Parashat VaYesse: Intution

Intuition

Thoughts on Parashat VaYesse 2019

Click here to view as PDF

And Yaakov left Be’er Sheva and set out for Haran. And he came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night…and he lay down in that place, and dreamed…And Yaakov awoke from his sleep and said, “Indeed, God is in this place, and I did not know.” (Bereshit 28:10-16)

Rashi commented upon the apparent uniqueness of Yaakov’s sleep at that time, writing: “In that place (Be El) he lay down, but during the (prior) fourteen years that he served in the House of Ever he did not lay down at night, because he was occupied with the study of Torah.”[1] Indeed, it is reasonable to imagine Yaakov as an individual who abhorred sleep. He would, in fact, remark twenty years later to Lavan that “Scorching heat ravaged me by day and frost by night; and sleep fled from my eyes” (31:40). The mission-driven Yaakov employed a cunning mind and deceptive spirit to control his destiny. We all know people like that. They never have time for sleep!

But God had another plan for Yaakov. Rashi cited the Hakhamim’s reading of the text: “The sun set for him suddenly, not in its normal time, so that he should spend the night there.”[2] Seeking a prophetic dialogue with Yaakov as He had with Avraham and Yisshak, God laid Yaakov to sleep. This must have felt unnatural for Yaakov. He was unaccustomed to the diminished state of consciousness and loss of cognitive control inherent to sleep. Yaakov’s reaction upon waking best reveal his feelings of vulnerability at that time – “Indeed, God is in this place, and I did not know.” Yaakov was uncomfortable with “not knowing.” Whereas in the past it was he who “knew” what Esav and Yisshak did not, Yaakov now experienced himself what it meant to “not know.”

I believe that Yaakov’s dream on the mountaintop at Bet El instilled him with more than just a feeling of humility. It exposed him to a dimension of thought that he had until then left unexplored. “There is a profound intimation here about the dynamics of sleep,” Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg wrote, “about the loss of consciousness and the possible gifts of unconsciousness, about knowing and dreaming.”[3] What is the difference between wakeful “knowing” and restful “dreaming”? Oliver Sacks explained that the electrophysiological properties of the brain in waking and dreaming are quite similar. There is a single mechanism for both – the constant inner-talking between the cerebral cortex and the thalamus, a continuous interplay of image and feeling. Waking and dreaming, then, are fundamentally the same, distinguished only by the sensory input of wakefulness. Whereas a “waking consciousness” derives from sensory input, dreams are the product of their absence. Dr. Sacks summarized: “Waking consciousness is dreaming – but dreaming constrained by external reality.”[4] Yaakov’s state of dreaming, then, opened him to the mental world of “unconstrained thought.”

The Kabbalists distinguish between two distinct modes of thought – hokhmah and binah. Hokhmah derives from the words “koah mah,” or “the potential of what.” It refers to the question of what something really is – its essence. Binah, on the other hand, relates to the word “bein,” or “between.” It implies separation, as you look at something logically and put yourself at distance from it.  While deciding to build a home, for example, hokhmah is the initial flash that enters into the mind about what the house will look like (its essence as a home), while binah is the deliberate blueprint of structure and rooms (its intricate details).[5]

Arriving at the top of the mountain at Bet El, Yaakov must have taken in the landscape and its environs. Employing his cognitive faculty of binah, which he was adept at doing, he immediately noticed the mountain’s many externalities – the grass, the rocks, the trees, etc. Laying him to sleep, however, God encouraged Yaakov’s entrance into the realm of hokhmah. He urged him to see beyond the “logical” and “apparent,” and into the “essence” of that mountain. And so, he did:

And Yaakov awoke from his sleep…And he was afraid and he said, “How fearsome is this place! This can be but the house of God, and this is the gate of the heavens.” (28:16-17)

As the trappings of wakefulness faded away, Yaakov’s mind now extended beyond the sensory input of consciousness. He tapped into the pristine perception of hokhmah, and beheld the unfathomable reality that lay before his eyes.

But it is possible to experience hokhmah even while awake. Albert Einstein remarked: “At times I feel certain that I am right without knowing the reason.”[6] And R. Moshe Sofer z”l, the great 19^th Century Hungarian authority and author of Hatam Sofer, more than once told his students that his method to answering halakhic questions was based upon intuition, immediately stating answer that first came to his mind. Upon making that initial determination, R. Sofer would search “backwards” grounding the answer in its appropriate sources.[7]

“The major decisions of man’s life are made spontaneously and suddenly,” R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik z"l once said, “in response to an aboriginal command from within.” He pointed to decisions of faith, marriage, solutions to financial problems, acts of military genius and a variety of other pivotal resolutions in life that are often reached intuitively.[8]

The chaotic nature of life, however, has a way of distracting us. We are often led astray from our intuition in directions that we ourselves choose, based on a variety of logical factors and determinations. Awakened to a similar reality of “self-blindness,” Yaakov expressed surprise that he had failed to intuit the sanctity of his sleeping place. Although it took a dream to “open Yaakov’s inner eyes,” we can “open our eyes” even while awake – by following our intuition.

---

[1] Commentary of Rashi to Bereshit 28:12 s.v va-yishkav.

[2] Commentary of Rashi to Bereshit 28:12 s.v. ki ba.

[3] Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire: Reflections on Genesis (New York, NY, 1995), pg. 190.

[4] Oliver Sacks, An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales (New York, NY, 1995), pg. 57.

[5] See, e.g., R. Aryeh Kaplan, Inner Space (Jerusalem, IS, 1991), pg. 57-8 and R. Yechiel Bar-Lev, Song of the Soul: Introduction to Kaballa (Petah Tikvah, IS, 1994), pg. 83-4.

[6] Albert Einstein, Einstein on Cosmic Religion and Other Opinions and Aphorisms (Mineola, NY, 2009), pg. 97.

[7] See Maoz Kahana’s “Yesh lanu av zaken,” in Hagedolim: Leaders Who Shaped the Israeli Haredi Jewry (Jerusalem, IS, 2017), pg. 99-100.

[8] R. Abraham R. Besdin, Reflections of the Rav vol. 1: Lessons in Jewish Thought Adapted from Lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Hoboken, NJ, 1993), pg. 91.

Parashat VaYesse: Partners

Partners

Thoughts on VaYesse 2018

Click here to view as PDF

The essence of Judaism is the awareness of the reciprocity of God and man, of man’s togetherness with Him who abides in eternal otherness. (R. Abraham J. Heschel)[1]

The opening passage of Parashat VaYesse describes Yaakov’s first direct encounter with God. Stopping to sleep upon his journey from home, Yaakov dreamt of a ramp that was set against the ground and stretched up to the heavens. And as God then spoke to him, Yaakov noticed a host of God’s angels who rose and descended upon the ramp. This vivid imagery sent him a message regarding the fundamental connection between heaven and earth – between God and man.

Indeed, Yaakov’s instinctive reaction to the dream was to exclaim, “This can be but the house of God and this is the gate of the heavens” (28:17). But his actions went beyond mere observation. He set a stone into the ground as a pillar, poured oil over its top and vowed that upon his safe return to that location, “This stone that I set as a pillar will be a house of God” (22). Rather than passively accepting the sanctified nature of this metaphysical “house of God” which he had just discovered, Yaakov pledged to build the physical structure of a “house of God” at that location, as well.

The heaven-reaching ramp, coupled with the transitional angels taught Yaakov about the inherent link between “God’s heavens” and “man’s earth.” The images furthermore inspired him to strengthen that bond by vowing the future construction of a physical “house of God.”

The Hakhamim hinted at this concept regarding our “partnership with God” in several different contexts. They pointed to an apparent contradiction in two verses from Tehilim. Whereas one pasuk says that “The earth and all it contains is God’s” (24:1) another one states “The heavens are God’s and the earth He has given over to mankind” (115:16). R. Levi explained that while “the earth and all it contains is God’s,” once making a berakhah on the food of the earth “He gives it over to mankind.”[2] His statement reinforces the mandate for us to partner with God in completing this world.

Rava’s statement that “Initially the Torah is called by the name of God, but ultimately it is called by the name of the one who studies it” imparts a similar lesson.[3] It teaches that by studying “God’s Torah” and revealing its multifaceted messages, we enter into a partnership with Him in the very “ownership” of the Torah.

God’s message to Yaakov at that time, then, touched upon the very essence of our mission in life. Indeed, the kabbalists point to the Torah’s cryptic description of man’s creation “in the image of God” (1:27) as evidence of this fact. They explain that since the most basic attribute of God in the story of Creation is that of “Creator,” our existence “in His image” must then imply our mission to couple with Him as creators.[4]

R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik z”l similarly wrote that “the dream of creation is the central idea in the halakhic consciousness – the idea of the importance of man as a partner of the Almighty in the act of creation, man as creator of worlds.” If at times we raise the question of the ultimate aim of Judaism, R. Soloveitchik continued, “we must not disregard the fact that this wondrous spectacle of the creation of worlds is the Jewish people’s eschatological vision, the realization of all its hopes.”[5]

The vivid imagery of Yaakov’s dream during his initial encounter with God reminded him about his continued mission in this world. Stretching beyond a simple one-time message, however, his dream must inspire every decision that we make and every action that we take. Searching for and discovering the spiritual “house of God” is only one facet of our lifelong mission. Setting out to build the material one is the other.

---

[1] Between God and Man (New York, NY, 1997), pg.141.

[2] Berakhot 35a.

[3] Avodah Zarah 19a.

[4] See, e.g., R. Hayim of Volozhin’s Nefesh HaHayim 1:2-3.

[5] R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia, PA, 1983), pg. 99.

Parashat VaYesse: Yaakov's Journey

Listen to tonight's class on Parashat VaYesse, "Yaakov's Journey," here.

Follow along with the sources here.

Derekh HaShem: 2.1-2

Listen to this morning's class on Ramhal's Derekh HaShem here.

Follow along with the sources here.


For further research:

Read our related devar Torah for Parashat VaYesse here.

Parashat VaYesse: Uncertainty

Uncertainty

A Message for Parashat VaYesse 2017

Click here to view as PDF.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. (Socrates) [1]

* * * *

And Yaakov awoke from his sleep and he said, “Indeed God is in this place and I did not know.”

(Bereshit 28:16)

The Torah’s precise recording of Yaakov’s reaction during his encounter with God at Bet El is difficult to understand. There is an emphasis on his initial state of “not knowing,” which calls attention to its significance. The actual importance of that uncertainty, however, is never explained. What was the significance of Yaakov’s “not knowing” at that time?

* * * *

Sports psychologist Bob Christina is the assistant coach for the University of North Carolina at Greensboro men’s golf team. Among his various creative teaching styles and techniques, Christina prides himself for not helping. Though his students were initially uncomfortable with his method of withholding feedback, they soon came to appreciate it. His pupils found that it stimulated them to a keener sensitivity for the nonverbal feedback of how their body feels after a swing and how the ball moves and sounds. Christina has chosen this approach because he is convinced that a coach’s constant feedback is used by the players as a crutch, which hurts them later on when they have to think and play for themselves.

In his Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing, Jamie Holmes wrote that higher education faces a problem that is similar to that of Christina. He wrote that professors generally fail to incorporate gaps in logic for the students to fill in, contradictions to work out, or pauses that encourage reflection. Holmes explained that today’s graduates are therefore unprepared for a labor market that emphasizes creativity, and revolves around individuals who can successfully explore uncertainties and learn from failure.

Holmes challenged his readers to consider how they learned a skill. He ventured to guess that our knowledge and understanding didn’t emerge from being told how to do it, but rather by doing it – figuring it out on our own or with help. [2]


Dr. Stuart Firestein’s dual role as head of a laboratory and Professor of Neuroscience at Columbia University alerted him to a disconnect between how science is perceived and how it is actually pursued. He realized that although only the “answers” of science were being taught in the classrooms, a successful laboratory is actually built upon its “questions.” Firestein sought to transmit the “undone part of science” to his students. He explained its importance as the realm that “gets us into the lab early and keeps us there late…the very driving force of science, the exhilaration of the unknown.” He was therefore inspired to begin a course on “Ignorance,” which is led by guest scientists who emphasize to the students the critical aspects in their fields of science which they do not know.[3]

* * * *

The Torah’s description of Yaakov’s early life paints the portrait of an individual bestowed with the traits of self-sufficiency and manipulation. He twice wrestled away control from his unexpecting brother Esav, without ever experiencing the discomforts of confrontation. Fleeing his parents’ household in fear of his life, however, Yaakov first encountered “real life.” His journey began with the realization that “he did not know.” As Estelle Frankel wrote: "Jacob is both humbled and awed by this realization. It is this recognition of his own ignorance that will catalyze Jacob's spiritual development."[4]

This feeling of uncertainty was most appropriate for Yaakov at this time. It initiated his relationship with the Almighty – a bond which necessarily begins with the submission to “not knowing.” Leon Kass noted, as well, that whereas Esav was married to two wives at the age of forty, self-sufficient and controlling Yaakov was never compelled to search for a soulmate until leaving the comforts of his homeland and encountering the realities of uncertainty. Reflecting upon his state of “not knowing,” Yaakov left Bet El in search of a wife.[5]

* * * *

In order to arrive at what you do not know

You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance. (T.S. Elliot)[5]

Although the realization that we “do not know” feels uncomfortable, much of individual growth depends upon it. Approaching the various realms of our lives with the open eyes and mind of one who “does not know” engenders a state of heightened sensitivity and creativity. Embracing our uncertainties forces us to realize our need of others, as well, which enriches our relationships with people and God.

Shabbat shalom!

Rabbi Avi Harari

---

[1] Cited by Plato in Apology.

[2] Jamie Holmes, Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing (New York, NY, 2015), pg. 164-6.

[3] Stuart Firestein, Ignorance: How it Drives Science (New York, NY, 2012), pg. 2-6.
[4] Estelle Frankel, The Wisdom of Not Knowing: Discovering a Life of Wonder by Embracing Uncertainty (Boulder, CO, 2017), pg. 64.

[5] Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom (Chicago, IL, 2003), pg. 412.
[6]“East Coker.” Cited by Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, in The Murmuring Deep (New York, NY, 2009), pg. 270.

Parashat VaYesse: Mystical Moments

Mystical Moments

A Message for Parashat VaYesse 2016

Click here to view as PDF.

There are moments, and it is only a matter of a few seconds, when you feel the presence of the eternal harmony...A terrible thing is the frightful clearness with which it manifests itself and the rapture with which it fills you...During these five seconds I live a whole human existence, and for that I would give my whole life and not think that I was paying too dearly. (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

* * * *

Several years ago, author Barbara Ehrenreich penned an article for The New York Times, entitled A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment. She described an adolescent experience that jolted her long-held familial tradition of atheism. Walking alone in the streets of Lone Pine, Calif., her world suddenly flamed into life. She vividly recalled the scene:

There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me and I poured into it … It was a furious encounter with a living substance that was coming at me through all things at once, too vast and violent to hold on to, too heartbreakingly beautiful to let go of.

The experience inspired Ehrenreich to set forth a broad agenda for the enhanced scientific study of mystical experiences and encounters.[1] A few days later, Ross Douthat responded by pointing out the near impossibility of Ehrenreich’s suggested mission. He noted that since the field of cognitive science has a great enough difficulty explaining what happens during non-mystical states of consciousness, shedding light on the “moments of encounter” does not stand much of a chance. He instead suggested a shift in scientific focus, from one of dependence on brains scans and fMRI machines to the revival of philosophically-informed psychology and anthropology.[2]

* * * *

As Yaakov set out from Be’er Sheva for Haran, the setting sun forced his stop and subsequent sleep in Bet El, where he dreamed:

…And, look, a ladder was set against the ground with its top reaching the heavens, and, look, messengers of God were going up and coming down it. And, look, God was poised over him… (28:12-13)

God then promised Yaakov the inheritance of Canaan, abundance offspring and continued protection (13-16). Yaakov awoke from his sleep, took note of God’s presence in that place, and said:

“How fearsome is this place! This can be but the house of God, and this is the gate of the heavens.” (17)

Several scholars have noted a connection between this ladder scene in Yaakov’s dream and the terraced towers traditionally built as temples in ancient Mesopotamia, known as ziggurats. The sight of a stairway connecting heaven and earth is strikingly similar to the ziggurat, with its external ramp linking each stage of the tower to the other.

Indeed, the description of Yaakov’s dream employs many similarities to the scene of the tower of Bavel (11:1-9), which seemingly detailed the failed mission of the construction of a ziggurat.[3] The tower had “its top in the sky” (11:4) just as the stairway’s “top reached the sky” (28:12). Each episode furthermore focused on “stones”: the creation of bricks “in place of stones” at Migdal Bavel,[4] and the erection of a stone pillar following Yaakov’s dream and his declaration that the stone be “a house of God” (28:22).[5] What was the significance of this connection?

* * * *

…And Yaakov awoke from his sleep and he said, “Indeed, God is in this place, and I did not know.” And he was afraid. And he said, “How fearsome is this place!” (17)

Yaakov’s response of fear and wonderment to his first encounter with God stands out as unique among the patriarchs. God’s promises and concurrent lesson to him on this occasion notwithstanding, Yaakov’s intense emotional response demands our attention.

Let us first consider the Torah’s narrative of the early life and actions of Yaakov. It consists of two stories: (1) the cunning purchase of the firstborn rights from Esav, and (2) the deception employed to receive Yitzhak’s blessing. Each event is underscored by Yaakov’s ability to manipulate the situation with his wits and cognitive perception. Indeed, the Hakhamim similarly highlighted Yaakov’s intellectual depth, interpreting his occupation as a “tent dweller” (25:27) as reference to Torah study,[6] and describing his 14-year halt to study upon leaving home.[7]

Imagine now the probable approach to knowledge of and faith in God for a person imbued with the smarts and tendencies of Yaakov. It would probably consist of something along the lines of an attempt to prove His existence, an effort to perceive His ways of governance, or the study of His created world. And yet, contrary to man’s historical attempt to approach God by building ziggurat temples or a tower in Bavel, Yaakov’s vision consisted of a ladder that he did not erect, upon which he could not ascend and whereupon God’s presence unapproachably loomed. It replaced rational man’s attempt to approach of God with God’s incomprehensible approach of man.

Leon Kass similarly described the situation:

Jacob’s dream turns out to be a perfect (not to say heaven-sent) device for confronting the rational man with the limits of his rationality…Yet the substance of the dream shows precisely the limits of the human mind’s ability to discern the truth about the world and to provide for a man’s most urgent needs. The sharp-eyed man – and also the sharp-eyed reader – is invited to see the limits of his own sharp -mindedness.[8]

Yaakov encountered God in this instance in a fashion reminiscent of Rudolph Otto’s description of the “numinous” – when man encounters the Almighty by means of an essentially irrational and unconscious feeling.[9] Alternatively referring to this sensation as “mysterium tremendum,” or a “creaturely feeling,” Otto’s association of religion with an internal feeling of “awe” may similarly describe Yaakov’s unexpected experience at this time.

We have all experienced it at some point of our lives. Even the most rationally-minded individuals can relate to an emotionally-rich and difficult-to-describe encounter at some point in their life. Consider, for example, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s description, in his early work Halakhic Man, of the way that his grandfather and role mode R. Hayyim of Brisk would overcome his fear of death through cognitive means, such as the study of the laws of ritual defilement (tum’ah and taharah). R. Soloveitchik provided this account as a primary instance of halakhic man’s insistence that “objectification triumphs over the subjective terror of death.”[10] Years later, however, R. Soloveitchik reflected upon death and noticed:

…The cognitive gesture points toward the unknown, towards the mysterium magnum, which escapes our comprehension. Man’s knowledge rests upon substitution of the known for the unknown, the comprehensible quantity for the qualitative phenomenon; the immediate sense experience will remain an eternal enigma.[11]

William Kolbrener suggested that this shift in R. Soloveitchik’s thought, from an insistence on strict rationalization and objectification to a submittal to the subjective experience, reflects his ongoing engagement with the legacy of the Holocaust, personal tragedies and his perception of American Jewish life in the 1950s.[12]

* * * *

The lasting effects of Barbara Ehrenreich’s mystical encounter led to her desire for the study and objectification of all such experiences. Russ Douthat’s response, however, rings true to reality. Admitting that “I did not know,” Yaakov could not possibly objectify his encounter with God and was instead overcome by the moment’s intensity of fear and awe.

The moments during which we “do not know” provide us with an emotional strength inaccessible through cognition. Setting out on a journey that would lead him far from the comfort of his family and home, Yaakov’s dream taught him that his own rational perceptions couldn't singularly guide him through the difficulties that lay ahead. His emotional experience at Bet El, albeit mystical and indescribable, continues to inspire.

Shabbat shalom!

Rabbi Avi Harari

---

[1] Barbara Ehrenreich, “A Rationalist’s Mystical Moment,” The New York Times, Apr. 5, 2014.

[2] Ross Douthat, “How to Study the Numinous,” The New York Times, Apr. 9, 2014.

[3] Recall our analysis of Parashat Vayera, several weeks ago, Cities & Human Progress.

[4] “And they said to each other, ‘Come, let us bake bricks and burn them hard.’ And the brick served them as stone, and the bitumen served them as mortar” (11:3).

[5] “And Yaakov rose early in the morning and took the stone he had put at his head, and he set it as a pillar and poured oil over its top” (28:18), “…And this stone that I set as a pillar will be a house of God…” (28:22). For the various parallels and extensive analyses, see, among others, Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York, 1966), pg. 193-4; Yair Zakovitch, Mikra’ot be-Eress ha-Mar’ot (Tel Aviv, IS, 1995), pg. 60-2); and Yehudah Elitzur, Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra (Ramat Gan, IS, 2000), pg. 44-8;

[6] See Rashi’s commentary ad loc.

[7] See Rashi’s commentary to 28:11 (s.v. va-yishkav).

[8] Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom (Chicago, 2006), pg. 415.

[9] Rudolph Otto, The Idea of the Holy (Oxford, EN, 1958), translated by John W. Harvey.

[10] R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia, 1984), pg. 73.

[11] R. Joseph B. Solovetichik, “The Crisis of Human Finitude,” printed in Out of the Whirlwind (Jersey City, NJ, 2003), pg. 156.

[12] William Kolbrener, “Review Essay: Into the Whirlwind: The Persistence of the Dialectic in the Works of Rabbi Joseph  B. Soloveitchik,” Tradition 40:2, pg. 81.