Successful Setbacks

This week I am presenting a bird’s eye view of the concept “yerida le’tzorech aliyah” as it has been understood throughout Chassidic thought. The comparative analysis of last week’s essay on physicality will go up early next week. Hope you enjoy!

CHAPTER ONE

An interesting point that arises from last week’s essay is that there appear to be two very different conceptual approaches, within chassidus itself, on how to properly perceive and deal with setback and failure. This is generally termed yerida le’tzorech aliyah or “a descent that facilitates an ascent”. I want to identify these two approaches and their offshoots. 

The first approach is that the yerida/setback itself is negative, however for some reason the setback paves the way for the eventual success. Within this school of thought one can identify three distinct constructs.

1.       The psychological construct: this approach is that when one experiences obstacles in achieving their objective, it draws out deeper and stronger capabilities within them. Meaning, even though there is a regression at first and a furtherance of distance from achieving the goal, nonetheless the setback is ultimately of a positive nature. Why is this? 

It is because when one bumps against the impediment to their goal and is rebuffed, one is faced with two options. Either one can assess the situation, determine that the obstacle is too strong and give up. Or one can determine that the goal is attainable, just that it will require more exertion and a stronger commitment of energy and focus then what they previously thought was required. This results in the objective being achieved in a stronger and deeper manner then what would have been accomplished had they not been faced with the setback.

An example of this might be a dam. When one builds a dam and blocks the flow of water it is an obstacle to the natural course of the river. Eventually enough water can build up and exert sufficient force on the dam that it will break the dam and gush forth. This powerful gushing forth is an exertion of strength and magnitude that the peaceful river never experienced before. Yet precisely because it was faced with an obstacle, it was forced to gather its strength and express itself powerfully in a fashion unlike anything it had engaged in before.

Another example might be a corporation being faced with bankruptcy and having to radically alter their image and identity to fit the new circumstances. Often what this does is facilitate the company’s growth and usher in a period of unprecedented success.

2.       The meta-physical/Kabbalistic construct: this approach is that this phenomenon, of regression paving the way for achievement, “yerida le’tzorech aliyah”, is intrinsic and essential to existence. This is because in the process of creation, “hishtalshelut ha’olamot”, extremely lofty and sublime levels of reality had to “bend down” and engage in much lower and coarser levels of reality. What impetus did they have to extend themselves into lower spheres of existence thus enabling the creation of our physical world?

G-d foresaw this problem and inserted into the very fabric of creation the existential fact that, when one engages in something lower than themselves even though it is a regression for themselves, eventually it will result in ascension and a heightened consciousness. What this did is interest and compel the higher to relate and descend to the lower. This is all from an abstract and spiritual perspective. However the result from this can be seen in our physical world in many ways.

What drives a scholar to teach and share his views with others lower than himself on the intellectual food chain? What compels an Einstein to devote precious time lecturing to students who are on a far inferior cognitive level? 

We find that there is a tremendous desire and impetus to share one’s enlightened views with those who have not reached this depth of perspective. As the Talmud states so intriguingly about teaching “ yoser mimah she Haegel rotzeh linak, ha parah rotzeh lehanik” or “ as much as the calf wants to receive milk from its mother, the mother desires much more to give its milk to the calf”. Where does this phenomenon come from and what is its source? 

It is the meta-physical reality of yerida le’tzorech aliyah. Again, in this framework, the descent is a regression just that it will ultimately lead to an advantage. This itself is not logically coherent, it is simply an externally enforced fact that G-d inserted into the fabric of nature so as to interest the higher with the lower thus facilitating many interactions that would not have occurred otherwise.

3.       The existential construct: this approach assumes that regression is actually a form of growth. This is because precisely in the failure and setback can one shed their previous identity and reconstruct themselves into something superior. Consider a seed planted in the ground. In order to grow from a tiny simple seed into a massive complex tree it must first go through a stage of decomposition. Only once the outer layer of the seed decomposes in the ground can its powerful latent abilities be revealed.

From this vantage point one can view failure as a springboard for success using it to alter and remake themselves as the new circumstances dictate thus leading to a new and evolved superior identity. This approach assumes that there is something inherently valuable and advantageous in the regression itself. So yerida le’tzorech aliyah can be understood as the yerida being a value unto itself just that it doesn’t reach the value of the aliyah. As such it is a radical departure from the two previous constructs. However it agrees that the eventual ascent is superior then the regression. As such it falls short of the next perspective we will explore.

The second school of thought is entirely different. It assumes that the yerida is itself superior to the aliyah. This is a radical reworking of some of our basic premises. Perhaps this is the approach that the maamer “hasam nafsheinu”, which part one was predicated upon, takes. The whole premise of that maamer is that the physical, which was always perceived as inferior to the spiritual, is actually superior to the spiritual. So the apparent yeridah of the soul leaving sublime spiritual realities and “descending” into the physical world is actually an ascent into the physical world. Similarly the supposed “descent” from being involved in Torah and Mitzvos and regressing into the practicalities of this world is in fact an ascent into the practicalities of this world. We cannot subscribe to this viewpoint exclusively since, before the era of Mashiach, there is too much potential for the perversion of this perspective. However this doesn’t negate in any way the truth and radical consequences of such a world view.

CHAPTER TWO

An interesting parallel can, I think, be drawn to the world of the Talmud. There is a concept called hechsher mitzvah. What this means is that there are certain actions that one must take while performing certain commandments that are not directly explicated but which are nonetheless implicit directives. For example, the commandment of Sukkah. Nowhere in the Torah does it say to build a Sukkah. It simply says to eat in a Sukkah. However eating in a Sukkah obviously entails having a Sukkah in which to eat, which in turn entails building a Sukkah.

What is the precise legal status of the implicit action being commanded. Can we say that the act of building the Sukkah is a part of the mitzvah and does one then say a blessing by the building stage. Perhaps it’s not relegated any such status and is merely a voluntary act that one takes to facilitate the mitzvah.

The discussion by the Torah-legislators revolving around this question eventually evolves into two ways of understanding a necessary prerequisite action. The first approach is that if the mitzvah is impossible without the hechsher mitzvah then the necessary prerequisite is actually considered to be part of the mitzvah itself. So that would mean that halachically the very act of building the Sukkah is legally considered to be part of eating in the Sukkah.

The second approach is that since the Torah commands eating and not building, the act of building can never be included as part of the mitzvah itself. Rather it is a necessary implicit directive but that is all it remains. It cannot be considered a chelek or part of the mitzvah since it is not actually the mitzvah being commanded.

I think there is room to relate this to our analysis of yerida le’tzorech aliyah. The different constructs explained above, hinge upon how significant is the prerequisite stage of regression. The third construct, the existential approach, would seem to place greater substance and emphasis on the prerequisite stage of regression then either the psychological or the Kabbalistic construct does. Certainly each construct has specific reasons for how much value they place on regression but perhaps the debate also revolves around how much significance is allocated to a preparatory stage.

Additionally, the second school of thought, that the regression itself is illusory and is in fact superior then the ascent, can also be related to the discussion of hechsher mitzvah. This can be seen in that sometimes Jewish thought places greater value on the preparatory stage then the actual eventual mitzvah. I will bring just two examples of this. The first is the mitzvah of chinuch or preparing one’s child for their acceptance of mitzvoth at their bar/bat mitzvah. The Talmud states that the parents’ mitzvah of preparing one’s child and educating them in the performance of mitzvot can be greater then the parents’ own mitzvot that they are commanded in!

Secondly, there are various statements in Halacha suggesting that the act of getting married, which is seen as a necessary preparatory stage to the mitzvah of having children, can be greater than the eventual mitzvah of procreation itself.

These are just possible connections that perhaps can be drawn. What do you think?