A Thought on the Split Between the Kotzker and the Izhbitzer
Although the true origin of the 1839 split between the teacher R. Menachem Mendel Morgenstern of Kotzk and the disciple R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izhbitz remains hidden within the concealment of history, it is possible to discern certain threads of thought that separate the two. This is not to claim a true grasp of the split, but rather an attempt to tease out certain cracks that appear within the worldviews of these two individuals. As R. Leibele Eiger- a student of R. Menachem Mendel who left Kotzk along with R. Mordechai Yosef- said: anyone who claims to know the true reason for the split, truly does not know.
One of the animating features of the Kotzker’s worldview was a radical quest for the origin. A belief that the individual can, and must uncover the true origin of their behaviors and affective stance towards the world. This call towards the origin demanded a radical quest for authenticity in which the multilayered motivations behind volitional action were investigated with rigorous exactitude. Once found, each layer of motivation was to be analyzed unflinchingly in order to ascertain whether the behavior was true or not. Truth in this sense does not mean veracity, but rather authenticity. To be authentic is to be clear of unconscious motivations that more often than not bespeak the all-too-human drive towards self-interest and self-aggrandizement. Armed with the radical belief that the individual can and must reach a point of pure-action unencumbered by the various drives and impulses that pollute human experience, the Kotzker demanded an unflinching self-introspection in the hopes of uncovering the “true kernel of subjectivity”, or a “single action that is done truly for the sake of Heaven”.
The Mei Shiloach of Izhbitz, on the other hand, seems to have doubted the possibility of retrieving the origin. Pure self-hood unencumbered by the vicissitudes of the unconscious drives was not the spiritual telos for R. Mordechai Yosef. Whether or not this Kotzkian dream of pure self-hood was simply seen as an untenable goal, or other than the goal of spiritual life will be discussed at a future point. For our sake, it is enough to assume that pure subjectivity cleansed of any self-interest was seen as an impossibility. In the place of the Kotzkian drive towards the origin, the Mei Shiloach disclosed a new path of subjective understanding. The task was not to uncover and eliminate the unconscious drives that animate our everyday experiences; but rather to confront them and come to terms with them. At the core of the self, instead of discovering the origin, R. Mordechai Yosef seems to have found the irreducible kernel of the unconscious, the naval of the dream, where all attempts at self-introspection are retroactively revealed to have been driven by the deepening sea of the unconscious whose waves announce nothing but the ultimate futility of (self)knowledge. The secret for the Mei Shiloach rests within what he saw as the true source of our unconscious drives and desires, namely a power greater than the self.
R. Tzadok Ha-Kohen on Purim: Minimal Excess
This is the aspect of Purim, that they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition of melacha (TB. Megillah 5b). For in truth, the nullification of melacha is from the perspective of God who has no need for effort (his’tadlut), and it is only applicable to the perspective of God and the sanctity of the Sabbath which is permanent and enduring.
This is not the case when it comes to yom tov whose sanctity depends on the Jewish people and as such remains dependent on effort. The nullification of melacha, however, is only because on yom tov there is an additional sanctity that is created by the Jewish peoples sanctification. Furthermore, the sanctity of yom tov is rooted in the sanctity of the Sabbath , meaning, the sanctity of God that is the source of all from which all draw their strength. This surplus sanctity of yom tov then becomes an aspect of “permanent and enduring”.
On Purim however, there is no addition, rather, there is a disclosure of a light that negates the need for addition, for when one is connected to essence there is no surplus. This is the reason that while all yamim tovim stand to be nullified in the future, Purim will never be nullified; for every yom tov is rooted in the miracle and salvation that creates an addition, while in the future God will be “the light of days” negating all novelty and addition. Purim, however, is rooted in this very light.
In truth, there is no addition. It is only from the perspective of this worldliness that addition exists. There is only this additional insight which reveals that there is no addition whatsoever.
(Resisei Leila, 32:3)
Some Brief Thoughts on R. Shalom Sharabi on the Anniversary of his Death
Some brief thoughts on R. Shalom Sharabi, the Yemenite kabbalist known as the Rashash (1720-1777) on the anniversary of his passing.
It is only recently that the kabbalitic project of the Rashash has begun to move beyond the preconceived boundaries that enclose it.
Typically seen as a highly arcane model of Lurianic interpretation, the Rashash has often been described as an excessively complex, nearly mathematical interpreter of Lurianic Kabbalah. Associated with the meditative school of sefardi kabbalah the Rashash has typically been known for his re-codification of Lurianic intentions (kavaanot) and as such the lot of only the most erudite mystic. This is understandable in that the few authentic writings that we have (Nahar Shalom and its condensed introduction Rechovot ha-Nahar; Siddur ha-Rashash in all of its various manifestations; and his short glosses on R. Hayyim Vital’s Eitz Chayyim printed as Haggaot ha-Shemesh) seem to complicate the texts that they are coming to clarify. What appears relatively simple within the general depiction of Lurianic Kabbalah undergoes a process of complication in his brief comments. What seemed unified is separated, and what seemed whole is shown to be deficient. Universals are broken down into particulars and imaginative concepts are codified into technical symbols where, at first glance, they seem to lose their evocative power.
Part of this is due to the his writing style, short hints that beckon the expert as they discourage the novice. One gets the sense that for the Rashash, writing was a painful necessity whose sting is mitigated in the decision to write as minimally as possible. While this stylistic decision seems to be rooted in his unique hermeneutics of secrecy- a model influenced by both internal beliefs about the dissemination of secrets as well as external threats of misinterpretation- the way in which the Rashash’s ideas have been conveyed frustrate the hope for easy understanding.
This has all changed in recent years with the proliferation of teachings from the Jerusalem Kabbalist R. Yitzhak Meir Morgenstern, whose voluminous works that are astonishing in both their clarity as well as their depth. What R. Morgenstern has done to the teachings of the Rashash is simply unprecedented. Generally speaking, his elucidation on the Rashash’s system has two parts: A. Clarifying the simple intention explicit within the highly specific language of the Rashash and B. Bringing the profound conceptual ideas implicit within his teachings into communication with alternative models of Lurianic Kabbalah, namely the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his students. What is most profound about R. Morgenstern’s project, however, is that the distillation of Kabbalat ha-Rashash into a more evocative indium does not minimize the complex particularity inherent within but rather highlights the necessity of this “mathematical language”, or what R. Morgenstern refers to as “omek ha-pratiyut“, the depths-of-particularity.
R. Morgenstern- and as of late his student R. Shmuel Ehrenfeld- are by no means the only explicators of Kabbalat ha-Rashash. R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel; R. Moshe Schatz; R. Itamar Schwartz; R. Benyahu Shmueli to name a few have been working on “translating” the ideas inherent within the Rashash into a more explicit and expressive system.
To end this brief, and mostly directionless thought, what the Rashash has done is deepen the simply unity of the Infinite (ein sof) to the point where even the most particularized aspect of being is shown to contain within it the light of the universal. Not only does the light of unity illuminate and subsume the universals-of-being, but it descends and transcends the very particularity that comes to darken it. If Eitz Hayyim describes the universal and historical process of being- from the tzimtzum of the Infinite light down to the evil that exists within the recesses of Asiyah- the Rashash shows us how this process is inherent within each and every action, each and every moment.
When unity is forced to confront the particularity of separation, the particulars are revealed to be part of the very unity they come to deny. As R. Hayyim de la Rossa- main student of the Rashash and author Torat Chocham- writes “I have seen from behind the creases of my master’s eyes…that the general (klal) and the particular (prat) are always equal”.