I don't understand your question about the point of the mashal. Presumably, what Rav Chaim meant is that Kabbalah would be *impossible* to understand without these meshalim, and the meshalim *do* make it easier. Just because Rabbi Boruch Clinton doesn't understand them doesn't mean that nobody understood them.
I have only the story I heard to go on, and that story claimed that "few, if any" people understood the nimshal. You may have heard a different version of the story where anyone with the nimshal could understand the mashal. But I can only work with the version I heard.
But according to both your version and mine, the mashal itself was *not* designed to be helpful. Which is weird.
> "Not sure how you see the Mashal wasn't designed to be helpful."
Simple. Because, according to the story, anyone who hears the mashal without knowing the nimshal will understand nothing. And, for all intents and purposes, no no one knows the nimshal. How could that be helpful?
That's true. But if the nimshal isn't accessible, then what value does the mashal have? You're at the front door, but you have no way to open it.
The assumption behind the story (the way I heard it) was that the Ari's teachings have no literal meaning and that your only hope is through the nimshal.
I actually saw something broadly similar in the Ben Ish Chai's teshuva sefer (רב פעלים): he wrote that trying to learn Zohar using just the literal words will lead you to kefira. The teshuva was about his opinion that translating Zohar was forbidden.
Who said it's not accessible? From the story it sounds like Rav Chaim understood it. I don't think any mashal will help somebody who has no idea of the nimshal in the first place. You need a place to start, and from there the mashal can be helpful. That's why I brought the example Zechariah 11:4-17. Somebody who knows nothing aobut Jewish history (the nimshal) will have no idea what the mashal is about. Even somebody who knows Jewish history will have a very hard time with the mashal, which is why there are many different explanations of the mashal in the meforshim, nobody really knows what the nimshal is for sure. That doesn't mean ח"ו the mashal is useless.
Yes! Thumbs up for the Hirschian approach, in which I was raised. I don't remember when I first even heard of something called the Zohar. But I'm pretty sure I was by then well into high school.
(Or maybe I'd heard of it by name from an earlier age. But I had no clue what it was. Nor did I feel any motivation to find out.)
I don't understand your question about the point of the mashal. Presumably, what Rav Chaim meant is that Kabbalah would be *impossible* to understand without these meshalim, and the meshalim *do* make it easier. Just because Rabbi Boruch Clinton doesn't understand them doesn't mean that nobody understood them.
I have only the story I heard to go on, and that story claimed that "few, if any" people understood the nimshal. You may have heard a different version of the story where anyone with the nimshal could understand the mashal. But I can only work with the version I heard.
But according to both your version and mine, the mashal itself was *not* designed to be helpful. Which is weird.
Not sure how you see the Mashal wasn't designed to be helpful. How helpful is the moshol in Zechariah 11:4-17 and many others like it?
> "Not sure how you see the Mashal wasn't designed to be helpful."
Simple. Because, according to the story, anyone who hears the mashal without knowing the nimshal will understand nothing. And, for all intents and purposes, no no one knows the nimshal. How could that be helpful?
From the story as quoted by you, I don't see that at all. The idea is that very few people understood the nimshal.
That's true. But if the nimshal isn't accessible, then what value does the mashal have? You're at the front door, but you have no way to open it.
The assumption behind the story (the way I heard it) was that the Ari's teachings have no literal meaning and that your only hope is through the nimshal.
I actually saw something broadly similar in the Ben Ish Chai's teshuva sefer (רב פעלים): he wrote that trying to learn Zohar using just the literal words will lead you to kefira. The teshuva was about his opinion that translating Zohar was forbidden.
Who said it's not accessible? From the story it sounds like Rav Chaim understood it. I don't think any mashal will help somebody who has no idea of the nimshal in the first place. You need a place to start, and from there the mashal can be helpful. That's why I brought the example Zechariah 11:4-17. Somebody who knows nothing aobut Jewish history (the nimshal) will have no idea what the mashal is about. Even somebody who knows Jewish history will have a very hard time with the mashal, which is why there are many different explanations of the mashal in the meforshim, nobody really knows what the nimshal is for sure. That doesn't mean ח"ו the mashal is useless.
Re your closing comment:
Yes! Thumbs up for the Hirschian approach, in which I was raised. I don't remember when I first even heard of something called the Zohar. But I'm pretty sure I was by then well into high school.
(Or maybe I'd heard of it by name from an earlier age. But I had no clue what it was. Nor did I feel any motivation to find out.)