Based on R.Tsadok HaKohen Resisei Laila 56

Rav Tsadok explores the transition that occurred when our textual tradition shifted from Torah Sh’bik’tav to Torah Sh’ba’al peh (from Written Torah to Oral Torah). For the purposes of his analysis, written Torah includes the entire Tanach…all 24 books of the Jewish Bible.While the Oral Torah includes all the subsequent writings (halachic, midrashic, mussar,
kabbalistic, Torani) up until this very day.

The languaging is a little confusing though, since our access to the Oral Torah is also primarily through written texts these days. Of course, admittedly, these secondary texts only fully come to life when there is a living teacher giving them over. But not everyone has the luxury of access to such a one, in which case, we make do with the tracings inherited from teachers and mentors of years gone by. The irony of Oral Torah being primarily written these days is a whole deep matter that will not be addressed in this essay.

But what R. Tsadok does note (which is relevant to our subject), is that Chanukha is the first Yom Tov that does not have a canonized text (ie a Torah sh’biktav) to establish its significance, authority and observance. The Talmud brings the famous braita , that begins “mai Chanukha” (“what is Chanukha”) which sparks a rich collection of creative comments and intergenerational conversations that multiply through the centuries…through millennia. But there is no codified megillah for Chanukha like there is for Purim.
R. Tsadok ascribes a profound significance to that fact, for it marks a transition between the era of Torah Sh’biktav that’s capped by Purim, and the era of Torah Sh’b’al peh that’s inaugurated by Chanukha. This consequential transition marks a paradigm shift in our relationship with HaShem…a coming of age.

Yet the question becomes: is this a forward step or a backwards one? In order to make that assessment we need to have a clear picture of our divinely ordained mission—both its means and its ends. Where are we headed… and why? That allows us to determine whether this shift from written Torah to Oral Torah supports our goal or subverts it. Is it an aliyah or a yeridah, a slip or a stride. In classic writings, it’s generally assumed, to be a yeridah, for the Written Torah is a prophetic work, while the Oral Torah comes through a lesser channel of transmission called ruach hakodesh (inspired intuition) [2]. Ruach hakodesh is less reliable and less authoritative than prophesy. HaShem is more hidden in ruach hakodesh which is the very definition of a yeridah. And so, in weighing the transition from Written Torah to Oral torah in light of whether it contributes to the purpose of creation or hobbles it, one would have to conclude the latter…that this transition is a downgrade, at least in terms of our access to heavenly guidance.

The role of us humans in the classic explanations of creation’s purpose supports that judgement. But perhaps there is a different “purpose of creation” that organizes things around different priorities and, consequently, comes to a different conclusion.

The classic explanations of our purpose are somewhat limited:

1. Leit melekh b’lo am (אין מלך בלא עם)—There’s no king without a nation. In order to enable HaShem to experience kingship, we serve as his subjects and obey his decrees. Or,
2. Teva hatov l’haytiv (טבע הטוב להטיב)—It’s the nature of good to want to bestow good). So, in order to enable HaShem to bequeath good we receive His beneficences. Who can complain, but still, our role is limited and instrumental . Or,
3. From the Zohar: B’gin d’ish’ta’mu’da’in lei (בגין דישתמודעין ליה)—In order to reveal Himself. In order for HaShem to experience self-revelation we become the beholder of that disclosure. It’s a blissful awakening of consciousness on our part but it lacks reciprocity and is, consequently, still utilitarian.
   
   In these first three classic “purposes of creation” there’s a flatness to our role in them—a passivity. There’s no real reciprocity and no real agency. That begins to change with this fourth explanation from Bamidbar Rabba [13:6]…
   
   
4. “The Blessed Holy One desired for Himself a dwelling place below”, meaning that the Infinite One sought to experience finitude, and so created a material world (along with a private residence) that would enable Him to observe, from the inside, creation’s multi-millennial saga.

This brings us to the threshold of another “purpose of creation” that appears (quietly) in Medresh Rabba [3:9][3] and is also hinted to in the Leshem and R. Tsadok HaKohen and also the Ari. It is an alternative lens through which to view our question of whether the Chanukha transition from Written Torah to Oral Torah is an aliyah or yerida (a forward step or a backslide).

This “purpose of creation” incorporates those mentioned above as particulars within its more expansive field. It is stated thus: Divinity, before creation, by definition, was lacking nothing except, in some mysterious sense, the experience of actualized relationship, because there was no other with whom to relate. So HaShem created an other, ie creation, ie Shekhina, ie Adam, ie us to be this other, and to enter into all the myriad faceted possibilities of relationship, some of which have already happened and some of which, the more consummate levels of which, have yet to be realized.

Now this “purpose of creation,” besides its immediate application to our question at hand, has profound implications for nearly every aspect of how we relate to Judaism as a spiritual path, and how we interpret many of our formative biblical events. It becomes a portal into a perspective that could be called, the Kabbala of the Feminine. The Ari admits, in several places, that he is only giving over the (more masculine) kabbala of yosher (or hierarchy) and is not upacking the (more feminine) kabbala of igulim (ie circle consciousness). That sounds like an invitation for women to articulate the mystical underpinnings of their feminine experience which, though identical to the masculine in many ways, is also different in many others.

Shir haShirim—The Song of Songs is a ballad that recounts the stormy relationship between HaKadosh Boruch Hu and the Shekhina,[4] or, you could say between the Transcendent and Immanent faces of Divinity. Shir HaShirim employs different terms to describe the different modes of relationship between these two (who, as we know, are also really one). And these various modalities are explored in the midrashim. They mark a developmental journey, a deepening intimacy between the Holy One and the Shekhina who (kabbalistically) is identified with Kenesset Yisrael, the mystical body of Israel. And so, it’s no secret, that Shir HaShirim is describing our evolving relationship with HaShem which has been turbulent, to say the least.

Using the language of Shir HaShirim and summarizing the midrashim there [SHSR 3:25], we (as Shekhina) start off as a daughter in relation to HaShem, dependent and of diminished stature. Our job is to obey, respect and honor the holy One. There’s great affection but there is no real intimacy because there is so much of HaShem that we cannot fathom in daughter modality. Daat (knowing) is the Torah’s euphemism for intimacy, “Adam knew Chava and…they were as one flesh.” This teaches that intimacy derives from daat from knowing and being known, seeing and being seen (with loving eyes). Yet in daughter mode there is no mutuality of seeing and knowing, the disparity of stature is just too great.

The method of transmission between HaShem and humankind in daughter mode is prophesy, where HaShem decides what needs to be conveyed and selects a prophet whose personality is as close as possible to a transparent lens, an aspeklaria hameira. In the grip of prophesy, the seer’s personality goes underground for its individualisms would distort the signal. The less the prophet affects the transmission the more authoritative its message. Only thus can the prophet rightly claim: “ko amar Hashem—So says G‑d…” Most assume that prophesy is the more exalted devekut.

The Talmud however disagrees: “The sage [whose channel is not prophesy but ruach hakodesh]…the sage is superior to the prophet,” it claims.[5]

And that brings us to Chanukha and its transition from Written Torah to Oral Torah which is equally a transition from prophesy to ruach hakodesh and, in the language of shir hashirim, we’re evolving from daughter to bride at this time.[6]

Both prophesy and ruach hakodesh are points along a continuum of Bestowed Enlightenment but there is no consensus about how to arrange them hierarchically. [7],[8] On one hand, prophesy is a face-to-face encounter with the holy One and transmits G‑d’s literal word. In ruach hakodesh, G-d is not an obvious partner and its message has a significant margin of error. From this perspective prophesy is superior to Ruach hakodesh.

But ruach hakodesh has its own advantages.

1. On the inner planes things are close when they are similar and distant when they are different. In ruach hakodesh we join with our Creator in the delight of chidush (of creative reverie) and our bond comes from sharing the creative process itself. This is a core-to-core intimacy for creativity springs from the soul’s depths. There is a reciprocity here that characterizes a bride and groom, a partnership of give and take.
2. Unlike prophesy, the personality is present and active in ruach hakodesh. If the purpose of creation is to actualize the potential of relationship between us and G-d, then this happens consummately through ruach hakodesh. In prophecy the seer is but an instrument of Divine revelation. Their dynamic is more like master/servant.  The less of a mark the prophet leaves on the transmission the better. Ruach hakodesh is the opposite. Its transmission requires us to assert ourselves—to try to solve the problem ourselves and to give that effort our all. It is that personal exertion which primes the pump that elicits the flow of guidance from on high.

The ultimate fulfillment of relationship (says the Ari) is when the two parties meet from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet—when every point of one is met and matched by the other.[9] The Ari describes this consummate union as: פנים בפנים שווה לגמרי (face to face and completely equal). And this happens most exquisitely in the mutual partnership between us and God that is the very definition of ruach hakodesh, which absolutely requires reciprocity.

And so, if the purpose of creation is to actualize the potential of relationship then our transition from Written Torah to Oral Torah is clearly an aliyah for it marks a deepening intimacy with HaShem enabled by the corresponding transition from prophesy to ruach hakodesh  which is equally a maturing of relationship that, in the language of Shir Hashirim, moves from daughter to bride and thus entails a mutuality of give and take.

On Chanukha there is a rumbling on the inner planes as the channels of ruach hakodesh stretch and multiply, which then gets mirrored by our expanded capacity to access the guidance that is radiating into our lives as we meditate on our holy nerot (candles).

A candle, says the Zohar, is not just a source of illumination. It is a living symbol that broadcasts the truth of Divine oneness into the psyche of those looking on. “Whoever desires to grasp the wisdom of holy oneness, says the Zohar, should observe a flame ascending from a burning candle.” [Zohar 1:51a]

The soul is fluent in symbols.  It prefers them to words. On Chanukha our souls are flooded by candlelight and the message of oneness that it transmits. Blessings that we as a people, individually and collectively, should receive the Chanukha lights into our heart bones, cells and spaces, absorbing their message, and shining their brilliance out into the world.

CHANUKKA SAMEACH

_____________________________________________________________

[1] An authoritative, tannaic level text that was not included in the Mishna.

[2] The Hebrew Bible, or Written Torah is called TaNaK^h, which is an acronym for it its three sections: Torah (Five Books of Moses), Navi’im (Prophetic Transmissions), Ketuvim (Inspired Writings). For the purposes of this essay, we are considering the entire Tanakh as a prophetic work, even though, technically, the third section, called Ketuvim was channeled via Ruach haKodesh (Inspired Intuition) and not prophesy, proper.

[3] GR 3:9. א״ר שמואל בר אמי מתחלת ברייתו של עולם נתאוה הקב״ה לעשות שותפות בתחתונים.

[4] Shir HaShirm Rabba 3:25: By a parable of a king who had an only daughter of whom he was exceedingly fond” so that at first he called her “daughter”, till not satisfied with that he called her “sister”, and still not satisfied with that he called her “mother”. So the Holy One, blessed he He, loved Israel exceedingly and called them “daughter”“, as it says,  Hearken, O daughter, and consider (Ps. XLV, 11); till not satisfied with that he called them “sister”“, as it says, Open to me, my sister, my love (S.S. V, 2); and still not satisfied with that He called them ” mother “, as it says, Attend unto Me, O My people, and give ear unto Me, O My nation—u-le’umi (Isa. LI, 4), where it is written ul’immi (and to my mother).,

[5] TB BB 12a.

[6] The medresh presents a sequence that actually has four steps to it: daughter, sister, bride, mother. For brevity’s sake I have focused on two of them.

[7]  .רבנו בחיי על דברים פרק לג פסוק ח חדושי הרמב”ן על מסכת בבא בתרא דף יב/א,

[8] ר’ צדוק הכהן, דובר צדק, פר’ אחרי מות, אות ד’.

[9] Ari, Eitz Chayim, Heichal Nukba, Shaar Miyut HaYareach, Chapt. 1.

חנוכה שמח