Hirsch and Kabbala II

Introduction

This is the follow-up to my post which- perhaps misleadingly- was called R' Hirsch against Kabbalah. 

Here I quoted from The Nineteen Letters Rav Hirsch’s view that, through misconception, Jewish observances had become “magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds”.  Seeing the concept of mitzvot as affecting “extra-mundane dream worlds” had led the mitzvot to be seen as mechanical devices for affecting the spiritual world

In contrast, one should view mitzvot as making man better able to fulfill a this-worldly mission.  The following is part of an interesting correspondence based on that post.

Adam

From all I've experienced of 'current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism' the entire kabalistic view of Jewish life and purpose is no different than the very non-kabalistic. Both hold the the point of life is to utilise this world for the sake of achieving something higher than this world. Both hold the way to do this is through indentifying the which decisions are the right decisions, conquering 'self' and consistently making the right choice not the easy choice.

Both hold this is done (only) in the realm of the physical, the ritual [although I am of the opinion that there is no act that is considered purely ritual in Judaism - every act has personal meaning and is performed to enhance the actor's relationship with Hashem - and not (only) in some lofty spiritual way, but in very 'real' (as if the other , isn't!) intellectual and emotional terms], the emotional and above all the day-to-day.

To suggest otherwise for either on behalf of one betrays a lack of knowledge of the other. (Not that I claim to have expertise in either, but just the opposite. It's clear to anyone who has had a little education in either that the above is true)

Also, I would suggest that the comments from R.Hirsch above are talking about those throughout history who pervert Kabalah by turning it into a pseudo-religion or who use it for personal benefit. who the past and current 'Chassidic and Charedi world' also disown. Obviously having not seen the text inside, this may be incorrect. Quotes in context will prove one way or the other.

Neil Clarke

You are both right and wrong here, Adam. The first point to reiterate is that, as I said in post, the issue is not with Kabbalah itself, whatever that actually means. The issue is with the beliefs that people (Orthodox Jews) teach as 'kabbalistic beliefs'.

How else can I use the word? What else shall we call the mystic teachings which he is rejecting?

The area, therefore, in which you are absolutely right, and I made the same point myself, is that there is nothing wrong with the 'sources' of Kabbalah and that mode of learning. You are further right that Hirsch bemoans the misunderstanding of those sources. He says that they "are an invaluable repository of the spirit of Tanach and Talmud, which has unfortunately been misunderstood".

The question then is what the misunderstanding consists in, and this is where we will disagree. Hirsch is not saying that people have misinterpreted these other worlds, or been taught by the Kabbalah Centre! The misinterpretation lies in taking them to be·
talking about other worlds in the first place.

In their 'aggadic context' they are invaluable in helping us understand the world and leading to the purification and betterment of man. As such, a lot of the symbolism discussed in the Horeb is based on Zoharic explanations. But (just as he makes clear with regard to aggada generally) ones we take them as 'literal' we have misunderstood them.

Now you must admit that when elements of the chassidic and charedi worlds talk about 'other worlds' and utilise mystical explanations they take this, in some sense, literally. Now when I say 'literally' I'm not accusing anyone of crude anthropomorphism [or whatever the word is which builds those worlds in terms of our own] . This is why I said 'in some sense' they are 'real' worlds.

The real question is that does he think people have misunderstood the nature of these real worlds or does the misunderstanding consist in taking the kabbalistic sources to be talking about other worlds in the first place? I take it from your comments that you agree with the first, whereas I suggest the second.

When he comments on the Korbanot saying "they are neither a transitory concession to a generation still steeped in heathen views, nor do they form a chapter of kabbalistic, magical mysteries.... Their meaning and purpose is teaching the way to keep the ideals of the Torah". Here he first takes issue with Rambam (as he does often) and then with a kabbalistic view talking about the mysteries of the universe. If he accepts the Zoharic explanations but says they don't talk about mysteries of universe, then he is saying that to do so is a misunderstanding.

Both sides to the above question have been held. The first position, that whilst he didn't USE mystical teachings, he was in no way against them was held by Dayan Grunfeld and Rabbi Elias.

However, R' Danziger says the following:

"A non-apologetic reading Of Rav Hirsch’s words will indicate he is referring to two opposing, rather than complementary, approaches. He is not complaining that the ethical does not complement the extramundane. No amount of apologetics can get around the hard fact that Rav Hirsch calls the extramundane worlds of (what is in his opinion) “misconstrued” kabbalah “external DREAM-worlds”"

Also R' Aryeh Carmell on why he follows R' Hirsch in using the Zohar despite omitting mystical references:

"This too is not surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche." [hence why acceptable]

Do non-Jewish actions count for anything?

Sometimes Facebook status messages and subsequent comments deserve more attention, and greater longevity, than they would get if hidden away on someone’s ‘Wall’ beneath hundreds of other messages.  This is one such status message.  Someone who has “Unofficial Jewish tendencies” and greatly attracted to Chassidut and Kabbalah became disheartened on hearing their views of non-Jews.  I believe the discussion bears on important issues. 

Please note: I have edited the discussion, changing names apart from my own and taken out the numerous personal comments.  It is not about the person involved but the issues involved.

---- 

Jane Jackson learnt today that my deeds "do not add or subtract from the state of creation, nor do they cause Gd to reveal itself or withdraw. All they can do is bring about their own gain or loss..." and is feeling more than a little disheartened.

Neil Clarke On the other hand, Rambam says "With a single good deed he will tip the scales for himself, and for the entire world, to the side of good."

Jim Bowen Bye, bye Chassidus

Jane Jackson Is Rambam referring to Jews perchance?

Jim Bowen This week Ramban calls Rambam a heretic. Judaism can descend into racism pretty quickly when you make an ontological commitment to certain chassidic ideas.

Jane Jackson Are you saying from a NON chassidic viewpoint that my deeds do effect a change in the spiritual realm? Or that there is no connecton between physical deeds and changes in the spiritual realm at all? Hmmm?

Neil Clarke As to your earlier question, Rambam does say "all men", as opposed to "all Israel" when talking about our customs during ten days of repentance. Plus, Rambam never makes an absolute distinction between Jews and Gentiles. We will find it easier because of the Torah but everyone has the same potential. He believes non-Jews have the same capacity for prophecy.

Neil Clarke As to your question about "spiritual realms" a non-kabbalist (let us leave chassidim out of it, because you can have non-chassidic kabbalists) wouldn't talk about 'spiritual realms' in the same way. But they would definitely say our actions have an effect in a) this world b) our soul c) G-d's accounting of us. Rav Hirsch, for example, thinks it makes mitzvot 'amulets' if you want them to effect (what he calls) 'dream worlds'. The Torah allows us to make spirituality a living reality

Jane Jackson So are you saying (or Rambam saying...) that non-Jews have a neshama with the same potential as a Jewish neshama in terms of spiritual growth and attainment (ie. in olam haba)? And would a non-kabblist say that a non-Jew's actions have the same effects in this world/our souls/Gd's accounting of us? Or lesser?

Jim Bowen Bilam is the key Torah example of a non-Jewish capacity for prophecy. Regarding your last question, the latter option is the more likely, owing to a fundamental disagreement in the nature of the spiritual realm. To clarify, I thought your... original quote was non-chassidic, referring to everyone. Neil, I refer to chassidus because it incorporates the kind of ideology which I'm assuming Jane is being exposed to here; I could be wrong. A non-chassidic kabbalist worth looking at if you want another take would be Rav Yitzchak Kook; I don't know if he would say something similar to what you've heard here, but somehow I suspect not. Where did this come from? A more level playing field is created by dispelling the notion of the divine spark within a Jew (something inherently present) and considering instead the divine potential of a human to become like Gd through their actions (which emulation we would say is possible through study of the Torah as an instruction manual to guide decisions).

Jane Jackson Non Jews do not have a divine spark then? I was reading Derech Hashem....

Jim Bowen I've always had a problem with the racist undertones when I've been told that non-Jews are fundamentally different and in some way 'spiritually' inferior to Jews. Don't have the sources to counter it to my satisfaction though I'm afraid; maybe Neil does. :)

Jim Bowen The question is not whether non-Jews have a divine spark, but whether such a thing as a piece of Gd exists in people at all. Rather, do we not all have potential to fulfil Gd's will? The non-Jew has fewer obligations, making it easier I suppose, but the more mitzvot required of a person the more difficult it is to do what Gd wants of you, thus the more praiseworthy it is to do it. I think. Does that make sense?

Neil Clarke I can't speak on behalf of all non-kabbalists! For Rambam, yes- a non-Jew has the same potential. Only Jews have a "divine nation" where all these things are written into our everyday laws and lives, and so we will be more likely to be successful. But 'the righteous of all nations have a place in Olam Haba'

Plus, 'neshama' may be a slightly different concept for non-Kabbalists. Kabbalists have it that a neshama is literally part of G-d. Adam Kadmon was an entirely spiritual being, and when he sinned the 'vessels shattered' into millions of pieces and got caught in the sitra achra- our bodies. 'Knesset Yisrael' is the totality of all these divine sparks trapped inside a Jew's body. Therefore: Jews souls = Knesset Yisrael = Adam Kadmon = Shechina.

In this picture, a non-Jew only has an animal soul because, whilst he can be as good as a Jew, he doesn't have part of that original divine spark.

A non-kabbalist wouldn't take that view of a neshama. The neshama is our purpose, that which animates our body and gives it 'the breath of life'. Non-Jews can elevate the physical as much as anyone else, as they also have a divine purpose. For a kabbalist, the physical is the sitra achra- "the dark side". For a non-kabbalist, the physical is neutral: we can either live an unredeemed animal existence, or use the physical in a spiritual G-d given way.See More

Neil Clarke Although, Jim in bringing up Rav Kook- yes, he was clearly a kabbalist. And he definately believed in "divine sparks".
He does write that he saw a Rembrandt painting, and thought that when the vessels shattered, he gave some of that light to Rembrandt to put in his paintings.

Also: Through dispersion among gentiles, [Judaism] gathers and incorporates the fragments of truth wherever it finds them scattered- Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh (1823-1900)

Neil Clarke Also, as for Bilaam the Sifrei says:

"There has arisen no prophet in Israel like unto Moses" but in the Gentile world there has arisen[such a prophet]. And who? Balaam the son of Beor

So, he had the potential, but he blew it!

Jim Bowen See Derech Hashem as a good representation of a kabbalistic world view, but not the be all and end all of orthodox Jewish thought; it's one version of Judaism, but is not the whole. Ramchal's writing is rooted in a kabbalistic and chassidic tradition which you are under no obligation to adopt or accept.

Jane Jackson Yes, that goes make sense, non-kabbalists see it as though there isn't necessarily a divine spark in Jews or anyone... and that anyone - Jew or non-Jew - has the potential to realise Gd and elevate the physical and use it for it's spiritual purpose? But it's harder for a Jew as they have more 'rules'. Ok. I like kabblistic thought but at this time... it's quite hard for me to feel so pointless...

Neil Clarke I just want to end on a positive- sometimes when one spends their time arguing against something, they end up sounding negative...

As such, I certainly do believe in a 'divine spark' within us. It is t...hat spiritual element G-d has given us (whatever that might be) which allows us to be more than just an animal, and allows us- through our actions- to resemble the divine.

As it says in Tanach, in the Book of Kings/Melachim:

"I call heaven and earth to witness, BE A MAN A JEW OR A NON-JEW, man or woman, manservant or maidservant, only according to their actions will the spirit of G-d rest upon them"

My Religious Journey

Here is an essay that I had to write when applying to yeshiva.  Given the context, you can take some parts of it with a pinch of salt, and other parts are more restrained than they otherwise would be.  However, it is a reasonable account of my take on Judaism and how I got there.

-----

Understanding my background and the development of my Jewish views will help you to understand my inspirations and my reasons for applying to the Shappells Summer program. I come from a traditional, involved but largely non-observant Jewish family. Nevertheless, the fact that I was raised in a small, provincial community was a blessing that meant I was far more involved than my peers from larger communities. In a community like ours, everybody got involved with the synagogue and Cheder, sent their children to Jewish youth movements, and learnt basic skills such as leining and the ability to lead a service.

My road to observance was, and is, a slow and gradual one that has been going on throughout my life. For example, I first remember saying no to a pork sausage when on holiday at 11 years old. Continual development saw me refuse to eat both rump steak and ice cream in the same meal at 14 (!), first voluntarily wear tefillin on a Hanoar Hatzioni camp at about 15 and start to be Shomer Shabbat on the very day I started university. There have been numerous milestones since, but there is no rush to observance. Judaism isn’t a race to the finish line but one where one must “gird up strength like a lion... for the service of his Creator” every day.

The reasons for increased observance at such a young age were largely either non-cognitive or due to general intellectual virtue, rather than grand notions about the ‘truth’ of Judaism. For example, I was moved by the rabbi who taught me from barmitzvah who insisted I was ‘religious’ when I was adamant I wasn’t, and taught Judaism in such a sincere and candid way. Equally, I was upset at a hypocrisy that said I couldn’t go to a friend’s party because it was Shabbat but where we instead stayed in and watched television. An example of intellectual virtue was when thinking about the so-called ‘small things’ such as how we dress. Should I base my actions on the fad of the moment or the results of thousands of years of discussion?

My first experience of Jewish hashkafa- when I was old enough to appreciate it- was through various outreach organisations on campus. One thinker who stood out was Rav Dessler whose writings were both clear and resonant. His position on issues such as ‘free will’ influenced my thinking. Most impressive, however, was the effect that his work had on the people who read it. This internalisation of thought and translation into practice is perhaps the most impressive feature of Chareidi Judaism in general and mussar in particular.

Despite this, the first work that inspired me and gave me a Jewish world-view that I could call my own was Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed. “Philosophy...” in the words of Wittgenstein “...is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”. Through his analysis of homonymous, hybrid and metaphorical words, Rambam shows how misunderstanding our language results in “false notions and perverse methods”. Through untangling the knots of our thought, and understanding its limits, we assume the correct position before G-d. His work showed me the value and uniqueness of Judaism, firstly because the errors of thinking Judaism warn us against and the philosophical pretentions he identifies are much in evidence today. Secondly, the battle against this type of thinking is encoded in our entire way of life. This, for Rambam, is the essence of us having a ‘divine law’ as opposed to the ‘conventional law’ of other nations. All our actions are directed at destroying the idolatry of false thought from the world.

Since then, I have accepted some of the criticisms of Rambam’s philosophy by people such as Rav Hirsch, Shadal and Rav Soloveitchik; particularly with regard to areas such as ta’amei mitzvoth and biblical exegesis. Judaism has a constructive, as well as destructive, element. Rav Hirsch contends that Judaism’s world-view should “develop creatively from within [its received tradition]” and as “a science from itself” rather than be focused on external philosophy. For Rav Soloveitchik this specifically means a “philosophy of halacha”. Thus, two books of his that have inspired me are The Halakhic Mind which details how such a philosophy may be achieved and The Emergence of Ethical Man which is the best example I know of its application. Personally, I follow Rav Hirsch who has wider conception of the sources from which ‘the way’ or mission of Judaism is to be derived. Equally, he has a more practical focus indicating, through his conception of Torah Im Derech Eretz, the way Judaism, l’chatchila, should be enacted in the world.

As such, my philosophy is based on these ‘modern’ elements of Orthodoxy, although they are rooted in the tradition of the Kuzari. However, I’m also cognisant that the need to develop a philosophy at all is a symptom of galut. We still have the Fast of Tevet to mourn the loss of the First Temple where we could see the Urim v’Tumim and so, the tangible presence of G-d in the world. I think Chassidic interpretations of Tanach, such as those of the Izbicer Rebbe, can give a ‘taste’ or ‘feel’ of that world. We learn how through being ‘authentic’, we can realign G-d, ourselves and the world. In other words, they show us the redemptive qualities of our choices and actions.

Other inspirations include Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. They have done so much to clearly and intelligently articulate the vision of Judaism to a wider audience, as well as having done so much within our faith. It makes me so proud to be a Jew, for example, when Rabbi Sacks preaches to the House of Lords or European Union. He helps to fulfil the Torah verse that the “nations, which will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’”

As you can see from this, most of my Jewish learning has centred around hashkafa, or learning other Jewish subjects from English-language books. The next part of my Jewish development is to progress my textual skills so that I can learn the Sifrei Kodesh in the original. I have tried to learn some Mishneh Torah with friends and could, with difficulty, learn it independently. Equally, I have spent a year learning gemara on WebYeshiva, giving myself an introduction in ‘how to learn’ and the style of argumentation employed. I try to learn from the Aramaic with a chevruta but need many aids to get anywhere. My lack of ability in these areas is a major motivation in deciding to attend yeshiva. It will provide the focused environment and the expert teachers I need and will hopefully serve as a springboard for future learning. The summer program at Shapell’s provides ‘intense skills-oriented Torah learning’ and its general focus on developing textual and analytical skills mean that it is the perfect yeshiva to further my goals.

Equally, you will have seen from my development that I have drawn inspiration from different strands of Judaism: Chareidi Judaism for its transformative effect and Avodat Hashem, Modern Orthodoxy for drawing its philosophy directly from the sources, Chassidut for giving an insight into the redemptive quality of the mitzvoth and Torah Im Derech Eretz for providing the communal organisation that is best suited to furthering the Jewish mission. As such, I feel I espouse Shapell’s derech that all the Torah’s ways are pleasant. The yeshiva will provide many role models that I can learn from and be inspired by. Whilst, textual learning is the main aim, you will provide a nurturing environment in which to do it.

Giving 'spirituality' a bad name

Summary of post: We should all be more spiritual

Post: When I talk about halacha (and thus, Judaism) being essentially 'this-worldly', the false dichotomy brigade come out in full force.  The view that Judaism addresses man as a physical creature in the world, is contrasted with the so-called 'spiritual' explanations.  I am thus accused of seeing the commandments as "this is what G-d says", as opposed to looking for the deeper reasons.

Now, what is so deep about doing gematria, talking about 'essences', discovering the 'auspicious', magical effects of the commandments or dreaming of far-off worlds, I'm not sure.  Gematria (etc) may aid us in finding the relevance of a commandment, but certainly does not constitute its relevance.  "Wow, this action effects 67.876 dimensions and may help your wife to get pregnant" doesn't cut it and isn't deep.

The equation of the "spiritual" with the "non-natural", gives spirituality a bad name.  Where beliefs are, to the proud pronouncements of its adherents, "non rational", why should we hold them?  When beliefs cut off from our experience of this world, what exactly are we believing in?  Ex Cathedra announcements about auspicious times may be beneficial for some mysterious "soul-stuff" but is not relevant for me.  They can lead to irrelevant nonsense but also to outright falsity or a perversion of values.  Potentially anything can be said which I wouldn't be allowed to challenge on the grounds that they are not rational.  For if I did, I would be denying the 'spiritual' knowledge which is not derived from rationality.

You shouldn't take the above as a defence of my position, but merely as a statement of it.  If spirituality requires knowing all about this 'deep' other-worldly stuff, then I want nothing to do with it!  However, does that mean I don't think one should be spiritual?  If spirituality means any of the points listed below, I am all for spirituality:

• Understanding what I say and do, rather than doing it by rote or by habit.
• Cultivating more lofty desires, and pursuing higher goals than merely feeding my every whim or desire.
• Seeing a meaning and purpose in my life.
• Having a theocratic motivation for my actions rather than simply being focused on what worldly benefits I can accrue from them.
• Utilising the whole of my spirit to the best of my ability- thought, feeling, physical skills, good sense and judgement, intuition, personality etc.  (Study the sources to find all the potentialities included in terms such as "ruach", "nefesh" and "neshama" and act on them.)
• Trying to maximise 'peak experiences' rather than merely surviving or getting by.
• Having a sense of G-d in my life.
• Trying to raise myself above the level of a member of the species homo sapien, and become an singular adam. 
• Transcend my status as an entirely natural creature created by circumstances external to myself, and choose to act in a way that makes me worthy of being b'tzelem Elokim. 

The confessions of a "Neo-Chassid": Part 1

I

As some of you may know, I have an ambivalence about all things mystical. Maybe, however, this will surprise you as I tend to get a bit type-cast. When I told my old housemate (only half jokingly)that if I were to label myself it would have to be “neo-chassid” he would laugh and basically accuse me to telling fibs.

He: “You know you are not, you don't have a Chassidic bone in your body, you are always making objections”

I: “I only object when they are led to talk nonsense”

He: “But they can’t help but talk nonsense”

I: “Often, perhaps. But necessarily? Maybe. I don’t know but I hope not”

He, as an exceedingly “Modern Orthodox” Jew, can’t necessarily assign any value to such pursuits as mussar, Chassidut or the simple spirituality and faith. Modern Orthodoxy tends to be quite elitist focusing, as it does, on Talmud Torah, the pursuit of philosophy and other rational endeavours. For some, it is very emotionally and intellectually satisfying.  However, Modern Orthodoxy doesn’t fare well amongst the masses which, on the whole, leads to one of two outcomes. One is that they will start pursuing a meaningless Orthopraxy simply on the basis “this is how things are done”. The other is that they will find more spiritually satisfying options in the form of Chareidi Judaism, Zen Buddhism or non-Orthodox forms of Judaism. 

Whilst I may sociologically be a Modern Orthodox Jew, I cannot on principle share this rationalist vision of Judaism. I couldn't live the ascetic life of a philosopher, such as a Rambam, or a Brisker such as the Solovei(t)chiks (both Chareidi and non-Chareidi versions).  I am not the 'disembodied head' that so many ancient and new rabbis call upon you to be.  I should live Judaism in the real world, in every act, with all my faculties. Why should I see G-d as completely (and only) transcendent, or see the only form of Devekut as being in text-study, or live wholly inside the a-historical world of the bet midrash?  Instead, I should see G-d as intimately involved in my life, become close to Him through performance of the mitzvot and see G-d's redemptive action through history.

II

The following is a wonderful description, from 'The Wind in the Willows' of the mystical experience, the having of which is the pre-requisite for religion making sense:

“Then suddenly the Mole felt a great Awe fall upon him, an awe that turned his muscles to water, bowed his head, and rooted his feet to the ground. It was no panic terror- indeed he felt wonderfully at peace and happy- but it was an awe that smote him and held him and, without seeing, he knew it could only mean that some August presence was very, very near. With difficulty he turned to look for his friend [Ratty], and saw him at his side cowed, stricken, and trembling violently. And still there was utter silence in the populous bird-haunted branches around them; and still the light grew and grew."

In those moments of inspiration we feel G-d's nearness and meaning pervading creation.  We are both at peace and simultaneously trembling.  We feel both love of G-d and fear of G-d.  We feel like the pinnacle of creation and like a speck of dust in an infinite universe.

We all get these moments of inspiration.  I do when I look up at the stars on a summers night.  When I do so, I am looking directly into the past and at the creation of the world.  I'm seeing the star as it was millions upon millions of years ago, as it has taken the light that long to get here.  It may have gone supernova by now and not even exist any more!  This fills me with awe and wonder for the universe and makes me want to shout:  

"The heavens recount the glory of G-d and the firmament declares the work of His hands... There need be no speech, nor words; their voice is heard without it... where the world of man ends, their words speak, 'He has sent a tent in them for the orb of the sun'"

As I say, everyone has these experiences.  Richard Dawkins is right that an atheist can still experience wonder at the universe.  It is not, in itself, a cognitive endeavour an so is open to all.  However, the key point is how we respond to such an experience.  How is that experience translated?  What are its consequences?  Whilst the above experience of creation is the start of a religion it is not the end.  We must bear in mind that:

"He who is walking by the way and studies and breaks off his study and exclaims: 'How beautiful is this tree! 'How fine is that field!' is regarded as he had sinned against his own soul"

I will expound upon that quote in a later post in this series.  However, at present it means we must examine the link between the experience of creation and the outcome of revelation. Having experience this awe, are we led to accept that "the ordinances of G-d are truth, they are eternally just" or do we thereafter build a Golden Calf?  Will we adequately express it in our prayer, or will we simply interpret the experience how we want?  Can we accurately represent it in our philosophy or will we simply talk nonsense? 

One response I believe is correct is the one emphasised by chassidut.   When we have that experience we feel 'close' to G-d and ultimately, we should experience this 'heavenly fire' the whole time.    However, this 'heavenly fire only resides on an altar made from the ground' (so Matisyahu sings).   As such, we should elevate both ourselves and the physical world through all our actions.  We should see the G-dliness in all things.  The whole world should be utilised in G-d's service.  This way the experience described above is not just a transitory inspiration but is perpetuated through everything that we do. 

III

The chassidic movement started in protest to the elitism of Judaism at the time.  The 'few' were learning 24/7  whilst the 'many' were completely disconnected from Judaism.  The mitnagdim were incredibly ascetic- such as fasting Monday and Thursdays- which left them out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.  The lay folk were liable to be swept along with false messiahs such as Shebbati Zvi and the rabbinic scholars were unable to give political leadership when this dream fell apart.

Against this background, the Chassidim provided a religion that was much more relevant, more meaningful and more accessible through people's everyday lives.   One could be ecstatic in prayer and sing, dance and cartwheel.  One could find meaning in your work and other 'mundane' activities.  One could experience G-d through the world.  As the Ba'al Shem Tov said, it is perfectly acceptable to admire the beauty of a woman so long as that 'leads you back to the source'.  Amen to that!  The popularisation of Judaism was naturally going to import popular superstitions into a pristine Judaism.  However, one should easily assent to their overall vision of Judaism.

These days it is almost impossible to tell between the chassidic and chareidi worlds.  The chareidi world has imported certain superstitious beliefs of the chassidim, and the chassidim have adopted the ascetic lifestyle of the chareidim.  Absolutely, the Vilna Gaon was right to insist that the they should fully keep with halacha and not be 'lax with their prayer times'.  I am trebly perplexed as anyone by the concept of an 'aveira lishma'.  However, this shouldn't have meant that it is forced to adopt a lifestyle only appropriate for the 'few' than for the 'many'.  G-d should be experienced through every aspect of a person's life as was the original intention of chassidut.

IV

The above has partly explained why I view 'Chassidut' as a hashkafa one should hold, as opposed to rationalist Judaism.  This may beg the question for some of you as to where I stand vis-a-vis rationalist philosophers such as Rambam and Soloveitchik.  As far as you were aware, these were major influences on me and I always quote them.  This is absolutely true.  You probably inferred from this that I was a rationalist, which may leave you confused now. 

The full answer will be forthcoming in future posts.  Suffice it to say here that just because I'm not a rationalist, doesn't give any license whatsoever to be irrational.  Where one has to philosophise or intellectualise Judaism, one should do so like Rambam and Soloveitchik.  Such intellectualisation has to be done in somewhat foreign terms and should at least use people who know how to use these terms!  However, intellectualisation isn't the goal of Judaism.  We shouldn't become 'disembodied heads' but instead, the end point requires consummation in the world.

V

Come back to see future posts  where I discuss:

• How one can talk about a 'mystical experience'
• Why certain chassidic or kabbalistic beliefs taught today result in nonsense
• The appropriate context for such beliefs.
• The difference between rabbinic and pre-rabbinic Judaism (as evidence by the Fast of Tevet) and how this relates to a Chassidic Hashkafa
• How the views of Rambam, Soloveitchik and Hirsh relate this hashkafa
• Why, in galut, I don't think I could ever accept the haskafa that I strive to accept.

One of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the last century, Franz Rosensweig, used a very simple device in his book "Star of Redemption".  On three on the points he laid out three key elements: G-d, man and the world.  On the intervening prongs he laid out the relations between them.  The relation between G-d and the world is creation; the relation between G-d and man is revelation; and the relation between man and the world is redemption. 

I think this is a correct characterisation: redemption is a matter of you and the world being correctly aligned and in harmony.  It is one where you have the 'correct vision' with regard to the world and act accordingly; and also where the world is such that this is possible.  This relationship is the chassidic-like one I am discussing.  Unfortunately, we will see that in a pre-redeemed world, we cannot artificially manufacture this relationship without making errors regarding creation or revelation.  Thus, while in a pre-redeemed world I could not be chassidic, it gives the most sublime notion of what redemption itself consists in.

R' Hirsch against Kabbalah

I was reminded of these quotes by a conversation I had yesterday (you know who you are!).

The good Kantian that Hirsch was he could never accept all these other world that Jewish mystics dream up, to escape to.

What should have been eternal, progressive development was considered a stationary mechanism and the inner significance and concept thereof as extra-mundane dream worlds. . . Practical Judaism which comprehended in its purity, would perhaps have been impregnated with the spiritual became in it, through misconception, a magical mechanism, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds (N.L., p. 187).

Oh, but for those extra-mundane dream worlds! I must say, I can't be against them as much as R' Hirsch albeit that my sentiments being rather the same. In fact, I'm always quite clear the problem is not with kabbalistic, mystical or chassidic ideas themselves. Then again, maybe it is with those, but not against the sources and beliefs they derive from. The problem is when these original beliefs are taken out of context and turned into something quite alien. They are shorn free of their halachic or aggadic context and made into pseudo-philosophical beliefs. Same words, different beliefs. But anyway, the point is that 'in their place' they... well.. have a place.

The problem that I do have with these beliefs, in common with R' Hirsch, is not simply theory but how it affects the Jewish attitude to the to man, to the world, to G-d and thus, to our task:

A perverted intellect comprehended the institutions which were designed and ordained for the internal and external purification and betterment of man as mechanical, dynamical, or magical formulas for the up-building of higher worlds, and . . . thus the observances meant for the education of the spirit to a nobler life were but too frequently degraded into mere amuletic or talismanic performances (N.L., pp. 9-100).

Kabbalistic views of other worlds, as expounded through current Chassidic and Charedi Judaism, takes away from Halachic Judaism. This is not to say practically, because shemura matzot and all, mystics tend to be extremely strict in halacha (or at least ritualistic elements anyway). They do the acts, as R' Hirsch says above, but what is the quality of the acts? Halachic Judaism frames our attitudes and world-view in a particular way. Now, in this, sense Kabbalah often leads away from what Halachic Judaism teaches us is the main focal point of G-d's will for us: THIS WORLD. As R' Wurzburger (tzatzal) says:

Since, according to Halakhic Judaism, it is our task to seek to encounter God’s presence primarily in the lower realms of being (ikkar shekhinah ba-tahtonim), we must not escape from this world by a flight into transcendental spheres. The human task is to create an abode for God in the here-and-now

Thinking of mitzvot in terms 'other worlds' makes them 'mere amuletic or talismanic performances'; perhaps ways to get our seventy virgins in heaven!