I suppose it might be useful to have an opinion about whether or not the Zohar is an authentic Torah source or whether or not the Ari’s innovations conflict with traditional Torah literature. But even if you prefer to give those debates a miss, we all have to ask ourselves whether engaging with modern kabbala is a
I think you are missing a crucial element in the study of kabbalah in Litvish circles. It isn't just another Torah subject that has to be weighed against the importance of other Torah subjects. From what I understand, Kabbalah comes to answer the deepest most existential questions about Hashem, the soul, and the nature of existence itself.
Who exactly are we praying to when we daven to Hashem three times a day? Do we get Hashem to change His mind? How did the physical world come forth from a Being that is in no way physical? Is the physical world just a giant illusion where you go through some scenarios and "cash in" on the prizes when you leave the simulation? Or is the physical world real and there is intrinsic value to what we do in this world?
Deep thinkers are desperate to find satisfying answers to these questions. And without Kabbalah, we are left to philosophizing and wondering in a total void and quite possibly veering off into kefirah without realizing it.
Rav Shlomo Wolbe puts the Daas Tevunos and Nefesh Hachayim in his list of books that every serious Ben Torah should be conversant in. It is because these sifrei kabbalah lay down foundational concepts in how we understand the nature of Hashem the Torah, and the impact of our physical actions in Hashem's grand scheme of the universe.
You may well be correct: many yeshivishe people do have strongly and sincerely held motivations for learning kabbala. But that, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily prove that it's a good idea - or that kabbala's answers to those questions aren't in serious conflict with traditional Torah sources (or that the answers are even factually correct). This post is looking specifically at some significant reservations from significant insiders. I'd argue that it's worth considering them.
Certainly worth considering them, and I'm not negating anything you said, but your post left out a massive motivation for learning kabbalah which I was correcting.
"Deep thinkers are desperate to find satisfying answers to these questions. And without Kabbalah, we are left to philosophizing and wondering in a total void and quite possibly veering off into kefirah without realizing it."
I guess you can say that given how many varied and wicked heresies have already emerged from the study of kabbalah, its now relatively safe to learn it because the pitfalls are mapped out in advance. But experience indicates that this is not actually true.
Do you really have to come and bring the storm clouds and gloomy rain every time I mention anything positive about kabbalah? Every time?? Is that like your mission in life?
Providing a false but convincing answer seems far preferable to remaining without one! The prophets asked why a Tzaddik suffers, but remained unanswered. The sages also asked this question and provided rather lame explanations. But in the whole Tanakh and the two Talmudim, you won't find the simplest of all explanations: reincarnation - an answer that circulated among the nations already before the Second Temple (Pythagoras), but was mysteriously hidden from the prophets and Sages... It was only the brilliant Kabbalists who revealed this to the Jewish people.
Where does Rav Wolbe give that list? In the list in 1:1:3, all he says about kabbalah is that Mesilas Yesharim, which is on the list, secretly serves as an introduction to kabbalah
A few years back, I did a bit of an analysis into whether any kabbala slipped into Mesilas Yesharim (https://darchecha.substack.com/p/why-did-ramchal-write-mesilas-yesharim). Besides a couple of indirect references to pareve passages in Zohar, I couldn't find even a hint of the kinds of kabbala that had made the Ramchal so controversial before reaching Amsterdam.
והנה, בתחילה כתב הרמח"ל את ענייני תורת האר"י ז"ל בשפתו - שפת המקובלים, ורק אחר כך שלב אחרי שלב חיבר חיבורים שבהם תמצת את הכתוב בכתב האר"י ז"ל ופירשם על דרך הנמשל שלפי דרכו, ובסוף הגיע לשלב האחרון שבכתיבותיו שבו לא נזקק להזכיר דברי האר"י ז"ל כהוויתן, אלא כל חיבוריו יסד בדרך הנמשל על ידי שתירגם המושגים הרוחניים
המופשטים שבכתבי האר"י לשפת בני אדם.
באופן שכל תורת רבינו הרמח"ל היא מיוסדת על ספר "עץ חיים" לרבינו האר"י ז"ל, אלא שכפי שיטתו שישנה מעלה מיוחדת ללמוד כל חכמה בדרך קצרה ומתומצתת כללים כללים, לכן רוב ככל הכתוב בספריו הם עניינים שנתבאר בכתבי האר"י ז"ל בפיזור, אחת הנה ואחת הנה, וקבצם על סדר נכון, ותמצתם וסדרם בכללים, כאשר כל מטרתו בחיבוריו הוא לסדר את דברי האר"י ז"ל בסדר מתומצת ומושג לכל אדם, והבקי והמעיין בהם היטב יראה שכל מילה בכתבי הרמח"ל יש לה בסיס ומקור בספרי האר"י ז"ל.
ולכן מובן מאליו שאין שום מבוא להבין על נכון ולעומק ספרי הרמח"ל אלא אם כן הלומד בהם מכיר היטב את המקורות לכל דבריו, כי מעולם לא סטה כמלא נימא מהכתוב בכתבי האר"י ז"ל, הגם שחיבר את ספריו בשפה שתועיל לאלו שטרם למדו ספרי המקובלים.
This is a very unfortunate comment, Rabbi Clinton, because you revealing that you are far from knowledgeable in these matters. Here is a direct quote from R Yaakov Hillel, in his introduction to Derech Hashem: "ועיקר מגמת הרמח"ל בחיבוריו - ובכללם ספר "דרך ה'" וספר "דעת תבונות" וכו' היא לפרסם בכלל ישראל את עיקרי האמונה, וסיבת בריאת העולמות, וטעמי המצוות, וסדר עבודת איש היהודי לבוראו על פי תורת הקבלה באופן שיובן לכל אדם (ויש מקום לומר שגם ספרו המפורסם "מסילת ישרים" כך עניינו, אלא שהוא בדרך העלמה יתירה, כי בחכמתו הגדולה הסתיר בדבריו הרהוטים והברורים עניינים עמוקים). וראה דברי רבי ירוחם ממיר וז'ל: "ספר מסילת ישרים בנוי על כל ספרי רמח"ל שכתב בתורת הקבלה, אלא שהוריד העניינים וקירבן ללשוננו, עד שבלומדינו אותו אנו מדמים שיש לנו שייכות בזה" (דעת חכמה ומוסר ח'א דף רמט).
Not everyone knows this, true, but how חבל and unfortunate that you should feign expertise on these matters.
Also, you seem unaware that Ramchal had been forced to make shevuos in בתי דין in both Padua and Frankfurt that he would never publish books with kabbala teachings again - and that Mesilas Yesharim was published long after those shavuos.
Sorry, Rabbi Clinton, but you are just unaware and don't realize that apparently. If you want to discuss further, you can email me at: afrumrabbi@gmail.com
Kedusha makes no sense without kabbala and that's basically the end of the 'path'. Also, the way to move between the stages is through meditation which is only fully explained in Derech Etz Chaim where it ends up being copying the praises the Zohar gives Raaya Meheimna and doing everything for the Shechina
That's your opinion, and I'm sure it's an opinion shared by many people. But it's in direct conflict with the Mesilas Yesharim's explicit words at the very start of his book:
I can't find it now. Maybe I heard it instead of reading it. His talmid muvhak, Rav Reuven Leuchter, certainly tells his audience from Rav Wolbe that Daas Tevunos and Nefesh Hachayim should basic seforim for Yeshivalite. If I find the reference, i'll update,
This is a very Litvish take on why people learn Kabbalah, and in my experience, most frum people learning Kabbalah today are simply doing it because it's geshmak and makes you feel good.
And that is not a bad reason at all in today's world.
And yes, that answer makes Litvaks cringe. Too bad.
If you don't want to learn Kabbalah, then don't.
The main reason why many guys are getting into it is precisely because you don't have to learn it, and they are learning it just for the joy of it, which is how we are supposed to do anything in Yiddishkeit anyway.
And arguably, the fact that so much of halachic, historical, and even kabbalistic literature discourages mass learning of kabbala probably adds even more geshmak. That's the antinomian element I referenced.
I can certainly sympathize with that. But I still think that, from a big-picture religious perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Reading my response, I realize my words may sound a bit harsh. Not my intention.
What are the big-picture negatives in your opinion?
You quoted Rav Hirsch, and I agree with his concern that it is possible to overemphasize kabbalistic concepts until they lose their abstract nature and take on a tangibility that will confuse people. (at least i think thats what he meant.)
I really don't think this is happening. I think in today's world we are lucky if anyone has any interest in Torah at all; misunderstanding and confusion already exist in spades without the help of Kabbalah.
If anything, learning Kabbalah is reinvigorating many to take the Torah more seriously and thus causing them to look deeper into other parts of the Torah.
I know that was my experience, and I am finding a greater depth in parts of the Torah I've been burnt out from, now that I've gone on a "Kabbalah bender" and come out the other side with a deeper appreciation.
I get that this is the experience I had and may not be the same for others, but I have seen this pattern with many of my peers over and over again.
I really have a hard time seeing the big negatives that outweigh this positive.
It's valuable to try to hash these issue out. I see two main negatives:
1. From a Hirschian perspective, there's the risk that a "Kabbala-mindset" could lead a person to perform a lifetime of mitzvos in the expectation of the power they generate rather than because mitzvos are God's tools for inspiring us to become better people. I realize that not every Kabbala person will go that way, but many will.
2. From a halachic perspective, early kabbala literature (on which everything else is built) strongly suggests that avoda - and in particular tefila - must be directed to Zeir Anpin - who, according to the Ari's system, is a created entity. At the very least, that's משתתף שם שמים ודבר אחר according to all definitions I can imagine.
From my perspective, those are serious enough to make me reluctant to engage with Kabbala.
Regarding 1, the only people I know like this are the Kabbalah Center people. I have never heard anyone who is part of the mainstream frum community, Yeshivish, modern orthodox, or whatever go this way.
I need to think about 2. If you are correct, then Ari himself would have had a problem with it. I think there may be a misunderstanding of this concept on your end, but likely there is on my end as well.
To be honest, neither of these 2 seem to be a large enough negative to stop learning. (Again, I think there is something off with 2. No one holds that it's ok to have shituf on any side of this argument. you make it sound like there is this colossal misunderstanding, but i find that very hard to believe.
I think #1 is far more prevalent than you think: how do you explain all those "challah-taking for refua" sessions or rote recitation of Tehilim...or even the details of all those tefilos from the Shelah?
1: The segulah obsession is an issue, and even if many take it very seriously, I don't think any learned person confuses them for actual mitzvos or torah. The masses may, but someone who actively studies Kabbalah and Chassidus would not make this mistake. It sounds like there is an assumption that many Kabbalah learners are these hippy shaman types who exist with a cognitive dissonance that allows them to hold these conflicting contradictory beliefs. This is simply not the case. The really Kabbalah learners I've interacted with are very sharp, very down-to-earth, and are not prone to making these mistakes you describe.
2: This sounds like the age-old machlokes between misnagdim and chassidim. I get it. For some this hasn't been resolved satisfactorily; for most though it has, and Torah Judaism has mostly resolved this. Perhaps it remains an intellectual problem, but still not something that is putting Judaism at risk. From my perspective, Kabbalists and Chassidim are not praying to what is not God, however one may want to try and swing it that they are.
It is my experience that more people have a closer relationship with Hashem who are inspired and connected to Kabbalah and Chassidus than not. The Latvian way works for some, but often only the inteelecutal types.
I have not seen this great negative that is ruining Judaism. but i do appreciate the intellectual discussion about it
I am not certain, but I seem to recall that in an earlier post you touched upon the question of whether a body of work which (as claimed) remained completely hidden under the radar for a thousand years, and then magically surfaced, can possibly be regarded as an essential, integral part of Judaism. If that is an aspect you would care to address in more depth, please do.
I don't think there's really much else to say on that topic: I'm aware of no poskim - not even kabbalists like the Bais Yosef or Magen Avraham - who suggest that belief in the authenticity of Zohar is somehow required. And I have no clue what they'd bring as a proof if they did make such a claim. You can't just make up new halachos and expect lots of Jews to smile and go along.
Which, of course, isn't proof that Zohar *isn't* authentic. It's just that you can't elevate it into some kind of catechism.
Thank you, Rabbi Clinton, for those penetrating, thought-provoking insights.
I would hope that everyone who sees you quote "Nineteen Letters" is familiar with the work and its author. But I strongly suspect that this is by far not the case. (Especially since "Nineteen Letters" is a very abbreviated form of the actual title of the work.) I believe it would be more appropriate to provide complete information about the work and its author.
Is it a good idea to learn Gemara? Didn't the Rambam have stern warnings for anyone that spent all their time learning Gemara? Didn't the Maharal deride people who taught their children Gemara before they mastered Mishnah?
Is it a good idea to study Mishnah? Doesn't its open ended often ambiguous language make it prone to misunderstanding, misunderstandings that have, in fact, proven heretical?
Isn't there danger in studying Chumash? Doesn't a text absent its three thousand years worth of legal parsings prove dangerous for a student unlearned and prone to literalism?
Isn't there a danger in davening from a siddur or making a bracha? Isn't there an inherent difficulty in ascribing human characteristics to the divine where the ordinary worshipper will misunderstand the nature of the statements made about the divine and commit heresy?
Kabbalah clearly and simply contradicts the Jewish principle of the Unity of Hashem. Rabbi Yahya Kappah demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt in his "Milchemet Hashem." Since then, some have attempted to view Kabbalah as allegorical, and to support this approach, they argue that the Tanakh is also full of corporeal allegories. However, these allegories all fall within the context of "the Torah spoke the language of men," for certain ideas cannot be expressed without resorting to such metaphors, in stark contrast to the complex constructs of the Kabbalists, which are far from being the language of (average) men. However, these metaphors are simply useless, since for millennia, prophets and sages managed perfectly well without them!
The very concept of mysticism only appeared in Judaism when some of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's disciples went down to Babylonia because of the persecutions in Eretz Israel and found there, in Babylonia, a friendly environment, since the Babylonians of that time believed in mystical Zoroastrianism which, at first glance, appears to be monotheistic but which actually contains dualistic elements. I think it's hard to deny that some Babylonian Amoraim were influenced by this favorable environment and their beliefs (like Shmuel, who believed in astrology; see, for example, Eruvin 56a, "Shmuel said: 'There is no instance where the vernal equinox occurs at Jupiter's planetary time without its violent winds breaking the trees,'" which, according to Maimonides, constitutes a serious violation of the Torah's prohibition against predicting the future based on the stars (לא תעוננו)), in stark contrast to the Palestinian Amoraim, who lived in a hostile, pagan environment and thus retained the purity of their authentic Jewish faith.
Kabbalah emerged in Central Europe during the time of the early Rishonim, when the Ashkenazi Hasidic mystical movement further developed the "Hekhalot literature," which, for its part, originated in Babylonia, primarily during the time of the Geonim. However, scholars claim—and their claim seems highly plausible to me—that this literature was not written neither by Tanaim nor by Geonim, but rather by Jews who, alrhough having studied the Mishnah, were unable to grasp the Talmudic debates, and therefore sought a shortcut to reach the "celestial spheres of holiness" through less intellectual and more mystical means.
This starting point of early mystical literature remained in Spanish and Lurianic Kabbalah, as their own words clearly demonstrate: reading the Zohar, even without understanding a word of it, is more useful than learning the Gemara. And let us not forget what Rabbi Haim Vital wrote in his diary about the school of the "Beit Yosef", namely that they can at most understand the technical points of halakhic law, while he (Haim Vital) is able to reach the most intimate secrets of existence...
In shul i was reading urimpublications.com/shomer-emunim-the-introduction-to-kabbalah.html the beginning was like 50 pages devoted to refuting all the opponents to kabbala. If I read correctly (and i only spent a few minutes) it was mostly saying that no one (even R'kapach) outright rejects the authenticity of kabbala in its entirety.
Well that depends on how you understand the word "entirety". If they think that R' Kafach is OK with any part of Zohar, then they really need help with their reading.
I have no idea one way or another. Everyone will agree that there's something called מעשה מרכבה (it's mentioned in a mishna, after all), but there's certainly no agreement over whether there's any overlap between what that actually was (see the More Nevuchim's explanation for an example) and the Ari's claims.
The "Maaseh Merkava" is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in five issues. In four of them in general terms, and from there it is impossible to learn whatever about it. However, in Tractate Hagiga (page 13a to page 14b) there are more details, with page 14b stating who lectured to whom. Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai: "Rabbi, permit me to speak before you about one thing that you taught me, and he said to him, 'Tell me,'" and then Rabbi Elazar lectured on Maase Merkava, and "the trees in the field all opened their mouths and sang." Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who gave Abraham our father a son who knows how to understand, investigate, and inquire about the Maase Merkava. There is one who is good at investigating and but not good at fulfilling it, one who is good at fulfilling it but not at investigating. You (Rabbi Elazar) are a good inquirer and a good fulfiller." That is, the student (!) demanded the Merkava matter from his rabbi, and his rabbi was precise that the student understood and researched himself (from what he learned from his rabbi), and that he also fulfills everything he investigated! After that, Rabbi Yehoshua lectured to his friend Rabbi Yossi HaCohen, "And the ministering angels gathered together and were not heard, as men gather together and were not seen in the garments of a bridegroom and bride." Rabbi Yossi HaCohen later "told" what he heard before Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, but this time there was no such noise in the heavens. At the end of the issue, the baraita specifies that Rabbi Yehoshua lectured before Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Akiva lectured before Rabbi Yehoshua, Hananiah ben Hakhinai lectured before Rabbi Akiva, but Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh lectured before Rabban ben Zakkai, and no one lecture before Rabbi Elazar. Once again, we see that a student lectures before his rabbi! And in the Jerusalem Talmud this is stated more clearly (Chagiga, Chapter 2 Halacha 1): "Three recited their Torah before their Rabban... From there and forth their minds are not pure. Four entered the 'orchard', one peered and died, one peered and was injured, one peered and was cut down, one entered in peace and came out in peace. Ben Azzai peered and was injured... Ben Zuma peered and died... Elisha ben Aboyah peered and was cut down... Rabbi Akiva entered in peace and came out in peace." Only Rabbi Akiva came out in peace and was the only one of them who taught Maaseh Merkava to his rabbi. My understanding of all this is that the Maaseh Merkava is not a mystical secret but a sublime halakhic teaching (because it must be fulfilled). It also means that the orchard is also an intellectual inquiry, but whoever is unable to investigate in a clean manner without imaginations in the heart will be harmed.
This is ridiculous to you, because you cling with all your might to your senseless belief in the imaginary Kabbalah. People have always been physically injured and even died from psychological trauma.
Ma'aseh Merkovo requires certain spooky kabbalistic incantations as part of the process of going upstairs or behind the curtain or whatever. That requirement for the incantations to be correct can be considered 'halochoh' that must be forfilled. And if you get those incantations wrong or without the right intentions or whatever, you have mucked up the halochoh and don't even think about what can happen to you.
They're not at all shy about talking about their studies. In fact, at least one of them makes a point of including some pretty heavy kabbala seforim in his public shiurim. But, as a rule, these aren't people who spend a lot of time online.
I think you are missing a crucial element in the study of kabbalah in Litvish circles. It isn't just another Torah subject that has to be weighed against the importance of other Torah subjects. From what I understand, Kabbalah comes to answer the deepest most existential questions about Hashem, the soul, and the nature of existence itself.
Who exactly are we praying to when we daven to Hashem three times a day? Do we get Hashem to change His mind? How did the physical world come forth from a Being that is in no way physical? Is the physical world just a giant illusion where you go through some scenarios and "cash in" on the prizes when you leave the simulation? Or is the physical world real and there is intrinsic value to what we do in this world?
Deep thinkers are desperate to find satisfying answers to these questions. And without Kabbalah, we are left to philosophizing and wondering in a total void and quite possibly veering off into kefirah without realizing it.
Rav Shlomo Wolbe puts the Daas Tevunos and Nefesh Hachayim in his list of books that every serious Ben Torah should be conversant in. It is because these sifrei kabbalah lay down foundational concepts in how we understand the nature of Hashem the Torah, and the impact of our physical actions in Hashem's grand scheme of the universe.
You may well be correct: many yeshivishe people do have strongly and sincerely held motivations for learning kabbala. But that, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily prove that it's a good idea - or that kabbala's answers to those questions aren't in serious conflict with traditional Torah sources (or that the answers are even factually correct). This post is looking specifically at some significant reservations from significant insiders. I'd argue that it's worth considering them.
Certainly worth considering them, and I'm not negating anything you said, but your post left out a massive motivation for learning kabbalah which I was correcting.
"Deep thinkers are desperate to find satisfying answers to these questions. And without Kabbalah, we are left to philosophizing and wondering in a total void and quite possibly veering off into kefirah without realizing it."
I guess you can say that given how many varied and wicked heresies have already emerged from the study of kabbalah, its now relatively safe to learn it because the pitfalls are mapped out in advance. But experience indicates that this is not actually true.
Do you really have to come and bring the storm clouds and gloomy rain every time I mention anything positive about kabbalah? Every time?? Is that like your mission in life?
I wish I was at the madrega that I could devote all my time to doing so.
Providing a false but convincing answer seems far preferable to remaining without one! The prophets asked why a Tzaddik suffers, but remained unanswered. The sages also asked this question and provided rather lame explanations. But in the whole Tanakh and the two Talmudim, you won't find the simplest of all explanations: reincarnation - an answer that circulated among the nations already before the Second Temple (Pythagoras), but was mysteriously hidden from the prophets and Sages... It was only the brilliant Kabbalists who revealed this to the Jewish people.
Where does Rav Wolbe give that list? In the list in 1:1:3, all he says about kabbalah is that Mesilas Yesharim, which is on the list, secretly serves as an introduction to kabbalah
A few years back, I did a bit of an analysis into whether any kabbala slipped into Mesilas Yesharim (https://darchecha.substack.com/p/why-did-ramchal-write-mesilas-yesharim). Besides a couple of indirect references to pareve passages in Zohar, I couldn't find even a hint of the kinds of kabbala that had made the Ramchal so controversial before reaching Amsterdam.
Here is more from R. Yaakov Hillel:
והנה, בתחילה כתב הרמח"ל את ענייני תורת האר"י ז"ל בשפתו - שפת המקובלים, ורק אחר כך שלב אחרי שלב חיבר חיבורים שבהם תמצת את הכתוב בכתב האר"י ז"ל ופירשם על דרך הנמשל שלפי דרכו, ובסוף הגיע לשלב האחרון שבכתיבותיו שבו לא נזקק להזכיר דברי האר"י ז"ל כהוויתן, אלא כל חיבוריו יסד בדרך הנמשל על ידי שתירגם המושגים הרוחניים
המופשטים שבכתבי האר"י לשפת בני אדם.
באופן שכל תורת רבינו הרמח"ל היא מיוסדת על ספר "עץ חיים" לרבינו האר"י ז"ל, אלא שכפי שיטתו שישנה מעלה מיוחדת ללמוד כל חכמה בדרך קצרה ומתומצתת כללים כללים, לכן רוב ככל הכתוב בספריו הם עניינים שנתבאר בכתבי האר"י ז"ל בפיזור, אחת הנה ואחת הנה, וקבצם על סדר נכון, ותמצתם וסדרם בכללים, כאשר כל מטרתו בחיבוריו הוא לסדר את דברי האר"י ז"ל בסדר מתומצת ומושג לכל אדם, והבקי והמעיין בהם היטב יראה שכל מילה בכתבי הרמח"ל יש לה בסיס ומקור בספרי האר"י ז"ל.
ולכן מובן מאליו שאין שום מבוא להבין על נכון ולעומק ספרי הרמח"ל אלא אם כן הלומד בהם מכיר היטב את המקורות לכל דבריו, כי מעולם לא סטה כמלא נימא מהכתוב בכתבי האר"י ז"ל, הגם שחיבר את ספריו בשפה שתועיל לאלו שטרם למדו ספרי המקובלים.
This is a very unfortunate comment, Rabbi Clinton, because you revealing that you are far from knowledgeable in these matters. Here is a direct quote from R Yaakov Hillel, in his introduction to Derech Hashem: "ועיקר מגמת הרמח"ל בחיבוריו - ובכללם ספר "דרך ה'" וספר "דעת תבונות" וכו' היא לפרסם בכלל ישראל את עיקרי האמונה, וסיבת בריאת העולמות, וטעמי המצוות, וסדר עבודת איש היהודי לבוראו על פי תורת הקבלה באופן שיובן לכל אדם (ויש מקום לומר שגם ספרו המפורסם "מסילת ישרים" כך עניינו, אלא שהוא בדרך העלמה יתירה, כי בחכמתו הגדולה הסתיר בדבריו הרהוטים והברורים עניינים עמוקים). וראה דברי רבי ירוחם ממיר וז'ל: "ספר מסילת ישרים בנוי על כל ספרי רמח"ל שכתב בתורת הקבלה, אלא שהוריד העניינים וקירבן ללשוננו, עד שבלומדינו אותו אנו מדמים שיש לנו שייכות בזה" (דעת חכמה ומוסר ח'א דף רמט).
Not everyone knows this, true, but how חבל and unfortunate that you should feign expertise on these matters.
So you're saying that when Ramchal wrote these words in Mesilas Yesharim, he was lying:
הַחִבּוּר הַזֶּה לֹא חִבַּרְתִּיו לְלַמֵּד לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם אֶת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ, אֶלָּא לְהַזְכִּירָם אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָהֶם כְּבָר וּמְפֻרְסָם אֶצְלָם פִּרְסוּם גָּדוֹל
Also, you seem unaware that Ramchal had been forced to make shevuos in בתי דין in both Padua and Frankfurt that he would never publish books with kabbala teachings again - and that Mesilas Yesharim was published long after those shavuos.
Sorry, Rabbi Clinton, but you are just unaware and don't realize that apparently. If you want to discuss further, you can email me at: afrumrabbi@gmail.com
Kedusha makes no sense without kabbala and that's basically the end of the 'path'. Also, the way to move between the stages is through meditation which is only fully explained in Derech Etz Chaim where it ends up being copying the praises the Zohar gives Raaya Meheimna and doing everything for the Shechina
That's your opinion, and I'm sure it's an opinion shared by many people. But it's in direct conflict with the Mesilas Yesharim's explicit words at the very start of his book:
הַחִבּוּר הַזֶּה לֹא חִבַּרְתִּיו לְלַמֵּד לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם אֶת אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ, אֶלָּא לְהַזְכִּירָם אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ לָהֶם כְּבָר וּמְפֻרְסָם אֶצְלָם פִּרְסוּם גָּדוֹל
I can't find it now. Maybe I heard it instead of reading it. His talmid muvhak, Rav Reuven Leuchter, certainly tells his audience from Rav Wolbe that Daas Tevunos and Nefesh Hachayim should basic seforim for Yeshivalite. If I find the reference, i'll update,
The source is Alei Shur 2, pg. 176
Thank you. I knew I saw it printed,
This is a very Litvish take on why people learn Kabbalah, and in my experience, most frum people learning Kabbalah today are simply doing it because it's geshmak and makes you feel good.
And that is not a bad reason at all in today's world.
And yes, that answer makes Litvaks cringe. Too bad.
If you don't want to learn Kabbalah, then don't.
The main reason why many guys are getting into it is precisely because you don't have to learn it, and they are learning it just for the joy of it, which is how we are supposed to do anything in Yiddishkeit anyway.
And arguably, the fact that so much of halachic, historical, and even kabbalistic literature discourages mass learning of kabbala probably adds even more geshmak. That's the antinomian element I referenced.
I can certainly sympathize with that. But I still think that, from a big-picture religious perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Reading my response, I realize my words may sound a bit harsh. Not my intention.
What are the big-picture negatives in your opinion?
You quoted Rav Hirsch, and I agree with his concern that it is possible to overemphasize kabbalistic concepts until they lose their abstract nature and take on a tangibility that will confuse people. (at least i think thats what he meant.)
I really don't think this is happening. I think in today's world we are lucky if anyone has any interest in Torah at all; misunderstanding and confusion already exist in spades without the help of Kabbalah.
If anything, learning Kabbalah is reinvigorating many to take the Torah more seriously and thus causing them to look deeper into other parts of the Torah.
I know that was my experience, and I am finding a greater depth in parts of the Torah I've been burnt out from, now that I've gone on a "Kabbalah bender" and come out the other side with a deeper appreciation.
I get that this is the experience I had and may not be the same for others, but I have seen this pattern with many of my peers over and over again.
I really have a hard time seeing the big negatives that outweigh this positive.
It's valuable to try to hash these issue out. I see two main negatives:
1. From a Hirschian perspective, there's the risk that a "Kabbala-mindset" could lead a person to perform a lifetime of mitzvos in the expectation of the power they generate rather than because mitzvos are God's tools for inspiring us to become better people. I realize that not every Kabbala person will go that way, but many will.
2. From a halachic perspective, early kabbala literature (on which everything else is built) strongly suggests that avoda - and in particular tefila - must be directed to Zeir Anpin - who, according to the Ari's system, is a created entity. At the very least, that's משתתף שם שמים ודבר אחר according to all definitions I can imagine.
From my perspective, those are serious enough to make me reluctant to engage with Kabbala.
Regarding 1, the only people I know like this are the Kabbalah Center people. I have never heard anyone who is part of the mainstream frum community, Yeshivish, modern orthodox, or whatever go this way.
I need to think about 2. If you are correct, then Ari himself would have had a problem with it. I think there may be a misunderstanding of this concept on your end, but likely there is on my end as well.
To be honest, neither of these 2 seem to be a large enough negative to stop learning. (Again, I think there is something off with 2. No one holds that it's ok to have shituf on any side of this argument. you make it sound like there is this colossal misunderstanding, but i find that very hard to believe.
I think #1 is far more prevalent than you think: how do you explain all those "challah-taking for refua" sessions or rote recitation of Tehilim...or even the details of all those tefilos from the Shelah?
And I've written at length about the issue in #2. https://marbitz.com/home/rabbi-s-r-hirsch/finding-tradition-in-the-modern-torah-world/how-are-we-supposed-to-pray/
Although I'm far from the first to do so.
1: The segulah obsession is an issue, and even if many take it very seriously, I don't think any learned person confuses them for actual mitzvos or torah. The masses may, but someone who actively studies Kabbalah and Chassidus would not make this mistake. It sounds like there is an assumption that many Kabbalah learners are these hippy shaman types who exist with a cognitive dissonance that allows them to hold these conflicting contradictory beliefs. This is simply not the case. The really Kabbalah learners I've interacted with are very sharp, very down-to-earth, and are not prone to making these mistakes you describe.
2: This sounds like the age-old machlokes between misnagdim and chassidim. I get it. For some this hasn't been resolved satisfactorily; for most though it has, and Torah Judaism has mostly resolved this. Perhaps it remains an intellectual problem, but still not something that is putting Judaism at risk. From my perspective, Kabbalists and Chassidim are not praying to what is not God, however one may want to try and swing it that they are.
It is my experience that more people have a closer relationship with Hashem who are inspired and connected to Kabbalah and Chassidus than not. The Latvian way works for some, but often only the inteelecutal types.
I have not seen this great negative that is ruining Judaism. but i do appreciate the intellectual discussion about it
Usually the more kaballah the less Halacha
Rabbi Clinton -
I am not certain, but I seem to recall that in an earlier post you touched upon the question of whether a body of work which (as claimed) remained completely hidden under the radar for a thousand years, and then magically surfaced, can possibly be regarded as an essential, integral part of Judaism. If that is an aspect you would care to address in more depth, please do.
That was from this post: https://darchecha.substack.com/p/must-one-believe-that-the-zohar-is
I don't think there's really much else to say on that topic: I'm aware of no poskim - not even kabbalists like the Bais Yosef or Magen Avraham - who suggest that belief in the authenticity of Zohar is somehow required. And I have no clue what they'd bring as a proof if they did make such a claim. You can't just make up new halachos and expect lots of Jews to smile and go along.
Which, of course, isn't proof that Zohar *isn't* authentic. It's just that you can't elevate it into some kind of catechism.
Do the Beis Yosef or Magen Avrohom state anywhere belief in techias hameisim is 'somehow required'? That's a ridiculous argument.
PS it's obvious that at least parts of the zohar are not from rashbi. Even the Nodeh Beyehudah in the non censored editions say so.
>>It's just that you can't elevate it
>> into some kind of catechism.
If not a catechism, then maybe a cataclysm?
(They are pretty close, after all.)
Thank you, Rabbi Clinton, for those penetrating, thought-provoking insights.
I would hope that everyone who sees you quote "Nineteen Letters" is familiar with the work and its author. But I strongly suspect that this is by far not the case. (Especially since "Nineteen Letters" is a very abbreviated form of the actual title of the work.) I believe it would be more appropriate to provide complete information about the work and its author.
Excellent point. I fixed that.
Thank you!
Is it a good idea to learn Gemara? Didn't the Rambam have stern warnings for anyone that spent all their time learning Gemara? Didn't the Maharal deride people who taught their children Gemara before they mastered Mishnah?
Is it a good idea to study Mishnah? Doesn't its open ended often ambiguous language make it prone to misunderstanding, misunderstandings that have, in fact, proven heretical?
Isn't there danger in studying Chumash? Doesn't a text absent its three thousand years worth of legal parsings prove dangerous for a student unlearned and prone to literalism?
Isn't there a danger in davening from a siddur or making a bracha? Isn't there an inherent difficulty in ascribing human characteristics to the divine where the ordinary worshipper will misunderstand the nature of the statements made about the divine and commit heresy?
Kabbalah clearly and simply contradicts the Jewish principle of the Unity of Hashem. Rabbi Yahya Kappah demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt in his "Milchemet Hashem." Since then, some have attempted to view Kabbalah as allegorical, and to support this approach, they argue that the Tanakh is also full of corporeal allegories. However, these allegories all fall within the context of "the Torah spoke the language of men," for certain ideas cannot be expressed without resorting to such metaphors, in stark contrast to the complex constructs of the Kabbalists, which are far from being the language of (average) men. However, these metaphors are simply useless, since for millennia, prophets and sages managed perfectly well without them!
The very concept of mysticism only appeared in Judaism when some of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's disciples went down to Babylonia because of the persecutions in Eretz Israel and found there, in Babylonia, a friendly environment, since the Babylonians of that time believed in mystical Zoroastrianism which, at first glance, appears to be monotheistic but which actually contains dualistic elements. I think it's hard to deny that some Babylonian Amoraim were influenced by this favorable environment and their beliefs (like Shmuel, who believed in astrology; see, for example, Eruvin 56a, "Shmuel said: 'There is no instance where the vernal equinox occurs at Jupiter's planetary time without its violent winds breaking the trees,'" which, according to Maimonides, constitutes a serious violation of the Torah's prohibition against predicting the future based on the stars (לא תעוננו)), in stark contrast to the Palestinian Amoraim, who lived in a hostile, pagan environment and thus retained the purity of their authentic Jewish faith.
Kabbalah emerged in Central Europe during the time of the early Rishonim, when the Ashkenazi Hasidic mystical movement further developed the "Hekhalot literature," which, for its part, originated in Babylonia, primarily during the time of the Geonim. However, scholars claim—and their claim seems highly plausible to me—that this literature was not written neither by Tanaim nor by Geonim, but rather by Jews who, alrhough having studied the Mishnah, were unable to grasp the Talmudic debates, and therefore sought a shortcut to reach the "celestial spheres of holiness" through less intellectual and more mystical means.
This starting point of early mystical literature remained in Spanish and Lurianic Kabbalah, as their own words clearly demonstrate: reading the Zohar, even without understanding a word of it, is more useful than learning the Gemara. And let us not forget what Rabbi Haim Vital wrote in his diary about the school of the "Beit Yosef", namely that they can at most understand the technical points of halakhic law, while he (Haim Vital) is able to reach the most intimate secrets of existence...
In shul i was reading urimpublications.com/shomer-emunim-the-introduction-to-kabbalah.html the beginning was like 50 pages devoted to refuting all the opponents to kabbala. If I read correctly (and i only spent a few minutes) it was mostly saying that no one (even R'kapach) outright rejects the authenticity of kabbala in its entirety.
Well that depends on how you understand the word "entirety". If they think that R' Kafach is OK with any part of Zohar, then they really need help with their reading.
i mean like they all agree theres something true called kabbala
I have no idea one way or another. Everyone will agree that there's something called מעשה מרכבה (it's mentioned in a mishna, after all), but there's certainly no agreement over whether there's any overlap between what that actually was (see the More Nevuchim's explanation for an example) and the Ari's claims.
The "Maaseh Merkava" is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in five issues. In four of them in general terms, and from there it is impossible to learn whatever about it. However, in Tractate Hagiga (page 13a to page 14b) there are more details, with page 14b stating who lectured to whom. Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai: "Rabbi, permit me to speak before you about one thing that you taught me, and he said to him, 'Tell me,'" and then Rabbi Elazar lectured on Maase Merkava, and "the trees in the field all opened their mouths and sang." Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said: "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who gave Abraham our father a son who knows how to understand, investigate, and inquire about the Maase Merkava. There is one who is good at investigating and but not good at fulfilling it, one who is good at fulfilling it but not at investigating. You (Rabbi Elazar) are a good inquirer and a good fulfiller." That is, the student (!) demanded the Merkava matter from his rabbi, and his rabbi was precise that the student understood and researched himself (from what he learned from his rabbi), and that he also fulfills everything he investigated! After that, Rabbi Yehoshua lectured to his friend Rabbi Yossi HaCohen, "And the ministering angels gathered together and were not heard, as men gather together and were not seen in the garments of a bridegroom and bride." Rabbi Yossi HaCohen later "told" what he heard before Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, but this time there was no such noise in the heavens. At the end of the issue, the baraita specifies that Rabbi Yehoshua lectured before Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Akiva lectured before Rabbi Yehoshua, Hananiah ben Hakhinai lectured before Rabbi Akiva, but Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh lectured before Rabban ben Zakkai, and no one lecture before Rabbi Elazar. Once again, we see that a student lectures before his rabbi! And in the Jerusalem Talmud this is stated more clearly (Chagiga, Chapter 2 Halacha 1): "Three recited their Torah before their Rabban... From there and forth their minds are not pure. Four entered the 'orchard', one peered and died, one peered and was injured, one peered and was cut down, one entered in peace and came out in peace. Ben Azzai peered and was injured... Ben Zuma peered and died... Elisha ben Aboyah peered and was cut down... Rabbi Akiva entered in peace and came out in peace." Only Rabbi Akiva came out in peace and was the only one of them who taught Maaseh Merkava to his rabbi. My understanding of all this is that the Maaseh Merkava is not a mystical secret but a sublime halakhic teaching (because it must be fulfilled). It also means that the orchard is also an intellectual inquiry, but whoever is unable to investigate in a clean manner without imaginations in the heart will be harmed.
Ridiculous conclusion. How can you be physically harmed or killed by misunderstanding "a sublime halachic teaching"? Better no answer than a bad one.
This is ridiculous to you, because you cling with all your might to your senseless belief in the imaginary Kabbalah. People have always been physically injured and even died from psychological trauma.
Ma'aseh merkovo is not just learning.
Ma'aseh Merkovo requires certain spooky kabbalistic incantations as part of the process of going upstairs or behind the curtain or whatever. That requirement for the incantations to be correct can be considered 'halochoh' that must be forfilled. And if you get those incantations wrong or without the right intentions or whatever, you have mucked up the halochoh and don't even think about what can happen to you.
They're not at all shy about talking about their studies. In fact, at least one of them makes a point of including some pretty heavy kabbala seforim in his public shiurim. But, as a rule, these aren't people who spend a lot of time online.