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?

The Inverted Scheme - Part One

Overview:

This maamer explores the idea that the opposite of one’s objective is often essential to achieving their desired goal. For example to create order one must experience chaos or to achieve success one must undergo failure and setback. It then analyzes if the setback is not just necessary and essential but perhaps even greater than the end goal. While this sounds somewhat abstract, bear with me and the concept will evolve into a comprehensible tangible idea.  Over the course of the maamer the meaning and purpose of the physical world will thread its way into the discussion until it assumes a central role in the analysis.

The maamer zeroes in on this concept in three narratives. The first is an existential narrative of perceiving this inversion in the very process of creation. The second is a biblical narrative and pinpoints this idea in the story of Korach’s rebellion. The third narrative is the everyman’s story and sees this theme as a constant and daily struggle in one’s service of G-d.

This post which is part one is somewhat lengthy due to the complexity of the concepts being discussed. However for those of you that want just a quick glimpse into the concept, I suggest reading chapters’ two and three. Alternatively you can come back later this week and just read part two which is the comparative analysis. When contrasting different opinions I will briefly reference the Chassidic take on the issues and so you can glean a basic impression of this essay. 

CHAPTER ONE

“Setting the Scene”

Our analysis starts with an exposition on the story of Korach’s rebellion. The first verse in the story of Korach (Numbers/Bamidbar 16:1) states “and Korach took [the leaders of the nation to help his cause] “. On this verse the Targum Onkelos comments “ ve’ispaleg korach” – “and Korach took”. This is puzzling since every place in the Torah that it says the word “vayikach” which means “and he took” the Targum writes “ve’nasiv”. Yet here the Targum is using a new word.

On this the Noam Elimelech cryptically comments, “The new word that Targum uses ‘ve’ispaleg’ is referencing the heavens that separated between the upper waters and the lower waters”. A little background knowledge is in order. On the second day of creation it states (Genesis/Bereishit 1:6) that G-d created a “rakia” or firmament, heaven etc. that separated between the higher and the lower waters.This statement is begging for explanation. How does the word “ve’ispaleg” connote the acts of G-d taken on the second day of creation and what is the conceptual connection between the separation of the waters and the word “ve’ispaleg”?

The Tzemach Tzedek clarifies that the Noam Elimelech is hinting to the Zohar (1rst volume, 17a) that sees the separation of the waters as the dispute and division between the left and the right i.e. between Chessed and Gevurah. The Zohar then states further “and this division of the waters is also the dispute between Korach and Ahron”. This suggests a commonality between the division of the waters and the division of Korach, namely, that both were predicated upon the division between Chessed and Gevurah.

[Just briefly for those of you that need a quick Chessed and Gevurah primer- here are some stream-of-consciousness words for each, in order of increasing abstraction:

Chessed = generosity, giving, expansiveness, openness, revelation, G-d’s infinite capacity

Gevurah = strictness, withholding, constriction, closed, concealment, G-d’s finite capacity]

After the smoke clears what we have is a 3 step progression:

1.       The Targum uses a new word for translating the word “vayikach”.

2.       The Noam Elimelech explains that this is because the Targum is attributing a correlation between Korach’s act of rebellion and the division of the waters on the second day. What this connection is remains unclear.

3.       The Tzemach Tzedek then comes and explains that the connection is one of commonality of purpose. That is to say, both the division of the waters and the division of Korach were predicated upon strengthening the tension between the two Sefirot of Chessed and Gevurah.

Generally the existential tension between Chessed and Gevurah is viewed as one of degrees. Meaning the proponents and advocates of Chessed and Gevurah are seeking dominance for their Sefirah. For example, Hillel and Shammai’s arguments are always seen as the fight between a Chessed lobby and a Gevurah lobby. As such the fight is holy and healthy, what Pirkei Avot calls a dispute for the sake of heaven.However by Korach we find a unique phenomenon. Korach wasn’t stirring up division because he wanted to promote a Gevurah agenda. Instead he simply wanted to create divisiveness. We can see this from the statement of our Sages (Sanhedrin 110a) “whoever seeks to create argument and dispute/machloket infringes upon a biblical prohibition as it says (Numbers/Bamidbar 17:5) ‘thou shalt not be like Korach and his followers’”. From this, that anyone who willfully and actively seeks out divisiveness is likened to Korach, notwithstanding what type of divisiveness he is seeking to create, shows that Korach is viewed as the fundamental father of discord, no matter what form that discord takes.

Yet here we come to an intellectual inconsistency. According to our tradition (Tanchuma on Korach chapter 5, Bamidbar Rabbah chapter 8, Rashi 16:7) Korach was a genius of a man and extremely nuanced in his spiritual awareness, not to mention one of the leaders of the Jewish nation. How is it then that he promoted such a bizarre take on Judaism and actually thought that this is the optimal path in serving G-d? To promote Gevurah is understandable since there are numerous reasons for maintaining that Gevurah should be of primary focus as opposed to Chessed. But to assert that one should lobby for Gevurah to take precedence simply to create divisiveness is a bizarre and wholly irrational approach to serving G-d.

CHAPTER TWO

“The Existential Narrative”

To understand this we must delve further into the second day of creation, namely the division of the waters. Chassidus views this act as expressing vast existential themes in the grand scheme of creation. In other words, the separation of the higher and lower waters is really the separation of the higher and lower realms of reality. More specifically the demarcation of the physical realm as a place separate and void of spiritual clarity.

What was the divine intent in creating this categorical divide? The plan was that by casting the lower waters into the earthly realm, i.e. by creating the physical realm and its spectrum of sensory delights, eventually the lower waters/the physical realm will become uplifted and reach new heights that even the higher waters/realms will never attain.How does this work? Why would one create a new low in order to attain an unprecedented high? Logically it doesn't compute and seems to be an inverted scheme.

The answer is that the upper realms are in a state of complacency and from complacency it is impossible to ascend. Precisely by creating the lower realms can there be a situation in which Man can ultimately reach even higher than the heavens. This is because our world is a spiritual desert which stimulates a strong yearning to transcend back to the spiritual worlds. This yearning is the catalyst for Man to never rest in his quest for divine consciousness. [As the Tikkunei Zohar describes it “the lower waters are constantly crying in agony and declaring ‘we want to be in front of the king’”]

This is why on the second day of creation when the division of the waters/realms took place it does not say “and G-d saw that it was good” as it states on the other days of creation. This is because the act of the separation itself is not “good”, it is not an end unto itself and is not realizing a divine calling. This is further amplified by the fact that on the second day there were no continents, i.e. there was not even the potential for Man to live on the planet. Therefore there was no one to refine and reveal the purpose of the division. Only on the third day when the continents were spread over the waters and Man had place to live, does the Torah say twice ”and it was good”. Once for the work of Tuesday and once for the work of Monday since once Man comes onto the scene the divine intent in creating the division can be realized and thus “is good”.

CHAPTER THREE

“The Biblical Narrative”

By the same logic we can explain what Korach’s game plan was. Korach was coming from the perspective that the lower realms were separated and created for the value inherent in the physical realm per se.This is based on the well-known Kabbalistic fact that the source-levels of the earthly realm far surpass the source-levels of the spiritual reality. As such Korach subscribed to the idea that the lower waters/realms should not be yearning to transcend their reality since on the contrary to uplift them-selves to a spiritual plane would only detract from the deep divine power inherent in physicality. 

Therefore he was able to come to the view that concealment and separation (tzimtzum and Gevurah) should be the primary focus and not revelation and unification (gilui and hisklalelus). This is because the physical realm can only come about from a concealment of G-d’s truth. The evolution of the earthly realm came about via separation and division of level after level eventually reaching an existential plateau in which there is room for the divisiveness of the physical reality. That is why Korach eventually came to a place in which he viewed discord/machloket as a goal to be realized unto itself and not just a means to an end.

How was Korach wrong? It is an undisputed fact that the earthly reality contains source-levels of divinity that far surpass any spiritual construct. It is also an undisputed fact that only from Gevurah and concealment can the physical realm be created. Does it not follow then that Gevurah should be promoted as a value per se?

There is a tremendous difference between the physical and the spiritual in terms of how revealed their divine qualities are. The spiritual is openly divine. It is full of G-d’s spirit and reflects His sublime existence. True it might be inferior at its source-level to the source of the physical, but that is precisely the point. The physical’s source-level is not readily apparent and cannot be accessed or engaged with. Whereas the spiritual wears its identity on its sleeve, the physical is an opaque and earthly entity that on the surface is far lower than even the most nether point of the spiritual worlds. It is only that at its source there is a connection to G-dliness that make the apex of the spiritual cosmos look like child’s play. But this source-level is not apparent. In order to reveal and elicit this powerful source-level of the physical there first must be a negation of the value of the physical. 

That is to say the physical must first yearn to transcend to the spiritual and only once the physical is seen as inferior to the spiritual and merely as a tool to be used for a divine end, can there then be a realization of the latent superiority of the physical.

All this will only be fully actualized in the times of Moshiach. Then there will be an understanding that concealment is deeply connected to lofty levels of the divine and that separation and division are worthy and valuable divine tools per se. But for now while the qualities of the physical, concealment and divisiveness are only in latent form and not revealed the proper perspective of them is that they are necessary tools in realizing and creating the physical realm but not values in and of them-selves.

CHAPTER FOUR

“The Everyman’s Story”

In the spiritual-religious Jew’s life there are two ever present conflicting priorities. The first is the desire and need to immerse oneself in learning Torah and performing Mitzvot, essentially the search and quest for meaning and real significance in one’s life. The other is the need to be involved in this world and its particulars. Starting from making a living and providing for one’s family all the way down to picking up the dry cleaning for the wife. These two needs are very different and often create tension and imbalances in the psyche as one is forced to juggle the two. It is a delicate dance to balance them both and the pitfalls are many. Often one will be confronted with a situation in which they will have to choose either depth and meaning or pragmatic and necessary trivialities.

But there is a third way. This is the path in which even the practical small things in life become avenues of connection to a higher purpose. This is called be’chol derachecha dey’ayhu or “ Know Him in all your ways”. That is to say that one is enjoined to connect to G-d in all they do and not just in Torah and Mitzvot. This means that picking up the dry cleaning is ideally an event in your life that has some value and significance and is not just another item on the to-do list. How is this possible? What possible depth can the small practicalities in life add to the spiritually conscious individual? 

The answer is that one who is exclusively engaged in meaning and connection to G-d is to some extent living in a bubble. They only have half the story. They are not really living and working in this world and by its rules. They are studying Torah all day but they don’t have any real connection to this world and its content.

Precisely by immersing oneself in this world and living a normal and pragmatic life, working and providing for the family, taking care of bills, going to social events and simchas, spending time with family, and even picking up the groceries, through all this one is afforded the opportunity of connection to G-d and forging a bond with him even within the mundane. Of course one must have the proper perspective and attitude and one must be doing all these practicalities in the way and manner that G-d outlined and wants. But if  one does indeed comport himself in the trivialities of this world as a G-d fearing and spiritually sensitive individual then one gains a fresh and valuable new layer to their spiritual conciousness, namely knowing and perceiving G-d even within this world. Ultimately, Chassidus says, one sees G-d in being involved with this world in a much more tangible and direct way then studying holy books all day. This is because in the books it can always remain a beautiful theory etc. but through seeing the divine providence in the world and how G-d directs the infinite complexities inherent in the system of reality that we have, one literally “sees” the divine.

Here however we run into a dangerous zone. If one sees being involved in this world as a value unto itself and actively seeks the meaning that can be gained through interaction with the physical reality then ultimately one might fall and become ensnared in the physical and material reality losing any spiritual sensitivity and awareness they once had. Therefore we find this inversion again in which one is enjoined to always yearn for the meaning and depth in studying G-dliness and bonding with the divine notwithstanding any advantages to be gained from interaction with this world. 

Yet on the other hand one is not supposed to shun the world but rather is supposed to involve himself and even see it as another way of knowing the divine. So we have this cognitive pendulum swinging back and forth in which we are supposed to embrace this world for its contribution to knowing G-d yet always yearn for the more revealed path of connecting to G-d inherent in Torah and Mitzvot. And the test to see where one is holding is to ascertain to what extent he is willingly involved in this world. If one is truly seeking the revealed connection to G-d then one will only engage in this world as much as is necessary to provide for their family and run a successful life but not more. The second work is done, for example, the healthy and spiritually enlightened individual will immediately revert to seeking Torah and Mitzvot.

CHAPTER FIVE

“Smooth Servitude”

We find a blend of two seemingly opposing elements in the existential narrative. If one subscribes to the primacy of Chesed i.e. the normative understanding that spirituality and revealed divinity are superior to physicality and concealment, then why separate the lower waters/realms in the first place?If however one subscribes to the radical idea that physicality can be and is (albeit in a latent form) superior to open G-dliness, then one should separate the lower waters/realms for the value of the corporeal reality per se? 

Instead we find a kind of lack of intellectual commitment to either side. G-d separated the lower waters/realms because there is something precious and powerful that they contain that the spiritual doesn't. Yet once G-d created the corporeal He kind of retracts and says that the purpose of the physical is to transcend to the spiritual and the transcendental?

As well in the biblical and everyday narratives, we find this paradox. Korach is seen as promoting something essentially valuable and true just that it was premature. And the Jew is supposed to feel purpose and value in the practicalities of life and even to realize that it adds a depth to his bond with G-d.  Yet right after that realization he is supposed to only yearn for the direct connection of Torah/Mitzvot? Where is the consistency and coherency to such an approach? Furthermore is it even feasible and reasonable to demand this constant ping pong of awareness and focus?

Indeed from a normative and personal point of view it is impossible to constantly fluctuate this way. Yet from a place of bittul and humility before G-d it can be done. 

This is because when one is learning Torah because it is enjoyable, or because it makes them feel good and spiritual, or even because it’s a value to them, then at the end of the day they are learning Torah for themselves. If that is the case then it’s hard to switch modes and immerse themself in something else that G-d wants. 

The same thing is with any other objective in the world. Imagine one is giving a power point presentation at a business meeting and is getting into it. It’s something they’re knowledgeable and have a passion about. If the C.E.O. walks in and says “we need you to go do something else right now for the company. It’s urgent.” If they were personally invested in the presentation then it will be a letdown that they got cut off right when they were in the thick of it. But if their whole investment in the presentation was purely to promote the success of the company then if the company needs something else from them that is more vital- they’re there.

The same thing holds true with serving G-d. If one is serving G-d from a place of humility and surrender then whatever He needs from them at this moment becomes their objective and priority without any hesitation. Even if the moment before they were immensely enjoying themselves carrying out a different divine objective. This is because the base of their commitment is to G-d exclusively, without regard for personal advancement etc.

Therefore one can embrace the practicalities of life and even find some divine fulfillment in them yet at the same time not seek it out. Since their whole investment is fulfilling the divine will and that is the divine will. To not perceive the divine meaning in the small things as a value unto itself.

Similarly with the value of the physical world. Since one’s commitment is G-d based, therefore they can know and appreciate the superiority of the physical and the meaning that a life on this physical world contains. And yet at the same time not pursue it as a value unto itself since the divine will is that that type of agenda be relegated to the times of Moshiach.