I caution any reader that this exploration is intended solely in the spirit of 'lehagdil Torah uleheadira'
and for theoretical study only and not to be applied in practice to
any contemporary event or issue. I also ask that readers go directly
to the sources and do not rely on my reading or understanding of them,
for I am not yet 'bar hochi'.
One way to understand the fantastic symbolism of Kabbala is that it represents an attempt to push back the boundaries of what human beings can know about G-d. Utalizing every resource of human soul and intellect, every asset and reserve of imagination and feeling, it attempts to breach the barriers that prevent us form grasping the ultimate, it strains against the boundaries of human ability, it tries to move back the wall that separates us from the Divine - a little more, a few more inches.
A recent multi-volume commentary on Otsros Chaim by R. Y. Benzechry
published in Yerushaliam in 1998 with haskomah from R. Y. Hillel contains
an essay on what he presents as three different methods of Kabbala
study. These relate to the very basic question - how are statements of
Ari about left, right, above, below, above and beyond to be understood
when speaking of spiritual worlds where such concepts should not apply.
There are three approaches:
1.The way of moshol -- Kabbala is a moshol of either how Hashem runs the
world (R. Chaim Volozhiner) or 2. as applying to real events, psychological
forces or physical structuring of the world in which we live (Besht). The
third way is that of the Sephardim who approach it in literal fashion;
we will come back to that later. Let us briefly discuss the first two
methods.
1. Moshol. This is attributed to the Gra in the name of R. Chaim
Volozhiner. The following comes not from R. Benzecry but from R. Chaim
Friedlander in his introduction to KL'CH Pischei Chochma, p. 11. He
quotes from a letter of one of students of R. Chaim that the Gra said
of Ramchal that he understood the nimshal in the writings of the Ari
and that the Gra was not sure if R. Chaim Vital understood it until he
saw in one place that he also understood it but decided to hide it.
It seems that Ramchal thought that the nimshal is derech hanhaga
(this is a subject in itself and requires delving into the writings
of Ramchal). There is also the idea that Kabbala is basically what
the prophet sees in a prophetic vision. Thus, it is not exactly
literal but an interpertation of a vsion. One understands that visions contain many elements.
R. Bezechry for some reason ascribes this view to R. Zadok Hakohen;
he does not mention(unless I missed it in this long essay) that it is
found in the writings of Ramchal, such as in Pesach 7 which is devoted
to the idea of sephiros as what is seen in prophetic visions. In our day,
R. Arye Kaplan taught this view.
2. Chassidus focused on the idea that man is olam katan and that the
4 phases of the neshama correspond to four olamos; therefore, much of
human psychology can be explained in kabbalistic terms.
3. The view of the Sephardim is that we must study the writings of
Ari literally and, if we are zoche, we will understand them in the
future world. The object is to use this knowledge to perform mizvos and to pray. Curiously, the strongest proponent of this views is R. Elyshiv, author of Leshem Shva Vahlama. He strongly argues against
the inderstanding as moshol or as vision of prophecy, going as far as
labeling them close to kefirah, "Chalila, chalila to think that these
matters are grasped or understood by any creature whoever ... chalila
chalila to think that they are just a moshol, and anyone who says that
he is in my eyes as if he denies the whole wisdom of kabbala totally
and it is proper to thunder... (Derush Hoegulim, hakdama to anaf 2,2).
This question also comes up in regard to whether tsimtsum took place in
real space or mental representation of space; this is not the place to
delve into that.
Interestingly, R. Elyashiv claims that this is the tradition of the Gra,
despite what was reported above and also contradicting Gra's klalim
at the end of his commentary to Sifra D'Tsniusa (in regard to tsimtsum
not being literally in space). Mordechi Pechter in a very erudite and
worthwhile article proposes that there was an alternative mesora from
the Gra which R. Elyashiv follows (in Kabbalat Hagra b'Askalparia shel
shtei mesorot, Bar Ilan 2003).
It should be clear that if we cannot truly understand kabbalistic
statements, any attempt to draw analogies from them or to appy them is
doomed from the start. In addition, it is almost guaranteed to lead to a
misinterpretation and "destroy worlds". In consequence, those who follow
this shittah jealously guard the wisdom of kabbalah and are ready at
any time to be moche very strongly against such attempts. R. Y. Hillel,
for example, wrote a work against practical kabbalah and those who use
it practically (Faith and Folly, Feldheim). On the other hand, in one
sephardi yeshiva in the USA, I know that the art of reading ketuvot to
assist marriage counseling is taught as a part of semicha program.
On the other hand, if it is but a guide and a representation of spiritual reality, the particulars are not as important as the experiences that it may explain. This was the approach of R. Arye Kaplan who thought that he found the key to Kabbalistic symbolism in the experiences of Meditation.
Comments