Rav Kook – Perfection and Growth – Lesson 1

This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.

🔗 Link to the original lecture

🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI

[0:00] Introduction to the Rav Kook passage and Orot HaKodesh
[1:08] Rabbi HaNazir and the writing of Orot HaKodesh
[2:10] Three study schools as continuations of Rav Kook
[8:03] The reception of Orot HaKodesh in the different study schools
[11:08] Rav Kook’s attitude toward evolution
[14:58] Distinguishing between infinity and no beginning
[20:46] Bergson’s idea about infinity and the differentiation of lights
[27:15] No beginning and infinity
[30:46] A perfect state as an oxymoron
[35:41] The paradox of infinity and progress
[38:36] Moving from poetry to prose
[41:41] Smallness and deficiency in the process of ascent

Full Transcript

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There’s a passage here from Rav Kook that I remembered as something I’d already mentioned in the past, but it turns out we probably even read it at some point, so I want to actually look at it and then talk a bit around it, about the meaning of what he’s saying. Really, the main passage itself starts from section 15 onward—15, 16, 17—but the two previous sections are somehow connected to the issue; they give a kind of introduction to it, and that’s why I photographed those too, 13 and 14. I have to say, I don’t understand every single thing there. His mode of expression isn’t completely clear to me, but there are some interesting points there, so it’s worth taking a look at those too. Let’s start with 13. “When the contemplative elevation grows stronger within us…” This is from Orot HaKodesh, of course, volume two by Rav Kook. Maybe first I’ll still say a word or two, because I usually give some introduction. Orot HaKodesh is basically a four-volume work arranged by Rabbi HaNazir. Rabbi HaNazir was a student of Rav Kook, also an interesting figure in his own right, and he was basically some combination of a mystic and a philosopher. He was involved in Kabbalah, but he also had mystical tendencies, he was an ascetic, and he engaged in various kinds of inner work—maybe today we’d call it meditation, I don’t know, again, I’m not knowledgeable enough about exactly what he did there—on the one hand. On the other hand, he was well versed in philosophy; he also studied philosophy at the university, and so there was in him a rather rare and interesting combination of these two faces. And he basically—I don’t know if I ever told this story—someone once said something to me that I think is correct: Rav Kook has three kinds of continuers, or three study schools, or three spiritual directions, and all three claim to continue him, and each one came out of a different student of his. One study school came from Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, the son of course—that’s Merkaz HaRav; today maybe you’d say more Har HaMor, I don’t know. The second study school is Rabbi Charlap. Rabbi Charlap was basically more Haredi in his mentality, also in terms of family background, also in terms of where he operated, and in his worldview he seemed to me less radical, less liberal, more conservative—but still a very close student of Rav Kook. The students of Rabbi Charlap, or those who define themselves as his students, include for example Rabbi Amital. Rabbi Amital saw himself as a student of Rav Kook through Rabbi Charlap. And in fact Rabbi Amital’s students—including, I once heard Yuval Cherlow say this too—that he also basically belongs to the Charlap branch of Rav Kook’s continuers. They said there, within the squabbles about which sages you apprenticed under and what your tradition is—within those charming little Torah-world squabbles with the first study school—that’s how the second study school defended itself. The third study school is really not quite a study school—that’s Rabbi HaNazir. And Rabbi HaNazir doesn’t really have continuers. There’s his son, Rabbi Shear Yashuv, who was the rabbi of Haifa, but there isn’t—

[Speaker B] His son-in-law, I think.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I think son—no, son. Rabbi Goren was his son-in-law. But there isn’t really a continuation of Rabbi HaNazir. I think even Rabbi Shear Yashuv wasn’t really a continuer of Rabbi HaNazir, at least as far as I know and understand. And it seems to me that the people you can call Rabbi HaNazir’s continuers are in academia. Meaning, people who research Rav Kook and place him into philosophical and intellectual patterns, into the context of his period, and so on—that’s maybe the closest thing to what Rabbi HaNazir was doing. One of the problems with that—really there are two main problems explaining why a real study school didn’t emerge there, in the usual sense of the word. One is the reliance on philosophy, which isn’t very accepted or familiar in the yeshiva world, and so naturally that didn’t produce a continuing study school. And of course that reliance—meaning the problem that this reliance creates—is double. One problem is that people don’t understand it, and the second is that they don’t grant it legitimacy. So two things—maybe they’re really one thing, I don’t know. When you quote various non-Jewish philosophers, then immediately, first, you become untouchable, and second, people also don’t understand, because they don’t have the necessary background for it. I once gave a class in Yeruham, in the yeshiva there, on Kol HaNevuah, Rabbi HaNazir’s book, and it took about three years, I think, something like that. In the last year I was already sitting with one student. The first two years there was this kind of slow, monotonic decline. We finished about half the book, the philosophical half. The second half deals more with Kabbalah. And then afterward they told me that actually there wasn’t—certainly not at that time, and maybe not at all—any class on Kol HaNevuah anywhere, not in Israel and apparently not in the world either. Meaning, that was the only class being given on Kol HaNevuah. Someone once told me this when he heard I was teaching it. He said, “What are you saying? I looked for it, I was interested—nobody. There’s nothing. Nobody studies it, nobody teaches it, nobody deals with it at all.” I was really captivated by that book. And this is just an indication that there is no study school—meaning no continuers. It’s a shame. I mean, I think so. But really because in academia it’s not actually continuity. They latch onto it, but it isn’t some study school that really carries on a spiritual direction, or a direction that has not only intellectual meaning but also practical implications. Okay, so those are the three study schools. Now, what’s unique about Orot HaKodesh, these four volumes, is that they were basically arranged—and also published, though I don’t remember all the exact details—the first volume still with Rav Kook’s approval, and I think the second volume too; the others were after his death, and it’s less clear how authorized they are, for those to whom it’s always very important whether something is authorized or unauthorized. In essence he organized passages, little notes, that Rav Kook had written—various flashes of insight, local thoughts. He handed over all the writings to him, and he tried to arrange them into some logical, systematic order. And the story is that he went to ask Rav Kook whether he had a method, because he had all sorts of local thoughts, he didn’t express himself in the form of a system, he spoke in a very eclectic way, right? Each time about something else, whatever came to him. He was of course an extremely creative, overflowing person. And he once asked him whether he had a method, and when he told him yes, he took it on as a mission to try to organize that method, to present it as a system, and the result is really the book Orot HaKodesh, which I think gets a somewhat ambivalent reception in the circles of two of the study schools—or really of the first one; the second one not really. The first study school, that is, the students of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, have a somewhat ambivalent attitude toward this book, Orot HaKodesh. In any case, of course you’re not allowed to study it until you reach some year, I don’t know which one, in yeshiva, but “his belly was filled with lights and granaries.” What?

[Speaker C] “His belly was filled with lights and granaries.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly. There’s some order there, what’s permitted and what’s forbidden and at what stage you do each thing, whatever. In any case, there’s this somewhat ambivalent attitude toward the book, and that got strengthened from an unexpected direction when Shemonah Kevatzim came out. When Shemonah Kevatzim appeared, that was basically a republication of those same little notes, not so organized, but more or less as they were. And then it turned out that Rabbi HaNazir not only arranged the passages and gave them headings—which obviously are his and not Rav Kook’s—but also interfered a bit with the text. Now in the first volume there was probably even Rav Kook’s approval for that, meaning it was apparently with his consent. The second volume too, I think—if I remember correctly, the first two volumes were still in one way or another coordinated with and agreed to by Rav Kook. After that, no, because it came out after his death. But over this he started taking flak from the other direction. Meaning, Orot HaKodesh wasn’t popular in the first study school, the more messianic one, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda and that crowd. But now after Shemonah Kevatzim came out, suddenly they also started accusing him, from academic circles and other circles—Rabbi HaNazir—that he had edited it, and so when you study Orot HaKodesh you’re not necessarily studying Rav Kook; maybe you’re studying Rabbi HaNazir. Which is often what people accuse an editor and—

[Speaker C] The Sholem Aleichem we know—it’s Sholem Aleichem and Berkowitz.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Ah, I don’t know, that I don’t know, I’m not familiar. But what? Berkowitz—ah, Berkowitz translated it, okay.

[Speaker C] Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda also censored.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda censored, but that’s legal of course, that’s something else. For them that’s mainstream, that’s all inside the tent. He of course censored freely, so obviously—there’s no comparison to what Rabbi HaNazir did. There, some of the censored passages we encountered—two or three years ago we saw that. And those aren’t even his censored passages; they’re his students’, who also now feel authorized because of their rabbi, and they put out a completely censored edition of the book we studied, Nevukhei HaDor. And there too academia is giving them trouble. There’s someone working on it and preparing the full edition, God forbid—or at least trying to publish it. I hope he succeeds.

[Speaker E] We already learned from the corrected edition,

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We learned from the book, because that’s the edition that came out, but I gave the corrections in the places where there were additions—so yes, because I got permission from him, from Rabbi Shachar Rachmani; he’s working on the full edition. So in short, that’s Orot HaKodesh, yes. So now we’re in volume two of Orot HaKodesh. It deals with elevation and perfection, and that’s a section in this book, in the second volume. The next stage, after these chapters end—maybe a few pages later—is Rav Kook’s very famous discussion of evolution. People always say that Rav Kook basically already wrote about evolution and gave it a stamp of approval and everything’s fine. It’s usually those religious slogans—as though Rav Kook wrote some paragraph about evolution, so everything’s fine, he exhausted the whole issue and all at once you can believe it and he solved all the problems and that’s it. Fine. He only said that development is something that fits the Torah idea, or the Jewish idea. That’s more or less what’s written there in the book. Beyond that, nothing. But he answered all the problems, he already solved everything. Anyway, now that I’m done slandering his students, let’s read him a bit. “When contemplative elevation grows stronger within us, we rise proudly in exalted humility to speak meditations of holy discourse,” or “to speak the meditations of holy discourse,” “and we ascend above that exalted content of the mysteries of mysteries, the source of blessing for the added height.” Meaning, when we want to rise—again, as I said, I don’t understand every word here, but generally it seems to me what he wants to say is this, assuming that every word really has meaning as people say about his writings—I don’t know. It could be that this is literary writing where you don’t really have to understand the meaning of every phrase; it’s more like reading a poem. I mean, I don’t know how far one really has to understand every word here. I really don’t know. I don’t know to what extent one really does.

[Speaker B] Like Maimonides said about Mishneh Torah, that every word can be interpreted precisely.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but not in that sense, because there he really wrote what he meant, he thought through the wording. Here the feeling is more that it burst out creatively; it’s half poetry, and therefore—well, I don’t know, that’s a question I’m too small to discuss. I’m not enough of an expert in these matters to really give an opinion. In any case, there’s some sort of elevation here. Apparently you contemplate something spiritual, and that arouses in you some kind of ascent, so “we rise proudly in exalted humility.” What does that mean? We try to go upward, but from some kind of—“we rise proudly” means we climb upward, not “proudly” in the sense of arrogance. These are Rav Kook’s idioms; you have to know them. “Rise proudly” means like “it rose majestically; horse and rider He cast into the sea,” right? We go upward, yes? Like the sea rises. “Exalted humility” means that in order to rise, to ascend, you actually need to be humble. Contradiction? Yes, yes. And we’ll see later that this point comes back—that in order to progress, you need some sort of—you need to be low, because otherwise there’s nowhere to progress to. So that’ll come later. “To speak meditations,” or “to speak the meditations of holy discourse, and we ascend above that exalted content of the mysteries of mysteries, the source of blessing for the added height.” Meaning, we are constantly nourished by something that is above us. There’s some addition beyond the height in which we find ourselves, or beyond the level where we are, and that’s what draws us to keep rising upward. Okay. “When we say the expression infinity,” right, which basically means okay, we climb and climb and climb—to where? The assumption is that there is no end, meaning you can ascend infinitely many levels. “When we say the expression infinity, our heart is filled with the emotion of a question,” as though we don’t really understand what infinity is. We say it, but not really in a way that fully grasps it. “And with an inner longing toward the expression no beginning, and we sense that no beginning cannot even be conceived in the meditation of the most hidden and concealed thought-expression.” And this is a very interesting distinction that he develops in a moment, so I’ll just say a word: there’s a difference between infinity and no beginning. Meaning, infinity—no end—is the place toward which you strive when you ascend, when you “rise,” in his language. Okay? So no end is not some place, it’s not—you don’t know how to define it, but you know that it’s some kind of thing that is very, very high. Meaning, you are always striving upward, and at the limit that’s what’s called infinity. There is no such place, but it’s that thing above which there is nothing. Okay? In mathematical terminology.

[Speaker C] So “no beginning” is how I got here. Exactly. How is there a present if there’s no beginning?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning, if infinity means something to which nothing can be added, then what is “no beginning”? The same thing.

[Speaker C] Then how is there a now? So that’s the problem of… No, that’s something else.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Chovot HaLevavot talks about that.

[Speaker C] No, I don’t think so.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Here, in my view, he’s not speaking in the mathematical sense of these… always. In mathematical terms, infinity and no beginning are the same thing. You simply go to minus infinity or plus infinity. Think of zero as—think of zero as the beginning.

[Speaker B] No, no—that means no beginning.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No beginning means you go to minus infinity. But “infinity” is an expression that has some meaning for us, even if only negative. It’s something to which you can’t add, right? But what is “no beginning”? Something that you can’t what?

[Speaker E] That before it there never was.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Before it there wasn’t—but you’re talking chronologically, which is why I’m saying that chronologically it’s symmetric. What has nothing after it and what had nothing before it—I’m not talking about symmetry. I’m talking about ascent. Here he’s speaking about ascent in a spiritual sense, in the sense of levels of understanding and perception. A state of understanding—

[Speaker F] The lowest understanding, the very lowest.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It’s not a low state of understanding.

[Speaker F] I think ascent is going inward and inward and inward. I think that the more you go inward, the more you get to the point of beginning.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But what’s the difference between no beginning and infinity? So let’s look. About infinity—come on, let’s see, let’s keep reading. “In infinity lies the negation of the possibility of addition.” Right? Infinity means something beyond which there can be nothing more. You can’t add anything to it. It already includes everything. Okay?

[Speaker E] No, in infinity lies the negation of—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. When you say “infinity,” that thing negates the possibility of addition. You can’t add to it.

[Speaker E] That’s a double negative, and that means you can add.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no. The meaning of the concept infinity—what is it? The negation of the possibility of addition. Because when you say something is finite, it means you can always add something more to it, right? But if something is infinite, then it already contains everything. There’s nothing more to add. So that’s the negation of the possibility of addition. That’s called infinity. “For what could be added to infinity, to perfection that rises above every depth of majestic strength? Yet there is a foundation for royal concentration to establish an unceasing perfection that ascends”—or “is perfected,” I don’t know—“that rises ever upward, through deficiency that prepares for addition, through contraction that prepares for expansion.” This sounds like a collection of oxymorons. What I think he means—and later it becomes clearer—is simply that in order for there to be addition, there has to be deficiency. If you have no deficiency in anything, what could be added to you? Someone who has everything—nothing can be added to him. So in order to be ascending, you need some sort of deficiency. In order to expand, you need to be in some sense contracted. Right? So deficiency prepares for addition, and contraction prepares for expansion. One who has no deficiency and no contraction will be able neither to add nor to expand. Okay?

[Speaker B] There’s “broadness of soul” among the disciples of Balaam.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly. Although there they think their soul is broad. “And since the supreme emanation is expressed in us”—what does that mean? It means it serves us, we express it, even though in principle this is something we can’t really speak about. But since we nevertheless use the concept infinity, right, “the supreme emanation,” then “we are already permitted to say that the depth of infinite ascent itself ascends in supreme liberation through the differentiation of the lights, in which the law of addition applies, from the original intensity in which there is no measure of ascent because of its immense power.” Now here I can’t translate this literally, but it seems to me that what will become clearer later is this: in the end, we reach a state where you arrive at infinite ascent, and that still doesn’t negate the possibility that you can keep ascending. Contrary to what people usually think, that infinity is stuck. Infinity can’t advance. Infinity squared. Huh? Yes. That’s Cantor. Okay. So yes. Two to the power of infinity—why not? Anyway, yes, his claim is that there can be an infinite state that does not negate the possibility of further ascent. All this is preparation for what he’ll say later, and it will be clearer there, okay? So here, all these details—what exactly “the differentiation of the lights” means—I have no idea. But maybe he means the differentiation of the lights, not “the lights” in the everyday sense—meaning spiritual lights in Kabbalah. When you rise into the spiritual worlds, you’re in the world of Emanation, say, which for us is infinity, but even in Emanation there are different lights. All the sefirot are really different kinds of lights. So you see that even within infinity you can climb from one light to another; in other words, the notion of progress still has meaning even when you are in infinity. Only there it’s not so much ascent as differentiation among the lights. By the way, this is Bergson’s idea, which will be mentioned later. Bergson is very intimately connected to this passage; he mentions him. Bergson basically argued that infinity can perfect itself by way of differentiation and not by way of climbing—meaning there is some Bergsonian idea that this isn’t exactly self-perfection but self-change. Infinity can change by differentiation, not by climbing upward. Something finite can rise higher; something already at the top can only be different from what it is now. That’s the only kind of change possible for it; it can’t climb any further. That’s what he means by the differentiation of the lights.

[Speaker C] And maybe in that way you can talk about prayer, asking God for something. What? With the philosophical difficulty that He can’t change through that.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, there the difficulty is that He can’t change; the claim is that He also can’t change.

[Speaker C] No—why is the difficulty that He can’t change? Because you’re speaking of Him as infinite and perfect.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] “Perfect” isn’t exactly the same as “infinite.” I mean, this matter—I don’t know if—

[Speaker C] It could be that change doesn’t harm perfection. Okay.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. From the origin there is something within us that basically causes us to climb and keep rising, and even when theoretically someone reaches that infinite state, there is still something in him that causes him to keep changing all the time. Yes, that’s the “original intensity in which there is no measure of ascent because of its immense power.” “And only for this infinite capacity to create ends and limitations…” Every time you rise, in order to prepare for the next ascent you need, basically, to create a contraction, to create an end. And after that end, you rise further. By the way, in the Kabbalistic description of the creation of the world, there’s a description of contraction after contraction. Meaning, there was at first the Infinite Light—that’s how the Ari begins—there was at first the Infinite Light, which filled all reality, and then it withdrew and left some vacant space. Now into that vacant space entered some kind of line, almost all the way down, not all the way down, and then again a process begins: that line now creates something around itself, and again it contracts. And in the space of that additional something—that’s already the Leshem’s interpretation of what happens afterward, but that’s at least how the Leshem describes it. And then the next world after this one—there is the world of infinity that fills everything, that’s the Infinite Light; after that there is the line and contraction, that’s the second world, and the vacant space with the line inside it. After that there is the world of Adam Kadmon, after that the world of Emanation, and after that Creation, Formation, and Action. Every such world is created in exactly the same way as the higher world—meaning it’s a contraction of the world above it with the entry of a line. Exactly the whole process described regarding the first world, the Leshem says, is what happens in the emergence of every world. And the meaning of this is basically that in order to create something, you need to contract the previous something. Because if you don’t contract the previous something, the next thing can’t be created. Though there it’s downward. Though there it’s something downward, exactly. Aren’t there infinitely many worlds? Isn’t there infinity? No, in that description there isn’t. Correct, although when you move into the fractal perspective of Kabbalah—meaning that within the world of Emanation there is also a dimension of line and contraction, Adam Kadmon, Emanation, Creation, Formation, and Action.

[Speaker C] It’s multiplication upon multiplication, it’s an exponent, never mind.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but it could be that it continues to infinity, I don’t know. Each one continues onward and so on. Again, I don’t know, I have no idea. But there is some continuation there of this whole matter. So there too, true, it’s downward there—meaning they contract the higher thing in order to create the lower thing. Here he’s describing something else, but it’s clear that it draws inspiration from that same process. You need to be contracted in order to be able to add something more. That’s what he means by the differentiation of the lights. Or maybe in that way one can speak about prayer, asking God. Therefore it is “this infinite capacity to create ends and limitations.” Meaning, you never get all the way to the end; every time after you’ve ascended, you stop, there is some contraction, and then you can define a state from which it’s possible to climb another level. But you always have to create ends in order to make the next ascent. “So that it may be a vessel of blessing for the delight of eternal play, in satiation of good, in the sweetness of subtle pleasures, in the hiddenness of their unity.” Yes, that their unity is hidden within them—that’s the “hiddenness of their unity.” “There is expressive power, a still small voice.” As Rashi says there in Kings, “I heard—there is a voice.” I heard a voice emerging from the silence. “A still small voice,” and afterward a voice of silence—“not in the noise is God,” and afterward “a still small voice.” So Rashi says: I heard a voice emerging from the silence. I think that expression is a hint to this whole idea. But “in no beginning”—all this was about infinity. That was the description of climbing upward toward infinity. “But in no beginning, this awesome value is not traced.” You can’t trace the process we’ve described until now with respect to infinity, in relation to the concept of no beginning. What, is there some asymmetry here between these two concepts? “And what will it avail us if we become wise enough to think of the exalted greatness, of the depth of the source of every source, higher than every being of all beings? There, there is no thought-flame.” Meaning, there is no thinking there. “Thought-flames” means thoughts. As he said above—in the end of the previous passage, as you see—“and we sense that no beginning cannot even be conceived in the meditation of the most hidden and concealed thought-expression.” Meaning, everything he said until now about infinity is some kind of statement about infinity. True, we don’t really grasp it, but we can talk about it. It’s something from which the possibility of addition is negated, and how do you get there? Through a series of contractions and limitations which you then keep passing beyond. So you can describe some process involving a limit. But regarding no beginning, you can’t describe a parallel process. Along the time axis, yes—again I’m saying—but along the axis of ascent, what is no beginning? “Beginning” here doesn’t mean the lowest low, the absolute bottom—meaning the peak of evil, right? It’s not that point. “Beginning” means source, exactly, the origin. So here we are not progressing toward the beginning. There isn’t some parallel process where you can say, okay, let’s stop ourselves and then move even further toward this no beginning. No beginning is simply—nothing. You don’t know what to say about it at all. About infinity you can still say something by way of negation. About no beginning—it “cannot be conceived in thought-expression.” It isn’t grasped even in thought, even in the negative way in which we speak about infinity. This is really an interesting point. There is some asymmetry here in thought. That’s interesting. Though again, in the mathematical conception there’s no problem at all. It’s completely symmetric. Everything you can say to the right you can also say to the left. I mean, there’s no problem with that. You can even close them in the complex plane if you want. Fine. “Also in the values of values beyond all valuation, my soul is silent to God, for from Him comes my hope.” Meaning, it’s as though the Holy One, blessed be He, is there—in the no beginning. Notice that. It’s some kind of—we climb toward infinity, but God Himself is really the no beginning. In other words, that’s the point from which everything begins. We are climbing, but somehow we are supposed to encounter the beginning even though that means moving, as it were, in the opposite direction. Okay? We don’t know how to speak about the beginning, so we climb toward infinity. That closes it off, as I said. In infinity we close it off. Okay, up to here with this poem. I don’t know—what I understood, I understood. No, no, not yet—it starts at 15. “The slowness in the order of reality, the limitation in nature, its outward sluggishness, the contraction within spiritual ascent, the temporariness of miracles—all these are the sustaining foundations of unceasing ascent.” Meaning, he says that the reality we encounter is some kind of loose reality; it’s sloppy. Every once in a while some miracle flashes out. All sorts of things suddenly happen. It’s not tight. And you feel that there’s something in the cracks. You can’t grasp it, but there’s something more there beyond this nature that we encounter here. It weakens from time to time and reveals to us that behind it there is something. All this is an introduction to what comes afterward, and that’s why I’m reading these somewhat obscure passages. “All these are the sustaining foundations of unceasing ascent.” Ascent basically means taking what we’ve had until now as something contracted. Nature. We understood it, enclosed it, described it clearly. But now we want to climb. Climb to what? We’re done, everything’s fine, we already understand everything. No. In everything we’ve enclosed, suddenly through the cracks we see there’s something more here. And somehow we have to climb beyond this contraction, onward. Yes, that’s what he says. “This is the inner foundation of reality: that it should have a boundary within its boundary, so that the descent of the revelation of worldly reality to its lowest depth and to its darkest darkness should suffice for an eternal ascent without any interruption. And every temporal period prepares power for a period swifter in its ascent, until the highest speed—He leads us with youth.” Yes, “He leads us with youth” means with quickness like young people. That’s the translation. “He leads us with youth” meaning from the language of youths, young men—swiftly, like those youths. In other words, gradually this ascent becomes more rapid. There is some acceleration in this ascent. “Running and returning like the appearance of lightning. And the appearance of ascent and the additions of the light of delight and life, which go on growing fragrant and are always filled with ever greater and more exalted value, will never cease—until they become equal together.” Yes, at the end of this process of unceasing ascent, what happens? Suddenly we reach a point where what lies behind reality, and always only stimulates us—we only catch the fragrance, just the smell—we never really grasp that thing. It peeks out at us through the cracks of ordinary nature that somehow we know how to handle. But in the end, after we penetrate further and further and further into infinity, or no beginning, or whatever you want to call it, suddenly these two ways of looking become joined: the temporary, the supernatural, that something that we don’t quite know what to do with, together with the natural, contracted thing, these laws of nature—and “the form of complete perfection and the form of unceasing perfecting will become equal together.” Complete perfection means the perfect state. But a perfect state is almost an oxymoron by definition. Because if you are in a state, you are static, so it isn’t perfect. Since if you already have some variable x = 1000, okay? Then there is also 1001. By definition it can’t be. Infinity, in other words—and I’ve spoken about this before—infinity is always potential. It’s never concrete. The moment you are in a state and you call it infinity, the mathematicians will tell you that you’re talking nonsense. There is no such thing. Infinity is some kind of limit that you can approach. There is no number called infinity. It doesn’t denote a number. It’s simply shorthand for a limiting process. That’s all. Now this is really what he’s saying here. On the one hand, you arrive at a perfect state. But a perfect state is an oxymoron. Because if you are in a state, that means it’s something defined, contracted—you can point to it and say: I’ve reached x = 1,000,000. Okay? Fine, now there’s 1,000,001. So by definition you’re not perfect. So there is some sort of perfect state—why? Because when you are in that perfect state, there is no longer any difference between being in a state and progressing. The progress itself becomes the state. That is really what he’s saying. I’m going to cast these things into a fairly precise framework later. Right now it sounds mystical, but that’s the introduction. I think it’s important to see this introduction before I define it later. So basically there is going to be some joining here between two ways of looking that seem to us incompatible. If we take the static perspective, then to improve means to go from 1000 to 1001, or from 1000 to 10,000, or from 100,000 to a billion, or whatever you want. But that basically means that at the end of every improvement, you’re in some state—which is again just another end and contraction on the way—which is only a basis for the next ascent. So it can’t be that you arrive at a perfect state. If you are in—let’s call it not a state but I don’t know another word—in a situation of perfection, yes? Then that situation of perfection is not really a state. Rather, it is something that includes within itself the elements of progress—not only the elements of what x-value you are at, but also what the derivative is, yes? How you are progressing there. So when you are in infinity, what happens when you are basically, as it were, in infinity? What happens is that you are in a process of progress without changing the state. You remain at infinity; move forward one more, you are still at infinity. Meaning, it’s as if you’re in a perfect state, and the perfect state also includes progress. But that progress has no expression in states. In other words, you don’t arrive at a higher state. It’s progress that is, as it were, while standing in place. You were at infinity and remained at infinity. Infinity plus one is infinity. What?

[Speaker C] That’s a bit of a conceptual contradiction.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll try to define it later. I think not, but I’ll try to define it later.

[Speaker D] If sigma F equals zero, you’re in a state of inertia. Inertia includes motion at constant speed too.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but motion to where? If I’m at infinity, then motion to where? That’s the question. Okay, but I’m at the limit. That’s the question. You can’t be at the limit. Just words. But I’m saying, that’s the tendency, the becoming equal. I’ll try to define it more precisely later. But precisely this vague introduction is important to me, because it gets us into the right mindset. Okay?

[Speaker E] Why don’t I just explain it simply? The contraction is in my understanding of how much I don’t understand. Meaning, the contraction is not a numerical-mathematical contraction, but when I’m a child I think I’m smart.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay.

[Speaker E] I grow up, I start learning, I understand a bit more how much I don’t know.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What is the state of perfection? The state of perfection means when I understand everything that I don’t understand. When I understand that I don’t understand.

[Speaker E] The state of perfection is infinity.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And then do I not understand, or do I understand?

[Speaker E] The contraction—the contraction is not in me, but in my understanding of how much until now I didn’t know.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And then that enables me to know?

[Speaker E] And then infinity really is infinity. What?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The more I—

[Speaker E] The more I know, the more I also know how much I still don’t know enough.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But what is the utopian state? What is the ideal? What is the utopian state in which nothing is known? What is the utopian state?

[Speaker E] No, the utopian state is that you are constantly progressing and there is infinity.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But is there somewhere to progress to? There is a paradox here that he is trying to draw, where you are in a state from which you cannot progress, but you are in a state of constant progress.

[Speaker E] Those are two—

[Speaker C] Different aspects. Two different uses of the word progress.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It can’t be the same thing. I—I’ll define it. I think we talked about this back then, but I’ll define it. There is—there is here some kind of attempt to describe a state where you—you’re looking at two—you’re joining two forms of perspective that don’t really fit together. Now if you throw it into infinity, then there everything goes. Meaning, no problem. You can be in the same state, keep progressing all the time, and remain in that same state. Infinity plus one is infinity. Infinity plus two is also infinity. In other words, you are basically in a state of constant progress without changing the static variable you are in.

[Speaker C] But you’re not in the same state. You’re in a state of plus one.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No. Infinity plus one is infinity.

[Speaker C] What is plus one?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But it is still quantitatively much larger than one. No, no, no, it isn’t larger. No, it’s exactly the same thing. Infinity plus one is infinity. There is a one-to-one correspondence between those two sets; it’s exactly the same thing, it isn’t larger. It is exactly the same thing. That is the meaning of infinity. Again, though, you have to be careful with concrete infinity; that just gets us into paradoxes all the time. And the form of unceasing perfection that comes because of the primordial lack—yes, of course this is shattering and repair; there are hints here to concepts from Kabbalah. There was a shattering, and then the whole world is basically there to repair that same primordial shattering, the primordial lack. And the mere remembrance of the deficiencies of the past will suffice to give a constant push toward ever-increasing perfection. And the form of unceasing perfection will rise above complete perfection. You have, as it were, completion—that is the state of perfection—and you have unceasing perfection even in a state that is supposedly perfect. So how—how can such a thing be? How can one rise above complete perfection? Infinity plus one, right? There is perfection within the perfect state. How—how does such a thing happen? So we… okay, “A woman of valor is the crown of her husband,” and “the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and delight in the radiance of the Divine Presence,” which continually grows stronger, ascent after ascent, without end or limit. Blessed is God forever, amen and amen, and blessed be His name forever and for all eternity. And all the sparks of life, all the souls, spirits, and life-forces, and all the sparks of life within all that exists, are bound up with the foundation of unceasing perfection, which is the light of God that brings being into existence, the arm of God that has been revealed. And they are always rising in its ascent just as they descend and did descend in its descent, which is their descent that highlights its descent. And behold, everything longs for the ascent of the light of all worlds, for the shining radiance of the Divine Presence of the God of splendor, the glory of God, which goes on perfecting itself, emerging from concealment into revelation. Basically here, the more we constrict the things that hold back the light, the Divine Presence, then specifically the greater constriction will bring revelation—or a coming forth from potential into actuality—of the Divine Presence or of the light or of the things behind reality, those things that we saw through the cracks in all the different movements of being and in all kinds of ferment in the human spirit and in all creation as a whole, which is moving toward becoming one band, to do His will with a whole heart. That is, as it were, the perfect state; “a whole heart” is really an expression of the perfect state. Okay, so that is the opening song. And I think there is something about this poem—the fact is that to describe this in prose, this thing, is very hard. So now I’m going to try to do it following what he does in the next chapters. He starts it, but it still isn’t really prose; it’s half poem. I’m going to try to turn it entirely into prose. But that is the way of prose—and by the way, that is the subject: turning into prose the difference between poetry and prose. That’s really the point. Clearly. And therefore I deliberately did not skip this introduction, so that in the background there will remain what it is we are trying to describe with this prose, because the prose is only an approximation of the real thing; this is the real thing. Okay, so from here on, now we need to begin working. The tendency of all existence, on the side of the hidden infinite desire—the desire is the will, the hidden infinite one—is, as it is revealed to us, as I understand it, Rabbi Kook is saying, the tendency of existence: a great counsel of elevation and eternal increase. That is the tendency of all existence: simply to keep improving, to keep rising eternally. If I told you that the next chapter deals with evolution, this is preparation for the discussion of evolution. Not the next paragraph, but a few pages from now; we won’t talk about that now. For if there is no reality of smallness and deficiency, there can only be greatness and fullness, but not constant growth and constant stepping forward toward added blessing. Okay? Meaning, if you really have no smallness, no deficiency, then you cannot improve. All you can perhaps do is fill the space you already occupy. Okay? But you can’t enlarge it, because you no longer have deficiency; there is nowhere to go, nothing to add. And even though there is no end to elevation, for whatever

[Speaker B] can be added, and this and that according to my renewal, to advance, to try not to fall backward. Right?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Or to improve well what you already have, to reinforce what you already have.

[Speaker B] The world of the angels.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You know that the Arizal, when he speaks about contractions, I think this is connected to this idea. It usually happens through expansion and then withdrawal. How is the next world formed out of a higher one? How is the lower world formed? That light expands and then retreats back, and that is the contraction. First you have to create the potential space; that is a kind of expansion. Then you withdraw from there and leave room for the next reality. Yes, there is some kind of contraction here in order to create the next thing. And even though there is no end to the elevation of complete perfection, in which there is no elevation because of its infinity. Yes, you cannot rise above infinity. Meaning, there is nowhere to rise to. Nevertheless, that exalted power of constant elevation is also included within it. This is already a hint of what will come later. Meaning, the perfect infinite state includes—it cannot rise further—but the power to rise is there. That is, it will not come to expression because there is nowhere to rise, but the power of elevation is there. Okay? This is a hint of what will come later. And this is considered as though absolute perfection perfects itself through perfection-in-process, even though it does not ascend, it does not become more perfect, but it has this power to perfect itself. Okay? Which comes through the appearance of smallness coming into greatness. What does that mean? Something is produced, suddenly something small appears. This power to perfect itself actually comes to expression through that. Complete being creates something small because it has no way to bring this power outward. So it creates something small, and that small thing perfects itself, and that is what actualizes the power, the power of perfection-in-process that exists in complete being. And this—this work—is a high necessity. And here he is hinting at an expression that appears among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), always in these secretive contexts: the secret that service is a high necessity. The secret that service is a high necessity means that our service is actually for the sake of the Holy One, blessed be He—He needs us. We help Him; without us He cannot. That is the meaning of service as a high necessity. Philosophers hear this and tear out their hair. That is why it is always “secrets.” But that is actually what they are saying. Service is a high necessity. The Arizal talks about this; he writes, “Give strength to God.” What does “Give strength to God” mean? It means: give Him strength. We are the ones who give Him strength. Right? Meaning, He needs us. He created us because He needs us. Why does He need us? Here there is already a hint. Because if He is perfect, if He is infinite, then He has no way to progress. But one of the perfections is to be in the process of perfection. That perfection He cannot have. So what does the perfect state do if it wants to perfect itself? Some smallness appears, some deficiency, and that power to perfect itself appears through it. And now it begins to rise, and its perfection-in-process is actually the actualization of the power to perfect itself that exists in complete being. Therefore that being-in-process is actually a high necessity. It is the only thing that can succeed in showing this perfection of the Holy One, blessed be He, because He Himself cannot; He cannot perfect Himself—He is already perfect. Where can He go? So here this is already some hint of where things are going. The things are actually going… what?

[Speaker E] That His creations advance. Exactly. No, He has nowhere to advance, but we are His creations. Exactly. The little thing

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] that appears is us, or the world. And the role of this is that the power to perfect itself that exists in the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot come into actuality. Where—where can He improve?

[Speaker C] And it feels a little like sleight of hand. Because why—why is part of perfection being in a process of perfection? That is an intuitive conception. Progress is something that is a certain kind of perfection, right?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because we are lacking, you mean. Only because of that do we feel that perfection-in-process—

[Speaker C] I don’t know, it intuitively makes sense. Okay, but here He is not really progressing. There isn’t really any progress in the perfection-in-process. It’s just: I stepped backward so here, now I’m progressing. No, I stepped backward.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I stepped backward. I created a lack.

[Speaker C] If it isn’t you, and you created something that does it, then that doesn’t help your perfection-in-process at all.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, no. That is its perfection-in-process.

[Speaker C] It’s not yours. Either you stepped backward and advanced—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Once again you are assuming here too sharp a duality, apparently, between creation and Creator. There isn’t such a duality. We too are, in some sense, part of Him.

[Speaker C] So fine, okay, I accept that—then it is He Himself. Right.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But it is He Himself, a part of Himself that He created. It isn’t something He took—

[Speaker C] backward in order to bring it forward.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He didn’t take it backward. He simply created a deficient part.

[Speaker C] Yes. He took from the complete perfection, which is Him, omitted a part so that it could perfect itself.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll give you an example.

[Speaker C] Many times someone creates work for himself and destroys what he did and creates work for himself.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Again, obviously—look, if you take this into our world, then certainly it may be that we get tangled here—

[Speaker C] in some conception.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I’m saying no, Rabbi—

[Speaker C] is taking this to some conception.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’m saying, obviously, I’m trying, but I’m saying that I think one has to be careful not to make this analogy in a one-to-one way. There is something here: when infinity does something more, then that extra thing cannot be something completely other than it, because it is infinity. When you think about it, you always think of it as a person doing something else; the other thing is something else, not him, okay? But when infinity does something else, then this is only trying to explain it as closely as possible, as I said—it’s a poem that we are trying to put into some kind of pattern. And basically the claim is that this is, on the one hand, something else; on the other hand, this is its way of perfecting itself, because without this it cannot perfect itself. And therefore, actually, we do the work for Him. And that is the claim. Okay?

[Speaker B] There is something here that—it remains a paradox.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t think it remains a paradox. It perhaps remains not entirely understood.

[Speaker B] But the assumption that part of perfection can be to perfect oneself—that assumption I don’t understand. Because what is the purpose of perfecting oneself? To progress toward perfection.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, he explicitly assumes otherwise.

[Speaker B] If there is perfection—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] then why is part of perfection… No, he claims—that’s the whole introduction—he claims—

[Speaker B] and that is the central assumption here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Correct. That is the focal point here, and I’ll still talk about it. The focal point here is that perfection-in-process is not a means to become more perfect.

[Speaker B] It’s like a spring that is always coiled.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. Meaning, even if it doesn’t move me from a less good state to a better state, still the fact that I am perfecting myself is itself a kind of perfection. It is not merely a means to get somewhere. Let’s say, a penitent is preferable to one who was always completely righteous. There is a dispute in the Talmudic text, but people generally tend to think that that is the conclusion: that a penitent is preferable to one who was always completely righteous. Usually people understand that as a prize for hard work. That’s not true. After he finishes becoming a penitent, he basically just becomes one who is completely righteous, so what more can he be beyond that? At most he is like the one who was always completely righteous. In what sense is the penitent greater than one who was always completely righteous? He is greater because in the penitent there is progress. If you check the state at what x-value he is, he is at the same x-value as the one who was always completely righteous. But he has a derivative. That is, he is progressing. And the derivative is not merely a means to reach a higher x-value; the existence of the derivative—the value function is alpha times x plus beta times x-prime.

[Speaker C] The penitent too has the power.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There is a weighting of the state plus the derivative.

[Speaker C] According to this, does the one who was always completely righteous also have that same power? The one who was always completely righteous has the same power, he just isn’t moving with it. The one who was always completely righteous has that same power, so he isn’t greater in that sense…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In a moment, in a moment, we’ll see.

[Speaker C] I think not—no—I don’t know.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There is no such thing as one who was always completely righteous. It’s just a made-up expression only meant to convey an idea.

[Speaker B] One who was always completely righteous will not become a penitent; the idea is that the derivative is sharper.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I’m saying more than that. But if there is no such thing as one who was always completely righteous, it’s just a fiction. There is no such thing.

[Speaker B] Right, but when they say “the righteous,” the penitent is above them, they mean someone who has gone a certain distance over a period of time…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I think they explicitly mean fictions. They mean to define a fiction in order to explain this idea—the idea that progress is not only for the sake of being in a better state. Progress has value in itself. So they create this fiction called “one who was always completely righteous,” and let’s even say, for the sake of discussion, that he has no ability to progress—it doesn’t matter—because I am comparing two situations of being at x equals one thousand, but one of them also has a derivative. He is also progressing, so he is better. Meaning, the value function is not only a function of the x-value where you are.

[Speaker B] So the rate of progress—he has that too, beta times x-prime.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, of course if you are progressing more, that also has—

[Speaker B] Meaning that in order to be perfect, you need an infinite derivative.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, and therefore I think that this—

[Speaker B] and an infinite rate of progress—it gets into loops here.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, you are going to an infinite rate of progress where—but if you are already at x equals infinity then in any case it won’t come to expression in a change in x. The x-prime here doesn’t… fine, it will remain the same. We’ll get to that in a moment. In any event, the claim is that there is something here—and this really is his basic claim here—that there is something in perfection-in-process that is not merely a means to reach a state where I am better, but that the very progress toward being better itself has value. Take an example. There are often such claims among people who deal with—

[Speaker E] And grain products take precedence over fruit of the tree—what? The simple example is written in the Talmudic text: grain products take precedence over fruit of the tree.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What do you mean grain products take precedence over fruit of the tree?

[Speaker E] Grain products—someone squeezed wheat and ground it and cooked it, while the tree just grew that way, the vine just grew that way. So first comes “Who creates kinds of nourishment”; it is preferable to “Who creates the fruit of the tree.”

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Whose deeds are better—those of flesh and blood or those of the Holy One, blessed be He? Right. Or in other contexts—I don’t know—once I heard an argument about the management of industries. The claim was that there is some added value in making changes. The change itself is. It is not only a means to get better output, which of course is true. Meaning, sometimes you make a change in order to reach a better state. But even a change that brings you to another state with the same output can somehow improve things, because there is a certain feeling of dynamism. There is a certain feeling that we are not stuck in the same place. And that is basically a parable for this matter: that there is something in the change itself, not only in the fact that it brings me to a better state, that itself gives some added value. Okay?

[Speaker C] Meaning there is something in the change itself to that same better state, to the same thing with a feeling. What? The same thing plus a feeling.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Obviously, but not because of the state. Again, when you change the structure of the factory—not for the state itself. Fine, but you change the factory in order to reach a different mode of operation. That mode of operation, if you had started with it—not reached it by change but started with it—would have succeeded less. Understand? It is not because of the structure and the utility you get, but because this structure was created by a process. Meaning, there is added value to the process itself beyond the question of what structure you are in now. Okay? It is a parable, but just to illustrate this point. Later on I’ll try to define it better. What do we think regarding the matter of the divine purpose in inventing existence? What did the Holy One, blessed be He, intend when He invented the world? Now he is finally beginning in the clearest possible way. Until now these were just general statements. We say that absolute perfection is the necessary existence—the Holy One, blessed be He. There is nothing in it in potential; everything is in actuality. But there is a perfection of adding perfection. The derivative, yes, the change, is itself a kind of perfection—and this cannot exist in divinity. If the Holy One, blessed be He, is perfect, then He cannot have this perfection of perfection-in-process. It cannot appear in Him. For absolute infinite perfection leaves no room for addition, exactly because of the premises he said before. And for this purpose—that the addition of perfection should also not be lacking in existence—yes, worldly existence must come into being and accordingly begin from the very lowest depth, the shattering before the repair, yes, meaning from a state of absolute deficiency, so that there will be infinite room to rise, because otherwise the ascent would come to an end. You have to leave infinite room for ascent, because otherwise at some point we are once again in the same situation. You have to start shattering again. And if we do not want to shatter again, then we need to make sure there is a deficiency that takes infinite time to fill. And that it should always keep going upward, toward absolute ascent. And existence was created with such a trait that consciousness would not cease from elevating itself, because this is an infinite action. And in order to ensure the ascent in the very essence of existence—meaning, it is not enough to create a deficiency. By creating existence as deficient, you make ascent possible. But who says it will rise? Maybe it will remain stuck there. You have to create a mechanism that will cause this ascent to actually happen. Right? Creating the deficiency is only the possibility of ascent. But who creates the ascent itself? In order to ensure the ascent in the very essence of existence, it was all created with supreme elevation, and the elevation was greater than the measure that a limited content could actually bear, even though it could bear it potentially. Something was created here that could exist potentially, but when you try to bring it into actuality it will shatter. Finite reality cannot hold infinite light—that is the shattering of the vessels. And that is the shattering, okay? When the infinite light tries to enter a vessel, that means an infinite potential was created here. When it tries to be realized, it shatters; it cannot work. So why is this needed? It is needed to mark a goal. It says to the vessels: friends, now you have a role—to repair yourselves after the shattering, to return to that same state, like that baby, yes, with the angel who taps him here in order to mark the goal of where he needs to get to. So here too, exactly in the same way. Therefore, when existence appeared in actuality, things were corrupted and the voices, the forces, became entangled with one another, and they are engaged in a fierce struggle until the absolute infinite thought of the good will triumph and everything will be repaired, with the added elevation of making room for the completion of an unceasing ascent. That is a special Eden through which creation completes the honor of its Creator. This is actually why creation was created. By the way, the Arizal too, when he opens the book there, says that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, or contracted Himself, in order to allow His names to be revealed. That is his terminology. “His names” really means a kind of sefirot, that there were sefirot hidden within the infinite light, in potential—the Leshem explains that there were forms within the infinite light in potential—and in order to be revealed, the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world. That is simply his explanation of the beginning of his book. Or service as a high necessity: that we perfect ourselves is the only way an infinite being can perfect itself. If it creates a certain lack with a climbing mechanism, with this kind of drive to keep climbing all the time and filling that lack. We understand in absolute divine perfection two values of completion. There are two kinds of perfection, of completion. One kind of completion is such that, from the standpoint of its greatness and finishedness, no addition of excellence belongs to it. You cannot add any further excellence—you are perfect, so no addition belongs there. That is what he began with at the opening of his introduction, yes, that nothing can be added to infinity. But if there were no possibility of addition, that itself would be a deficiency. There is a deficiency built into every perfect being: that it cannot perfect itself. Okay? So that is an inherent deficiency. Because perfection that goes on increasing always has an advantage and a delight and a certain kind of exaltation that we long for so much—the movement from strength to strength. Therefore divine perfection cannot lack this advantage of the added power. Basically, the perfection of the Holy One, blessed be He, is lacking—there is not there something that perfects itself. So that is a problem, because it turns out that He is not perfect. Perfection by definition is lacking. There is some knot here, some paradox. If you are perfect, then by definition you are lacking, because you cannot perfect yourself if you are perfect. And for this there exists in divinity the power of creation—it is there to solve your problems.

[Speaker C] So perfection in the first definition is basically not the right definition. Yes, but he says no—but

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] on the other hand, the second perfection is impossible there, because if you are already perfect, where will perfection-in-process take you? How can you still perfect yourself? You are perfect.

[Speaker C] As the Holy One, blessed be He, did it, as will appear later.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly, that is what he says.

[Speaker C] What does that mean? That what you understood—we use the expression “perfection” simply not—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] right, we don’t understand it. Exactly, that is what he says: two forms of perfection. There is a perfect state, but a perfect state is not really perfection, because it cannot perfect itself. So what do you need in order to be truly perfect? There exists in divinity the power of creation—which again, I think this hints at your earlier question: don’t compare this to creation like ours, where we create something deficient that perfects itself, and then it perfects itself, not us—what does that have to do with us? Meaning, in order for that thing to count as our perfection-in-process, it has to be something of us. But on the other hand, it cannot really be us, because we—the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself—is not lacking. So there is some sort of movement back and forth here between two things that really do not fit very well within the world of finite concepts. But in the world of infinite concepts, all kinds of pathologies can appear. So this pathology appears too. And that is what he says: for this there exists in divinity the power of creation. Only with Him can there be a situation where He creates a lack, and that lack is somehow part of Him even though it is lacking. So how is it part of Him? In that when this lack perfects itself, it actually helps give Him that aspect of perfection-in-process that He lacks.

[Speaker E] So Rabbi, it’s not like these machines, these machines or creatures that constantly need to advance like us—we are a small part of the whole of creation. There are also cannibals who aren’t advancing. Is that part of creation?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They are supposed to advance. The fact that they are not advancing—there are also wicked people, so what? Fine, they are supposed to advance; not everyone does it.

[Speaker E] Yes, but according to what are such machines created that have no need, no nothing?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That’s not true. Fine, they are progressing within their own world of concepts. Once we were all more primitive, and fine, we advance little by little. The world advances.

[Speaker C] No, it’s the whole. So animals too.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Forget the cannibals—what about animals? What about rocks? I don’t know. Apparently there is something within this framework in which our progress also requires some kind of infrastructure. By the way, I think I mentioned this once: there is a dispute between Maimonides and the Maharam Gavay on the question whether the human being is the purpose of creation and everything else is meant only to provide him with the tools, the instruments, the framework—or whether everything in creation is a purpose unto itself. And surprisingly, Maimonides holds the second approach, not the first. We would have expected precisely the Maharam Gavay, being a kabbalist, to hold the second approach, but no. He holds the first one: that the human being is the purpose and everything else is there to serve him. And Maimonides claims that everything is a purpose unto itself. By the way, according to the Maharam Gavay’s position—not this and not that is the purpose.

[Speaker C] What? It’s not that he is right and he is right—that it is the whole.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, exactly, I think that is the meaning. By the way, the Leshem says this. The Leshem reconciles the two. He says there is no dispute, no contradiction. As kabbalists do, of course, they create coherence between everything—meaning, really there is no dispute. The perfection-in-process of, I don’t know, a cow—its functional role is to serve me. But from the standpoint of purpose, that is its purpose. Meaning, that is how it perfects itself. So one has to distinguish between functionality and purpose. Okay, that is basically his claim.

[Speaker C] But then there isn’t really a problem here, there isn’t really a paradox—basically there isn’t a logical problem because maybe, as you mentioned, none of the concepts here is fully defined, so you can’t say that in infinity—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] you can always push all the paradoxes in there.

[Speaker C] so you didn’t define properly—

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] the two sides.

[Speaker G] I’ll try, I’ll try. Still, it is defined. It is exactly like taking a person who is perfect. Fine, let’s say he has all the perfections. You already started with a definition. No, fine, I’m not taking that, only for this purpose.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] And now there is nothing more to teach him. And a son is born to him. Okay, and now in this son he made him perfect like himself. He is necessarily more perfect than someone else who is at his same level. In that he teaches the son, right. If his son becomes like him, he perfects himself like him. And someone else who is at his same level but whose son is not at the level of his son is necessarily lower than him. Okay, I accept that analogy. So from the outset, the definition of perfection is not… no, fine, he takes his concept of perfection. But he also shows it in our world. Fine, I accept that analogy. The unlimited worldly becoming, which in all its values keeps advancing upward—and it follows that the intrinsic divine soul within existence, which gives it life, is its continual elevation. That is its divine foundation that calls it into being and into full development. There is here—this is the engine. I said that creating deficiency gives the possibility of ascent. And now there is some kind of engine that has to be inserted into it in order to make it actually happen. This desire to improve, this desire to perfect itself, is actually that engine that calls us to rise. And the more science establishes itself on the foundation of development—this is already a hint toward what comes next, to evolution—the more it approaches the clearer divine illumination and comes to the higher vision that one must not judge all existence in terms of its partial relation. That is, only in terms of the relation between one part of it and another. When science makes comparisons, it always compares two things that are within creation. These are animals and those are beasts, these plants and those plants, these amoebas and those living creatures—some comparison is made between creatures. But where is the absolute scale? That is, compared to what are all these things measured? What provides the basic gradations according to which we arrange them all and then compare them? This has to stand against something that is the scale. Right? So there always has to stand—not correctly to make only comparisons between one thing and another. Somehow we are also supposed to uncover something absolute, something that gives the scale. For the true values of existence will not be found in that, because its main inner judgment lies in the matter of its general relation—of all of creation and all its parts—to divine perfection. That is the more exalted and more fitting thing on which to found the fundamental basis of all existence. What does this mean in simpler language? If we want to create a scale, okay, once we create a scale we are implicitly assuming the existence of infinity on that scale. When we create an axis, we never stop it. We define the axis theoretically. That axis basically goes to infinity. Once we have created an axis that arranges gradations of something, whatever it is, then every definition or comparison between things implicitly assumes the existence of some infinite abstraction on that same scale. That is, just take it to infinity. Therefore science, precisely in that it establishes scales and compares things, actually reveals something of the Holy One, blessed be He. Because the scale on which we compare these things is really a scale that already exists with Him, as though He is at its end. It has no end, but in His endlessness. Okay? Divine perfection, which is the more exalted and more fitting thing on which to found the fundamental basis of all existence. And the higher recognition cultivates the sense of higher intellectual love, until a person comes to recognize that if the ideal of creation were less than this supreme exaltation of that awesome perfection, which is the site of supreme awe, then all ideality would have no value. No exaltation of holiness would belong to it, but only mundane things, dry particulars, and animal excitement. Meaning, without assuming that there is some existence to this scale, to the source from which we take all the partial comparisons we make, they lose their meaning. Meaning, if we compare—let’s say not on the scientific plane, it is easier for me to demonstrate this elsewhere—when you compare human actions: this is more moral and this is less moral. You have defined some kind of moral scale here. You cannot stay with the relative comparison: this is more moral and this is less. You have to define that there is such a scale of morality. Now what is that scale? Because people are not willing to recognize the existence of such a scale, that is exactly how we arrive at moral relativism. You cannot compare. In what sense are you more and you less? Who determines the direction? Who determines the gradations? You need some absolute source outside yourself to provide the axis, the type of scale. Therefore either you empty your world of content and treat it merely as some technical comparison between things that has no real justification, and then immediately the postmodern critique comes and says: on what basis are you comparing? Who said this is more than that? Maybe that is more than this. Look the other way and you’ll see that that is more than this. Who determines how to look? Only if you have some objective, infinite, absolute, unchanging standard can it give meaning to all the partial comparisons we make. Many times people build an entire structure and it looks terribly meaningful, and then suddenly they ask themselves: wait, but who said—where do the assumptions come from on the basis of which we make this whole structure, these comparisons? And then they throw it all in the trash. They say: actually this is meaningless. Okay, this is my discourse, that is your narrative, this is my narrative—and basically they have emptied the whole business of meaning. Why? Because they are not willing to accept the existence of some objective standard, something that is not a function of one discourse or another. And without that standard everything is emptied of content. And this is true in science as well. The stronger, more extreme critiques of postmodernism attack science too. There is physics—we talked about feminine physics and masculine physics, the feminist critiques of physics. Critiques that say physics is masculine, not feminine; it is built on masculine assumptions; and it too becomes basically a kind of discourse, something relative and subjective with no objective standing. And why? Because you are not willing to give credit to the axis on which you measure things. Who is better and who is worse? Who is more right and who is less right? Who is more beautiful in the artistic or aesthetic sphere, say, and who is less beautiful? And once there are no axes—and look, this world is a world of falsehood, but it keeps functioning, everything is fine. People go on producing wonderful works of art even though many people already hold that there are no scales at all, that one cannot determine what is art and what is not art, what is more beautiful—and this doesn’t stop anyone from paying millions for works of art, giving grants to artists, giving prizes and competitions and everything else—while those same people themselves, some of them not all, but those same people themselves say that the whole business is actually meaningless. By the way, some people make their living from this. Those articles that explain why everything they do is meaningless—that is what they got their university salary for.

[Speaker B] That’s what they

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] make a living from—from meaninglessness, exactly. They make a living from meaninglessness, from the meaning of meaninglessness. And this is amazing. It is a world of falsehood that is entirely true. Entirely true, except that people think it is false. It isn’t false. Everything they built is correct. But in order to understand that it is correct, you have to accept that there is some standard that gives meaning to things. Without that—I think once we spoke about the fifty gates of understanding, right? And the gates of impurity there, with the scapegoat—maybe at some point we’ll talk about that too. It is really this idea, I think I spoke about it once. Yes, so without the exaltation of holiness they would have no existence, only mundane, private, dry things and animal excitement. It is meaningless. “Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, Maker of heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, who keeps truth forever.” This is the supreme principle from which all the precise moral ramifications branch out like branches from a mighty tree whose height reaches to the heavens of heavens and whose vision extends to the ends of the earth. And just as the great darkness is the recognition that does not know this supreme secret—one who does not understand this supreme secret stands in great darkness—of the ultimate tendency of divine perfection, which keeps rising by means of all creation… understand that once there is an upper end, then there is no doubt who is closer and who is farther. If we know where the upper end is, the axis is completely ordered. You at x equals two are here; you at x equals three are closer to infinity. That one is at… but if there is no infinity, then what… then what is the meaning of two and three? Who is more and who is less? They are just empty gradations devoid of content. Okay? That is what he is saying. So without understanding this supreme exaltation, there is darkness. And even more than that, a banished gloom is the opinion that thinks there is only this perfection of elevation and not absolute perfection. The other side is also wrong: to say that only the perfection of elevation is correct. Because that is again an escape from infinity. Basically to say there is no infinity, all there is is progress toward infinity. That is not accepting the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He; there is no infinity in our world. But to say there is no such thing as infinity, it is only an abstraction that does not really exist—which means there is no God—is basically to leave us only with the perfection of perfection-in-process. But that perfection-in-process means that I rise from x equals two to x equals three, so the derivative is positive, right? How can the derivative be positive if three is not more than two? Without recognizing the existence of infinity, which gives direction, which gives standards, everything loses meaning. Because everything is already superior, everything is complete and finished—or alternatively nothing is complete to the same degree, it makes no difference. And this is the darkness that rests upon the approach of the darkening modern philosophers—and this is Bergson. I said that all these chapters seem to me to be some sort of response, one way or another, to Bergson. And days will come when the light of God will be revealed in all its full splendor, and all will recognize—suddenly they will see infinity, everyone will understand that there is something that gives direction to the axes—that precisely then there is room for the blessed perfection that holiness needs. When there is supreme and abundant perfection—holiness needs blessing and does not need charity—“and on that day the Lord shall be one and His name one,” specifically He and His name.

[Speaker B] Fine, until here? Okay. That is his hope for the future. So I still haven’t managed to explain—until now I still haven’t explained. Next time I’ll explain.

Rav Kook – Perfection and Growth – Lesson 1

Table of Contents

Full Transcript

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Table of Contents

Full Transcript

שתף

Leave a ReplyCancel reply