How to study Kabbala: Reflections 1

Everyone these days, it seems, is studying Kabbala. Classes on Kabbala proliferate and connecting the word "Kabbala" to any topic somehow makes it relevant and hip. People with absolutely no background embark on exploring topics that "stand at the height of the world".This is why I thought that it would be a service to discuss some of my perspectives on the preparatory  curriculum and what prerequisites that should be in place before committing to a multi-year project of mastering  this highly obstruse and  in some ways dangerous study.

1. "...it is better to occupy oneself with philosophy than to err through Kabbalah  Responsa Rema: No. 7"

The books of Kabbala are full of warnings that purity of character and intention are absolutely essential for a student of Kabbala, for those who embark on this study without sufficient moral preparation can easily sink under the dominion of dark forces. Pre-chassidism, an ascetic and abstemious way of life was thought to be a prerequisite for this study, even to the extent of refraining form meat and wine during the week, as laid out in the beginning of "Sur Mera V'Aseh TOv". This is discussed in Shaar Hyechudim and the introduction to Etz Chaim of the Ari and his Shaarei Kedusha, Ch.2 as well as Reishis Chochma. I will not speak about this aspect of preparation because nowadays it will close the "gates of wisdom" before almost all potential students. Few people now have the internal purity that can even in small fashion compare to what Tsfas kabbalists sought. We will speak instead about intellectual prepradness and then about different approaches as to what Kabbala means to convey. These different paths result in the different methodologies and approaches to how to understand the classics. I do not claim to be an expert but nevertheless, I think that some of my observations and nuggets of advice gathered along my own explorations are  potentially useful to some.

We will start by discussing the well-known statement of the Rema in Toras Ha-Olah III,4, that Philosophy and Kabbalah are the same fields of knowledge with different terms. This view was disputed by R. Menashe of Ilya, a student of the Vilna Gaon,  in the beginning of Pesher Davar ( I am not sure how to reconcile R. Menashe's statements there with his subsequent criticism of Kabbalah a few pages later, p.10 of the 1807 Vilna edition). It seems that what Rema called Kabbala must have been a type of kabbalistic philosophy and his approach is consistent wtih his comments to Yorah Deah 246:4. He writes: "It is permitted to learn occasionally the other wisdoms, provided they are not books of heresy. this is called by the Sages 'to walk in the Pardes'. And a person should not walk in the Pardes until he has filled his belly with meat and wine, which means to know all the laws of permitted and forbidden and the laws of mitzvot". Vilna Gaon on the spot says that he was mistaken on this because he learned Greek philosophy. I would add that what the Gaon probably means is that the Kabbala that Rema would have learned was pre-Lurianic since Ari's writings were not yet available to him. This is important because we will see that one of the major differences between the Kabbala of Ari, and those who came before and many of those who came after him, was using philosophy to clarify and understand kabbalistic terms and concepts.

However, the statement from Toras Haolah is in the name of R. Moshe Botril. and this is not exactly what he says. R. Botril writes in the introduction to his commentary to Sefer Yetzirah: "The wisdom of Divine Philosophy is locked with the wisdom of Kabbala. Therefore I did not give these words (of my commentary) but to him who became philosophized in the roots of Kabbala". He also writes (1:2): "This wisdom only makes sense (titakhen) to one who is of clear mind and reasoning. This is why it is  called Kabbala, which is Pure Philosophy". "He who investigated pholosophy will understand what I am saying (1:12)". "No man should enter this orchard who has not studies in depth the wisdom of philosophy, for the wisdon of philosophy is tied into the wisdom of Kabbala like a flame to the coal (3:2)". This last expression, from Sefer yetzitah 1:7 like a flame to a coal, has become a very popilar analogy subsequenlty in Kabbala.

It seems to me that what R. Moseh Botril is saying is not that Kabbala and Philosophy say the same thing but that proficiency in philosophic methods, reasoning and discourse are essential preprequisites in order to study Kabbala.

This is true for two reasons. First, until Ari and after him, philosophic reasoning and concepts were integral to explaining kabbalistic concepts and making them intelligible. There is, of course a difference between these two periods and we will discuss that difference later. Early kabbala has strong neoplatonic flavor (see this source quoted in Kol Hanevuah by R. Dovid Hakohen, the Nazir on p.153)  whereas Cordoverian kabbala draws explicitly on philosophic methods of reasoning and proof. Ari's kabbala, on the other hand, is aphilosophical - it is as if everything before it did not exist and it is a new revelation, not only in content, but in methodology. And... this methodology is obscure and not rational. In fact, it is so drastically different that subsequent generations struggled to come up with a conceptual language to make sense of this sudden and unexpected break. Some, like. R. Ashlag and R.Avraham Hakohen Herrera( in this case, reflected through the teachings of R. Isroel Serug) went back to philosophic language, now to explain Ari's teachings, and others, such as Ramchal and Mahral developed compelteley new methods of making sense of the Lurainic content. The Besht also developed a novel methodology to explain and make sense of Lurainic Kabbala. We will discuss this also in due time.

Secondly, without such preparation, it is easy to take Zoharic expressions too literally, and in consequence run the risk of "hagshama", or misunderstandning analogies as statements of fact and attemtps to express the unexprressable through physical examples as being literally true. One can misinterpret that Kabbala teaches a multiplicity of Divine energies. A trained philosopher, on the other hand, has learned by demonstration that God is One and indivisable and will be less likley to separate the Divine Flow that descends from the Infinite through the sefiros into discrete capsules of the Divine.

The Vilna Gaon expressed his perception of the relationship between philosophy and Kabbala in this language (reported in Orchos Chaim found in the back of Siddur Hagro): ""Where philosophy ends begins the Kabbala of the Ramak, and where the Kabbala of Ramak ends, begins the Kabbala of the Ari". This too is something that I hope to take up and explain later.

The conclusion that is drawn from this discussion is that philosophic preparation is indispensable to properly grasping much of the Kabbalistic teaching. Although a lack of preparation can be overcome by one who has a teacher who has such training, it is foolhardy, dangerous and misleading to engage in kabbalistic exploration on one's own, except and only with a good philosophic background.

Comments

[Ploni]

"Ramchal and Mahral developed completely new methods of making sense of the Lurainic content"

In the intro to the Hartman edition of the Maharal, it says Maharal never saw the Ari's writings.

[osoavakesh]

R.Dovid Hakohen had the opposite view in Kol Hanevuah.

It's like this: If you do not have any sytematizations of pre-Lurianic Kabbala (like Pardes or Avodas Hakodesh) and no writings of the Ari, and you are a talmid chacham of the caliber of Maharal, you will come up with your own approach to systemize the sources that you do have. If, in addition, you do not want to "reveal" your sources, you will invent a new terminology. I think that this is what happened with Maharal. So I agree that he was not a classic mekubal but his shitos stem from the erlier kabbalistic sources.

From the Wikipedia

Rabbi Hutner succinctly defined the ethos of the Maharal's teachings as being Nistar BeLashon Nigleh, meaning (in Hebrew): "The Hidden in the language of the Revealed". ...... Rabbi Hutner in turn also maintained that Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) (Germany, 19th century) must also have been influenced by the Maharal's ideas basing his seemingly rationalistic Weltanschauung on the more abstract and abstruse teachings of the hard-to-understand Jewish Kabbalah.

Rabbi Judah Loew was not a champion of the open study of Kabbalah as such, and none of his works are in any way openly devoted to it. According to him, only the greatest of Torah scholars are able to discern his true original inspirations and the intellectual framework for his ideas in their complex entirety. Nevertheless, Kabbalistic ideas permeate his writings in a rational and philosophic tone. His main Kabbalistic influences appear to have been the Zohar and Sefer Yetzirah, as Lurianic Kabbalah had not by that time reached Europe.

[Yehonasan]

As you are probably aware the Chassidic approach is quite different. I thought it would be worth mentioning here.

For example, in Nesiv Mitzvosecha by Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac of Komorna (1806-1874 C.E.) we find (introduction):

"One should be careful about studying too much from books based on intellectual reasoning, and from trying to be a Choker UMekubal (the name of a work by the Ramchal, an attempt o synthesize philosophy and kabbalah), lacking a heart. This is close to error; to be a wise man whose wisdom exceeds his deeds. “There is no speech, nor are there words, their voice is not heard” on high."

"For the essence of the revelation of this wisdom in our generation is none other than to illuminate the nefesh, to purify it with longing and deveikus (connection to G-d), love and fear, with holiness, purity and humility. And not to be a Choker UMekubal, merely from the lips and outwards, Heaven forbid. “Don’t, my son. For it is not a good report I hear.” It’s not right to learn this wisdom in order to be a hoker UMekubal; one who learns philosophy. Don’t, my son!"

And from Rebbe Nachman (Sichos HaRan, ot 40) we find: "Regarding philosophical books: we have already explained elsewhere many times that it is forbidden to study them. One needs to distance oneself from them very much. Don't learn from them or even look in them--not even the philosophical works of great Jews. ...for none of them are of the portion of Yaakov... ...this is because those who are drawn after philosophy do so on account of their disposition..which is a wicked disposition from their birth; they are unable to endure the true holiness of things. ..."

[osoavakesh]

We will, BE'H discuss the approach of thh Besht later on. It is not surprising that his approach excluded the competing philosophic approach. The two exceptions that were more open to chakirah are Chabad and Peshischa.

[Jeniffer31cX]

Lots of academic essay writing connecting with would be finished for people which wanna to have knowledge fantastic issue close to to home page.