“Cleaving to God”
R. Yaakov Bieler
פרשת
עקב, תשס"ט
At the
end of the book of Devarim in the standard Mikraot Gedolot, the following
statistics are proffered for the Tora in its entirety: 500, 860 letters; 79,976
words; and 5,845 verses. Of those many verses, one found in Parashat Eikev stands
out in particular, because from it alone, according to RaMBaM, are derived four
of the most fundamental Commandments in the entire compendium of Mitzvot:[1]
Devarim 10:20
And (1) you will fear the Lord, your God; (2) Him you
shall worship/serve; and (3) to Him you will cleave;[2]
[3]
and (4) by His Name you shall swear.
Of these
four Commandments, three are more easily defined than the fourth. Fearing God
entails a certain definable attitude; serving/worshipping Him involves offering
specific sacrifices and prayers; and swearing by His Name also leaves little to
the imagination, other than under what
circumstances is the general opposition to swearing and making oaths lifted.
However, “U’Bo Tidbak” (and to Him you shall cleave) appears much more
ambiguous and esoteric. “Clinging to something” suggests a relationship between
two physical entities, with one attaching itself to the other; yet in the case
of God, whom most[4]
Jewish thinkers categorize as incorporeal,[5]
an alternate understanding would of necessity have to be proposed.
RaMBaM’s
explanation of the intent of the Commandment (see fn. 1, “the sixth
Commandment”) loosely follows the interpretation of the phrase in the Talmud,
Ketubot 111b
…Is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence? Isn’t
it written, (Devarim 4:24) “Because the Lord, your God, is a Consuming Fire,[6]
He is a Zealous God”? But rather anyone
who marries off is daughter to a Tora scholar, who engages in business
arrangements with Tora scholars, who benefits Tora scholars from his
possessions, the text considers him as if he has cloven to the Holy One,
Blessed Be He…[7]
but appears
to prefer the understanding of the Midrash Halacha regarding the final phrase
of Devarim 11:22:[8]
Siphrei on
Devarim 11:22
But rather
cleave to scholars and their disciples (in all matters rather than the
specifics listed by the Talmud,)[9]
and I will Deem it as if you have
ascended to Heaven and “taken it” (proactively made the connection) and not
that you have ascended and taken it peacefully, but rather even as if you had
engaged in a war and taken it, and so it is said, (Tehillim 68:19) “You have
ascended on high; you have captured captives, you have received gifts from
men…”
The stark
difference between the Talmud’s specific examples and the more laconic
statement that Siphrei suggests regarding the connection that average
individuals are to make with scholars and thereby “cleave to God,” is whether
the objective is to support the scholars, thereby symbolizing offering material
support to HaShem and His overall Mission to Sanctify the world—such a scenario
would seem to allow for someone to simply contribute money to an individual or
Tora institution[10]
without personally engaging in and/or being effected by what such people or
organizations represent—or is the point to utilize the scholars as a
contact point between the individual and God, allowing the former to have a
more personal, albeit indirect association with holiness, with the hope that
something will “rub off,” with RaMBaM preferring the latter approach, at least
in Sefer HaMitzvot.[11]
RaMBaN, when listing a number of
interpretations for the Commandment to cleave to God, suggests a more personal
and mystical approach that does not involve entities other than the individual
and God Himself.
RaMBaN on
Devarim 11:22
…And it is
possible that “cleaving” means remembering God and one’s love for Him
constantly. You must not separate your thoughts from Him when you are walking
along the way, when you lie down and when you get up, to the point where when
you speak with other people, you do so with your mouth and your tongue, but
your heart is not with them, but rather before HaShem. And it is possible that
for the exceptional people who are capable of this, that their souls even
during their lives (as opposed to following their deaths when the soul is
“unburdened” from having to reside and therefore be limited by the body) are
wound up in the Bundle of life (a metaphor for HaShem—see I Shmuel 25:29), for
they themselves are sanctuaries for the Divine Presence…
RaMBaN’s
mystical leanings are certainly in evidence in this approach, providing a stark
contrast to the quite rational, practical understanding suggested by the Talmud and Midrash Halacha, and followed
by RaMBaM. Yeshayahu Leibowitz[12]
suggests that one can trace a direct line from RaMBaN’s thinking regarding
“cleaving to God” and the Chassidic movement which developed several hundreds
of years later, and which promoted a mystical “Deveikut” as an essential aspect
of the religious experience. Consider the following passage from an early
Chassidic work:
Keter Shem
Tov, 24b.[13]
It is
necessary for man as he begins to pray to have the sensation of being in the
world of action. Afterwards, he should have the sensation of being in the world
of formation, the world of the angels and the Ophanim. Afterwards in the world
of creation, until he has the sensation in his thoughts that his thoughts have
soared so high that it reaches the world of emanation. Just as a man strolls
from room to room so should his thought stroll in the upper worlds. He should
take care not to fall from his most elevated thoughts in the upper worlds but
should strengthen himself with all the power at his disposal so as to remain
above with his thoughts exceedingly high in the upper worlds. He should do this
by having a bit and a rein on his thoughts so that he makes a kind of vow not
to descend. If he wishes to do this in order to achieve Deveikut at
times other than those of prayer, it is essential that no other person be
present in the house. For even the chirping of birds can distract him and so,
too, the thoughts of another person can distract him.
The author of
this passage reveals several of his assumptions in his comments:
a)
The primary context for cleaving to God is during personal
prayer;
b)
However, this cleaving can be achieved outside of prayer,
but only with exceptional concentration and lack of distraction;
c)
Distractions should be minimized at all times that
cleaving is the desired goal;[14]
d)
It takes concerted concentration not only to achieve
cleaving but also to remain in such a state of mind, and one must struggle
against his natural tendencies in order to extend this sensibility as long as
one can.
Yet Meshech Chachma (R. Meir Simcha
of Dvinsk) on Devarim 10:20 takes issue with both RaMBaM and RaMBaN with
respect to the definition of the Mitzva to cleave to God. Whereas he thinks
that RaMBaM’s view is too indirect—Tora scholars cannot ever serve as true substitutes
for God Himself—he also critiques RaMBaN’s interpretation as limiting the complete
fulfillment of this Commandment to only a very small elite. While the goal to
leave the mundane world behind might be an extremely spiritual one, how many
individuals are capable of even regularly striving for, let alone actually
achieving, such a level of communion with God? Consequently this commentator advocates
the approach that “Deveikut BaShem” should be understood as applying to
everyone on whatever level of religious sophistication they may be, and
involves having faith and trust in God, particularly during times of difficulty
and challenge.
…And this
attitude is the fulfillment of “and to Him you shall cleave”, since when a
person thinks that he is connected to Divine Supervision from HaShem, may He Be
Blessed, and believes that God is Aware of his needs more than he himself…then
a person feels safe and calm, and does not worry about any aspect of his
affairs. Of what consequence are his abilities in the face of God’s Omnipotence
to Whom he cleaves and Who is Sensitive to his needs? This is what is called
“Deveikut.”
A decidedly modernist and almost
counterintuitive approach is suggested by R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in his
classical work, And From There You Shall Seek,[15]
in which an entire chapter is entitled, “The Heart that Cleaves to God.” The
Rav writes (pp. 87-9),
Mystical
philosophers long for immersion in the silence of absolute unity…
But Judaism,
directed by Halacha, says, “This is not the way.” First of all one cannot speak
of man uniting with God, but only of man cleaving to God. Second, man does not
cleave to God by denying his actual essence, but, on the contrary, by
affirming his own essence. The actual multi-colored human personality
becomes closer to God when the individual lives his own variegated, original
life, filled with goals, initiative, and activity, without imagining some
prideful insolent independence. Then and only then does the personality begin
to have a divine existence. Judaism insists that destroying man’s uniqueness
and originality does not bring man closer to God, as the mystics imagined.
Man’s road to God does not wind through faraway hidden places—on which man
concentrates on a mysterious pyre in which his individuality goes up in
flames—but, rather among the spaces of real being, filled with movement and
transformation. When the great question booms out, “Is it possible for man to
cleave to God? Is it not written that God is ‘a consuming fire?’” the mystics answer: It is entirely possible, for
a fire will come from above and consume man’s being as he is bound to the altar
of his love for the Hidden One…But our sages of blessed memory gave an entirely
different answer: One should cleave to Tora scholars and those who know
God’s Name—that is, that one should live a life of value and elevation...
Cleaving to
God is linked with cleaving to other people. The group with which man must form
ties is an ideal society—the society of those who know God…
Judaism here
decreed that man cleaves to God through the full realization of his
personality, by uncovering all the possibilities latent in the depths of his
being. It is the broadening rather than the narrowing of the spirit that
provides the opening to cleave to God metaphysically. In this sense, Judaism
has given a measure of approval to the ethical view that fulfilling the ideal
of coming close to God is the result of man’s fulfilling his own essence
through activities directed at both the self and the other.
The Rav
creatively recasts the statements of ChaZaL cited by RaMBaM, and rather than
seeing the individual as having to come close to God’s “substitutes” in order
to learn holiness from them, he posits that these Tora scholars form a
community to which one also can contribute by fulfilling his own potential and
abilities. In other words, the cleaving takes place not necessarily by what you
learn but how you contribute to that society’s improvement by means of your
being true to yourself.
A fifth perspective on the Mitzva to
cleave to God is offered by R. Micha Berger in his series named “Metukim
MiDevash” (sweeter than honey), in an essay entitled, “BeMachshava Techilah”
(the initial thought.)[16]
The author delineates a dichotomy between what he characterizes as “Deveikut”
on the one hand, and “Temimut” (wholeness) on the other. He proposes that two
overall strategies can be identified in the writings of classical Jewish
thinkers explaining how the individual can come closer to HaShem: either he
must find a means by which communication with the Divine, which has been
interrupted or at best hindered, can be improved, i.e., removing whatever
barriers exist between himself and God (Deveikut—in effect “recleaving”),
or how he must strive to remove his flaws and shortcomings, thereby
perfecting himself , his actions, his ethical traits, etc. so that he will
become worthy for greater intimacy with God (Temimut.) He then states,
Most forms of Chassidus consider the route to
Deveikus to be the experience of each act, with the focus on having one’s
feelings in line with those we can perceive in the Creator. The Ba’al HaTanya,
on the other hand, focused on Chaba”d (insight, comprehension and knowledge) to
make one’s thoughts Godly. In this he follows the Rambam who writes that one’s
connection to HaShem is strictly determined by the extent of one’s knowledge of
Him (Therefore, by associating with Tora scholars, one obtains an additional
means to learn about God aside from one’s own personal learning)…
Perhaps this
plurality (the author suggests variations on how Temimut is achieved as well)
is the entire message of the Tora’s doubled phraseology. (The author pointed
to the language in Beraishit 17:1 when God Tells Avraham, “Hithalech Lefanai
VeHeyei Tamim” (walk before Me and be whole.) “Is it the walking before God,
Deveikus, that is primary and being whole (Temimus) a side effect? Or is being
whole the focus of the Pasuk and walking before God a means to reach that
Temimus?”) Because there are many approaches to accomplishing the same end,
HaShem did not specify one to the exclusion of the other.
It seems to
me that this same sentiment of acknowledging the benefit of multiple means by
which to fulfill “VeDavakta Bo” can be extended to include not only the polar
positions of Deveikut vs. Temimut, but also the variations within each as well
as additional approaches that have nothing to do with the categories discussed
by R. Berger, i.e., that it is possible that rather than an individual thinking
that he must strive to achieve as many of these aforementioned manifestations
of relating to HaShem as he can, that certain approaches and mindsets are
likely to be more appropriate to his personality and experience than others.
What is crucial is the attempt to cleave, make a connection as opposed to the
exact methodology(ies) which in the end one decides to employ.
A final observation that the same root,
Daled-Veit-Kuf, appears within the context of a spousal relationship—(Beraishit
2:24 “Al Kein Ya’azov Ish Et Aviv VeEt Imo VeDavak B’Ishto VeHayu
LeBasar Echad” [therefore an individual should leave his father and mother and
cleave to his spouse and they should be one flesh])—generates, in my view,
a number of important implications.[17]
The justification for comparing and even to some degree equating, the
husband-wife bond, with the God-man attachment, could very well have been first
articulated by R. Akiva’s remarkable approach to the Megilla Shir HaShirim, as
recorded in Yadayim 3:5, “All of Ketuvim (a subcategory of the books of TaNaCh,
in which are included those considered to be less “holy”) are holy, and Shir
HaShirim is the holiest of the holy!” As R. Adin Steinsaltz writes, [18]
On the one
hand it is certainly a love song between a man and a woman, lovers who admire
one another greatly, and lose and find each other. On the other hand, it is
also a song of love in a wider sense, of the connection between
Consequently
a synergy is established whereby the human love relationship informs the
spiritual Israel-God relationship, and vice versa. Such a train of thought
would lead to the conclusions that “cleaving to one’s spouse” entails more than
a basic physical and emotional relationship. Good marriages come about because
of (1) seeing others who model the type of sensitivity, caring and love that
can serve as a paradigm for others; (2) devoting single-minded attention to
one’s significant other and blocking out, at least from time to time,
distractions and irritations; (3) being able to have supreme trust in another
individual who will create a sense of safety and protection for the other
should s/he be going through challenging times; (4) encouraging the other to
fulfill all of his/her potential and uniqueness; and (5) assuring that barriers
to true communication are removed as much as possible. Cleaving to God as well
as to another human being fulfills us and allows us to be true to our
respective “Tzelem Elokim”’s (images of God.)
[1] In RaMBaM’s work, Sefer HaMitzvot, devoted to listing individually the 238 positive Commandments and 365 negative Commandments that comprise the number representing all Commandments, 613, that is derived in Makot 23b, following the Mitzvot to 1) believe in God’s Existence, 2) believe in His Unity, and 3) loving God, Commandments 4)-7) are as follows:
The fourth Commandment is
that He has Commanded us to believe (in) His Exalted Fearfulness and
to be afraid of Him, not to be like the atheists who live inconsistently/without
feeling accountable, but rather we should fear the coming of His Punishment at
all times…
The fifth Commandment is that He has Commanded us to
serve His Exaltedness…
The sixth Commandment is that He has Commanded us to attach
(ourselves) to the scholars and spend time exclusively with them and to make constant our sitting
with them, and to participate with them in all manner of social matters…
The seventh Commandment is that He has Commaded us to swear by
His Exalted Name when we have need to fulfill something or to prevent
ourselves from doing so, because in this manner, we are attributing greatness
to His Exalted Name…
[2] The root Daled-Veit-Kuf is translated variously as:
1) Jewish Publication Society; R. Hirsch; Alter, ArtScroll: cleave.
2) Koren: hold fast
3) Feldheim Margolin edition: adhere to His Ways
4) Aryeh Kaplan’s The Living Tora: cling.
The word “cleave” in its own right is an oddity because it connotes two completely opposite meanings:
William and Mary Morris, Morris
Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, Harper Collins,
“Cleave”—A puzzlement to many has been the riddle of how “cleave” could simultaneously mean “to cling to” and “to separate from”: (Iyov 29:10) “their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth”; and (Beraishit 22:3) “Abraham…clave* the wood for the burnt offering.” And here we have the cause of the trouble. They are, of course, two entirely different words. In Middle English, the first word (“cling to”) was spelled as “clevien” and came from the Old English “cleofian.” At the same period of the evolution of English (Middle English) the second word (“separate from”) was spelled “cleven” and had evolved from the Old English “cleofan.” The scholars who translated the King James version of the bible decided, rightly or wrongly, to ignore the single letter “i” which had differentiated the two words in the earlier phases of their linguistic evolution. They rendered both as “cleave”—and that’s why what appears to be a single word has two utterly contradictory meanings.
*The verse in Morris
that was quoted from Beraishit does not contain the root Daled-Veit-Kuf, but
rather Veit-Kuf-Ayin, and for the purposes of Hebrew speakers, does not enter
into this entire discussion. Some time ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of a
publication containing a column
extolling the virtues of an English Concordance of the Bible I argued that the dependence upon translation
is so distorting that it should render such a volume essentially useless.
[3] While this verse is unique in terms of the high concentration of four important Commandments, all codified by RaMBaM in his Sefer HaMitzvot, the language of “cleaving/clinging to God” appears elsewhere in Devarim as well—4:4; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20.
[4] See Marc
Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles
Reappraised ,
[5] RaMBaM, Introduction to Chapter Chelek (the final chapter of Sanhedrin, which deals at the outset with who qualifies for and who is rejected from the World to Come), Principle #3:
Negating all aspects of corporeality from Him, i.e., that we are to believe that this singular entity (God) to Whom we have been referring, does not possess a body nor does He have the power of a body, and events that occur to bodies do not occur to Him, e.g,, movement, rest, the need for shelter, neither essentially or even coincidentally. Therefore the scholars did not allow connection or separation to be attributed to Him, and they said, (Chagiga 15a) “Above, there is no sitting and no standing, no back (as in “front and back”) and no rest”…
[6] Although it would have been legitimate to interpret the phrase “Consuming Fire” as a metaphor, i.e., it is spiritually dangerous to come too close, yet a literal rendition of God’s Response to Moshe upon being asked to “see His Face” in Shemot 33:20 supports the Talmud’s apparent preference to initially take the terminology in Devarim 10:20 literally in order to come to a particular understanding of “cleaving to God.”
[7] Chafetz Chayim, in his commentary on Devarim 4:4 (Sefer Lekutei Chafetz Chayim Al HaTora, Chelek Alef, Yerushalayim, 5732, pp. 62-4) does follow the Talmud literally and goes on at length how materially supporting scholars is a Tora mandate. RaMBaM, however, appears to see the value in connecting with scholars in terms of the influence that they will have on non-scholars by virtue of their modeling holiness and ethical behavior, an interpretation more in line with the Siphre, quoted above.
[8] Devarim 11:22
But rather you will surely observe all of this “Mitzva” (lit. “Commandment” in the singular;the entire corpus of Commandments can be viewed as a single Mitzva, i.e., carry out what God Commands you) that I am Commanding you to do it, to love the Lord, your God, to go in all of His Ways, and to cleave to Him.
[9] One could claim that this is an argument from silence, i.e., a conclusion is being drawn not from what Siphrei explicitly says, but rather from what the text both generally says and does not say. However, in RaMBaM’s Mishneh Tora, (see fn. 11 below) it seems to me clear that he goes beyond the Talmud’s requirements for fulfilling “cleaving to God” via financially supporting Tora scholars.
[10] Marrying off one’s daughter might then entail little more than supporting the son-in-law in his Tora studies, as is often the case in contemporary Jewish life.
[11] Naturally, one view does not preclude or contradict the other, i.e., a person could both have individual contact as well as offer material support to the students of Tora. However, it is clear that two different approaches are being advanced by the Talmud and the Midrash Halacha. RaMBaM in Mishneh Tora, seems to combine the two, but with the understanding that marrying into a scholar’s family or engaging with him in business deals is not simply to make the scholar’s life easier, but allows more extensive contact and consequently more opportunities for positive influence.
RaMBaM, Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Dei’ot 6:2
It is a positive Commandment to cleave to scholars and their students in
order to learn from their actions, as it is said, “And to Him you shall
cleave.” And is it possible for a person to cleave to the Divine Presence? But
rather this is what the scholars said in interpreting this Commandment: Cleave
to scholars and their students. Therefore a person must try to strive to
himself marry the daughter of a Tora scholar, and marry his daughter
off to a Tora scholar and to eat and drink with Tora scholars (as
opposed to merely buying them food and drink) and to do business with a Tora
scholar and to be connected to them in all manner of connections,
as it is said, “And to cleave to Him.” And so the scholars said, (Avot 1:4 Yosi
ben Yoeizer) “Sit in the dust at their feet and drink thirstily their words.”
[12] Sheva Shanim Shel Sichot Al Parashat HaShavua, 1976-82, Keter, Yerushalayim, 5761, p. 810.
[13] Cited
in Louis Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer, The Littman Library of Jewish
Civilization,
[14] This approach to understanding the goal of prayer shines additional light upon the numerous restrictions appearing in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries against conversing while prayers are taking place as well as other actions that may disturb fellow congregants. On the one hand, such social interactions are disrespectful and suggest that the individuals involved lack the sensibility of being in God’s Presence—see my essay “Fear of God and Prayer” in Yirat Shamayim: The Awe, Reverence and Fear of God, ed. Marc Stern, Yeshiva U. Press/Ktav, Jersey City, NJ, 2008, pp. 185-230. However, in light of Keter Shem Tov’s presentation, not only would such conversation preclude one’s own cleaving to God, but it would make it so difficult if not impossible for those sitting near the individual who is talking.
[15]
Translated from the Hebrew U’Bikashtem MiSham by Naomi Goldberg, Ktav,
In their introduction to this volume, David Schatz and Reuven Ziegler point out that while the Rav drafted the essay in the 1940’s, it did not appear in print until 1978, reflecting how carefully the R. Soloveitchik kept on refining the work as well as how important it was to him. While this work was initially composed shortly after he completed Halachic Man, and therefore probably meant to compliment that earlier book in terms of turning from describing how Halachic man sees the world, to how he seeks to relate to God, its formulation was apparently much more challenging for the Rav.
[17] This line of thinking could not have begun with the verse in Beraishit because there we are dealing with two separate physical beings each capable of attaching himself to the other even physically. However, once we recognize the various understandings of “Davak” with respect to the relationship between man and God, it is a valuable exercise to reflect upon how these insights can inform not only our religious experience, but also our most significant interpersonal interactions.
[18] On
Being Free, Jason Aaronson,