avakesh

Justifying the kabbala of Ramak

It should be clear by now that one of the main defenses of Ramak in the Lurianic era is that the Ramak's system it describes a more limited, an earlier stage of the unfolding of the "olamos", the "World of Tohu". While it limits the relevance of Ramak's work, it preserves the validity of Ramak's kabbala from within a Lurianic perspective.

What is "olam hatohu"?

It is a stage after the World of Akudim in which the sefiros came out in the form of ten separate circles or points, one above the other and did not yet relate or interact with one another. Unlike the fully developed and mature vessels of the rectified world of Atzilut to come, these vessels are considered as merely "points." and do not interact.  For this reason, this world is also called olam ha'Nekudim, "the world of points."

The world of Nekudim (all of) the lights enter, experiences "breaking of the vessels". The remnants are reconfigured in a way that gives rise to the the worlds of Beriah, Yetsira, Asiaya and results in the formation of a dynamic configuration of sefiros known as Parstufim.

When it is said that the Kabbala of Ramak describes the World of Tohu, what must be meant is that it describes this world, as it exists now within the rectified world of Tikkun, as cited from Leshem in the previous post. It cannot refer to the "historical" World of Tohu, for that world did not have an interaction between sefiros and Ramak's entire thought is based on such interaction ( this appears to be the opinion of the Lubavitecher Rebbe as well, see below). This requires elaboration but not now.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was a strong defender of Ramak. On many occasions , and publicly, he referred to the fact that the kabbala of Ramak was accepted by Besht and the Maggid of Mezeritch. In an exchange of letters with Rabbis Ishaya Zelig Margolis and Menachcm Zev Haleivy Greenglass of Yerushalaim, he expressed the view that Achiah Hashiloni and Elahu Hanavi, the teachers of Besht, "knew what matters can be relied on" and that acceptability of Ramak (and Emek Hamelech" is based on what they passed on to Besht. On other occasions he called Ramak "Tohu Shebatikkun" and of Ari, "Tikkun shebatikkun". It seems to me that he has a somewhat different understanding of how Tohu can still exist within Tikkun than Leshem but this is a different discussion.  I attach a file of an article on this topic.

Download Ramak

I think that chassidic thought in general, not only in Lubavitch, saw in Ramak a system that was much easier to relate to the inner workings of the psyche than the much more complex Lurianic framework. It is more simple to relate the first three sefiros (chabad) to the working of thought, from its inception to its conceptualization, and the emotions that it engenders to the remaining seven sefiros, than to deal with interactions between mind/ thought and different contributing emotions at the same time. For example, it is more straightforward to say that anger arises from a negative thought (chabad) and expresses itself as angry behavior (gevurah), then to tease out the contributions of different thoughts and perceptions as well as the contribution from other emotions: frustration, fear, dissapointment, desire for security or dominance etc, and then analyze it in terms of the point of impact, the actual Partsuf, the episode, the angry act itself. 

Ramak's Defenders 2

Rama MiPano was not the only defender of Ramak. A list of authors who cited and dealt with his words even after R. Chaim Vital's exhortation not to study mekubalim from Ramban to Ari can be found in the introduction to Toras Noson 66-69 and Introduction ot Pardes published in 2000 by Yerid Haseforim in Yerushalaim. They include:

1.Mahari Ergas in Shomer Emunim 1:17

2.R. Moshe Graff in the introduction to Vayakhel Moshe (published in Dessau 1699, facs. edition Jerusalem 1963)

3.R. Yehuda ben Shlomo, Biurim L'Zohar, Saloniki, tof reish yud beis.

4.R. Shabsai Sheftel, Shefa Tal (this very important sefer was recommended by Chasam Sofer)

5.R. Noson Shapiro in many of his seforim.

6.Bach, who wrote a commentary to Pardes, republished in Yerushalaim as Biurei Habach by Minchat Yerushalaim TShNT).

7.Midrash Pinchas by R. Pinchas MiKoretz, Imrei Pinchas 5:6

8.Gro at the end of Tosefes L'Maase Rav. Maase Rav himself recommended study of philosophy, then study of Ramak, then study of Ari, as we discussed here.

9.Keser Rosh reporting teachings of R. Chaim Volozhiner (found at the end of SIddur Hagro) says: "it is good to study Sefer Hapardes, that it is Pelach Harimon (a summary of Pardes by Rama Mipano).

10.R.Menachem Menchin wrote at the end of his introduction to Hagohos V'Biurim to Eitz Chaim: "One should take great care to look into the works of the Chosid Luzzatto and the work Shomer Emunim, and is also obligated as much as is possible to study the Sefer Elima of Ramak for he who does not study it, know that it is at the expense of his soul."

11.R. Avraham Azulai, the grandfather of Chido, in Ohr Hachama summarised and collected explanations from Ohr Yakar, Ramak's voluminous commentary onf Zohar.

12.R. Yakov Tsemach had a manuscript of Ohr Yakar according to the testimony of R. Dovid Kanforti in his Toldos Haramak, Kore Hadoros.

13.Ramchal praises study of Ramak (Klach 17).

14.Leshem in Hakdomas Shaarim has a discussion of the difference between the approach of Gro, which in Otzros Hagro (Shaar 7) he calls "Derech Hamarchivim" and the "Shitas Hatsimtsum" held by R. Chaim Vital and Rashash. At issue is the existence of Olam Halevush, a stage before the revelation of Adam Kadmon. This concept is found in the writings of R. Yisroel Serug but not in R. Chaim Vital. When discussing this, and remember that Ram Mipano already identified Ramak's teachings with Olam Hatohu, the Leshem comments that Olam Hatohu is still present within the depth of Olam Hatikun and it is therefore still valuable to learn about it.

15.Rashash, even though he writes in Nahar Shalom p.132 (there are two editions out with different paginations) that, "I do not touch the works of early or late Kabbalists, never studied them and have no knowledge of them", on p. 141 quotes Ramak's Shaar Hatsachtsachos, Ch. 1.

16.Ramaz (R. Moseh Zacuto), who was a student of R. Binyamin Halevy who was a student of R. Chaim Harofe, a student of R. Chaim Vital, wrote notes to Pardes.

This list does not include those who valued Ramak's works primarily as an introduction to the study of Kabbala in general, whose views we will discuss separately. I also hope to add a post explaining how Ramak can be said to deal with Olam Hatohu, what this means and its ramifications to the study of his commentaries.

The significance of all these examples is that they demonstrate that many later mekubbalim did not take R. Chiam Vital's warning seriously.

Ramak's defenders

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.

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.

Do we all have the same Torah?

It is not uncommon for people to disagree on Torah topics and we are all familiar with this. It is a part of the background of aTorah life. However, it pays to ask, "Why?".

Many of us have had the experience of encountering knowledgeable Torah learned people who not only hold different opinion than we on many matters but hold opinions so outrageous and so obviousely different from what we perceive the Torah to teach that it is hard to believe that we all belong to the same religion. This is not only true in many debates in halacha where one says that a thing is permitted and another that is forbidden and even esteemed authorities come to radically opposed conclusions. It is also so in regard to basic hashkafa where it is not uncommon to find that one group holds something to be good and desirable and another group views it to be bad and outside the pale. There are those who are convinced that Zionism is an authentic and indipensable Jewish teaching and others who view it as a betrayal of religion. Some consider secular studies to be essential and others shun them. There are opposing views on so many matters of practice and doctrine.

Why is it so and shouldn't we attempt to understand it?

On the practical level, one encounters people who believe that Torah requires them to fight with all possible means "for the sake of truth" and others who will compromise every esssential belief and practice for the "sake of peace". There are those who light fires because they argue that the Torah requires them to do so and others who work only thorough peaceful and pleasant ways and  "turn away wrath". Though my sympathies lie with the latter and not the former, they also deserve to be understood - with respect, and not dismissed as psychologically or morally unbalanced.

We know, of course, that machlokes exist and always existed. But why do we, in this generation and place, disagree so profoundly and with so much conviction on so many subjects?

Chazal do say that there seventy faces to Torah ((Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15) or in other places, that there are fourty nine faces to Torah (Sofrim 16:5). Both statements might be true: the Gaon writes: " In the Torah there are seventy faces to the Orally transmitted Torah and 49 faces to the written Torah (Song of Songs 2:4). Another way to understand it is as  per Pesikta Rabbati (21:4, see Eruvin 13b), where we read: R. Yanai said: The Torah which God gave to Mosheh included forty-nine arguments in favor of purity and forty-nine arguments in favor of impurity [on any given question]...[Mosheh] asked: "How should we rule?" - to which God answered: "If those who argue in favor of impurity are the majority, it is impure; if those who argue in favor of purity are the majority, it is pure."

There is really no disagreement. In P'ninim mi'Shulchan ha'G'ro it says that  the seventy souls that went down to Egypt correspond to the seventy 'faces' via which Torah can be expounded, and b. the total of forty-nine of the children of Leah (33, including her daughter Serach) and her maidservant Zilpah (16), correspond to the forty-nine 'faces' of Taharah, and forty-nine 'faces' of Tum'ah via which the Torah can be expounded (Gen. 46).This we can handle. So far so good. However, here is a statement from Shaar Hagilgulim of R. Chiam Vitalm Hakdomo 17, that at first glance one might call "outrageous".

"Torah is the root of the souls of Israel for they were hewn out of it and rooted in it. This is why in the Torah there 600.000.00 explanations in pshat, 600.000.00 in derush, 600.00.00 in remez and 6000.00.00 in sod."... In the Future, each one will will achieve that explanation through which he was born...".The commentary Benei Aharon connects that second part of the statement to the Lurianic teaching that seventy "nitsosos" of Adam generate six hundred thousand souls. That explains the second part of what we quoted but how can one explain that every word and statement of the Torah can be explained in 600.000.00 different ways on the level of pshat. We can perhaps envision that derush and sod, even remez, can produce many differing explanations, but how can you generatesix hundred thousand explanations according to pshat?

Benei Aharon suggests that you can take this statement to refer to a chapter or topic. If so one can to produce many variations. So, for example if there are two words in a chapter that can each have two different explanations, there would be the following combinaitons: AB and BA. If there are three words or phrases that can have different explanations, we can have abc, acb, bac, bca, cab, cba. The general formula is n(n-1). (For the pruposes of Tsirufei Osios it would be divided by 2 because of duplications (i.e. abc and cba is the same etc).)

 You can see how you can quickly work this up to 600.000.00 combinations with only  a few different explanation as long as you are looking at a chapter of a group of verses.

I would like to suggest something else.  At the basis of it is the statement that  "once a talmid chacham learns Torah, it becomes his, as it says, "for in the Torah of Hashem is his desire and his (own Torah he engages day and night (Tehillim 1) ( A"Z 19a). I used to explain this with a parable of a puzzzle or a mosaic. Imagine that an artist is given most of the pieces of a mosaic but not all the pieces and not the the overal plan. He would start by matching pieces and come out with some kind of a partial picture. He would then extrapolate and fill the missing pieces as well as he can, based on his own udnerstanding and imagination. In order to complete the picture, he will have to extrapolate from the partial picture to the overall image and then manufacture pieces to fill in what is missing. This is essentially what a talmid chacham does nowadays. We do have many pieces of the mosaic, but, through forgetfullness and loss, not all of them. Every scholar constructs his own version of what the entire picture must have looked like. Not surprisingly these reconstructions can look very differentlly.  It is because of this that talmidei chochomim can disagree and diverge so greatly.

This is a good explanation but it still does not fully explain why different scholars come out with different overall reconstructions of the original intent.

The statement of Shaar Hagilgulim helps in this regard. As is now appreciated, words do not have a single meaning and many if not most words mean different things to different people. The more abstract a word or concept, the less do people share the same understanding ot it. To some people Love means control, to others abrogation of control and giving freedom and autonomy. Some  view "spirituality" as self-abnegation, others as redemptive self -fulfillment and so on... This is especially true in Lashon Hakodesh. In other words, words have a whole range of different meanings and different people have slightly different, sometimes very different understandings of the same word. In fact it would not be wrong to say that there are 6000.000.00 different understandings of the same word or concept. In everyday communication we share enough agreement about the basic meaning of words to understand each other. However, once we go farther, to interpreting complex and complicated verbal structures, we begin to understand words and their applications very differently.

There are six hundred thousand different souls and so, there are also that many ways to understand even a single word. We can now see that this kabbalistic teaching is not purely technical but, at its core, philosophical and practical.  

So, yes, we all have the same Torah but we do not all understand it the same - because each one draws an understanding according to his own soul-level. The Shaar Hagilgulim goes on to say that higher neshomos, ones that incorporate several different "roots' can possess multiple understandings at the same time. The ultimate in this regard was Moshe Rabbeinu, who was the source and encompassed all the six hundred thousand souls of Israel and could understand and contain all possible explanations.

How to study Kabbala: solutions

As we previously discussed, Lurianic Kabbala presents a problem. As transmitted by R. Chaim Vital it appears to be a purely technical construct, consisting of models and mechanical constructs and generously leavened with anthropomorphisms and elements of time and space. Partzufim morph one into another, undergo pregnancy and birth, have tops, bottoms, faces and backs, go down and up, revolve from left to right and posses insides and outsides. How is this possible within a spiritual world in which there is neither direction nor space, left or right, nor top and buttom. Farthermore, what is the spiritual value of studying blueprints and models and how does it bring someone closer to Hashem?

This central question led to the development of radically different approaches to udnerstanding Lurainic Kaabala. The analysis that follows draws to a great extent on that published by R. Yitzhak Ben-Zikri in his commentary  to Orchos Chaim, section of Maamarim in Vol.1 p.378-393 with some additional reflections of my own. This post will serve as an introduction, with elaborations to follow.

1.Approach of Ramchal: It is a parable (moshol).

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. Humans are limited and Hashem is very, very great. One must spend many years and great efforts and utilize every personal resource to gain even a momentary glimpse of the Divine. Utilizing every resource of human soul and intellect, every asset and reserve of imagination and feeling, the Kabbalist attempts to breach and push back the barriers that prevent us from grasping the ultimate. He 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 parable for a parable: During World War I tremendous efforts and great costs in lives and armaments were spent on moving the boundary between the warring parties by even a few hundred feet. It was considered worthwhile to expend all these resources for a gain of a few hundred feet. Similarly, and more elevated, a lifetime of study of elaborate models and parables of spiritual processes is the only way to glimpse just a little bit, a little more of the Divine.

This is attributed to the Gra in the name of R. Chaim
Volozhiner. The following comes not from R. Ben-Zikri but from R. Chaim
Friedlander in his introduction to KL'CH Pischei Chochma, p. 11. He
quotes from a letter of one of the 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 R. Chaim Vital 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 interpretation of a vision. One understands that visions contain many elements, some of them external to its meaning. R. Zadok Hakohen adds that understanding the parable and even tis interpretation is merely the study of kabbalistic pshat. The sod of Kabbala is only recognized through prophecy or ruach hakodesh.

R. Ben-Zikry for some reason ascribes this entire view to R. Zadok Hakohen;
he does not mention that it is found in the writings of Ramchal, such as in KL'CH 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. Ramchal pursues an approach that explains both the surface meaning of Lurainic teachings, which he calls Mareh and its inner meaning which he calls Pisron.

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 those who use practical Kabbala (kabbal maasit)
(Faith and Folly, Feldheim).

On the other hand, if kabbala 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.

(I must add a caveat here. I had this explanation of what Ramchal meant by "moshol" submitted to R. Yakov Hillel and what got back to me was that it was not valid. To what exactly he objected, or whether it was presented properly to him, was not clear.)

Approach II: The way of yichudim and kavonos

The approach of most sephardic kabbalists who follow Ari is to give up on understanding his meaning, which must be left for the soul in the World to Come. What is important is the uses that one can make of this knowledge in the form of kavonos and yichudim in prayer. The kabbalists of Bet El in Jerusalem spent a great deal of time in prayers built upon kavonos and yechudim, something that was not attemtped or particularly valued by other schools (Besht wrote that a general kavono of dveykus can substitute for yechudim).

R. Ben-Zikry speculates (in the name of R. Shmuel Toledano) that the approach of the sefardim negated the kelipa of Ishmael whereas the approach of European kabbalists was a bittul designed for the kelipa of Eisav. He relates it to the historical fact that Edomite attack on the Torah is though intellectual expedients whereas in the Arab lands they attacked Jews physically and not intellectually. Correspondingly, in Europe kabbalists attemtped to understand, whereas in the East they wanted only to serve.

Approach III: Return of Philosophy

I will not expand much on it as we spoke about this approach at some length already in the previous posts in this series.

Approach IV: Besht and his students

While students of Besht also wrote siddurim that contained kavonos and yechudim, the defining characteristic of the chassidic approach is: Deeper is Higher. The deeper one is able to reach into his own soul, the higher in the spiritual cosmos can he see, for each level of the soul is rooted above, just that it is connected to an individual instead of solely to the cosmos. In addition, as is known, Neshama is only located within the body in its lower parts. However, most of it is actually outside of the body. Metaphorically this means that, "from my flesh I see God (Iyov 19)", that penetrating into one's own soul takes one also into the realms of the Divine.

Here is the quote from Dor Dorim, Chapter 1: "The Light of Israel"

"While the Baal Shem Tov was in Kutov, he used to meditate in the mountains and fast from one Shabbos until the next. The purpose of his meditation (hisbodedus) in the mountains and wilds of the forests was this: he sought to become one with his inner being – with his feelings and thoughts; to hear the voice of his inner soul from her very depths, without any admixture of external influences, the hustle and bustle of the city and its surroundings; to become lucidly aware of the flow of his inner being and its inclinations, and to bring them entirely under the authority of the mind, freed from all external distraction. Prior to him, spiritual seekers devoted all of their energies to searching out all that exists above and below, and completely forget about themselves and their physical existence in order to know their ‘I.’ By contrast, the Baal Shem Tov introduced a new method of spiritual probing: a way to become an explorer of one’s inner being, and to vigilantly observe whatever took place in the chambers of one’s heart and soul, all of one’s inner faculties, and every movement, however great or small."

Baal Shem Tov recognized that it bodily states affect the nefesh, and ruach, and to a lesser degree, the neshama. He explained what we all instinctively understand - that our body affects our feelings and emotion. He also taught that for a person who learns to sense his inner soul, body states can serve as a means to influence and affect the deeper soul. Therefore, chassidic lifestyle incorporates a great deal of passionate prayer, singing, drinking and eating, and communal worship.  Baal Shem Tov taught us how to use everyday experience to move our emotions and through them to become aware of the soul's response to emotion and thus become aware of and come into a responsive relationship with the soul. However, the language in which shifting emotional states and moods are categorized and cognized is the language of Lurainic kabala.

Until his time, the body was viewed as generating desires, and an enemy of the soul. This no longer motivated man to the service of Hashem once the passionate acceptance of God's sovereignty cooled off in the prelude to Enlightenment. These days, the soul is but a concept; most people do not feel it and are not aware of their inner self. Besht taught us a new way of coming into a relationship with the neshama, through joy, through fellowship, through the physical aspects of life. A sensitive person who learns how to practice this teaching will attune himself to the soul's vibration and the chassidic lifestyle provides many opportunities to do so. So, one uses himself as the instrument with which he perceives and attunes supernal realities, all in the language of the Ari. Viewed this way, Lurianic teachings become something real and graspable. a sensation of the self and of Being with which one can work constantly and continuously to spiritually rise.

Choni's circle

Behalotecha by Chaim Gershon

Humanity has been fascinated with the shape of the circle for as long as we know. Ancient philosophers considered it to be the most perfect of shapes and it should not surprise us because a circle has great significance in Kabbalah.

     When Miriam was punished with Tzaras for saying lashon hara about Moshe, her brother drew a circle   (עוגה) , stood inside and vowed that he would not move until she was cured. Moshe davened, "I beseech you, God, please heal her." " אל נא רפא נא לה ". Many years later, his descendent Choni did the same when there was a drought, and when he performed a miracle with this circle, he became known as Choni, the Circle Maker.  Apparently understanding the power and meaning of the circle can make men who are already great, members of HaShem’s “household”. The Chumash says of Moshe, “in all my house, he is trusted”, and the Talmud calls Choni, a ”ben bayis”.

        So what is it about the circle? There is a simple three-stagegeometric  Kabbalistic model for the creation of the world according to the Arizal. Initially there was G-dliness everywhere. Then a void was formed by the Tzimtzum, the contraction of that revelation, so that a circular void was formed. The final stage was the drawing down of energy into the void through a line (kav) resulting in return of G-dliness, in a form both graduated and attenuated but still present everywhere, as the final state. Whereas the individual creatures could not survive and  would be nullified to non-existence if simply placed in the universe during the initial stage, now people can participate in the revelation of G-dliness, and this makes it possible for them to continue to persist in reality and retain the self-perception of themselves as independent autonomous beings.

 

        Most mekublim say the void was in the shape of a circle. Thus, when  both Moshe and Choni made the circle, they  were emulating the Divine creation, through prayer drawing down Heavenly energy from G-dliness that still surrounds our created Universe: this circular source is known also by the term makif. After standing in this supernal circle, Moshe utilized the name  "אל " as it corresponds to HaShem's attribute of chesed, the energy of giving and just as Hashem had drawn energy into a void, so Moshe drew Divine essence from outisde the circlular void into the created world. This is also comparable to the avodah of Eliyahu who also affected change through the efforts on Earth. Three great servants of Hashem, Moshe, Choni, and also Eliyahu were able to transcend time. Moshe stayed on Har Sinai for 40 days three times without food and water, Choni slept for 70 years without aging a day and Eliyahu lives on forever. Through this connection, rising above time, when it was needed, they were able to actualize their requests by changing keter/ratzon/will, that component of  Divine Will that bridges the Godliness that surrounds our world and Godliness within it. 

 

        There is another opinion among Kabbalists that contends that the shape of tzimtzum is that of a square. The square in Kabbalah is considered a man-made shape: "There is no square from the six days of Creation". The geometric operation that relates the two views, the circle and the square, is that of circumscribing. One can draw the circle inside the square or one can draw the square inside the circle. The two Kabbalistic opinions disagree about which is on the higher relative level; ultimately, in the end the difference in opinion amongst these kabbalists is about where and how the Tzimtzum- contraction is occuring.  This is mathematically relevant to the halachas of the sukkah and of the eruv, especially the eruv techumim.  In the latter case, Eruv, that encloses space, is seen as the structure of the Shabbas:  a circle with a square inside, holiness enveloping the work of the week.  Similarly, kabbalists see the circle as the feminine shape and the square as the masculine shape.  This has real world repercussions: for example, there is an opinion that the bride's ring is supposed to be a circle inside a square representing this union. Thus there are two possible contrasting states of potential: a circle and a square, actualized through their interaction. 

 

        Sefer Gilgulim and Likutei Shas Arizal discuss the reincarnations of the soul associated with Choni, the Circle Maker. Originally the soul was that of Og ( עוג), the same grammatical root as circle. When Chazal report that Og survived during the Flood by sitting outside of the ark during the Flood, they allude to the state of a circle surrounding a square, as the ark was a box. However, by being outside of Noah’s ark, Og remained disconnected from rectifying the world, represented by the square of the Ark.

 Korach also was also a protagonist of a circle, being that his tribe is that of Levi, which that of gevurah and feminine relative to the masculine chesed of the Cohanim.  Gevurah is related to the makif of the circle whereas the Chesed is the true form of the Kav that entered the empty space after the Tzimtzum. The reason  why Korach proposed that garments should not require tzizis is because they should be circular garments. Korach and Og are opposites of Moshe and Choni because the former wished to keep a suspended state of the circle rather than drawing down the energy into the world whereas the latter wanted to draw Divinity into the world. Korach and Og represent the circle in itself whereas Choni and Moshe represent the circle in its effect on the world, in engagement with it. The luchos contain both the suspended samech and the closed mem, giving both of these approaches a place within the Holy Torah. The goal of reconciliation of both of these types of circles was partly achieved through the discussions of the Oral Torah by Abaye and Rabbah. Abaye lived for 60 years  while Rabbah lived for 40 years; these ages correspond to the gematriyot of samech and mem. Their talmudic arguments are an avodah from below like davening. There is yet another level, more precious and more elevated. This is the learning of Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai, the Rashbi,  who drew down energy and rain directly from above by saying Torah. Very few are said to achieve the level of the Rashbi in terms of interaction with the world: it is in the realm of the possible to be a Choni.

 

 

Selected Bibliography

Master-a-Masechta Taanis by Rabbi Nachman Cohen

Ohr HaTorah (Tzemach Tzedek) Behalosecha p. 403

Rogachover Mpaneach Raza…p.87

Taanis 23a and Ben Yehoyada

Zohar Bereshis 5b see commentaries: Ketem Paz, Mikdash Melech, Damesek Eliezer

Commentary to Etz Chaim from the Baal Leshem Sh'vo V'Achlamah

Likutei Moharan 59:3

Sefer Gilgulim

Sefer Likutei Shas Arizal

"Made in Heaven" Aryeh Kaplan

Sod Yesharim (Ishbitz)

Rebbe Rashab Ayin Beis..

Torat Levi Yitzhak to Kiddushin

 

Yechezkel's vision

The following video is an interesting attempt to visualize Yechezkel's vision. It is, unquestionably faulty. The producer, having no benefit of the Jewish perspective fails to realize the underlying message of Yechezkel's vision, that it is a procession, a chariot that bears upon it Hashem's Glory that is driven from the Land of Israel and now makes its way to Bavel, to dwell with the exiled remnants of Israel (R. Yoseph Carlebach, Die drei grossen Propheten Jesajas, Jirmija und Jecheskel). I think that this also explains why the vision was on the river of Kevar, since following the course of the river spares the Divine chariot from passing over uncleanliness inherent in Chutz La'aretz, or Jewish bodies that may be haphazardly buried within it (see Gittin 7b). The video does not see "the big picture" and is excessively literal, visualizing the Ofanim, for example, as free standing wheels, rather than the wheels of the Merkaba (of course the wording is obscure and different interpretations can be offered) . This is a good example of how loosing track of the larger context results in an excessively literal, and therefore incorrect, interpetation. The same goes for the other video that I post, a model of keruvim, which, as the carriers of the Merkaba should have the body of a human but be shaped more like a beast of burden. However, there is nothing like having to construct a model that forces one to deepen his understanding of all the details. Despite the caveats, I think that these videos are very interesting and make us think about what Yechezkel actually saw, withotu having to consider the underlying meaning, and so, I share them with the readers.

How to study Kabbala: The problem

In the last post in this series we spoke of the connection between philosophy and Kabbala. It is important now to specify that this connection progressively weakened with the ongoing revelation of kabbalistic mystery but the connection was not broken until the coming of the Ari Hakodosh. True, early kabbalists in Spain competed with philosophy ( with works such as Sefer Ho-emunos, available in "Amudei Hakkabala"), but this just underscores the common language and conceptual systems that they shared. As we move forward in history, you find farther and farther separation in language and approach between philosophy and Kabbala but what they continue to share is the methodology. At this point, kabblasits still use reasoning and analogies to understand the content of the mysterious books of Zohar, Sifra D'Tshniusa, Sefer Hatemuna, Sefer Yetsirah, Sefer Habahir etc.  We find, for example, as late as the Ramak, the use of reasoning to evaluate various positions in order to decide which are correct and the use of analogies from everyday experience to make sense of obscure kabbalistic teachings. The experience of studying the Pardes is that of sitting at the feet of a wise and patient teacher who slowly clarifies every point, considers every details and carefully constructs and puts a structure together in front of your eyes .

That is not the experience of studying Lurainic writings. Instead one finds himself in a weird and beautiful landscape where nothing is familiar and things happen according to rules that one cannot fathom. There are terms that are outrageously unfitting to the concepts they are said to represent, wild anthropomorphisms, allusions  that are taken for granted and events that follow some other inner logic than the one we know and understand. Nothing is familiar and, if a thing for a moment looks familiar, it suddenly and unexpectedly dissolves into something unrecognizable. One stands, or perhaps, floats in a fantastic, symbolic landscape, without tools to make sense of his experience. I am not talking about some mystical vision but of reading standard Lurainic texts.

This is where many beginners flounder. Even accomplished talmidei chachamim, whose bellies are filled with Shas and Poskim can spend years in the frustrating effort to make sense of what they read. Many give up at and walk away from the whole experience.

That is not to say that Lurainic Kabbala does not make sense. Rather it means that one needs the keys. As we will discuss, there are several approaches to this conundrum, including the return to a philosophical language, accepting the Lurianic corpus as something not to understand but fulfill (mostly through kavvonos and yechudim) or using it as a guide to inner experiences, the path of Baal Shem Tov. But it does mean that immersing oneself directly in the writings of the Ari, unless one has a teacher, is not the best way. For one who studies by himself, and has the requisite philosophical background, the best approach, I believe, is spending a few years on gaining familiarity with either Pardes or Avodas Hakodesh. One finds then that their clarification of the basic concepts, such as what are the sefiros, how does Divine light descend, permutations of the Names, goes a long way toward understanding the Lurianic landscape. But this takes time and persistence and ...a philosophic background. R. Kaplan's translations and commentary to Sefer Yetzirah and Bahir can also.serve as a good beginner's introduction to kabbalistic terminology, if not conceptualization.

As an aside, the unique features of Ari's kabbala as transmitted by R. Chaim Vital do not appear to be found in the teachings of the other great student of the Ari, R.Yisroel Serug. We don't know much about what R. Yisroel Serug actually taught, except though the prism of two of his greatest student. R. Menachem Azaria MiPano and R. Avrohom Hakohen Herrera. (I do not know enough about Ma'abor Yabok to be able to comment). Both used reasoning and discourse as their method of study. The latter, in fact,  dedicated his life's work to the reconciliation of Ari's kabbala as taught by R. Yisroel Serug and the philosophical tradition.

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.