Individual and Communal Quests for Holiness: Kollelim, Modern Orthodoxy, and Intellectual Elitism

By Aryeh Klapper

Aspiring Saints?

Judaism has a natural antipathy to exceptional religious ambition. Law by its nature, Maimonides explains in the Guide (3:34), aims for the good of the majority rather than of the exceptional, and thus the centrality of Halakhah in Judaism is a major challenge to many of the religiously gifted. Halakhah itself provides outlets for apparently excessive religious energy – the vow of the Nazirite, for example, enables wannabe ascetics to find their place within the system. Halakhah even apparently suspends itself, in very limited circumstances, for the benefit of those overflowing with religious zeal. But these are plausibly regarded as begrudging concessions to, rather than as endorsements of, the aspiration to sainthood.

It seems reasonable, then, for aspiring saints to focus their spiritual efforts on areas which Halakhah, for one reason or another, does not saturate. Perhaps the most famous such space is created by Ramban in his commentary on “And you must be holy” (Vayikra 19:2) . Ramban argues that Halakhah simply cannot adequately encompass the drive for holiness (in other places he extends this idea to ethics and Shabbat). Thus he famously asserts that it is possible to be a “naval birshut haTorah”, a disgusting person who acts within the authority of Halakhah, and that one should strive “lekadesh atzmekha bamittar lakh”, to sanctify oneself via (abstaining from) actions that are not legally prohibited, such as excessive eating or the use of vulgar language. Ramban’s conception of holiness, then, offers a promising avenue for those whose who feel their spiritual aspirations constrained by Halakhah.¹. The question is whether leaving that avenue open runs the risk of undoing the good that Halakhah’s careful balancing act does for the majority.

Rav Yehonasan Eibeschetz on “You Shall Be Holy” – Universal Ambitions

It is in response to this issue that Rav Yehonasan Eibeschetz writes a fascinating essay in his commentary Tif’eret Yehonatan. Rav Eibeschuetz’s utilizes characteristically brilliant exegesis to argue that holiness is linked to indivisibility, and that the verse “and you shall be holy” is therefore addressed to the entire community of the Children of Israel because it can only be fulfilled as a united community. Rather than using this as a springboard for a sermon on the need to put aside grievances, he argues that this means that a spiritual goal or practice must be universalizable to be positive. In other words, he believes that there is no room for saints in a community unless a community composed entirely of saints would be sustainable.

“Now Ramban expounded at length on the interpretation “’You must be holy’ – sanctify yourself in that which is permitted to you (by abstaining from it)”. However, I have already explained regarding this that to be more stringent than the law of the Torah is a distant possibility, as Josippon ben Gurion² already wrote in his book for the Romans that during the Second Temple there were men who would dwell in the forests in isolation, and literally ate nothing but fruits of the forest and withheld themselves from all matters of the world and the like, to the point that they were literally separated from matters of the world, but the Perushim were not at all pleased about this, because the complete servant of Hashem must make his matters and activities pleasing to Heaven and to people, and not obstruct the nomos of settling the world and human society and political administration, whereas if everyone were withheld like those, the nomos would not endure, nor the natural order, and it would nearly be that the world would end and the national bond and physical survival on the earth would be lost in accordance with the natural order. Chazal hint at this when they say “Best is Torah with Derekh Eretz”.

Therefore any abstinences that a person does properly fall within this class, that they have the possibility for an entire nation to fulfill it without nullifying itself, but an abstinence that is possible only for an individual, and not to the nation in its entirety, is not within the confines of completion and praiseworthy abstinence, and such matters were distanced by the Sages of Israel. This is the intent of the midrash “This unit of Torah was said with the community gathered”, meaning as I wrote above that the “sanctification within what is permitted to you” must be something that is appropriate for the community . . .”

The reference to “yafeh Talmud Torah im Derekh Eretz”, while quoting Avot 2:2, is presumably a reference to the dispute between the tannaim Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Berakhot 35b) as to whether the ideal Jewish life includes anything other than Torah study. The Talmud’s conclusion, expressed by Abbayyei, is that “Many acted like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (and sought to engage in full-time Torah study) but did not succeed, whereas many acted like Rabbi Yishmael and they did succeed.” Rabbi Eibescheutz reads this as suggesting not that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai set a laudable goal that was regrettably not achievable by the masses, but rather that its failure on a mass level demonstrates that it is not laudable even for individuals.

American Orthodoxy, Kollelim, and Intellectual Elitism

In the past several decades, American Orthodoxy has debated the extent to which it can and should support full-time Torah students. When that discussion has been framed in traditional language, support is often framed by pointing to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai as an ideal, whereas opposition is often expressed as a belief that we have unwisely reached the point of seeking to implement his ideal on the mass level. Rabbi Eibeschuetz’s position could be read as justifying opposition to an attempt to implement Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s position even by individuals, and thus to shut down all lifetime membership kollels.

I wonder, though, whether his position is compelling, whether it is in fact necessary for the halakhic community to oppose non-universalizable quests to achieve holiness. Rambam (Hilkhot Deot 1:5) distinguishes between the “chakham”, who follows the Golden Mean, and the “chasid”, who adopts at least some extremes. I think a community of Maimonidean chasidim would be a volatile cauldron with a severely limited life expectancy – and yet I wonder whether a community composed entirely of Maimonidean chakahamim is likely to maintain any kind of spiritual vitality. Perhaps, in direct contrast to Tif’eret Yehonatan, we should see our communal interest in encouraging the development of idiosyncratic religious greatness, and despite the risk of falling into modern cant, see diversity as strength.

Here an important qualifier is needed. It is not only, or perhaps even especially, the position of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that runs not difficulty when it is universalized. The position of Rabbi Yishmael, if understood as an ideal rather than as a concession, is at least equally challenging. How many of us can sustain our G-d-consciousness while engaged in derekh eretz, whether in the simple sense of employment or in the broader sense of cultural engagement? Indeed, a standard critique of Modern Orthodoxy is precisely this, that the masses are incapable of maintaining their religious commitment once they acknowledge that value can be found outside of Torah.

Perhaps the debate between enclave and open Orthodoxy has been miscast, and ironically, those who carry the banners of Torah UMada or Torah im Derekh Eretz are the true followers of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. They – we – are the ones who believe that one can be religiously conscious the entire day, rather than dividing the world into secular and mundane realms. I suggest, therefore, a modification of Tife’eret Yehonatan’s position. Individual quests for holiness, when non-universalizable, should be conducted in awareness of that limit, and must make sure to see themselves as an effort to enrich the community rather than to transcend it. Chasidim must recognize the equal value of chakhamim, even if the life of the chakham would leave them unfulfilled, and must find ways of convincing the chakham that the presence of chasidut is necessary and invaluable. This realization has, I believe, been central to the successful transformation of the American charedi kollel into a community education center over the past decade, and perhaps it can yet save serious American Modern Orthodoxy from the sociological dead end of intellectual elitism.

1. For a compelling characterization of this personality type, see Dr. Haym Soloveitchik’s “Three Themes in Sefer Hasidim”, AJS Review 1 (1976) pp. 311-357 [↩]
2. I am not clear on the Josippon/Josephus intellectual history – it seems to me most likely that R. Eyebeschuetz does not distinguish between them, but that is a guess [↩]