Maybe sometime you could give us a series of lessons on matters of Kabbalah?

Here? Maybe in Petah Tikva.

So that the wrong impression won’t be created: although I’ve dealt with it, I’m far from being an expert.

For what purpose should one study Kabbalah?
Is there a commandment of Torah study in it,
or is it just philosophical thought from Jewish sources?

I tend to think that there is Torah study in it, at least as a possible interpretation of the larger Torah corpus, and certainly as Torah in the person-sense (see my definition of that in the site search).

“As a possible interpretation of the Torah corpus” — in what way is that preferable to any study of Jewish thought?
To me it seems simply like a difficulty admitting the results of a change in outlook. After all, once the claim was that this is Torah study in the object-sense because it comes from Sinai, so once that innocence is lost, it no longer has anything to stand on.

Rabbi, I join Oren’s request. Maybe you could give lessons in Kabbalah and explain it with logic and in human language?

I don’t understand how one can write such a dismissive impression about Rabbi Ashlag’s writings, especially when this is such a deep subject, and in order to form an opinion about him one has to become knowledgeable in the enormous scope of his writings, which in my opinion surpass the writings of the Leshem beyond comparison both in quantity and in quality… And let’s bring a small quotation from his writings in order to understand the direction of Rabbi Ashlag:

“And know with certainty that from the time of the holy Ari until this very day, there has not been anyone who understood the method of the holy Ari at its root, etc. And behold, by the Supreme Will, may He be blessed, I merited the impregnation of the soul of the holy Ari, not because of my good deeds, but by the Supreme Will, which is exalted even beyond me myself as to why I was chosen for this wondrous soul, with which no one has been privileged from the time of his passing until today. And I cannot elaborate on this matter, for it is not my way to speak of wonders.”
Pri Chacham – Letters

Elran, have you yourself studied Rabbi Ashlag’s teachings and can say firsthand that there is a wondrous and deep wisdom there?

1. Where did you see any dismissiveness? I made a comment about one point in his writings.
2. I enjoyed the wonderful logic according to which if a person writes about himself that he is greater than everyone else, that proves he is greater than everyone else. Compare Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. If someone as great as he says he is the greatest, who are we to come after the king?!
3. It reminds me of the saying from the Alter of Novardok, that Maimonides wrote that someone who feels he will not be able to avoid sin should flee to the deserts. And the Alter asks: who is this addressed to? To someone who is willing to flee to the deserts in order not to fail. And even such a person needs to flee in order not to fail. But in that saying there is no logical fallacy, whereas in your case there definitely is.
4. Of course, if you quote me from your own writings that there are no logical fallacies there at all, I will immediately retract in humility.

Hello and blessings,
I’m responding “a bit late.”

A. I don’t think Baal HaSulam wrote that he was greater than everyone else. He wrote that this was the impregnation of the Ari’s soul, and that is what appears in the quotation above.

B. You’d be surprised to discover that many of your very new and illuminating messages in Judaism I learned through Baal HaSulam, in his unique language and in the depth of his teaching.
(As one small example: your attitude toward the concept of “the leading sage of the generation,” which I very much agree with—these are simple things that one understands very quickly in Baal HaSulam’s thought. And there are many other examples; how easy it is to adopt your approach and your way of thinking in many/some of the issues you think and spread when one studies Baal HaSulam’s writings.)

C. In my opinion this is not a logical fallacy at all, as you said, because this is not the study of science pure and simple. Beyond that, we are dealing with faith in the sages. One who studies his writings can stand on these things, because he grapples with them and explains them without leaving us with riddles and unresolved slogans… What I was trying to say is that if what is written in the quotation above is true, then he is closer to the “essence” than the other works written on the holy Ari…
Did you ever happen to read his prophecy? See “The Prophecy of Baal HaSulam.” And in general he also wrote about the advantage of his commentary over other commentators, and this is what he wrote:

“It is possible to make use of external wisdoms in explaining matters from the wisdom of Kabbalah, since the wisdom of Kabbalah is the root of everything and all of them are included within it. Some have been aided by anatomy, in the sense of ‘From my flesh I shall behold God,’ and some have been aided by philosophy, while the later ones made even greater use of the psychology of the service of God along the lines of the books of Hasidism and the books of Chabad. But all these are not considered a true commentary, because they explain nothing in the wisdom of Kabbalah itself; they only show us how the other wisdoms are included within it, and therefore those who study cannot use them to move from one place to another. And even if a person were expert in all the books of Chabad, he would not be able to explain a single word or matter that Chabad itself did not explain, even though the wisdom of the service of God is the wisdom closest to the wisdom of Kabbalah among all the external wisdoms. Needless to say, one cannot derive any help at all from explanations based on anatomy or philosophy. Therefore I said that I am the first commentator according to root and branch, cause and consequence. And therefore if a person understands some matter through my commentary, he can be certain that wherever he encounters that matter in the Zohar and in the Tikkunim, he will be able to use it—just as with commentaries on the revealed Torah, where one can use one place to illuminate all the others.

And the style of commentary based on external wisdoms is a waste of time, for it says no more than giving testimony to the truth of one thing by means of another. Now an external wisdom does not need testimony, because providence prepared five senses to testify to it. But in Kabbalah one must at any rate understand the litigant’s own claim before bringing witnesses to support the claim.”

Now, unlike the unnecessary comparison to the words of our teacher Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, whose books are all written in parable and riddle, Baal HaSulam validates his words in his writings and does not leave us with riddles or with “blown-up” words; there is broad explanation for most of his writings. After all, this is what he is trying to “cry out” in his writings: that what previous sages had to keep covered, he was given “permission” to reveal:

“And I rejoice that I was born in such a generation, when it is already permitted to publicize the wisdom of truth. And if you ask me how I know that it is permitted, I will answer you: because I was given permission to reveal. That is, until now those paths by which it is possible to engage publicly before the entire people and congregation, and to explain every word properly, had not been revealed to any sage. For I too swore to my teacher not to reveal, like all the students who preceded me. However, this oath and this prohibition apply only to those paths that are transmitted orally, from generation to generation, up to the prophets and beyond. For if these paths were revealed to the masses, they would cause great damage, for reasons hidden from us. However, the path with which I deal in my books is a permitted path, and on the contrary, I was commanded by my teacher to expand it as much as I could. Among us it is called the path of the clothing of the matters. And see my article on Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, where he calls this path ‘granting permission.’ And this is what God granted me in full measure, which according to our tradition does not depend on the genius of the sage himself, but on the condition of the generation, in the way that our sages said: ‘Samuel the Small was worthy, etc., but his generation was not worthy of it.’ Therefore I said that all my merit in the way of revealing the wisdom is because of my generation.”