Loneliness comes in many forms. In the opening line of Eicha/Lamentations (1:1) we read about the essence of exile: “Alas [eicha] she sits in solitude….” The Sages of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 104a) explain that the word eicha or ‘alas’ [איכה] has a numerical value of 36 because there are 36 transgressions which carry the penalty of karat [being cut off). The simple meaning of this is that there are 36 different ‘transgressive’ mechanisms or relationship compromising behaviors that jeopardize our connection with the Divine called k’raitot from the word karat meaning ‘cut off’. However, if we delve deeper into this number we find an extraordinary symmetry between the lowest world of Action and the highest world of Emanation.

As we explained previously, the type of relationship in the world of Emanation was based on selfless dedication to or for the other (expressed by the word ‘lo’ to/for him/Him in the Torah). We also mentioned that ‘lo’ [לו] equals 36 and that it hints to the 36 tzaddikim or righteous ones in every generation. Each righteous one or tzaddik is a connector (someone with exceptional relatability). With this in mind, the absence of the full ‘connectome’ of 36 produces the isolation and disconnect in the world of Action. Removal of all of the binding ‘agents’ (tzaddikim/righteous persons) ‘singularizes’ the human subject in the negative condition of being all alone (levado). The underlying connection is further reinforced in that we see in the word levado (‘his aloneness’) that when the Vav suffix is dropped, the remaining three letter root levad (alone) equals 36 in gematria. Thus ‘lo’ (to/for him = 36)–the relationship in the world of Emanation–is equivalent to ‘levad’ (alone = 36)–the absence of a relationship in the world of Action.

The lowest world is mimicking the highest but with negative consequences. In the world of Emanation, distinctions (havdalot) are virtual because we are conscious of being in the domain of the One (reshut hayachid). This sense of unity could be likened to saying ‘I’m all alone with you’ and since ‘you are part of me and I am part of you’ then we are no longer two but have merged to become one. Here, I am alone with the other, whereas the aloneness in the world of Action is where I am alone with only myself. In a slightly more nuanced rewording, we might say that in the world of Emanation my transpersonal ‘I’ carries ‘difference in itself’ for ‘the other is within me’ and this results in a structure of ‘being-alone-with-others’ verses in the world of Action where my personal identity excludes others and otherness so that its structure would be one of being-alone-with-myself.

Just as a nation can collectively feel shunned and isolated, so too the experience of being cut off or shut out of a relationship primarily befalls the inner individual. In our last article, we dealt with a model of existential loneliness with a soul which is cut off from the Divine presence, and now we can circle back to a number of variants of this condition which show up in our relationships with collections of others (our people or nation) and between significant others as in the case of marriage. For instance, we find in Genesis 17:14 “…that soul shall be cut off [nekratah] from its people….” On another occasion, a similar expression is used in a more specifically Jewish context in Shemot/Exodus (12:15) declaring “…that soul will be cut off [nekratah] from Israel….” So alienation and isolation are not just one nation amongst other nations, but also a person within his or her social milieu. Finally, a paradigmatic example is brought in Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah (44:7) “…to cut [le’hakrit] from yourselves man and woman….” Spousal separation is one of the most up close and personal types of alienation and isolation. With these citations, hopefully it is easy to perceive the arc from the general to the particular, all within the isolationist complex.

Having established the negative side of cutting, let’s now move on to the positive side. Every facet of Creation has both a positive and a negative aspect to it according to the Torah. The phenomenon of cutting, while signifying the ending or absence of a relationship, is also used to inaugurate and maintain one. When is the cutting of the body not only permitted but prescribed according to the Torah? With the performance of the commandment of brit milah (the covenant of circumcision). Here we are making a ‘cut that binds’ rather than the breaking of a bond.

While superficially circumcision might appear like an act of self-mutilation (observers outside the framework of Torah often confuse the two), the deep-seated meaning is one of opening up or sensitizing oneself to the other within the context of the ‘organ’ of conjunction. Within my creative connections I should be reminded that with the ‘sign’ of the covenant marking the bridge between self and other is a Divine promise to take me out of my solitary confinement. Moreover, when we use everyday expressions like ‘let’s cut a deal’ we are evoking the original language associated with circumcision.

In addition to circumcision in the context of reproduction, there also exists other important idioms such as in Devarim/Deuteronomy (30:6): “And God, your God will circumcise your heart….” The implication here is that we can cut through all of the emotional blockage and learn to feel again. Rather than literally cutting, the meaning of the sensitizing of the heart comes from our experiences. Having a heart of stone is a dead, apathetic heart. It requires some surgery to resurrect and  resuscitate it. Along these same lines, we also find in Sefer Yetzirah (1:3) the idea of the “circumcision of the tongue” where the word for tongue (lashon) also means ‘language.’ This informs us that when we are speaking we may think we are addressing the other, but in actuality we are really only talking to ourselves. The sensitivity of the tongue, of language, is the concern for the reliability of what one is saying to the other. I am ideally speaking to you in a way that will resonate with you. When my words are not well received by others, it is usually because I am disconnected from who I am conversing with.

If we now combine all three instances of circumcision (our three positive ‘cuts’ which are also called karit from the same root as karat [our negative type of ‘cutting off’]) then they all complement each other: creativity/reproduction, emotion, and language constitute that threefold knot of our relatability. The heartfelt communion of communication brings about a fruitful and productive relationship. Rather than these ‘cuts’ being self-mutilation (a term that insists on the natural perfection of self living according to one’s inborn nature), they can be likened to enhancements or ‘alterations’ of the self. ‘I’ am becoming ‘other.’ In doing so I become open to the other.

The karat of excommunication can be transformed into the karat of a firm promise or covenantal bond such as the covenant of marriage. From out of the very same ‘raw materials’ and elemental substances our alchemical capacity within the soul affords us the opportunity to transform the absence of a relationship (cut off/severed) into a lasting dedicated relationship (marriage covenant). The 36 of levad (alone) may morph into the 36 of lo (being to or for the other). But what triggers such a drastic change?

In Chassidic thought we have an expression “ain davar omed lifnei ratzon” which translates as “nothing stands in the way of will.” When I think and feel that the distance between me and you is untraversable and that I will never escape my solitude, I must be reminded that the core of my being is my will and desire. If I want to connect badly enough, I will be able to bridge any gap. I might even be able to close the distance instantaneously. Likewise, if I am ex-communicated, if I have no community or commonality with others and am in a state of karat or being cut off, then this too is from my will or lack of will and desire to form and maintain relations. Upon examination we can bear witness to this just by looking at the world karat (Kuf-Reish-Tav [כרת]) and showing how it is just a permutation of keter or ‘crown’ (Kuf-Tav-Reish [כתר]). The crown is the universal symbol for the will. The crown of the king is emblematic of the king’s will and command. From the root of will I decide whether or not to relate to another. We might even suggest that one of the most basic kinds of will and desire is the will to relate or not to relate. In the end, it is not about feeling or thinking the connection, it is about wanting it and in wanting it I may turn solitude into solace, isolation into participation, the cutting of ties into the cutting of a covenant that maintains relations.

All of these relationships will now be reconsidered within the realm of linking ideas and the marriage of concepts in Part Fifteen.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-15/

Print PDF