אמי and אבא מארי ,pieces authored by R. She’ar Yashuv, in which much foreshadowing of the diary excerpts themselves is interspersed with his general memories and impressions of his father and mother. Afterward, the diary selections begin with Hebrew pagination. There is evidence in this section of a heavy amount of editing, censoring, and ‘cleaning-up’ of the relatively small amount of material published here.[6] I say ‘relatively’ because we are told by the editors that the content is culled from over five large notebooks of personal writing by the Nazir, which מגילת סתרים – :were graced with the handwritten title .p) זכרונות נזיר אלוקים 15). As one begins the section that is purportedly the diary excerpts proper, the narrative quality of the writing is striking. The Nazir definitely experienced the same trials as many Jews during the interwar period, and one cannot help but share in his elation at finally reaching Israel. Throughout, in between expressions of deeply personal religious yearning are some very unique, unexpected stories. To wit, there are four pages of riveting narrative about a desert trip gone awry, reaching a breathless account of the Nazir prepared to die, lying down עמ’) wrapped in a tallit and tefillin aside Wadi al-Kelt [פה).[7 We also get glimpses of the Nazir practicing his religious path, the telos of which he ostensibly saw as a realization of prophecy.[8] The Nazir advocates his hitbodedut in the hills surrounding Jerusalem, stating his goal as emulating the spiritual wanderings of the biblical prophets in the following :(עמ’ נב-נג) outstanding passage הנביאים ובני הנביאים התבודדו בהרים ובגבעות, מסביב למראה פני שדות וטוהר שמים, ורוח צח חרישת נושבת, מחיה הנפש ומשיב הרוח במראה קודש …ספרים רבים לא היו הרי לא היו זקוקים לאוצרות ספרים, כמו ספרי ש”ס והפוסקים ונושאי כליהם. כל זה המשא של ספרים וניירות, המלעיטים את הנפש בנייר, והמסיחים את הדעת מן המרומם והנעלה טהר שמי ד’, לא בזה יתגלה ותחיה רוח הנבואה, אלא בתורה שבעל פה, בלימודים בהרים וגבעות, על פני שדות קודש, למראה טוהר שמי ד’, במקומות הקודש, בהתבודדות…כ What is especially fascinating here is the Nazir’s dismal view of the culture of the book and written word that in his mind had defined Judaism in exile from the Land, and the placement * of the spiritual connection to the land, or artsiut as a binary to it. To the Nazir, the text-less hitbodedut in nature reflects the return to the prophetic culture of Israel, a level closer to God than the ‘obfuscating’ medium of books and papers. There is a certain anomian bent to the Nazir’s statements above, expressing a desire to circumvent the traditional path of maintaining closeness to God through the study of shas and the commentaries.[9] Additionally, with regards to the anomian practice of the Nazir, even in the spare amount of material collected here, we see numerous indications that the Nazir was not embarrassed in overlooking tefillah b’tzibbur.[10] Already in his days as a young student, the Nazir expresses the tension that he feels between adhering to the standard Yeshiva curriculum, and that which his inner self desires to study. From an early age, the Nazir is drawn to texts that lay outside the purview of the Yeshiva, some even forbidden outright. The Nazir describes how one attempt to although he ,(עמ’ יג) resolve this tension went slightly awry remained steadfast in his commitment to traditional modes of study: הייתי חוזר על תלמודי ומשנן הרבה, לפי סימני ושיטת ספר המזכיר, להרה מיעלאק, שמצאתי בבית דודי הרב ר’ ישעיה, שהיה חברו וידידו, מה”ברודסקאים” בוואלאזין. אך דודי הרב ר’ אברהם החביא את ספר המזכיר, ויאמר, כי שינון זה מפריע להבנת ודעת התלמוד.כ מעט מספרי “השכלה” התחלתי לקרוא בבוריסובקא, המושבה… למדני לקרוא ולתרגם אחד מצעירי המושבה שהתמשכל… משך את לבי, וישאני על כנפי רוח לשדות הקציר במושבות בארץ ישראל… נודע לי ממציאות זרם השכלה, גם בין אבריכי הישיבה, אבל לא פגע בי ובתלמודי. כ The struggle in reconciling a skill for, and proclivity towards serious western thought and on the other hand, a depth of talmud Torah and ruhniyyut is a narrative thread that runs throughout the Nazir’s life.[11] One particularly powerful entry records the Nazir’s sincere resolution to stop apologizing and being nervous for this tension, but rather to transcend it :(עמ’ מז) entirely ופה נכרתה ברית ביני ובין הא-ם, א’ ישראל. אין מילה בפי להביע, מה נהיה בעומק רוחי. כל השאלות העיוניות [12]והפילוסופיות, חלפו, עברו, וקרוב קרוב לי אלהי ישראל…כ ______Although we could continue with citations of the fascinating and singular material found in Mishnat ha-Nazir, with space limits in mind, I want to briefly make two final points. Firstly, the paucity of translated material from the Nazir’s writings (something I too have failed to do here), and the lack of much meaningful study of his work and life in English give one pause. Aside from Schwartz’ article in Tradition, short references here and there in his translated work mentioned above, and some of Garb’s work, there is real room for English-language studies and translations of the Nazir’s writings. I have tried here to include in this review a short precis of the most accessible of the Nazir’s published writings in Mishnat ha-Nazir, and some of the extant literature on the Nazir as well.[13] Finally, a closer reading and analysis of the Nazir’s life and writings might yield an organic, spiritually- minded, and transcendent approach to many of the issues of science and faith, authority and autonomy that lie at the root of many debates within American Orthodoxy. For those wishing to find a different way, rather than the tired apologetic and name-calling that characterizes some of the current popular discourse, the Nazir’s writings and their popularization may serve as a model and guide for alternative modes of thinking about Jewish religious expression and mindset. [1] The most detailed biographical study on the Nazir that I have come across is contained in the first section of Yehuda Bitti’s 2007 doctoral dissertation (unpublished) at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, bein Pilosophia le-Kabbalah be-Haguto Shel ha-Rav David Cohen (5647-5732). Other biographical sketches are available on the Yeshivat Mercaz ha-Rav website, and this video of his son’s recollections of his father. [2] There exist some wildly inaccurate rumors and legends concerning the Nazir’s days in the University. For example, James David Weiss in Vintage Wein: The Collected Wit and Wisdom, the Choicest Anecdotes & Vignettes of R. Berel Wein (Shaar Press, 1992), pp. 232-234 contains outright and gross misinformation regarding the Nazir, going so far as to recount that the Nazir had completely left religion during his appointment to the Mathematics faculty(!) in Freiburg, only to be brought back to the fold after meeting R. Kook. The truth is that the Nazir was giving regular Talmud lectures at the time as well, coupled with intense study (עמ’ כז) in the Philosophy department. the ,עמ’ סז For example, on [3] Nazir writes that he has now gone five days without eating, only drinking tea. He begins the entry by describing how he desires to accept these bodily afflictions, but in the ambivalence that characterizes many of his personal writing, he continues to say that his body simply cannot take it: [3] אף על פי[3] כן קשה, קשה לי הרעב מאד. הרעב מוצץ את לשד מוחי, כסרטן. מפני מכאובי הגוף, שאלות הנשמה והרוח נדחקות, במה עוברים ימי, מפני הקטנות [4] As was the Nazir’s wife, Sarah (daughter of R. Hanokh Etkin – and the Nazir’s first cousin); see p. 30. Although the Nazir had intended for his son, R. Sha’ar Yashuv ha-Kohen (recently Chief Rabbi of Haifa, and now president of Mechon Ariel for Higher Religious Studies; a unique and fascinating figure in his own right) to be a according to this article he was ,(עמ’ צד) Nazir from birth absolved from the vow by a beit din convened in the family home at age twelve. He did however, remain a vegetarian, and relates his father’s disappointment at the decision to get a haircut. [5] See p. 31, as related by his son: [5] אני מרבה[5] לשתוק ( ארבעים יום של אלול וראשית תשרי, ימי צום ותענית ואפילו כל שבתות השנה – לא דיבר ולא סח אפילו בדברי תורה, רק קורא היה מתוך הספר ומראה באצבע, ולעתים, בימי חול – רושם דבריו בקצרה על גבי פתק ומגישם לשומע) אמא, מדברת. אך תמיד: דיבור של מצוה או דיבור כשר בהחלט [6] Although obviously a heavy amount of editorial discretion must go into choosing which entries make it into less than 100 pages from over five full handwritten journals, the constant non-sequiturs, the omission of months and even years of entries at some points, the almost complete lack of entries related to the Nazir’s profoundly loving and respectful relationship with his wife (details of which are judiciously related in R. She’ar Yashuv’s introductions only), and other clues lead the reader to surmise that even more interesting and unique writing of the Nazir is withheld or suppressed. [7] One of the Nazir’s companions on the almost disastrous trip is R. Moshe Gurvitz, compiler and editor of Orot ha-Emunah (Jerusalem, 2002) along with R. Kook’s future son in law, R. Shalom Natan Ra’anan. [8] As for the Nazir’s possible self-identification as a prophet-initiate, one needn’t look further than his own children’s names, and his inquiry as to the permissibility of There are even indications .עמ’ עז giving them to R. Kook. See in the diary of the Nazir עמ’ ,undergoing quasi-prophetic experiences – see for example .עמ’ עט, עמ’ עג and צה [8]Also see the remarks made by R. Aharon Lichtenstein in Shivhei Kol ha-Nevu’ah, printed in the back of Kol ha-Nevu’ah (Jerusalem, 2002) who describes the entire project of the Nazir albeit with some reservation. For two ,התעוררות לנבואה as studies of the Nazir and prophecy in general, which basically sums up his entire oeuvre, see Avinoam Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakha: Rabbi A.I.H. Kook’s Philosophy of the Halakha (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2007) pp. 253-266; R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen, ha-Nevu’ah be-Mishnat ha-Nazir in Itturei Kohanim: be-Inyanei Mikdash ve-Nevu’ah (this is apparently an old issue of Yeshivat Ateret Kohanim’s journal). For a more general overview of the relationship of the Nazir’s higgayon and prophecy, and one of the very few studies made of the Nazir in English at all, see Dov Schwartz, The Hebraic Auditory Logic and the Revival of Prophecy, Tradition 26:3 (2002), pp. 81-89. [9] For some discussion of the trend of anomian as opposed to antinomian practice and thought, especially through the prism of the writings of R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, see Jonathan Garb, The Chosen Will Become Herds: Studies in Twentieth Century Kabbalah (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2005) pp. 77-78. Although Garb highlights selections from Orot ha-Kodesh in which R. Kook’s anomian advocacy of the practice of yihuddim is on display, one wonders the role of the Nazir, who exercised a strong editorial hand over the publication and arrangement of Orot ha-Kodesh, and even saw himself as a co-author due to his work on it, in bringing this particular stream of R. Kook’s thought to the fore in Orot ha- Kodesh and the selections cited by Garb. Perhaps this is what is being hinted to in the oblique references to criticism and push-back from other students of R. Kook that the Nazir hints to in the עמ’ ,diaries. See Mishnat ha-Nazir .”הבקורת“ in the entry titled צא where the ,עמ’ פה See [10] Nazir makes preparations for a possible Shabbat alone. [11] One very interesting חוקר entry records the Nazir’s strong impressions upon meeting and ,נסתרות אחד being shown manuscript writings of R. Abraham Abulafia. This is none other חוקר than Prof. Gershom Scholem. Despite Scholem’s regard and perception of R. Kook’s ‘Zionist’ Kabbalah, it is apparent that he did not hold the Nazir in the same esteem, but nor did he reserve the disdain he held for ‘Oriental Kabbalists’ of the day. See Boaz Huss, Ask No Questions: Gershom Scholem and the Study of Contemporary Jewish Mysticism in Modern Judaism 25 (2005), pp. 141-158. [12] On the Nazir’s approach toward what we would call Torah u-Madda, see Jonathan Garb, ‘”Alien” Culture in the Circle of Rabbi Kook‘’, in H. Kriesel (ed.), Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought. pp. 253-264. Be’er Sheva, 2006; For a more muted, but still positive perception of the Nazir’s engagement with secular thought, see R. Ya’akov Ariel, Science and Faith: R. David Cohen – ‘The Nazirite Rabbi’ – and his Method of Study, in Tzohar (no. 8, 2002). Finally, see R. Ari Yitzhak Shevat, We Have Nothing to Fear From Criticism: On the Scientific Study of the Nazir & R. Kook’s Attitude Thereof in Tzohar (no. 31, 2008) although the approach taken by Shevat seems to fail to account for the transcendent, integrationist attitude of the Nazir and tries to recast him as a sort of apologist, which, in my opinion is precisely not what emerges from the Nazir’s own accounts of his secular learning and knowledge. [13] An excellent resource for everything Nazir-related can be found at this Google Site, arranged to collect, categorize, and publicize the Nazir’s body of work.