Book Review: Orot Ha-Torah by Chanan Morrison

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook. Orot ha-Torah. Translated and annotated by Rabbi Chanan Morrison. Whirlwind Press, 2024. Bilingual edition. xxvii, 204 pp.

REVIEWED BY BEZALEL NAOR

The indefatigable Rabbi Chanan Morrison has now published his translation of Rav Kook’s gem, Orot ha-Torah (Lights of Torah). The book is available in English-only and bilingual editions.

Rabbi Morrison has distinguished himself over the years as a popularizer of Rav Kook’s thought, producing Gold from the Land of Israel, Silver from the Land of Israel, and Sapphire from the Land of Israel, as well as contributing a weekly column to the Israel National News website. In addition, the rabbi maintains his own website, ravkooktorah.org.

*

It may be said, hopefully without exaggeration, that just as Rav Kook’s Orot ha-Teshuvah (Lights of Return) revolutionized the concept of teshuvah, so his Orot ha-Torah revolutionized the concept of Torah lishmah (Torah for its own sake).

Let me explain. In traditional circles it is said that there is triangulation on the subject of Torah lishmah: Tanya, Nefesh ha-Hayyim, Yesod ha-‘Avodah.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the HaBaD school of Hasidism, penned the Book of Tanya, which proposes that the definition of Torah lishmah—study of Torah for its own sake without ulterior motivation—is devekut (clinging to God). In the act of studying Torah, one connects the Torah to its Giver, the Holy One, blessed be He. (See Tanya, chap. 41 [57b].) In so doing, one enters a state of “deveikut,” of divine rapture. (Heschel wrote that the Maharal of Prague, in the introduction to Tif’eret Yisrael, adumbrated the Hasidic conception of Torah lishmah.)

The response from the Mitnagdim, the opponents of Hasidism, though delayed by a generation, was stunning. Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, premier disciple of the Vilna Gaon, delivered the response in Sha‘ar Dalet (Gate Four) of his magnum opus, Nefesh ha-Hayyim (published posthumously by his son, Rabbi Isaac of Volozhin). Rabbi Hayyim tore away the shroud of mystery. Torah lishmah means exactly that: studying Torah for its own sake. This is the original sense of the Talmudic term. Deveikut is a Hasidic superimposition.

(The only doctoral dissertation done under the direction of Rav Dr. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik was Norman Lamm’s work, Torah Lishmah: Torah for Torah’s Sake, a study of Nefesh ha-Hayyim by Rav Soloveitchik’s ancestor, Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin.)

Not to allow the Mitnagdim to have the final word on the matter, the Hasidim came back with their response in the form of Yesod ha-‘Avodah by Rabbi Avraham Weinberg, founder of the Slonim dynasty. (Slonim is another school of Lithuanian Hasidism, ideologically apart from Lubavitch.)

Enter Rav Kook. The second chapter of Orot ha-Torah is entitled appropriately enough, “Torah lishmah” (“Studying Torah for its Own Sake”). Rav Kook, the great ohev Yisrael, lover of Israel, brings to the discussion a unique dimension: Knesset Yisrael (Ecclesia Israel), the Jewish People.

One way to study Torah lishmah, is to study with the goal of enriching Knesset Yisrael with great spiritual forces (OT 2:4).

When we study Torah lishmah, we show kindness to Knesset Yisrael (OT 2:5).

The foundation of studying Torah lismah is seeking to strengthen the power of Knesset Yisrael that lies concealed within us (OT 2:6).

While this approach to Torah lishmah—for the sake of Kelal Yisrael—is not totally novel, its prioritization strikes one as original. (See however Tanya, chap. 41 [57b].)

For the sake of objectivity, one must not forget that both the works mentioned, Orot ha-Teshuvah and Orot ha-Torah, are collections by Rav Kook’s only son, Rav Tsevi Yehudah Hakohen Kook, who gathered pieces from spiritual journals of his father. Thus, as scholars will be quick to point out, the valuations are those of the editor. Another editor might have placed the emphasis differently. Though I doubt that there are many scholars willing to dispute Rav Kook’s valorization of Knesset Yisrael. The term itself was uppermost on his lips. His disciple, Rav Yitzhak Hutner, recalled that when Rav Kook would pronounce the words “Knesset Yisrael,” his whole body would tremble. A preeminent posek (halakic decisor) of Jerusalem, Rabbi Shimshon Aharon Polonsky (known as the Tepliker Rov), referred to the Torah that Rav Kook would impart at his tisch at the Third Meal of the Sabbath, as “the Knesset Yisrael Torah.”

*

It is the custom to study Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) at this time between Pesah and Shavu‘ot. The Mishnah begins with the incongruous words, “Moses received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, etc.” Why “from Sinai”? Would it not have been more appropriate to say “from God,” or “at Sinai,” or even “from God at Sinai”? It is as if the mountain of Sinai has come to life and become personified. We will return to this question, an obvious question asked by all commentators.

When I opened Rabbi Morrison’s book, my eyes landed on a gematria of Rav Kook on page 129 (OT 11:7):

The numerical value of the Hebrew word ‘anavah (humility) is 131. This number, represented by the letters kuf-lamed-alef, can also be spelled lamed-kuf-alef. Thus, we can read it as, “Learn (lamed) one hundred and one (kuf-alef) times. This alludes to the Talmudic statement, “The person who reviews his studies one hundred times cannot be compared to the person who reviews one hundred and one times” (Hagigah 9b). The willingness to review what one has studied numerous times, demonstrates humility.

In its entirety the passage in the Talmud reads:

Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). “The righteous” is the same as “one who serves God,” and “the wicked” is the same as “one who does not serve Him.”

[Hillel] said to him:

The one “who serves Him” and the one “who does not serve Him” are both completely righteous. But one who reviews his studies one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.

The Tanya (chapter 15) explains that in those days, it was customary to review each lesson one hundred times. Only the student who made the effort to review one hundred and one times merits the madreigah of “‘oved Elohim.” Only he who exerted himself to “go the extra mile,” so to speak; to step out of his “comfort zone”; to stop being a creature of habit, and actively engage in battle with the yetser ha-ra‘ (evil inclination), is considered worthy of being called an “‘oved Elohim,” one working in the service of God.

For Rav Kook, Hillel’s message is a lesson in humility. Having reviewed the subject one hundred times, one might assume that one has mastered the material. Haughtiness might set in. Humility sends one back to the drawing board. One must forever begin anew from scratch.

This is the lesson of “Sinai.” Sinai stands for humility. It was the lowliest of mountains. “Sinai” has the same alphanumerical value as “‘anavah” (humility). (See Rabbi Hayyim Yosef David Azulai, Nahal Kedumim, Beha‘alotekha [Numbers 12:3], s.v. ve-ha-ish Moshe ‘anav me’od mi-kol ha-adam.)

In his commentary to Avot, Ru’ah Hayyim, Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin makes the point that it was this very quality of ‘anavah, humility, that made Moses the unique receptacle for Torah. Only of Moses does the Mishnah say “kibbel” (“he received”). There were many links in the chain of tradition but only Moses, because of his incomparable humility, “received” with all the weight of the word.

One marvels at the insistence on just this character trait of humility. It is stressed over and over by the founder of the famed Volozhin Yeshivah—an elitist institution—in his comments on the first mishnah of Avot. It was specifically this attribute of ‘anavah that qualified one as belonging to the hakhmei ha-mesorah, as a link in the human chain of tradition from Sinai.

At the end of Tractate Berakhot (64a) there is a fascinating discussion. Which sage takes priority: “the Sinai” or the “‘oker harim” (“uprooter of mountains”)?

“Sinai” is simple enough to define. It is the scholar who (perhaps endowed with eidetic memory) retains the texts in their integrity as they were transmitted at Sinai.

But who is the “uprooter of moutains”? Usually, we explain this as the master of pilpul, the pugilist, the sharp-witted dialectician. Rav Kook, in his commentary ‘Eyn Ayah, has a different take. “Sinai” is the one who transmits faithfully that which was received at Mount Sinai. The “uprooter of mountains,” on the other hand, is the one who is able to extirpate the influences of the other mountains, the mountains other than Sinai that have managed to creep in.

According to Avot (3:18), gematri’ot (numerical equivalences) are “parpera’ot le-hokhmah” (intellectual desserts).

*

May Rabbi Chanan Morrison be blessed with ko’ah and mo’ah, with physical stamina and mental acuity, to continue for many years in his capacity of transmitter of the tradition (ma‘atik ha-shemu‘ah) of Rav Kook. Amen.