Q&A: On the Teachings of Kabbalah and Hasidism
On the Teachings of Kabbalah and Hasidism
Question
Hello and blessings, Rabbi. I wanted to ask about Kabbalah. My father is very fond of Maimonides and sees him—and the whole approach of the Guide for the Perplexed and rationalism—as authentic Judaism. But he does not believe at all in the teachings of Kabbalah, and he challenges things like the claim that the Book of the Zohar is actually from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and similar arguments. Is it possible to be a fully Orthodox Jew and deny the entire teaching of Kabbalah? I know there were Dor Daim who did not accept the whole teaching of Kabbalah, but I am asking whether today there is some kind of agreement that this is an integral part of a believing Jew’s faith, just as Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles have indeed become a broad and generally accepted consensus.
In that context: my father claims that the Shulchan Arukh is very heavily influenced by Kabbalah and all that craziness, and so he no longer sees himself as truly bound by the Shulchan Arukh; rather, he has much more respect for the Rema. In general, what is the reason that the Shulchan Arukh was accepted by the Jewish people as a whole? Is it practically possible to decide not to follow the rulings of the Shulchan Arukh, and instead follow only Maimonides, because that fits his rationalist approach and because Maimonides is an authoritative figure in his eyes?
And similarly with regard to Hasidism—he claims that it is literally a destruction of Judaism. What is the Rabbi’s opinion regarding the teachings of Hasidism?
Answer
1. “Orthodox” is just a word. You can define Orthodoxy in all sorts of ways, and under each definition he will be either inside or outside. So it doesn’t really matter, because every definition already assumes something, and the conclusion you draw is built into the definition. There is no real benefit to that kind of thinking.
2. Beyond that, in my view there is no point in discussing whether some outlook is “legitimate” or not. If that is his outlook, then that is his outlook, whether you define him as a heretic or not Orthodox or whatever. You cannot demand that a person change his worldview because of authority-based considerations like “that’s heresy” or “that’s not Orthodox,” and so on.
3. Obviously there are very good Jews who do not believe in Kabbalah, and certainly do not believe that the Zohar was written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Even if they are mistaken, there is no principle of faith requiring one to accept that a given book was specifically composed by a particular author. At most, it would be an error.
As for me personally, it is clear to me that the book was not composed by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, since Amoraim are also mentioned in it, and they lived long after him. It has tannaitic sources, but the editing and composition of the book were very late (probably by Rabbi Moses de León). That was also the view of the Yaavetz, who was among the greatest halakhic decisors.
4. That is regarding the composition of the Book of the Zohar. As for belief in Kabbalah itself, there are fewer people who reject it, but I still do not see how such positions can be disqualified. Is there some principle of faith that one must accept that Kabbalah came from Sinai? Maimonides, for example, apparently did not know it at all.
In my personal opinion, Kabbalah contains some good spiritual intuitions, but I am very far from believing in the details. I do not think there is a tradition from Sinai here (except perhaps for a few basic principles, and even that is not certain).
5. The Shulchan Arukh does contain citations from the Zohar, but the main reservations about Rabbi Yosef Karo are because of his book Maggid Mesharim, which really is strange and contains very puzzling things. But the Rema also relies on Kabbalah. See, for example, here: https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%94/
His rant there against that lecturer is nonsense, but the basic claim is correct.
6. In any case, a person has the right to choose whichever halakhic decisor he wants, and he can choose the Rema rather than the author of the Shulchan Arukh, for whatever reason he likes. There is no problem with that.
7. Hasidism, in my view, is valueless. Most of its writings are nonsense and piles of verbiage that do not say much. Whether it brings destruction, I don’t know, but that is my opinion. In any case, one is allowed to think whatever one wants about Hasidism, either way, and there is no problem with that. If it speaks to someone—good for him; and if not—so much the better.
Nobody is obligated to connect to these books or those books. And certainly not in areas that are not Jewish law, such as thought or Hasidism, which are all human ideas and obligate no one.
So set your mind at ease. Your father has firm positions, and that is to his credit. As long as he is consistent with his positions and is careful to live according to his path, he is a good Jew and thoroughly faithful.
All the best,
Discussion on Answer
Meaning, it seems there is an obligation to the rulings of Maran.
Commitment to the author of the Shulchan Arukh is a custom. And if you have a rabbi, that takes precedence over custom.
Is there a source for the idea that a rabbi I chose for myself takes precedence over custom? After all, this whole idea of appointing oneself a rabbi is not the most firmly grounded thing in the sources in general.
It is not about choosing a rabbi, but about the rule that Jewish law takes precedence over custom. The rabbi you choose determines the Jewish law for you.
A question for the Rabbi: if the Zohar affects certain laws today, do you follow the law as it was ruled based on the Zohar, or as it was practiced before the Zohar?
If the accepted practice follows the Zohar, then I usually do that.
Hello Rabbi, regarding #6: can even a Sephardi or someone from the Eastern communities accept whichever halakhic decisor he wants? That seems like a major novelty that would need a source. After all, from the halakhic decisors it seems otherwise, no?