by Rabbi Yoseph Kahanov Jax, FL

The Divine Is In the Details – An Infinite G-d In A Finite World

Once, on Rosh Hashanah, the Alter Rebbe Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, asked his son the Miteler Rebbe to share some of the thoughts upon which he had reflected during his Davening-prayers earlier that day.

The Miteler Rebbe proceeded to enumerate the various liturgical passages and Kabalistic intentions upon which he had reflected. The Miteler Rebbe then inquired of the Alter Rebbe regarding his own meditations.

Instead of the profound and lofty ideas for which the Miteler Rebbe was prepared, the Alter Rebbe indicated that his thoughts were focused upon his “Chair and Shtender-lectern,” (a reference to the Divine that is manifest within physical matter).

…………………………………………………………

Dear Rabbi,

Why does the Jewish religion seem to obsess over insignificant details? How much Matzah we have to eat, which spoon I use for milk and which for meat and the right way to tie my shoelaces? It seems to me that by focusing on minutiae, it misses the bigger picture. Is this nitpicking really the substance of spirituality?

(I actually already sent you this question over a week ago and didn’t receive a reply. Could it be that you have finally been asked a question that you can’t answer?!)

Rob

Dear Rob,

I never claimed to have all the answers. There are many questions that are beyond me. But it happens to be that I did answer your question, and you did get the answer. I sent a reply immediately. The fact that you didn’t receive it is itself the answer to your question.

You see, I sent you a reply, but I wrote your email address leaving out the “dot” before the “com.” I figured that you should still receive the email, because after all, it is only one little dot that’s missing. I mean come on, it’s not as if I wrote the wrong name or something drastic like that! Would anyone be so nitpicky as to differentiate between “yahoocom” and ” yahoo.com”? Isn’t it a bit ridiculous that you didn’t get my email just because of a little dot?

No, it’s not ridiculous. Because the dot is not just a dot. It represents something. That dot has meaning far beyond the pixels on the screen that form it. To me it may seem insignificant, but that is simply due to my ignorance of the ways of the web. All I know is that with the dot, the message gets to the right destination; without it, the message is lost to oblivion.

Jewish practices have infinite depth. Each nuance and detail contains a world of symbolism. And every dot counts. When they are performed with precision, a spiritual vibration is emailed throughout the universe, all the way to G-d’s inbox.

If you want to understand the symbolism of the dot, study I.T. If you want to understand the symbolism of Judaism, study it.

Rabbi

(Email circulation)

………………………………………………………..

I recently read a story of a certain, so called, Rabbi who had decided one December to accept an invite to play the role of “Santa” for a bunch of underprivileged kids in his community. Upon reading his account and how inspiring the experience had been for him, I could not help but puzzle over the man’s conflicted identity and values.

I soon realized that the key to my puzzlement lie in the fellow’s own words: “The question of stumbling across customs and religious boundaries did not concern me,” asserted Rabbi Santa, “I’d always believed in encouraging people to be less rigid about maintaining those rigid lines… So I practiced my sonorous and ‘Ho, ho, hos.’”

When contemplating the nature of the Being of All Beings and His essential characteristics, which incidentally is part of our Jewish obligation, the fact that He has neither body nor form or any other physical limitation, looms as a cardinal axiom.

A basic premise of Jewish theology is to know that G-d is inexorably too vast to be restricted or defined by any substance or matter. The very definition of the word “G-d” implies the ultimate of boundlessness and transcendence.

The trouble with that principle is that it tends to leave G-d a tad removed from us mortals; it tends to exclude Him from our physical and mundane daily activities. What, after all, would a supreme G-d want with a material and finite world? What difference can pewny man possibly make to an Almighty being?

Does the fact that He created us necessarily imply that He is interested in our physical actions? There appears to be many a created entity that does not hold the continued interest of its maker.

While the Almighty certainly had good reason for creating a physical universe and its earthling inhabitants, goes the thinking, it is certainly not their earthy and mundane characteristics which attract His interest, but rather their higher intellectual and emotional qualities and potential.

It is for this very reason that in many cases the search for G-d and spirituality leads its seeker to a form of worship that negates the physical dimension. Since G-d is infinite and exalted, He is thought to be aloof. He is thought to be removed from the physical and corporeal aspects of life. Hence the way for man to interact with G-d is by virtue of his higher human faculties, i.e., knowledge, love, etc.

If there is any use for the lower physical dimension, it would have to be limited to the extent that it serves to enable the higher senses of intellect or emotion. However, physical matter and activity, in and of themselves, are not perceived to be plausible means of Divine service and interaction. Certainly, an infinite and transcendent creator would not prescribe this sort of service.

This type of thinking has led many people to the popular mindset of “Belief without action.” In fact the majority of people who profess to believe in G-d fall, to varying degrees, into this category. To them the observance of Mitzvos or rituals that do not serve a logical, tangible purpose (Mitzvos between man and G-d) is a senseless endeavor.

“Does G-d really care whether I wait six full hours between meat and milk instead of five hours and fifty minutes,” they muse? “Has He nothing better to do than fret over the size of the piece of Matzoh I eat on Passover, or whether I eat it at all?

Are we really to believe that when a piece of dough is baked within eighteen minutes, it is a consecrated and holy artifact – fit for the exalted Mitzvah of ‘Matzah,’ but when it lingers for one more minute unbaked, it becomes the unholy and repugnant item of severe sin – ‘Chametz?’ Why would one minute make such a big difference to G-d?”

“What good does it do for an infinite G-d, or anyone else, whether or not I wrap the black straps of Teffilin around my arms, or whether I observe the sundry laws of Shabbos or Kashrus?” There are those who would argue that it is actually demeaning to suggest that an almighty and unbounded G-d would concern Himself with such seemingly trivial matters.

Judaism, however, stands firm in its belief to the contrary. Perhaps one of Judaism’s most revolutionary contributions to theology and the G-d/man relationship is the notion that G-d can be found in the finite as much as the infinite; that we serve G-d with our hands as much as with our brains.

G-d’s true greatness and infinitude is expressed in the fact that He is not excluded from the finite. While most things that are infinite lack the characteristic of finitude, G-d, who is the ultimate and quintessential model of infinitude, cannot be banished from the finite, for that in itself would constitute the gravest of limitations. He is hence referred to as “The G-d of opposites.”

When this notion is taken to its logical conclusion, it’s not just imperative that G-d be present in physical phenomena in a general manner, but rather that He be present in the most extreme and minute aspects of the physical dimension.

Hence, asserts Jewish theology, G-d’s presence can be found in all types of finite objects and human behaviors; that the finest margins of time, space, shape, substance, color and, of course, human actions, make a consequential difference to Him.

For reasons known to Him, there is higher Divine will and favor in specific activities that are carried out within the framework of a given time or place, be it the blowing of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah or the four species on the holiday of Sukkos, or any of the other multitude of Divine commandments.

In light of the above we can understand why in this Week’s Parsha, Terumah, G-d expresses a desire for a “dwelling” place in our lowliest of worlds. “This is what man is all about,” writes Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the Chassidic classic, Tanya. “This is the purpose of his creation and of the creation of all the worlds, higher and lower; that there be made for G-d a dwelling in the lower realms.”

The Mishkan; the portable sanctuary built by the children of Israel in the Sinai Desert following the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, was the first such dwelling to be constructed – one which serves as the prototype for all subsequent efforts to make G-d at home in the physical world.

His interest in every aspect and detail, from its construction to its design, is now understood. We can now comprehend why an infinite G-d would involve himself with the shape, size, color and substance of every component and nuance of a physical structure, down to the finest detail.

No less than 13 chapters in the Book of Exodus are filled with the details of the Sanctuary’s construction, from the dimensions of every pillar to the colors in every tapestry. In contrast, the Torah devotes one chapter to its account of the creation of the universe and three chapters to the revelation at Mount Sinai, and conveys many complex laws by means of a single verse, or even a single word or letter.

Fifteen physical substances, including gold, silver, copper, wood, wool, linen, animal skins, oil, spices and gemstones — representing a cross-section of the mineral, vegetable and animal resources of the physical universe and the human resources invested in their workmanship — were forged into an edifice dedicated to man’s service of G-d, and in which G-d, in turn, chose to commune with man.

Through our service of G-d with all elements of our being, from the highest of intellect to the most detailed of action, may we build for Him a magnificent Temple, both personally as well as cosmically, with the coming of the righteous Moshiach, BBA.

11 Comments

  • Well

    The santa story was cute l see them around every Purim But Some have omitted The most Important things of the Torah Justice Mercy and Emunah! These should be done First and not leave the other undone.

  • What would Milhouse say?

    Milhouse claims that there is nothing wrong or anti-Jewish with Santa or dressing as Santa, in fact, he considers it a “coco-cola costume”!

    K (apparently a kollel guy from BMG who purports to having authored seforim) has argued persuasively against Milhouse’s position, claiming that it is connected with Avoda Zara and in a chinuch context, claiming that dressing a child in such a costume is far worse than feeding the child cholov akum (he called in “cholov stam”).

    It could be K does not fully appreciate the seriousness of cholov AKUM from our perspective, but that may be besides the point.

    I don’t know Milhouse’s credentials in Halacha but seems this author would weigh in against him.

    • Milhouse

      Santa is a secular character, and the coca-cola costume certainly has no connection to Xianity whatsoever. But for a rabbi to do this past nisht. It’s not avoda zara, but it’s goyish. If Santa were to become popular among Jews (and not just Jews who are pretending to be goyim) then I don’t think I’d have a problem with it.

      But the issue here isn’t really the Santa, it’s the fact that this “rabbi”, in his own words, has “always believed in encouraging people to be less rigid about maintaining those rigid lines” bein yisroel lo’amim. That is a huge problem. This havdoloh is fundamental, just like the ones between kodesh and chol, light and dark, shabbos and the week. ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי. A “rabbi” who doesn’t believe in that is not a rabbi.

    • K

      Following Milhouse logic – Santa costume is as goyish as coca-cola.

      By a rabbi saying, l’moshel, that both Jews and non-Jews enjoy coca-cola, that statemment removes the havdala bein yisroel l’amim. If goting enjoy Coke, Yidden must not!

      And it’s okay to dress a Yiddishe child is clothes that are clearly goyish (Santa costume) but c”v to feed him cholov stam which has “hashgocha” by the government (to which I say, bless the United States of America for giving us the oneg shabbos of Häagen-Dazs!).

      Oh, and make sure you use cholov Yisroel in the coffee you keep in a styrofoam cup made of tallow (treif animal fat), because ba’asar b’chalov is better with cholov Yisroel!

    • Milhouse

      Sheesh. Coca-cola is not goyish. Jews all over the world have been drinking Coca-cola for nearly a century. The Coca-cola costume of Santa Claus is clearly goyish; if it ever becomes popular among Jews then it will no longer be so, but that has not happened. And to wear such a goyishe costume past nisht for a rabbi.

      The distinction bein yisroel lo’amim, though, is fundamental, and this so-called “rabbi” openly deprecates it. That is a far greater problem than how he dresses.

    • K

      So Santa Clause costumes are no more goyish than say a Superman costume. And a rabbi dressed as Superman is as equally problematic (according to Shitas Milhouse) as one dressed as Santa Clause. Really?!

    • Milhouse

      Not quite. Superman costumes are equally popular among yidden and goyim. The character was invented in the first place by two yidden, and has always been popular in both sectors. A rabbi in a Superman costume is like a red nose; in general es past nisht for any serious person, but in a good cause it can be appropriate. Santa Claus is a goyishe character, and the costume is not generally worn by Jews, so es past nisht for a rabbi to wear it.

      The greater problem, though, is that this “rabbi” doesn’t believe in the whole concept that yidden are different from goyim.

    • K

      I seem to recall being told that some chassidim believe that there yidden and goyim are equal since “true bechira” of Hashem choosing Yidden can only apply when both are equal. I am repeating hearsay so I cannot vouch for the truth of this content, but I am certain that this is a “fundamental” hashkafic belief amongst some chassidus.

      Maybe, as Milhouse says, such belief is “es past nisht”!

    • K

      Dressing as Santa Claus or as Haman (both clearly goyish!) is, according to Milhouse EQUALLY offensive. REALLY?!

      And having a secular “holiday-tree” lighted with colored bulbs and tinsel and glass balls and stars is ALSO perfectly okay for Milhouse? I suggest you drink a cup of cholov stam to get your hashkafa sorted out! w

    • Milhouse

      See any number of maamorim titled הלוא אח עשו ליעקב. The bechira of Yaacov happens at a level before there are perceptible differences between them. Bechira is higher than taam voda’as. In this world where Yaacov does good and Esav does bad it would be no wonder that ואהב את יעקב ואת עשו שנאתי. The chidush is that even at a level where they appear to be the same, Hashem chooses Yaacov and rejects Esov.

      But what has this got to do with yidden and goyim? Hashem chose us from all the nations and made us His. He gave us a holy neshomo, literally a part of Him, and thus made us something fundamentally different from them. The difference between us is the result of that choice, not its cause.

      A tree is more complicated than a coca-cola suit, not so much because of its (non-existent) connection to Xianity, but because of its roots in the old German avoda zaras from before they became Xian. Coca-cola, on the other hand, has never had any connection to any kind of avoda zara.