For the Perplexed of the Generation – Lesson 17
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
Table of Contents
- [0:00] Opening and the lecture’s delay
- [2:04] The Kuzari and national obligation
- [3:31] The question of betrayal by one who does not believe
- [6:25] The nation as family and our duty toward it
- [8:03] The shift from religiosity to atheism and its effects
- [11:57] Critique of the flawed thinking of the period
- [20:43] The vision of a world without religious supremacy
- [27:08] The role of the nation as a mediator for humanity
- [28:09] The role of other religions vis-à-vis Judaism
- [29:17] The individual at the center of modern society
- [30:24] The experiment of the centrality of the individual
- [33:52] Conversion and identity in future generations
- [53:27] Belief in the basic positions of both sides
- [54:40] A hierarchy of stages on the path and the periphery
Summary
General Overview
The lecture in Neveh HaDor on Thursday, the 22nd of Shevat 5771, deals with the claim that leaving a religion identified with a certain people is an injury to the nation and even a betrayal, and sets Rabbi Kook’s words against other distinctions such as Maimonides’ claim that a moral value is not necessarily a religious value. The speaker finds it difficult to understand a demand that a person who does not believe should continue performing religious rituals so as not to harm the people, and examines the logic of national commitment as an extended family as opposed to a change in worldview. Throughout the reading of Rabbi Kook’s text, a hierarchy is presented among religions in terms of their moral and universal benefit, alongside a vision in which humanity unites as “one person with many limbs,” while, on the other hand, there is special severity toward a Jew who converts out of Judaism. In the end, a sense of internal tension emerges: Rabbi Kook comes close to a picture in which every religion has a real role within a universal process, but retreats from a fully egalitarian implication and adopts structures that preserve a center and a periphery.
Opening and Study-Hall Context
The speaker notes the date of the lecture, the place, and his delay of about twenty minutes, and asks what caused that and what causes him to think differently. The speaker says that in the study hall they discuss the idea itself and not the context of the factors that produced it, even though everyone has such factors.
Ahad Ha’am, Maimonides, and the Kuzari: Religious Value versus National Value
The speaker presents an “Ahad Ha’am-like” claim that whoever leaves the religion that distinguishes his people is “a kind of traitor.” He quotes Maimonides at the end of chapter 8 of Laws of Kings about a non-Jew who keeps the seven commandments because of religious necessity and not because “the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them at Sinai,” as being among “the wise of the nations” but not among “their pious ones,” and understands from this that there is moral and human value in it, but not religious value in the sense of “serving God.” The speaker says that the Kuzari seems to say something different when it presents commitment to the commandments as part of national commitment, and suggests that the innovation is an added layer in which the sinner harms not only God but also his nation.
To Whom Is the National Demand Addressed When There Is No Belief?
The speaker raises the question of whom one is talking to when a person becomes convinced that Christianity is “nonsense” and wants to move to Buddhism, and whether we expect him to remain Christian so as not to betray the British or French nation. The speaker suggests that the idea becomes understandable only if religion is perceived as an expression of the nation and of its ethical role in the world, and then denial of the religion is perceived as denial of the role. The speaker struggles with the fact that this is a matter of beliefs and opinions, not collaboration with an enemy, and asks why a change of worldview should be considered a national injury like harming security or the existence of an “extended family.”
National Betrayal, the Family Analogy, and the Limits of Comparing It to Religion
The speaker accepts that there is an intuition that national betrayal in wartime is seen as improper even if the traitor believes the enemy is right, and compares this to the obligation toward one’s child regardless of whether the child is right. He argues that there it is a basic duty to care for “my son,” whereas in the religious context we are dealing with beliefs, and therefore it is hard to justify a demand to perform rituals without belief. The speaker raises examples of cultural demands such as having a barbecue on Independence Day, and contrasts them with the absurdity of expecting someone to keep religious commandments as empty rituals just in order to preserve national resilience.
Atheism, Historical Crimes, and Rabbi Kook’s Words on Religious Loyalty
The speaker argues that the transition from religiosity to atheism “brought evil into the world,” comparing religious crimes with the crimes of Stalin and Hitler, and notes that Rabbi Kook wrote before the Holocaust that “the nuns in monasteries saved more Jews than the humanists in the universities.” The speaker sharpens the point that the question remains what one expects from a person who does not believe, even if observance of the commandments has social or national value.
Instructing Someone to Sin Less: Rabbi Ilai and the Dilemma of Guidance
The speaker raises the question whether one may instruct a person to commit “a smaller sin,” and brings the saying of Rabbi Ilai: “Let him wear black, go to a distant place, and do what his heart desires,” in order to minimize desecration of God’s name. The speaker tells an “urban legend” about a man who eats kosher only from the first day of Elul until Yom Kippur and asks whether to begin on the first of the month or the second, and expresses reservation about giving guidance that institutionalizes sin instead of demanding the ideal.
Rabbi Kook: A Moral Hierarchy among Religions and Conversion as a “Sin” with Justification
The speaker reads in Rabbi Kook’s text that the religions are not equal in their moral value and in their benefit to humanity, and therefore when a person converts from the religion of his people, which is less complete, to the religion of another people that is closer to completion, “his sin must be considered.” The speaker understands that one who moves from idolatry to Christianity or Islam still harms “his people’s portion for the time being,” but comes closer to the benefit of humanity, and Rabbi Kook justifies this because “recognition of the unity of the blessed God” will bring blessing to the whole world “when the time for humanity’s education is fulfilled.” The speaker notes that in Orot Yisrael, chapter 3, a similar conception appears of a unique mission for every nation, and there the possibility of understanding a sin against the nation as a violation of mission becomes sharper.
The Unclarified Process: Periphery, Center, and the Purpose of a Human Organism
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook says “the matter is not sufficiently clear,” because those religions “still cannot bring human success to its ultimate purpose” on their own, and sets up a goal of “the bonding of all nations” as “the value of one person with many limbs” and as a “family” striving for peace and happiness. The speaker interprets the doubt as a balance between moral progress and national betrayal, to the point of possibly saying that maybe it is preferable for someone to remain an idolater rather than become a monotheist if that creates injury to the nation. The speaker understands that the vision is not “that everyone will be Jewish,” but rather that each religion will remain in its own plot and give up its claim to centrality.
Conversion Backward: Sharp Condemnation of One Who Chooses a Less Moral Religion
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook states that one who converts from a religion of greater morality to a religion of lesser morality “is going backward and darkening the light of his soul,” and “deserves to be called vile and will not be acquitted.” The speaker emphasizes that the language here is condemnatory and not merely descriptive of damage, and again asks how one can accuse a person who does not believe.
Converts, the Difficulty of Conversion, and Justifying Forgetting One’s People for the Sake of the Whole
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook explains that even though it is not fitting to accept converts easily and “they are as difficult for Israel as a leprous affliction,” because they lack “the program of national nature,” nevertheless one who “knows the anguish of the human soul” and aspires to “unmixed truth” is not considered sinful if, “forgetting his people and his father’s house,” he comes to seek refuge “under the wings of the Lord, God of Israel.” The speaker notes that Rabbi Kook argues that conversion adds strength to Israel’s service and thereby advances the general purpose, and even does good to the people from which the convert came. The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook adds that righteous converts will help Israel understand the “feelings of the souls” of the peoples from which they originated, and even if their descendants assimilate into the people of Israel, “the law of inheritance” will preserve psychological tendencies and a talent “to descend to the depths of judgment in the ways of the nations from which they were hewn.”
A Jew Who Converts Out: “A Sin Down to Sheol” and Denial of Any Positive Value
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook states that a Jew who converts out of Judaism “sins” a sin “down to Sheol”; “there is no measure to the abomination of this vileness”; and he “betrays his people and gives a hand to its plunderers and those who seek its harm.” The speaker notes that Rabbi Kook sees this as uprooting the soul from “the supreme level of the Torah of truth” to “broken cisterns,” and argues that even the morality found in other religions will not adhere to a Jew, and that he “will not attain even the value of private morality” as one born into that religion would. The speaker concludes that Rabbi Kook denies any possibility of a positive side in such a move, even though according to the earlier structures one could have imagined some benefit, and comes away with the impression of a tendentious and artificial direction.
Miracles, the Rooting of the Torah, and Protecting Truth from Abandonment
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook explains that “the way the Torah of Israel was implanted” was through “great and mighty signs and wonders” and through “a deeply embedded national arrangement of great force,” so that “the light of truth stands forever.” The speaker understands that the public nature of the giving of the Torah and the national-internal infrastructure were meant to prevent a situation in which a Jew would think another religion truer and leave, whereas in other religions there is no need for such protection because moving from them to Judaism is not a problem in the same way.
Israel’s Double Role: Nationhood and Universality until the End of Days
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook formulates the “advantage of universality” in the Torah of Israel as something “prominent in addition to nationality” in order to reach “its character and its destiny at the end of days,” and understands that Israel has a role inwardly and outwardly. The speaker suggests that the practical expression is the same in both directions: observance of Torah and commandments both for the sake of duty to the nation and for the sake of the universal purpose, so that even someone focused only on nationality in practice participates in the general repair.
Nationality as an Instrument: Hatred of the Nations, “A People That Dwells Alone,” and Returning to Faith out of Love
The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook says the main need for miracles is to establish the Torah of Israel “for the sake of humanity” and to merit “general consent,” but “from our side” our national obligation is enough to elevate the gentile and glorify him. The speaker quotes Rabbi Kook’s description of how “the hatred of the nations and their persecution” will remind the forgetful “that we are a people that dwells alone,” and from this will come “the duty of uprightness” to fulfill the Torah in practice. The speaker reads that Rabbi Kook adds that when they become accustomed to the Torah, “his eyes will be opened” and he will serve God out of love, and that “when the Lord restores the captivity of His people,” truth will be “the greatest protection,” to the point that there will no longer be a need for “the aid of nationality.”
Commandments Nullified in the Future and the Final Vision of One Organ
The speaker connects the discussion to the question of “the commandments being nullified in the future to come” and suggests that national distinctiveness is a means until humanity becomes “one organ.” The speaker raises the possibility that contemporary individualism is part of the process of the “footsteps of the Messiah,” but notes that he himself does not identify with the picture he is trying to decipher.
Internal Tension and Suspicion of “Narrative”: Tinok Shenishba, the Centrality of Religions, and a Possible Implication
The speaker argues that a view according to which Christianity is only harmful error creates a theological problem when confronting a person born in a village in Poland who served God as he was educated, and extends the claim of tinok shenishba to the whole world and even to the pope. The speaker says the required next step is to see even the claim that “we are at the center” as a necessary narrative for every religion in order to enable commitment and struggle, to the point that such a chapter could have come “from the Vatican.” He identifies in Rabbi Kook a movement between universal statements that validate equality of roles and a retreat that preserves hierarchy, and concludes with the understanding that “between the two world wars” there was no other option within a religious consciousness seeking absolute truth alongside a complex historical process.
Full Transcript
[Speaker A] Thursday, the 22nd of Shevat 5771, January 27, 2011, a lecture by Rabbi Michael Abraham in Neveh HaDor. I was about twenty minutes late. What caused that, and what might cause me to think differently? Never mind.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Themselves. True, I also have causes, and he had causes, but everybody has causes. But in the study hall, generally, we discuss not what caused an idea, but the idea itself, not the context. So this Ahad Ha’am-like claim basically says that when a person leaves the religion that characterizes or distinguishes the people he belongs to, then he is basically a kind of traitor. It’s a bit novel in practice, I think. There’s the well-known Maimonides at the end of chapter 8 of Laws of Kings—I think I already mentioned him—where Maimonides says that any non-Jew who keeps his seven commandments because of religious compulsion, not because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it at Sinai, then he is among the wise of the nations of the world but not among their pious ones—or not among the pious of the nations of the world, but among their wise ones. All right? Basically, translated into our language, it seems to me that what Maimonides is saying is that it has value, but not religious value. It has moral value, it has human value, you’re upholding fine values, everything is good, but it’s not religious value, because religious value means serving God. Here, the Kuzari apparently says something different. It basically says: you need to observe the religious commandments as part of your commitment to the nation, even though in fact the background of the real obligation isn’t here, because these commandments obligate you because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded you; for us there is Sinai, for them maybe something else, but really for them too it’s Sinai with the seven commandments. But he doesn’t bring the religious background as the foundation of the non-Jew’s religious obligation; rather, the background is a national one. Later he’ll get to the idea that for us too it’s like that. But right now I’m speaking about what he writes here. So there’s an idea here.
[Speaker C] What? He’s not making an argument—what he writes here seems to treat the religious part as obvious. It seems to me he’s making some innovation here, that there’s also a national element.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The religious obligation also adds national force, apart from the religious obligation.
[Speaker C] That you sin not only against God, but also against your nation, almost like a civil offense, let’s say.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes. The point is simply that the big question here is: to whom is he speaking? Meaning, let’s say a person becomes convinced that Christianity is nonsense. Not Judaism—to Buddhism he wants to go, all right? He wants to become Buddhist. Today that’s just very popular. Is Rabbi Kook speaking to him? What does he expect—that the person should now remain Christian so as not to be a traitor to the British or French nation?
[Speaker D] France was the eldest daughter of the Church. It was identified with it totally.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I understand what it was, but the question is what the idea behind it is.
[Speaker D] Right, that’s what it was, and that was the development.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But it seems strange now, it seems strange. I’m not talking about today, when it’s nonsense. I understand that there are different cultures, outlooks, histories; you can’t be anachronistic. Once they really saw it that way. But I honestly can’t understand the meaning of this demand. Meaning, if I now—what do you expect? That I should keep this whole religious system without really believing in it, just so as not to be a traitor to my people? I don’t believe in it. I’m a Buddhist.
[Speaker C] When you see the picture maybe the way he sees it, where he really attributes that religion to a certain nation, then yes—then he expects you to understand that you’re also harming your nation.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, I want to influence them so that they all become Buddhists. No, why not? If there isn’t the dimension of truth here—and I accept what you said earlier, that Rabbi Kook is adding another layer here; clearly there is also the truth aspect—but he adds another, national layer. So now I’m asking: fine, but to whom is he speaking? To someone who believes in the religious aspect here—fine, he observes because of that. To someone who doesn’t accept that religious aspect, what is he saying? Even though you don’t accept the religious aspect, there is another aspect here: don’t betray your nation.
[Speaker C] No, he’s just strengthening the idea: it’s really connected to the nation. It even harms the nation if one person leaves it. He’s reinforcing again what he said, that there’s a belonging here.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So he’s not making a demand, he’s just describing what happens—harm to the nation. Okay. Even though I don’t understand his wording that way, and later on too not really; it seems he truly sees it in some negative way—meaning, he condemns the person, not just describes him.
[Speaker E] Maybe he’s saying that one must—he thinks there is a separation between nation and religion. But if we look in a unifying way, that religion is an expression of the nation, of the nation’s inner values—like Christianity, that it’s an expression, an expression of the values and the moral and the charge that that particular nation comes to give, to say to the world—then someone who denies his religion denies the role. Okay, he denies it—so what? Don’t see religion as something religious but as something…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, fine, but you’re telling me it’s not something religious, it’s something… and I don’t believe in that. So what am I supposed to do now? Go to church and eat the communion bread just because I believe in everything this whole business says? Why? Because a person can…
[Speaker E] A person can betray his nation too.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but here we’re talking… betrayal of the nation is something—I actually thought about this a bit. We sometimes have a tendency to see things this way when we look at real national betrayal. Suppose a person betrays—someone who acts for the enemy in wartime, say, or something like that. Overall, you could say: what do you mean? He thinks they’re right. Say we’re dealing with someone who really thinks they’re right and his people wronged them. So what’s the problem? Still, there’s some feeling that it’s not okay, that he is betraying his people. I really don’t know—it’s a bit hard to define such a thing, but it’s true. I think there really is such a feeling here. But I think in the religious context it’s more problematic, because the religious context really is based on beliefs and opinions. Nationhood is like betraying my child. Regardless of whether I think he’s right or wrong, he’s my son, I have to take care of him. That’s basic. Not because he’s right or more righteous than his friend, or less righteous than his friend. So here, if I don’t act as required for my child’s good, I understand that people will view that badly, even though I may think that other child is nicer and more righteous. It doesn’t matter—you have to take care of your own child. So in that sense I also understand the national demand. The nation is a kind of extended family. Therefore you have some obligation to the nation even if you think another people may be more right or something like that. But all that is in the sense of whether I act in ways that harm the nation’s existence, or its security, or something like that. Because then it really is a kind of basic obligation to care for your family or your extended family. But with religion, we’re not talking about whether I’m collaborating with someone who wants to kill members of my religion or nation. We’re talking about someone changing worldview. He wants to serve in a temple in Tibet, not in Paris. Today you don’t even need to go to Tibet—you can do it in Paris. So what’s the problem? Why should… Here it’s only a matter of beliefs and opinions. So how can even that be inserted into national obligation, and you tell a person: look, you’re not okay because you’re not doing all kinds of Ahad Ha’am-type commandments. You don’t keep the Sabbath, and then you won’t preserve Israel. Fine, I don’t keep the Sabbath because I don’t believe in it—what do you want from me? Am I supposed not to create on the Sabbath so that the people of Israel will stay alive? And at least if it were in order for them to stay alive—okay, maybe then it would be true.
[Speaker A] I think the transition from religiosity to atheism brought evil into the world. Religious criminals, the Inquisition, the Crusades…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But if someone is an atheist, what do you want him to do?
[Speaker A] Stay religious? The religious criminals, the Crusades and so on, didn’t come close to the heels of either Stalin or Hitler. Okay, so what should be done, then? Okay, so Rabbi Kook says—Rabbi Kook said this, he wrote it even before the Holocaust, before we knew Stalin was such a mass murderer—he says: those who have God, the nuns in monasteries saved more Jews than the humanists in the universities. Which means there’s some point here, that loyalty to your people’s religion probably has some kind of value.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, but what do you expect from a person who doesn’t believe? It’s like all those people who say we need to bring people back to repentance because the Sabbath candles, the festive Sabbath candles and so on create a wonderful atmosphere. Okay—what do you want me to do now? I’m not religious.
[Speaker G] He’s not saying to believe. He’s saying to observe the commandments.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Ah, that’s exactly…
[Speaker G] Yes, but that demand is so strange.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What, you expect me to perform some rituals?
[Speaker G] There’s always this comparison that comes in of some Israeli who doesn’t barbecue on Independence Day or just sits and watches the news…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] At the end of Yom Kippur.
[Speaker G] He’s harming our national resilience as Israelis if he doesn’t barbecue.
[Speaker E] So here you’re exempt and fine and great. Maybe he doesn’t believe one hundred percent that he has to harm… but that’s his role. So maybe a policeman or a tax collector…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Maybe some people would say his role is to lower taxes.
[Speaker E] Doesn’t matter, but there’s an interest here that he has to…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, he’s responsible for that aspect.
[Speaker E] Maybe he has some understanding for the other side, but that’s his role.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I understand, but now I don’t believe in any of it, so what does it mean that I have understanding for the other side, but this is my role and therefore now I’ll keep all the commandments even though they mean nothing to me? I don’t understand.
[Speaker A] Because otherwise your nation will disintegrate.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, let it disintegrate. What am I supposed to do now? Let it disintegrate.
[Speaker A] So that’s some kind of betrayal. Some kind. The word traitor is a very loaded word today, but still.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] It sounds extremely strange to me, I don’t know. It seems to me such a shaky basis on which to come with claims against someone that he should do this, because like Ahad Ha’am. Meaning, I understand that at that time there probably was…
[Speaker A] As for idol worshippers, we are commanded to kill them altogether.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So what?
[Speaker A] The apostate city—they would all be idol worshippers, no?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not in order to survive or something like that. What do you mean? There is a commandment in the Torah saying they must be killed.
[Speaker A] So what is the resident of the city supposed to do, the resident of the city for whom that’s what he does—he was convinced.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He was misled; maybe they don’t want to kill him? Who said he has to be killed? Maybe he is coerced?
[Speaker E] No, but what about someone who really thinks that idolatry is the truth?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Then he is coerced. What’s the problem? He’s not liable to death, it’s nothing—coerced. Coerced. Is every idol worshipper coerced in his thinking? Of course not. Idol worshippers weren’t coerced; it was impulse. There was an impulse. That’s what Menasheh revealed there.
[Speaker A] If he’s coerced, then you’ve nullified all criminal law.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why have I nullified criminal law?
[Speaker A] I mean, I’m sure in Nuremberg there were some people who believed this was the correct and good path for their race.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] If you really could enter their souls and see that they truly believed, then now it depends on your theory of punishment. If your punishment is there to prevent similar crimes by others or to deter others, it may be that you would still punish them. If you punish them as a sanction for their wickedness, then I would exempt them. Exempt them—put them in prison so they won’t cause harm, yes, but not as a punishment they deserve for what they did. Yes, what Barak once said: that if I had been born there, I would have done what they did. Everyone there shouted as if—he said something simple. What’s problematic about that? It’s obviously true. But everyone shouted automatically.
[Speaker A] Well, in short, those who believe he’s terribly talented didn’t want him there.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay. In any case, this way of thinking was probably very common then. Again, I agree about the context. The age of awakening, the national awakening in history in general—after all Rabbi Kook isn’t all that far from the Springtime of the Peoples. And probably this was something that sounded very logical and very obvious. Really, through today’s eyes—I don’t know, to me it seems really…
[Speaker G] Today you see the current versions. Humanism is strong, so “Beloved is the human being, for he was created in the image” — we had it first. Ecology is strong, so “to work it and to guard it” — we were there first.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, standard apologetics. Anyway, this is what he writes here: “But because the religions are not equal to one another in their moral value, and also not equal in the benefit they bring to humanity as a whole, therefore when a person converts from the religion of his people, which is farther from general perfection, to the religion of another people that is closer to it, his sin must be considered.” Notice—he sins. Meaning, someone who goes from being a pagan idol worshipper to a Muslim or a Christian is basically sinning, because his national obligation is in fact to remain an idol worshipper. That’s part of the national mission there, or the national culture—I don’t know what to call it, because as for the degree of truth among idol worshippers, Rabbi Kook writes at the beginning that there is none. He speaks only about Christianity and Islam as true things, true peripheries. But the national obligation exists everywhere. Meaning, if you are committed to your people’s ideas or culture or religion, that is true also for idol worshippers, certainly. So he writes this. He says, “his sin must be considered,” meaning he sins, but he sins with justification. Right? Why? “For even though he harms his people’s portion for the time being,” he is indeed harming his people, his nation, “nevertheless he comes closer to the benefit of humanity.” There is damage here because he harms his national duty, but there is value because he improves the condition of humanity as a whole. And always this dilemma—how much to engage in improving humanity at the expense of my immediate surroundings. Universalism versus particularism. So here he says: true, he’s making a good move for the sake of humanity as a whole, at the expense of harming his people, which really is not okay, but it is overridden. “Nevertheless he comes closer to the benefit of humanity, and this is justified in the case of idol worshippers who convert their religions to the religions of the Christians and the Muslims, for in any case they are closer to the perfection of humanity, because recognition of the unity of the blessed God will at least bring blessing to the whole world when the time for humanity’s education is fulfilled.” All right?
[Speaker E] So he’s basically saying…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] He determined that one religion is closer. What? How can you know which religion is closer? After all, he already established the circles earlier, apart from the Muslims and… No, beyond that I don’t think he determines here some hierarchy, I’m not exactly sure. I assume those who offer human sacrifices are farther away, and those who have a more sympathetic religion are closer, I don’t know. He has some hierarchy.
[Speaker D] In Orot Yisrael… what? In Orot Yisrael, chapter 3, he writes something very, very similar to this, and there it really emphasizes this idea that every people—he says it here too—every people has its own repair in the world, its own mission that it has to repair, I don’t understand this too deeply, its own goal that it has to accomplish. And from that place the sin arises, because you received some mission, you’re part of… as he writes here too. He says that from the side of sin I can understand a bit more, or sharpen more, why my sin is toward the nation. Say if I leave a religion, why is there a sin toward the nation? Because you are part of some nation that has a certain goal, which is realized through it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But I don’t believe that I’m part of a nation that has that goal, so what am I supposed to do? Fine, okay, then a sin unintentionally or under compulsion, whatever. In any case, his claim is that this is basically some kind of overriding. There is a price here, something problematic, but it has justification from the standpoint of its universal contribution. Incidentally, that’s an interesting point: should one also encourage such a thing? For example, should I go on a missionary campaign in Africa to make them Christians? I have no chance of making them Jews. So maybe make them Christians? After all, Christianity is already present there in Africa on a pretty broad scale, so maybe I should help with that? Here it gets a bit…
[Speaker F] But that isn’t part of their nation. What? It’s not part of their nation, so why should they take on a foreign religious nationality?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Because idol worshippers are farther out in the periphery—that’s what he says here. It’s still a positive move; the net result is positive.
[Speaker F] So it’s a positive move if it happens; he doesn’t say it should be made to happen.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, I’m asking whether he also means one should help it happen, or whether he’s only saying that if it happened, then all in all it’s a positive thing. Because if all in all it’s positive, then why not also cause it to happen? There’s good here. Here, of course, there also comes in the question—I don’t know whether to call it technical; I don’t think it’s technical—the question whether one should instruct a person to do the smaller sin. I think I mentioned this once too, the famous story, a sort of urban legend, about the Jew who came to a rabbi in South America—somewhere, I heard this once happened—who came to the rabbi at the beginning of Elul and said, look, my practice is to eat kosher from the beginning of Elul until Yom Kippur. The question is whether to start from the first day of the month or the second day of the month. Fine—so ostensibly you’d tell him to start from the first. What do you care? You gain another day in which he’ll eat kosher—why not? My feeling is that I wouldn’t answer such a question. I would say to him: one should eat kosher the whole year, and if you don’t want to, do what you think. I don’t think it’s right to give guidance that reduces sins—we talked about this at some point, I think—to give guidance that reduces sins. There’s Rabbi Ilai, “Rabbi Ilai said”: if a person sees that his inclination is overpowering him, let him wear black, go to a distant place, and do what his heart desires.
[Speaker G] He wrote about that in relation to Avi Ravitzky, to the search for thought in the book In Good Measure that I wrote, yes.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So there, Rabbi Ilai is in effect giving some kind of instruction like that. The person is about to sin, and he says: come, I’ll direct you to a certain option that will at least do less damage. Wear black, go far away—at least there won’t be a desecration of God’s name. Fine, so do it quietly. But that’s an instruction— the rabbi is giving him an instruction to do this—not just that if he did it that way then I note to myself on the side, well, he caused less harm. No, he came to ask, and I’m supposed to tell him: go to a distant place, wear black, and do what your heart desires.
[Speaker D] Don’t say it’s in my name. Yes. What do you answer someone who is driving on the Sabbath and asks for directions? What? What do you answer someone who is driving on the Sabbath and asks for directions?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That I can’t help him. In any case, even that is doubtful; it may be that I can help him.
[Speaker D] If he asks where the Hasharon Junction is…
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, in any case—so here a question really comes in, whether you want to call it technical or substantive, I don’t know: does one give a person guidance to commit the sin in a way that will be less damaging or less severe, or rather: look, I don’t give instructions for committing sins. True, if someone chooses that option, it’s a less severe sin; there is some benefit here. Anyway: “But the matter is not sufficiently clear, because after all those religions, as they are now, still cannot bring human success to its ultimate purpose, for they cannot, on their own”—notice, “on their own” they cannot. They themselves are perfectly fine, they bring the person to his purpose, but not on their own—only if they see themselves as a periphery to Judaism—“arrive at the unity of the center and the bonding of all peoples in their feelings and in their morality, and likewise in their physical and spiritual powers, as the value of one person with many limbs, and in the sense of a family with different members, all of whom strive only to achieve the peace and happiness of the family.” So here he basically says: the ultimate goal is for some kind of general organism to be created here; every people has some role, and the whole organism has a purpose, to advance together toward the dignity of the ultimate end. Ultimately the goal is not that everyone become Jewish. They’ll remain Christian, those will remain Muslim; they’ll give up their dream of centrality. There is only one central yeshiva in the world, and they will all go like one person, yes, toward the rising sun. That’s more or less what should happen. And they can remain Christians or Muslims. Here too, it’s not completely clear to me, because what does it mean, “the matter is not sufficiently clear”? Which matter is not sufficiently clear? I assume what he said above. This process of conversion from the more external circle to a more internal circle—but not to Judaism, rather to a circle closer to Judaism—is a positive process.
[Speaker D] Say, to monotheism—explicitly that’s better.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine. So he says, and nevertheless the matter is not clear. So the question is, why isn’t it clear? Why isn’t it clear? What is his claim, really? Why is it not clear? Why isn’t it obvious that this is indeed right? What is the problem here? He improved his condition, at least. Why isn’t it clear? That these religions cannot on their own bring things to the ultimate purpose. Right, that’s the deficiency. But there is the advantage that it’s better than the more distant periphery from which he came. After all, that’s how he began—what is new here? Obviously reaching the middle circle isn’t the peak, but it’s better than the outer circle.
[Speaker D] He’s weighing two things here. On the one hand you advance morally; on the other hand you betray your nation, so he doesn’t know exactly.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Meaning there’s something here that basically has some side that isn’t entirely clear to him even as a balance. Because there has to be a balance here between two things. I’m saying this in order to sharpen even more the fact that even leaving an idolatrous religion is a sin, in Rabbi Kook’s eyes. It’s a sin toward your nation. And here he says it explicitly about idol worshippers; he’s not speaking about Christians. He’s speaking about idol worshippers who become Christians. And about that he says: you betray your nation. On the other hand, you come closer to serving God; it’s a closer circle. So there’s something one can understand here on some level. It’s a sin that can be understood. But “the matter is not clear,” says Rabbi Kook. Meaning, it’s not certain that the gain is worth the king’s loss. Meaning, it could be that it would be preferable for him to remain an idol worshipper. Better than becoming a monotheist. Why? So that he won’t be a traitor to his nation. That’s “the matter is not clear.” If he had arrived at the true religion itself, then of course—good, no problem. He says: since you reached only some intermediate circle like this, there is something here that is not clear—whether it’s balanced.
[Speaker C] But if the reason against it is that you interfere with the nation you came from in bringing its own potential into actuality, what is in its own personal quality, then even if you ended up moving to Judaism you still interfered.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, but there it’s obvious that the benefit of the move is greater than the damage. There is damage, but the benefit is certainly greater than the damage.
[Speaker C] A state where Christianity remains Christianity and only understands that it is a periphery—is that an ideal state?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] An ideal state, but still—you’re not the head, you’re the hand. Fine. So the question is whether you convert your religion from being a fingernail to being a hand. If you had converted your religion into being the head, I understand that. But if you convert your religion into being a hand, it’s not clear. Especially if that hand thinks it’s the head, of course. But maybe even if it’s already in the right place. I don’t know. A question. I assume that in the end, when the whole thing is already in the right place, there also won’t be fingernails. Then there won’t be idol worshippers either, because idol worshippers have no place on the ideal map. So therefore this is really only a hypothetical question.
[Speaker D] And everyone will be Jews?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? No, no, that is exactly what he says: not everyone will be Jews. But it will be like a human body with different organs, some kind of organism, where everything is really universal visions, like you find among Reform Jews, among Conservatives, among various Enlightenment types, some kind of universal Judaism. That is really what is written here. The claim, of course, is not universal Judaism but a universal conception. What they have and he does not, is that they say the Jews too should be like that. That he does not say. But he does say that Christians and Muslims are part of some universal vision. They are not supposed, as an ideal, to be among us; that is not the flowerbed suited to them. That is something else. And indeed—indeed, sorry—someone who converts from a religion whose morality is greater to a religion whose morality is lesser—and again, notice, not specifically Judaism versus Christianity, but even from Christianity to idolatry—behold, he is going backward and dimming the light of his soul, aside from the fact that he utterly corrupts the paths of his morality by betraying his nation that nurtured and raised him, and he deserves to be called a scoundrel and will not go unpunished. And again, here the question is: if he does not believe, then what is he supposed to do about that? And here this is already a very clear statement that he condemns the act; it is not only a statement that he is causing harm.
[Speaker D] He keeps the framework that preserves general morality—that is his sin.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] This is not really talking about that. If there is a person who is terribly moral but he goes—
[Speaker D] —to church on Sunday even if he does not believe, because he wants the framework.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, I understand, that is what we said earlier. But still, again, I do not understand how a Buddhist is supposed to go to church just so Britain will keep going to church. Let everyone become Buddhists and that is it. What? Well, I do not know. It really could be that this was a different period, and I do not think you can—it’s hard to step into the shoes of people who lived a hundred years ago. There were apparently things there that were just very self-evident.
[Speaker D] But it is clear that Rabbi Kook greatly values the nations as such and their stability.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, and their contribution. By the way, the whole contribution, the national dimension—and this is a question I will also comment on later here—with very interesting aspects in Rabbi Kook’s national conception, because many times people do not distinguish between the national ideal and the religious ideal in Rabbi Kook, and somehow it seems that the national ideal is itself an independent value, not an instrument for something else—it is a value. But here, it seems to me, and later on too, I think this becomes even stronger—that is not correct. In the end Rabbi Kook does see nationalism as an instrument. At least, I am saying this from here; I have not done comprehensive research in his writings, far from it. But from what is written here it seems that nationalism is an instrument.
[Speaker D] A value according to its part.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] A value according to its part. Yes, but I am saying that your commitment to the nation is really only—the nation is the mediator between you and all of humanity. That is, if you fulfill your duty to your family, and the family to the nation, and the nation to all humanity, then that organism he is talking about will be formed. Because there is no way to connect a collection of individuals and turn them into one complete organism of all humanity; it has to pass through the mediating concept of a people or a nation. And therefore the nation is really the means of turning the collection of people wandering around this planet into one organism. So in the end it is a means, and therefore the contribution to the nation is a contribution to a means; its role is to maintain that glue that binds humanity together. The Torah of Israel departs from this category—from this category meaning from all those pictures he described until now regarding the other religions—because its aspiration is only to reach the ultimate goal of the perfection of all humanity. Again we see this. Meaning, the role of the other religions is—they do not have a role, what do they do? Their role is to cultivate their own flowerbed. That is perfectly fine as long as they do not see themselves as the center, okay? But still, that is only a flowerbed. And the claim is that Judaism is actually supposed to care for all humanity, which is a bit the opposite of what seems to me the prevalent religious consciousness in the world today. I think Christians generally see themselves as repairing the world more than Jews do. Anyway, and it is prepared for this with all its instruments, whether its moral instruments, or practical ones, or historical ones. Meaning, there has been some suitable training here for this role. I am now going back to the book; we are on page—
[Speaker G] We are not capable of reading this text through the eyes of the reader and writer of that time, because we—I do not know whether to use the word “corrupted,” but we are completely immersed in a culture that sanctifies the individual. Meaning, we are already deep, deep inside a scene where the person is centered on himself, and the conception underlying this text—that a person almost has no right to do something that will weaken the reference group he belongs to, because the reference group is the force multiplier, and he has to define it and empower it and give it existence, because the whole world will supposedly fall apart if, heaven forbid, these groups, which here happen to be called national groups, break up. Today we are basically in the middle of a huge experiment, who knows—we are in the middle of it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] An experiment that is not so successful. Not that it is unsuccessful because it leads to bad things; it is unsuccessful in the sense that it cannot exist at all—the individual. To place the individual at the center is an idea alive in the plains of the United States and Israel and Europe, and even there it is not really succeeding. Nationalism keeps coming back through the back door from here and there, and it is apparently very hard to overcome the national instinct people have, despite the many who want to do it. So if I say that in order to carry out the experiment, first of all you have to succeed in putting the individual at the center, then we will see what that does.
[Speaker D] In the meantime—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Even that they still have not managed to do, I think, if you look at humanity in general. Therefore—we are now on page 40, right? I am returning to the continuation. Therefore, although it is not proper to accept converts easily, and they are as troublesome to Israel as a scab, nevertheless the plan of national nature, which is the foundation of life for the Torah and for its observance and love, is necessarily lacking in them. Again, this too is a very interesting point: the plan of national nature as some kind of necessary thing—again, a romantic conception of nationalism, and I assume the intention is really something essential-genetic, not only something cultural-acquired, historical and cultural influences. Nevertheless, one who recognizes the value of this justice, and whose soul knows the anguish of the human spirit caused by its separation into nations hostile to one another, and at the same time his soul aspires to truth unmixed with false imaginings in its moral feelings—we cannot count it as a sin for him to forget his people and his father’s house and come to shelter under the wings of the Lord, God of Israel. What—
[Speaker G] What page is that? 40.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] 40. For after all, by adding strength and might to the service of Israel, the blessed universal goal will also be advanced through him. And in the end he causes great good to the people from which he came. If he becomes a Jew, then he also causes good to the people he supposedly betrayed. And not only that—you see how hard he is trying to show that despite the very innovative theory he has developed here, it is still possible to remain with those basic intuitions that a gentile who becomes a Jew is not a criminal. Meaning, he is constructing epicycles and deferents, adding more and more layers to his theory; it is already starting to look a bit speculative, like a nice homiletic flourish, but that exactly expresses the tension I spoke about earlier and that I hope to return to in a moment. So he says: no, this will also help the people from whom he came. Why? And not only that, but the nation that will merit to remain a people at the time of the repair of peace for humanity—will it not draw from the source of Israel moral foundations and paths of understanding and fear of God? And then, through the additional strengths from the righteous converts who have attached themselves to the house of Jacob, they will be better able to descend to the depths of the souls of those nations. These converts are the ones who will help the people of Israel influence the nations they came from. So everything works out wonderfully; there is an astonishingly harmonious picture here. Blessed is the one who believes. And they will know how to help them in the moral expansion of knowledge and fear of God. And even though it is possible that the descendants of the converts—after all, this will not happen while they are still alive; it could also happen hundreds and thousands of years later—that the descendants of the converts will not themselves know the source of their origin, that they will dissolve into the people of Israel and assimilate into them, nevertheless the law of inheritance is that the tendencies of the soul will not be erased, and the hand of talent will remain inherited so as to descend to the depth of judgment in the ways of the nations from which they were hewn. Meaning, even in their descendants there will remain this understanding or intuition of how to deal with the Belgians or the Kenyans, whatever. If someone converted, his descendants and his descendants’ descendants after a thousand years will apparently still retain some ability to get to the bottom of it. You see, he is trying very hard to make everything fit together, but he himself feels there is something a bit artificial here, in my opinion. Fine.
However, a man of Israel who exchanges his glory—he sins down to the grave. Meaning, it is a sin down to Sheol. Certainly. On this there is no defense attorney at all. And there is no measure to the disgust of this abomination, and the many evils that must necessarily trail in its wake. And according to the measure of the abomination we understand that he will not be cleared by the hand of the God of justice; he will be repaid according to his wickedness, for he betrays his people and gives a hand to its plunderers and seekers of its harm, of whom there are many among the nations of the earth. And since he adds one more strength that ought to serve the service of his people to the service of the other nations, from his own hand too will be taken the rod of torment to oppress his people and the rock from which he was hewn. Meaning, he himself will cause damage to his people. And he uproots the excellence of his soul from the supreme excellence of the Torah of truth, which is occupied with the perfection of all humanity, to broken cisterns from which only rarely is there hope that they will return to the source of truth and justice. Now, if I were to continue his earlier theory, I could explain this in the same way, of course. Right? He goes to the Kenyans—now a Jew converts and becomes, I do not know, Kenyan. Fine, wonderful; in the end he will be able to connect them with the Jews. He will influence them; after all, he still has something Jewish in him, because genetics works—spiritual genetics or whatever kind of genetics. So everything is wonderful. So what is the problem? Here too there is a positive side? No, here there is no positive side at all. There is something here that looks terribly tendentious and artificial to me, I do not know. That is my feeling, and it is clear to me that he feels it too. Fine, we will return to this in a moment. Even the pure morality found within the dense thickets of imagination in other religions—even if it bears fruit for one who was born in those religions, because by the nature of his soul he is close to those concepts—a Jew, who was born with the capacity to live according to concepts of morality and knowledge of God that are pure and refined toward truth and purity, his soul will never cleave to that morality. And he will not even attain the level of private morality there in the same measure attained by one naturally born into the mother religion. Meaning, a Jew who goes and becomes a Christian—even the moral aspect of Christianity he will not receive, because he has to receive it from a Jewish source, not a Christian one. In other words, when he goes to become a Christian there is no positive side at all in that step. All the previous theories really point in the direction that here too one could see positive sides, and he takes pains to deny this one after another, to show that there is no such side, nothing positive in it whatsoever. Which is not entirely consistent with his previous theories of the Jewish world, but that is what he says here. Therefore one cannot sufficiently describe how miserable his daughter is—yes, this is a play on a verse in Ezekiel—and how evil and bitter it is that he forsakes the Lord his God, how evil this thing is. And because of this reason, among several other principal reasons, it was the counsel of the Lord, God of Israel, that the implantation of the Torah of Israel in the world should take place in a way exalted and elevated beyond compare with any religion. Again he returns to this point. So why, in our case, were there open miracles before an entire public? “Has any nation heard God” as you heard, revealing Himself from within the fire, and so on. Meaning, there is something here whose role is to make sure that this process will not happen—that a Jew should not feel that some other religion is truer than his own religion. Because that really is something for which there is no atonement, something with absolutely no positive side. So the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself makes sure of this. But again, notice the assumption. The assumption is that there is truth also in Christianity and in Islam; there too there are divine revelations, only there it was not done publicly in some overwhelming way. Why? Because there it does not trouble the Holy One, blessed be He, if someone leaves Christianity and becomes a Jew. So at worst he will think it is less correct than Judaism and will become Jewish—not terrible. Therefore there God does not trouble Himself to protect the truth of that religion. But in Judaism there was great effort with all the miracles and the giving of the Torah and the publicity and so on, so that this would not happen. Yes? It was the counsel of the Lord, God of Israel, that the implantation of the Torah of Israel in the world should be in a manner exalted and elevated beyond compare with any religion, with great and mighty signs and wonders, and with a deeply ingrained national ordering of great force of heart—the intention is also through the inner pattern that exists in every Jew; that too is part of the mechanism meant to ensure that such abandonment will not occur—so that the light of truth may stand forever.
And the advantage of universality—now he moves on; this continues what he said earlier, but now he moves on, this is really the third section of the chapter beginning here. And the advantage of universality that every Jew has—this is the continuation from before, but it is really the concluding section—every Jew therefore has two roles. He has the role of building the universal organism, and he has the role, the national duty that each person has toward his nation. That is what he says: and the advantage of universality that exists in the Torah of Israel by virtue of the law of truth embedded in it will stand out in addition to nationalism. Yes? There will be the advantage of universality—your task as an organ, as the heart of the general organism—besides that you have the ordinary national role. This is really a dual aspect or a double role, so that it may come to its proper character and destiny at the end of days.
[Speaker C] Messiah son of Joseph, Messiah son of David—those two sides.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Maybe, I do not know. As the verse says, “Yet as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.” So there is here some kind of double purpose. He is basically telling people: you have an inward-facing role and an outward-facing one. Some connect to the inward one, some connect to the outward one, and that is perfectly fine. These are the two roles, but both do the same thing. Practically speaking, both demand the same practice: that is, one has to observe Torah and commandments. That does two things: it both unites all humanity and also—also fulfills our duty toward our nation, even if you do not see humanity before your eyes. What he is really saying is that even Haredi Judaism has a place in this mosaic, in other words, and so too the view of Israel as something that is specifically meant to be separate, that has no role toward the whole world but rather a national role of its own and let the whole world burn. Even that has some place in this mosaic, because in the end they too will reach the required result, because the practice is the same practice. There is more than that here: there is also a kind of capitalist conception, yes? One that says that if you take care of yourself in the best possible way, that will also be the best structure in the broader socio-economic sense. And what he is really saying is: you want to care for your people, your nation? One hundred percent—do it. Do what your national obligation tells you to do. In the end that will also come out right in the universal sense. If everyone takes care of himself, that is much better than if everyone is universal and each person is really taking care of the whole universe. I think that is often also the mistake of universalists: they think that if you are a universalist, you also have to act as a universalist. And I am not sure they are right; in fact I am pretty sure they are not right. Meaning, if every person were to care about all the people in the world—not in circles, but equally, not preferring his own family over others or his own people over others—in my opinion the world would only suffer from that. Meaning, universal values themselves require a certain degree of particularity. This is that spiritual capitalism. You should take care of yourself as much as you can. Let everyone take care of himself. If every parent takes care of his own children, that will be much better than if every parent takes care of all the children of the world.
[Speaker F] So if that is the case, if I remove from Christianity and Islam this universal dimension of trying to conquer the whole world as Muslim, or missionary work—then why should I care that they believe they are the center? Why should I care about their belief? Once they themselves act as an organ—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That organism will not remain if they do not think that we are at the center and they need to draw nourishment—
[Speaker F] —from us. Why should I care whether they recognize me or do not recognize me?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] They can act—there is still a conscious element here. There is some element in which consciousness too matters; this is not something wholly deterministic. If they are not aware that they are some sort of periphery of mine, then apparently—again, I am guessing—but apparently the universal organism will not remain. Okay. Now he continues: and when you understand the matter, you will find that the main foundation of the greatness of the miracles and the revelation of the Divine Presence was required only in order to bring our holy Torah to the loftiness of its purpose for humanity, so that it should be worthy of the honor of general assent. Meaning, so why are wonders needed? Not for the national role. Because for the national role we are no different from Christians and Muslims; everyone has to do what his nation says. So why do we need the miracles and wonders that distinguish Judaism alone? That is for the universal role. But as far as we ourselves are concerned—again, the double role—“for humanity” is the line above, but “as far as we ourselves are concerned” means in order to fulfill our national duty, from the standpoint of our moral obligation according to the demand of uprightness and justice, our national obligation suffices. Since we find our people bound together by our holy Torah, and it is their house of life, even without looking far ahead, our obligation is great that we should all become alike in all the conduct of life in the essentials of our Torah and its branches, so as to elevate the whole nation, increase its strength, and glorify it.
[Speaker F] Exactly the opposite of Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner. The purpose of the revelation at Mount Sinai was not to prove something to the people of Israel but to prove something to the world?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, to prove it to the people of Israel.
[Speaker F] You said the people of Israel do not need it. No, they do need it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The people of Israel need it because only then can they fulfill their global role. But the miracles are for the people of Israel, not for the world. The miracles are so that I will be sure this is the truth and I will not leave it. That is what he says here. Therefore, aside from the fact that our truth is visible to all who have eyes, aside from the fact that the historical truth is stronger than every false charm for anyone who examines and doubts the truth of our holy Torah and its transmission—besides all that, we are not afraid of any stormy wind and tempest of masses of false opinions. For can they deny the existence of our nationhood even while we are in the lands of our enemies? And if they come to deny even that, the God of Israel has already prepared the cure before the blow: “With a mighty hand and an outstretched wrath I shall rule over you.” Meaning, they will not let us leave. So there are whole mechanisms that ensure that we will not be able to abandon our national obligation. The hatred of the nations and their persecution will remind those who forget that we are a people who dwell alone, a mighty nation under all conditions. And since the foundation of our association visibly depends on the bond of our holy Torah, therefore the duty of uprightness immediately comes to fulfill all the obligations of the Torah in practice. Meaning, nationalism will bring about the observance of the Torah. Again, remember what we discussed before? Nationalism is an instrument. Here he says it explicitly. And once a person becomes accustomed to the Torah and its observance and all our distinctive ways of life, then his eyes will immediately open and he will feel the evident truth. And his heart will incline to the service of God out of love, with complete faith and true love. Needless to say, when the Lord restores the captivity of His people, then the truth itself will be the greatest protection, to the point that even the aid of nationalism will not be needed. Here this is the strongest expression of the idea that nationalism is a ladder that you climb and then can throw away.
[Speaker D] Commandments are nullified in the future to come; nationalism is nullified in the future to come.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. Meaning, there is something here that is an instrument that cannot be done without, but it should not itself be turned into a value. It is an instrument without which the universal organism cannot be assembled. But once it is assembled and everyone already understands the truth, then now do the truth because it is true. So now the Jewish nation too is no longer needed. No nation is needed, because now the whole world is already one great nation of individuals. And maybe that is also how one can see today’s tendency toward individuality—perhaps this is the beginning of the final stage, the footsteps of the Messiah. Fine. In the end, then, what emerges here really is some picture in which these religions do have some role—but not only a role in the sense Maimonides said in Guide for the Perplexed, which I spoke about last time. There is something here that is apparently also true. Not only that it is the lesser evil, but on the contrary: there is something true here, and someone who leaves it—that is a problem. Sometimes a problem that can be justified by some other benefit, but it is a problem. That is a much more far-reaching conclusion.
Now, regarding—this brings us back to “commandments are nullified in the future to come,” the whole first part of the chapter, which says that in the end our uniqueness too will apparently disappear in the end, because this uniqueness also is only some kind of means until the whole business turns into one organism, one organism.
[Speaker G] Fine, so what will they do in the future to come in that reality?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What? So that is the dispute whether the commandments are nullified in the future to come or not. He says that those who say the commandments are not nullified in the future to come—then everyone will do the commandments because they will understand that this is what should be done. Apparently all the gentiles too will do them. Or at least, I do not know, perhaps there is some group that has to do them—
[Speaker G] I do not know exactly.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] How will it all be organized? Yes, yes. Apparently, apparently. Again, do not ask me. I am trying to understand what he writes, but I really do not identify with these ideas, and I said that. Fine. In any case, there is a point here that one cannot escape, and it is the point I kept noting during the reading. There is some vagueness here that points to a tension accompanying him as he writes. That is what I think. He keeps moving between two poles. If you were to let him just set aside all concerns, not take anyone into account, and write what really came into his heart, it seems to me that what would come out here would be something even more far-reaching. What would come out here in fact is that everything is fine. Everyone is fine. The Polish gentile should remain Christian, go to his church, do what the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him, and the Muslim likewise, and everything is fine and we all— And he says that too. Understand? No, every time he says that yes, it is still preferable for him to convert and so on, but there are all those things about the added value. I think there is something even stronger here. Maybe I will formulate it differently. Look, the truth is, if you think about it a bit—let us leave Rabbi Kook aside for a moment. I find myself talking to all kinds of people, usually young men, who are really struggling with this problem, and I too struggle with this problem. Meaning, this feeling that says that Christianity is basically some collection of mistakes—some of them even foolish, but certainly harmful—is a somewhat problematic conception even with respect to—on the theological level. It is problematic theologically, because what does the Holy One, blessed be He, expect? From the gentile who was born there in some village in Poland, from infancy he was raised there in church with his parents that this is what God wants from him, this is what he should do, these are the commandments, and the more righteous he is, the more he should do what he was told—maybe even hate the Jews, no matter, that is part of what he received. And now what—he is supposed to get to heaven and there the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: my friend, to the left. Meaning, what do You want from him? I did everything I could. This is what I understood. I am not a great philosopher. And maybe even if he is a great philosopher—even great philosophers do not all immediately convert to Judaism, as we see.
[Speaker G] The claim of a captured infant, the claim of—what?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The whole world is basically a captured infant. That is much stronger. Do you really think, for example, that the pope is not a captured infant? Can the pope be blamed? I do not know, I do not know him. I am convinced that he is convinced this is the absolute truth. That is completely clear. I do not know—to me it is completely clear. So what, does the Holy One, blessed be He, come with grievances against His creatures? Basically all these people—the overwhelming majority of the world—get up there and burn in the fires of hell for what? Because he tried to do what he was educated to do: the service of God, the national obligation that Rabbi Kook demands of him even if he does not believe in it, let alone one who does believe in it. And this is what will happen to him in the end? It does not sound plausible. Now on the other hand the Torah tells us that idol worshippers must be killed. There is something problematic here. And I think the next required step—and Rabbi Kook is very, very careful about this, I think, with these ambiguous statements that can be taken both ways—the next step is really to say that this narrative too, that we are at the center, is also part of our own narrative. It too is part of our narrative. Christians think exactly the same thing. There could be a Christian who writes exactly this same chapter and says: actually the Jews are fine, let them keep their own thing, as long as they do not think they are the center. True, they developed some conception that they are the center, because you cannot march behind the flag of being second class. He would say exactly the same thing about us, right? So this narrative that “we are the center” exists everywhere, and they all write the same books, or could write the same books. There is something here that, if you take it one step further—you could translate this book into English right now and it could come out of the Vatican. There is no difference. Because what are they saying after all? You educate yourselves on such a narrative, that you are the center. Fine. That is your role. Without that you will not really be able to promote what you need to promote. But in the end, when the time comes, you will sit in your own flowerbed and we will be the center. And the truth is that maybe in the end that is also true. That is the next stage. Maybe really what there is here is a collection of paths, none of which is in fact truer than the others. Except that there is no choice. Because you cannot walk a path and fight for it and be devoted to it and sacrifice for it if you do not truly believe that it is the absolute and only truth and all the others are mistaken. Therefore the tendencies of religions are always, of course, to negate the other, perhaps even punish him, because you cannot do without that. Very often people newly returned to religion too—I have talked to a number of such people—they are terribly bothered by the disputes among different streams within religious Judaism, between rabbis or something like that. What kind of description is that? Human beings who do not really believe in something will not fight over anything. That is obvious. A person who really believes in something really believes he is right—what do you want from him? He really thinks the other person is wrong and harmful. What do you want him to do, not state his opinion? Likewise with what is happening now with Rabbi Ovadia and Rabbi Elyashiv regarding this conversion issue in the IDF, right? Everyone gets so upset—what a desecration of God’s name, what politics. Why desecration of God’s name and politics? I do not understand. This one thinks this and that one thinks that. They express their opinions. It is a dispute in Jewish law for the sake of heaven. I do not see any problem with this dispute. There are some perhaps somewhat questionable ways in which it is conducted, and all kinds of attendants and attendants’ attendants. But regarding the people themselves who express an opinion—what is the problem? There are two halakhic opinions here. True, this is a difficult topic, it touches people’s fates, but these are people who really believe they are right and the other side is wrong. He really thinks so, and I am simply convinced that both sides really think so.
[Speaker C] It seems to me the claim here is simply that this is a show of force and not a substantive matter.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] But why? Why? Why, when he writes that Rabbi Ovadia is wrong in the laws of selecting food on the Sabbath, you do not say that is a show of force? Because over that he does not send—
[Speaker F] —people into the street.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Why? He does, and very much so. He ostracizes Rabbi Ovadia not because of the conversions. Rabbi Ovadia does not enter the study halls not because of the conversions.
[Speaker C] It is because he is Rabbi Ovadia and he is not Ashkenazi.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine, okay, no, I do not agree. I do not agree at all. There is clearly a power element here, but the power element serves the substantive issue. What do you mean? Every party operates through power. Why do you establish a party? In order to accumulate power, right? But the role of the power is to advance the idea you believe in. Do you really think Rabbi Elyashiv does not believe what he says? I am just asking—is that the assessment?
[Speaker G] I have no doubt that he believes it.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We are not talking about Rabbi Elyashiv. We are reading all kinds of things that come out from all kinds of—never mind. I am not talking now about the “I said,” not about the attendants’ attendants. I am talking now about the positions.
[Speaker G] The basic positions—I have no doubt that each side really believes what it says. So what is the problem with that? Sometimes people argue too, and that is also fine by me. So what if they argue? He argues about it because he really thinks what he says is true and the other side is harmful, so he argues.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] If someone does not care how conversions are done, is it any wonder that he does not argue about anything? That he is enlightened and tolerant and wonderful because nothing matters to him? Nothing matters to him. So when a person believes in things, he thinks they are correct, then he also goes to war over them. And that is what he says—same thing here, placing ourselves at the center. One can now take—I am saying, I am not taking this step—but I am saying this is a step I feel is always here between the lines, namely that even our narrative is a kind of narrative. Rabbi Kook is trying here to build it with some very sophisticated manipulation. It is terribly artificial.
[Speaker D] And he does not even escape it. He says it by the very fact that he says there is a final purpose.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, in the end he still leaves the periphery in the periphery and the center in the center.
[Speaker D] He does not, he does not, he does not. He leaves—at the stage we are currently in, on the way, there is a certain hierarchy. Okay.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Not only in the future to come, not only on the way. He says in the future to come our nationhood, our morality, everything—that is what he said at the end.
[Speaker D] There is still a stage. Why an advantage? I am saying, at the final stage all the nations feel tangibly that they are all part of that same human collective. Now practically speaking, there is now—now there is an idol worshipper and you kill him?
[Speaker A] If now, in our generation?
[Speaker D] Not in our generation. There is a Sanhedrin, they establish—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —the Sanhedrin.
[Speaker A] At the stage of the road.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] So I ask: do you kill him?
[Speaker A] At the stage of the road. Between the two world wars.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] This is where the problem lies. On the one hand, you have to go with something that says: I am the center, this is the truth, the others are wrong.
[Speaker D] At the stage of the road, as you said. From there it changes—commandments are nullified in the future to come.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Okay, but do you understand that someone living with so complex a consciousness is basically saying that suddenly the directives for which I am willing to kill and be killed are some kind of directives that are really only the path, and I myself know they are not really the truth.
[Speaker D] Everyone is in some kind of expanded consciousness like that.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Fine. No, I understand the idea why it is so hard for us to develop strong religious consciousness when you live this complexity, when you understand that everyone is basically equally right.
[Speaker C] And there is—
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] —something here that is—and therefore exactly what I am saying: that is why there is this very strong tension that you see here in his words, where he says something and immediately retreats. And not only retreats, but builds some terribly artificial structure so that, heaven forbid, we should not take the additional step that seemingly follows from his words. Right. There is no—
[Speaker D] —other option. Between the two world wars.