The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed which relates to parashat Terumah examines the concept of Shechinah (God’s “earthly dwelling”), a term with biblical roots but which has come to be viewed predominantly as a mystical phenomenon. The theological problems inherent in placing God within the framework of space and time were the subject of a recent post, which quoted King Shlomo as having said: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold! The heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You -- much less this temple that I have erected”. Maharal expands upon this theme, writing that God “indeed fills the Earth” -- but that anyone who claims that all places are equally suited to worshipping Him attacks a core tenet of the Torah – that our ability to relate to God fluctuates in accordance with the limiting physical variables of time and place.
In Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam understands this reference to God’s “dwelling” in a particular place to mean that it becomes subject to a permanent heightened hashgachah (Divine Providence). Rambam’s explanation presents a challenge to those who opt for a minimalist interpretation of Rambam’s view of Divine Providence, a subject we deal with at length in earlier chapters.
Judaism Reclaimed proceeds to develop this theory of Shechinah as a “hashgachah hotspot” with particular reference to the explanations of Ramban and R’ Yehudah Halevi for the differential between the land of Israel and the rest of the world, before noting that the same idea can be applied to providential fluctuations within the concept of time. Several examples are brought to support the proposition that an intensification of hashgachah is a double-edged sword; while it provides an opportunity for a more profound relationship with God, it also acts as a catalyst to trigger a more direct and drastic response to any wrongdoing.
The chapter concludes with an examination of a radical and controversial claim made by a Jewish philosopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, that “the idea that a specific country or location has an intrinsic “holiness” is an indubitably idolatrous idea” and that the Western Wall should therefore be destroyed as an idolatrous shrine. Leibowitz cites in support the comments of Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk in his Meshech Chochmah where he asserts that “There is no difference for all Torah matters either in regard to place or time…Do not think that the Sanctuary and the Temple are holy objects in their own right…”.
On the basis of our analysis in this chapter we suggest that, while it is true that no country or building which attracts hashgachah is intrinsically holy, it nevertheless does undergo a form of metaphysical metamorphosis from God’s choosing to “rest His Shechinah” there. For the duration of the Shechinah residing in such a place, the heightened hashgachah manifests itself as a very real concept of holiness—widespread throughout the Torah—to the extent that some label it a “core tenet of Jewish faith”.
The danger which must be rigorously guarded against is that people will gradually begin to revere such places and artefacts as being holy in their own right and accord them supernatural powers distinct from those of God. We note prophetic protestations against such wrongful attribution of supernatural powers to places and their rituals. In such a scenario, we conclude, Leibowitz might be justified in labelling such a belief in sanctity of worldly matters as idolatry.
First posted to Facebook 26 February 2020, here.
