Q&A: An Intellectual Examination of Kabbalah
An Intellectual Examination of Kabbalah
Question
Hello and blessings.
I am a 23-year-old young man, and in recent years I studied in one of the Kav yeshivot in the south.
Recently I have felt an inclination to establish truths through the power of reason and critical thought (which led me to the Rabbi’s site here and to some identification with his views), and as the Rabbi surely knows, that is not exactly the style of learning among us in the Kav world.
For a very long time I walked around within the walls of the yeshivah with sharp criticism toward the staff and the students, because the form of study is in practice no more than reading very long and very complex lists of what we are supposed to believe, and no one ever stops for a moment and dares to heed the straightforward demand to examine things through critique and analysis. (A soul-tearing experience, by the way—the experience of being in your own nurturing environment, which until not long ago you trusted completely and saw as upright, courageous, pioneering, and heroic, and suddenly all that comes to mind when you hear its teachings is criticism and judgment concluding that the people here are shallow and lack the basic maturity to deal with questions that might shake up their world.)
But on the other hand, I understand that it makes no sense to try to examine Rabbi Kook’s teachings, for example, with the intellect, since they are entirely Kabbalah and reason really has nothing to say there. “The Jewish people was the absolute justice of existence as a whole,” and the like—what can reason say here? How does one approach studying Rabbi Kook with this critical intellect? It doesn’t seem relevant at all.
All reason can do is claim that this is one possible picture of reality, and that it is not necessary that this is really so (not necessarily the specific sentence I quoted, but Rabbi Kook’s thought as a whole).
Does this mean that Rabbi Kook is not relevant to people like me?
What do I do?
It is very important to me not to be like everyone else—ignorant and afraid of the thinking of straightforward reason—but on the other hand I feel too small, intellectually, to come and examine the ideas of one of the greatest thinkers of recent generations, who does not at all pretend to be rational in his thought.
Thank you. . .
Answer
I think that just as it is not proper to idolize people or schools of thought, and everything should be examined on its own merits, so too there is no need to recoil from the fact that criticism is awakening within you. That should not create rejection toward your rabbis. Take from them what you find appropriate, and what not—don’t. Nothing terrible has happened.
I do not think that Rabbi Kook does not pretend to be rational, especially since it is not really clear what exactly rationality is. We have no tool other than reason, and therefore every doctrine and every argument must be examined through it.
Even if you are small in your own eyes, you are the only one who is supposed to shape your worldview. Therefore there is no need to criticize Rabbi Kook and decide what he was worth and who he was. What you are supposed to do is examine his arguments and decide which of them speak to you. So too, the question of whether he was so great or not is entirely irrelevant. Even from a giant among giants, it is not right to accept his words simply because he said them (see the introduction to Sha'arei Yosher).
And from this it follows that the decision whether he is relevant for you or not is a question you can direct only to yourself. If you are persuaded and built up by his words, then yes; and if not, then no. As stated, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of what he was worth, whether he was great, and how great.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you, Yosef. I certainly know Rabbi Cherki and appreciate him.
And continuing my question—on the one hand, the classic approach common among Torah students (including in the Kav world) grates on me: the approach that keeps itself from asking difficulties and entertaining doubts after the words of our early and later rabbis, assumes from the outset that they are the truth of our world, and sees no value in exposure to opposing approaches. It is narrow. It is shallow. It is childish. Obviously, if theirs are the only views you know, you will decide that this is the truth.
But on the other hand, I also refuse to accept the other approach—the one that places every ignoramus and every beginner student who has only just now become aware of his own (clumsy) intellectual abilities, every amateur thinker and every person inclined toward logic—all of them on the same level together with spiritual geniuses and mighty thinkers. The approach that calls on the medieval authorities to criticize the conclusions of the later authorities, to debate them, and to analyze their thought.
It is hard for me to absorb the new attitude that is gradually taking shape in my soul toward Rabbi Tau, for example, and toward his prominent students—my rabbis.
It is impossible to compare my general and Torah education alike to theirs. Who am I to disagree with them? Who am I to disparage their teaching? What do I understand about the complexity of the world of ideas and beliefs?
I am not coming here to side with the approach that says one should rely on them, assuming they know how to deal with every question that opposes the Torah of Israel, and simply follow them like a flock after a shepherd. But I feel (also from the character of the discourse here, and especially from the inner discourse taking place within me) that the presumption of sitting on the classroom benches of such people, for an ordinary person from the street (most of us), is foolish and unserious.
By the way—even though I appreciate the Rabbi’s general approach as laid out here on the site and in the books, and find in it honesty and courage,
still, as someone who has been exposed for several years to Rabbi Kook’s teachings in their Kavnik form, it seems that the Rabbi did not really understand their approach or penetrate to the depth of their teaching.
Whereas the Rabbi states here that “we have no tool other than reason,” they (following the late Rabbi, of blessed memory, and others) claim otherwise. There is something else. Something that requires development and refinement.
And I am sure that those who “peek in” from the outside, upon hearing this, will immediately attribute that something to imagination and invention born of intellectual floating into emptiness.
But honesty also demands a genuine willingness to listen to what they are saying, and not to what I think they are saying.
I read the column “What Do Har Hamor and Chabad Have to Do with One Another?” with great interest, and from what was written there it seems that this work was not really done seriously. (Although there certainly were points where it seemed the Rabbi described things correctly.)
In any case—as emerges from what I’ve written here—I am torn between two worlds: between the tendency toward intellectual honesty and faithfulness to truth, and the inability to operate effectively on that plane (because of the thinness of my education and understanding in philosophy) on the one hand, and skepticism toward the approach that sees our intellect as the be-all and end-all in these matters on the other.
This state is sowing a great deal of destruction in my life—in my overall stability, and especially in my sense of identification and belonging to the camp of Israel. Just because of the doubt hovering over everything, I am spiritually declining more and more—it worries me very much.
I would be glad for your help.
P.S. A lot of times when I talk with the people around me about these topics, I keep hearing the familiar suggestion: “First you need to strengthen your faith, and only then learn what others say. Otherwise you won’t hold up.”
What does the Rabbi think about that? On the one hand, it really is true. If faith is not clear to me, I will not succeed in coping with the arguments of those who disagree with us. (Clear not in the sense of brainwashing myself, but in the sense of really knowing what Judaism says.)
But on the other hand, it is obvious that this suggestion comes from that same cowardly and dishonest approach, unwilling to deal sincerely with other approaches and examine whether they are right or not.
Thank you, and forgive the length.
I have nothing to say about that. If you have a way to strengthen your faith—why not do it? Is it a condition? In my opinion, no. To my mind, those suggestions are empty of content.
I didn’t understand. You have nothing to say about everything I wrote?
I would be glad for a broader response.
Both about the conflict I described at the beginning and about why, in the Rabbi’s view, this is empty of content.
Greetings.
I didn’t understand what was unclear in what I wrote. I have nothing to say about the suggestion you received because it has no positive content (only negative). Its meaning is basically: don’t touch other materials until you strengthen your faith—but nobody says how you can do that. If you have a way to do it, then it is always worth doing. Do you really need my opinion on that? Have you thought of a concrete idea for strengthening your faith? I only remarked that in my opinion it is not a condition.
As for the dilemma you raised, I think that if you have read here, then my opinion should be completely clear to you. I do not think much of that whole group there, and I really do not share your reverence toward them. Not because I disrespect them personally, but because in my view there is no such thing as experts in thought, and I am really not impressed by the great depth that you find there. In my opinion these are really not impressive ideas and are quite detached. So it is hard for me to connect with the dilemma you presented here. In a certain sense, you have remained within the conceptual framework of the Kav world, and you are looking for answers within that framework. That “service,” unfortunately, I cannot provide. If they are so great and you are unable to criticize them—then don’t criticize. Study there and accept whatever they tell you, and that’s it. What do you want from me?
Just to clarify: I am not writing this in anger or sarcastically. Everything is written sincerely and entirely seriously.
I thank you (truly).
The Rabbi wrote that the meaning of this suggestion is basically: “Don’t touch other materials until you strengthen your faith, but nobody says how you can do that. If you have a way to do that, then it is always worth doing.”
Understand, for me this is a novelty. Meaning, the way I see it (or maybe at least until now), it is not exactly wise to form a clear position on something from one side alone (assuming you have the tools for that), and only afterward, once you are already sure of it, to go see the other sides. After all, it is not as though you will really change your mind once you are already “locked in” to your opinion. And by locked in I do not mean unwilling to sincerely consider the other approach. Rather, I mean that after all, the first approach you encountered shaped your thinking, and you will see everything through the glasses it put on your eyes, so that you are no longer really able to examine things objectively and arrive at a different, broader truth.
Where am I mistaken?
As far as I’m concerned, strengthening faith means substantive arguments, not biases. So if a person thinks the Jewish faith is reasonable in his eyes, there is no reason not to fully explore it before going on to examine other beliefs. I did not write that I am in favor of inoculating oneself against other arguments.
What I’m basically saying is that I feel this would indicate that I want to hold on to faith, and am not coming neutrally to clarify what the truth is… that seems to me like a clear bias and not honesty.
Understood. Thank you.
Just a recommendation—go study Rabbi Kook’s teachings with rational people who have critical thinking, straight common sense, explanatory ability, broad general education, and who speak in a normative language rather than in such vague and unclear terms. Rabbi Cherki, for example. It’s a completely different world from the way of studying the Rabbi’s writings that you seem to be describing.
If it matters to you to check whether there is still some chance of adopting things from the Rabbi’s teachings (if they prove trustworthy and reasonable to you), then maybe it’s worth trying.
Good luck, and sorry if the intrusion was unwelcome.