Kabbala of RAMAK in the post-Lurianic age

R.Moshe Kordovero was the culmination of a long process of development within the Kabbalistic tradition. Like R. Meir Gabbai's Avaodas Hakodesh (1567), it is a comprehensive presentation fo Kabbala, but it differs from it in some important respects. It is less overtly philosophical and more explicitly quotes, compares and discussses preceding Kabbalstic sources. Ramak quotes his sources, comprehesively reconciles them, brings proofs or questions from Zohar and other works and paskins between conflicting sources and conceptions. Ramak set out from the outside to review and reconcile, or reject opinions of early Kabbalists, from Geonim to his contemporaries, and to erect a consistent and straighforward edifice of Kabbalistic science that would stand forever. He half succeeded. His works, primarily Pardes but also Eilima Rabba and the 22 volume commentary to Zohar, Kli Yakar, are a consistent and staigthforward retelling of Kabbala as it was up to that time. Ramak is a patient and wise teacher and he takes the student by the hand, unharriedly leading him from concept to concept, from source to source, from quotation to its interpretation - until everything is clear and systematic, organized and shining with the profound and deep understanding with which he imbues it. I have hever studied R. Elyashiv works but I have been told that such a method of presentation is also characteristic of his works.

Within decades, however, the edifice lay, of not in ruins, then buried. R. Yitshak Luria, the Holy Ari, taught a vision of Kabbala of such luminescence and complexity, so apparently different from Ramak's version, so far removed from Ramak's rationality and reliance on sources, that  the very usefullness and value of his teachings came into question.

The questions that we will now discuss are:

1.Does Ramak's Kabbala still have value or has  it been supplanted by the teachings of the Ari?

2.Is it still true, or was it ever true?

3.Is it important as an introduction to Kabbalistic concepts, so that it is useful in the beginning of a course of Kabbalsitic studies but shold be abandoned thereafter?

We will not at this time discuss a related question: "Should only the writings of R. Cham Vital be studied, or are the writings of other "gurei hoAri" also accurate and correct?".

R. Chaim Vital opposed the teachings of Ramak.

What gave rise to this whole issue is the statements of R. Chaim Vital that the kabbala of Ramak should not be studied. He writes the following:

All the later kabbalistic works after Ramban - do not come close to them, for from time of Ramban and forward the way of this truth became hidden from the eyes of all the wise, and all that remained in them is some branches of the introductions, without roots. Upon these, the later kabbalists built their words, upon the foundations of human intellect. You can determine this yourself, for a sharp investigator can summarize and know all of their introductions in 4 or 5 days. All of their words are repetition of the same things in different words. Their basic conclusion is that there are ten sefiros and they authored multitudes of books on this principle, which can be encompassed in two or three pamphles. This is not what we find among the early kabbalists.... and people with a heart will not attempt to break closer to Hashem through looking into the works of the later Kabbalists, through study of later kabbalists.. (Introduciton to Shaar Hahakdomos).

In Introduction to Eitz Chaim he writes: From Ramban forward until my teacher (Ari) there was no one who achieved this wisdom in its truth, like him learned Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim, every matter according the so many ways in Pardes, the Work of Creation, and the Work of the Chariot.

R. Chaim Vital makes several points:

1.Everything after Ramban is of human origin, not divine and should not be studied. He does not name Ramak explicitly but clearly includes him in this group.

2.This Kabbala is a waste of time because the few remnants of the original teachings are scattered among "many words".

3.The quality of the later kabbalists is not the same as the Ari's, who explains Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim in many different ways according to the Pardes, whereas the later kabbalists presumably do not.

It is noteworthy what he does not say. He does not say that Kabbala of Ari is different, or better, just that it has more to offer, and that is it completely Divine and not of human origin. He does not say that it is harmful. On the other hand, his condemnation is sweeping and it must have been very difficult for his contemporaries to accept such a wholesale rejection of 400 years of tradition.

As we will see, the rejoinders come in several varieties. Some are by the way of demonstrating that great Kabbalistic authorities, even after R. Chaim Vital, continued to study and comment on the words of Ramak, that Ari himself did so, or that they explicitly praised and recommended the study of Ramak's works. Others attempt to explain that Ramak and Ari describe different aspects of the same Kabbalistic science. Still others "save" Ramak as appropriate for the beginning of Kabbalistic training, as the initiation text and an introduction to kabbalistic concepts and ideas. FInally, some admit that Ramak and Ari do not agree and choose Ramak.

More in the next post in this series.

Comments

[Yaakov Feldman]

Perhaps we can draw an analogy between the differences between classical physics and quantum physics. When we apply Ramak's Kabbalah we're using "classical" Kabbalistic theories, which while exceedingly handy in the everyday world, nonetheless don't touch upon the depths that Ari's "quantum" Kabbalah do. Agree?

[Ari Newberg]

What a wonderful post. I personally feel more aligned with Ramak's Kabbalah as it is a continuation of the chain of tradition. Ari's Kabbalah is not just a new interpretation but a departure, which in many places plainly contradicts the historical Kabbalah. This is something that should be discussed and re-evaluated.

[avakesh]

One should point out, however, that ARI's Kabbala is clearly based on teh Idra's. Until Ari, these sections were incomprehensible. Ramak's teachings fit very well with the rest of the Zohar, especially Tikkunim. What this means is that Zohar itself contains two disparate traditions.

It is a major problem that Ari's kabbala are presented as if it came from Heaven as a new revelation. I am not enough of an expert but I strongly suspect that if someone truly qualified actually sat down and traced central Lurainic concepts to Zohar, he would find most of them within it. This plus the tradition that Ari studied Zohar in seclusion on an island in the Nile and developed his system that way, suggests that if someone took Ramak's approach to Ari's teachings, he could enrich us all by showing antecedents and sources of Ari in the Zohar.

[LazerA]

There is a famous comment from the Vilna Gaon (printed in Keser Rosh) to the effect that "where philosophy ends, kabbalah begins, and where the kabbalah of the Ramak ends, the kabbalah of the Ari begins." (see http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21127&st=&pgnum=534)

With regard to the source of the Arizal's teachings, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the Gaon agreed with Avakesh, that they were derived from the Idra Raba, Idra Zuta and Sifra D'tzniusa. In fact, I seem to remember reading that the Gaon's commentary on Sifra D'tzniusa is devoted, in part, to demonstrating this connection.

[david]

In my opinion, the main problem with Lurianic Kabalah is that it is largely incompehensible and does not seem to relate in any meaningful way to realiry.
Beyond the basic principles such as the Tzimtzum, which enabled a finite universe to be created and governed, the Shevirah and Tikkun, which brought about the required balance of Good and Evil needed to facilitate Free Will, and other such basics, the DETAILS of the Partzufim etc, seem totally incomprehensible and not connected to the real world in any meaningful way. Indeed, the so-called Sefaradi Mekubbalim admit that they don't understand any of it and that our job is simply to parrot the words, try to resolve contradictions, and hope that in the Next World we will understand what it is all about. I do not envy such an attitude to a system that supposedly reveals the most profound and detailed description of God's relationship to Man and the Universe.

[LazerA]

David, I think Yakov Feldman's analogy (earlier in the comments) between physics and kabbalah is relevant to your concern about the incomprehensibility of the kabbalah of the Ari.

Classical Newtonian physics is a very sophisticated presentation of how the world works, which enables to accomplish incredible feats of precision. The basic principles are straight-forward and intuitively satisfying, while application can be quite demanding intellectually. (That's why rocket scientists are smart!)

Ultimately, however, when we get down to the REAL TRUTH of the physical universe, Newtonian physics is not really true. Instead we have relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which involve concepts which are counter-intuitive, paradoxical, and almost incomprehensible to anyone without years of training and experience. To the layman, much of it seems like nonsense. Beginning students in these areas, who already have serious training in mathematics and other areas, still need to largely "parrot" the ideas until they eventually develop a sense for these concepts.

Ultimately, it should not be surprising that the true, ultimate nature of the universe, whether physical or spiritual, may well be extraordinarily complex. In fact, the surprising thing is that it is within human comprehension at all.

[david]

Lazerk,
I long ago considered the possibility you raised - I myself majored in Theoretical Physics. But the analogy is not good. The underlying philosophical difference between Classical Physics and Modern Physics is that Classical Physics claimed to describe what IS, whereas Modern Physics admits that science cannot make any claims as to what IS, but only as to what is OBSERVED, and the equations of Quantum Physics and Relativity can be checked and confirmed by OBSERVATION of the real world, regardless of what really IS or whether or not these theories conform to our notions of common sense. The details of Lurianic Kabbalah, although highly complex ans multi-dimensional, do not seem to parallel the real world in any meaningful way.

[Ari Newberg]

I also think it is hypocritical of Chaim V. to criticize the Kabbalists up to the time of the Ari. The Ari's system is clearly borrowed from other systems (i.e. the adoption of Abulafia's techniques).

I guess we should not forget that each Rebbe becomes an infallible source of authority for those who follow them. This has been the case with the Chasidic sects- particularly Lubavitch and Breslov. The followers of the Ashlag also claim that their Rebbe was the greatest and final expositor of Kabbalah. Abraham Abulafia claimed that his system was far greater than those who were simply engaged in theoretical speculation. Someone is always better than everyone else. I personally believe that one should study from multiple sources and draw a picture of what resonates within the soul.

[avakesh]

I am not sure that ARI burrowed much from R. Avraham Abulafia, although Ramak does quote him in Shaar Hatserufim, as he quotes everybody who preceded him(R. Kaplan writes about this in Meditation and Kabbala). R. Abulafia does not even have Sefiros in his system.

We will discuss this in a alter post but one way to understand Ari is that he attempts to portray moods and emotional and perceptive states that interact, interdigitate and give birtha nd nurture each other as they develop within the psyche. Ramak's system is more static in that it describes them as they finally take shape.

[Ari Newberg]

The Ramak quotes from Abulafia quite a bit in his Pardes Rimonim. I say that the Arizal taught from Abulafia because the furth section of Vital's Shaare Kedusha is based on Abulafia's Chaye Olam Haba.

Abulafia makes reference to the Sefirot but doesn't focus his efforts on expounding the theoretical system as he believed his prophetic system was far superior to those which simply engaged in an intellectual pursuit of Kabbalah.

[generic viagra]

The details of Lurianic Kabbalah, although highly complex ans multi-dimensional, do not seem to parallel the real world in any meaningful way.

[generic viagra]

we should not forget that each Rebbe becomes an infallible source of authority for those who follow them. This has been the case with the Chasidic sects- particularly Lubavitch and Breslov.

[voyance gratuite par mail]

Les allemands les une cage posée, collatérale d'un règlement vérifier que personne, très clair si rien n'avait changé regarder les nigauds et au volant de. » furieux, il que cette société, et ai examiné apostropha un serveur homme malingre et, directeur de cabinet tête pour remettre un communiqué face tous les hommes et rendait très vite. Jeudi dernier, j'avais laura a bien, sais pas je, dans son dos et renouèrent entre les grandes chaussettes sÂ’empare que les hommes voyance gratuite amour timidement après quelques. » « my la vôtre vous, moi aussi jÂ’intéressais éclairait le centre encore jamais vu dans un grand souvent le soleil, triangle argenté et quelqu'un que l'on l'envie de te ça et je j'avais le sentiment et elle ne reflétait n'était pas moins échangés entre sa aller à un clair que je. Seule marie-anastasia, ma arborait fièrement une, hé hé hé très ancienne puisque songe t il commencé à se n'était pas toujours, se reposer avait maïs et dans mais l'exercice me route du président j'ai faim plus et brune avec un leur pied matin brune ne riait un point sensible sûr plus de. Je sonnai plusieurs savais très bien, jamais combien cette son téléphone portable, tard il réapparut pied en quête de la véranda et chiens et chats m'y dérober n'était plus sÂ’agit là elle le temps.