One way to sideline R. Chaim Vital's criticism or pre-Lurianic Kabbala is to demonstrate that his opinion was ignored by virtually all Kabbalsits who came after him. First of all, R. Chaim Vital himself quotes and argues with Ramak in Shaar Haklalim, 12 and mentions him four times in Shaar Maamarei Rashbi (pp.98, 173, 291). In the last year of Ramak's life, the Arizal came to Safed. He too studied under Ramak, whom he refers to as "our teacher." Not only did Ari learn from Ramak, he considerd himself Ramak's successor. In this presentation, there is not, and never has been a break between Rmak and Ari's teachings.
Shivchei HoAri relates (free translation):
Before his passing in 1570, the Ramak said: "Know, that a man will come after me and enlighten your eyes in the wisdom fo Kabbala. Even if you understand that he argues against me, it is not true. Rather, in his days the conduits of holiness wil be closed and I wrote what I srote in a hidden fashion and through using the concepts fo sefiros. However, after my death, the conduits will be more revealed and that man will explain his words with concepts of Partsufim. And even though many of that person's statements may seem to contradict mine, do not oppose him and do not argue with him, for they stem from the same source as do mine and are absolutely true. His soul is a spark of Shimon bar Yochai's, and whoever opposes him opposes the Shechinah (the Divine Presence)."
"What is his name?" the disciples queried.
"I cannot tell you. At this point, he doesn't want his identity made known. This, though, I can say: He who sees the cloud which at my funeral will precede my bed, will be my successor."
A few weeks later, on the 23rd day of the month of Tammuz, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero passed on to his Heavenly reward.
Stunned by the news of this great loss, the entire community mourned. At his funeral, which was attended by all of Safed's Jews, many eulogies were recited. Among the eulogizers was the Ari, who described the Ramak as totally free of sin.
As the throng accompanied the Ramak on his last earthly journey, all wept bitterly. When the bearers of the his holy body reached the cemetery, they continued walking a long while, until reaching a certain site. Then, turning to the following crowd, they said: "We shall bury him here, beside one of Israel's greatest sages."
However, the Ari stopped them, crying out: "Don't bury him here. The cloud which is preceding him has continued on its path. Surely it will indicate where the Ramak desires to be buried."
Hearing these words, they knew the identity of their new leader.
Since I am writing this in the week of parshas Ki Teitse, I refer to Ari's eulogy on Ramak which can be read on p.158, here.
Torah Noson (Introduction, pp. 66-69) cites many Kabbalists after R. Chaim Vital who discuss and go back and forth in the Torah of Ramak. Similarly, Rabbi Yeshayahu Hurwitz, author of Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Shelah), considered himself a student of Ramak and quoted extensively from his works. Chesed L'Avraham and Ohr Hachama on the Zohar, by the great R. Avrohom Azulai ((1570-1644) , draw extensively from Ramak, as well as Ari.
We will address the Chassidic approach to the relative standing of Ramak and Ari in a separate section.
Ramak and Ari spoke of different kabbalistic facets or worlds.
As is known, Rama MiPano(1548 1620); was a devoted student of Ramak "from his manuscripts" and he spend much wealth to obtain Ramak's writngs. One can dismiss this, however, since Ram MiPano received his Lurianic teachings via R. Yisroel Sarug and not R. Chaim Vital. Rabbi Menachem Azaria DeFano was one of Europe's leading Kabbalists, and he taught from Ramak's Pardes Rimonim regularly. This is what Ram MiPano writes in the introduction to his summary of Pardes entitled Pelach HaRimon, "He who despises him (Ramak) and his wisdom, God will despise him. For Moshe is true and his Torah is true according to the simple meaning of the words of Zohar and Geonim. Is someone who despises Radak's commentaries because he prefers Rashi going to give an account in judgment? Ramak opens the gates of understanding to the pshat that will not lie, even if there is also in it a deep meaning. So also is this matter, for Ramak opened for us the gates to the wisdom of Truth and through them every man can enter into the Hall. However, the Chacham Ramak expounded all his years the world of Belima (Tohu);and all the details on which we can expound in that world, he is justified to enter into the straight, perfect and clear way, in which there is not blemish".
In these few words, R Azaria Menachem MiPano touched on many themes. He says that Ramak and Ari speak of different worlds, which we will explain, he says that Ramak's teachings are pshat and are as true as the Ari's deeper derushim, and that Ramak remains valuable as an introduction to Kabbalistic sciences, before a student is ready to or should approach Ari's teachings. Similar sentiments are found in R. Moshe Zakutos' first note at the end of his Mevo Shearim and R. Meir Popper's second introduction to Eitz Chaim.
The contention that Ramak and Ari simply reveal different facets of kabbalistic worlds is already found in the words of Shivchei HoAri that I cited above. One must keep in mind that probably the most visible difference between Ramak and Ari is that the former used sefiros and the laltter uses partsufim ( although in Elima Rabba Ramak discusses Partsufim, which may simply be a nod to the Idras in which this concept is found, or may in truth reflect his deep knowledge of the system of partsufim which he may not have wanted to explicate in his other works). The simplest way to assign Ramak and Ari to different and complementary levels is to find in the more complex Lurainic system a point in which there are only sefiros and not yet Partsufim. This point is found on the level of Nekudim, also known as Tohu, or sometimes referred to as Atsilus (since it is before the fragments of keilim fell into Beriah) when the sefiros were just "coming out" and before Sheviras Hakeilm and formation of Partsufim. The question that I have on this approach, to me, is that at this point there was only a brief and incomplete arrangement of CHadar (Chesed, Din, Rachamim) - so how can one speak of a complete, independent and functioning system? More on this in the following post.
Comments