Q&A: Ideas in Kabbalah
Ideas in Kabbalah
Question
Hi, Rabbi/Dr. Michael. I know that you usually (at least most of the time) try to interpret things rationally. If I remember correctly, I understood that you relate to ideas in Kabbalah, and in faith generally, as something that was not given at Sinai and therefore is not binding. But with your permission I’ll ask anyway.
What do you think about the fact that many ideas from Kabbalah, and generally even from medieval authorities (Rishonim) such as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, who are considered rationalists, were influenced by one mystical tradition or another? Let me give an example.
The idea that “as below, so above,” meaning that the world reflects some spiritual reality, is also mentioned in Nefesh HaChaim and so on. Or the idea that a person is a “microcosm in relation to the macrocosm,” which is mentioned often by medieval authorities (Rishonim).
This actually comes from some Greek mythological figure, Hermes Trismegistus. Since you hold that beliefs and ideas of this kind are not binding, unlike Jewish law, and I assume, in my humble opinion, that you would answer that this interests you less because one can accept such intuitions and one can also not accept them—
still, I want to ask: should great importance be given to where the source came from, whether from the gentiles or from within Judaism itself? Or at most can one assume that if they chose to adopt these ideas, then apparently this is a sound intuition? a0
P.S. I hope you won’t answer me in the style that originally it came from King Solomon and afterward the wisdoms were lost, as Maimonides himself elaborates at length, and also the Kuzari, and then they reached Persia, etc. etc. a0
Thank you very much in advance.
Answer
Your hope was disappointed. It is definitely possible that the process was the other way around. Beyond that, the origin of ideas is really irrelevant to the discussion of them on their own merits. There is the context of discovery and there is the context of justification.
Discussion on Answer
The point about intuition is that it is not necessarily a scientific claim, and therefore it is not subject to empirical testing. You are supposed to check whether it seems intuitive to you and cross-reference it with other intuitions.
As for the halakhic example, I didn’t understand. We are not looking for a justification for the prohibition against desecrating the Sabbath, but for a justification for the claim that X is desecrating the Sabbath (or not). For that, indeed, there is no way to test except intuitively. If there were such a way, the dispute would be resolved. So leave the Holy One, blessed be He, out of it.
I assume you probably won’t be able to explain this to me in detail, but in your book Truth and Stability I understood from you that intuition is somewhere between thought and cognition, and that one also cannot test empirically what is intuitively right and what is not.
Still, I’ll ask: when it relates to myself—for example, regarding free will—I have no reason to assume that I don’t have it or to deny it, so I accept it intuitively. But does this also apply to intuitions about things outside myself—for example, regarding some spiritual reality that I can’t really put my finger on, but unlike free will I have no reason to assume exists without that tradition?
For example, the idea that the soul has 248 limbs parallel to the body, and that when one commits a transgression by means of a bodily limb, that limb in the soul is damaged—this is certainly some kind of intuition. The question is how an ordinary person, unlike Kabbalists or monks in the East, is supposed to “try to cross-reference it with other intuitions,” as you say?
Regarding the halakhic example, I assume that perhaps in the future, God willing, I’ll ask you in another post.
But briefly, what I meant was that regarding the Torah, discovery and justification are connected to one another, because both come from the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, if I were certain, then even if He told me to “jump on one foot,” I would do it, as Leibowitz answered.
Ostensibly I don’t see what reason there is for that, but because it came from the Holy One, blessed be He, one automatically has to do it—that is at least how I understood his intention.
You can examine whether this mystical map provides an explanation that connects various phenomena (halakhic or factual) to one another. You can also apply intuition to things outside yourself, like the principle of causality or induction, or many other a priori assumptions in science. We have the same capacity for spiritual intuition that Kabbalists or Eastern monks have. It may be that for them it is sharper and deeper, or that they excel at conceptualizing its results. They are human beings just like you and me, and therefore it is likely that the differences between us are quantitative, not that they possess some capacity that in us does not exist at all.
Thank you. With your permission, I’ll ask one last question that will help me sharpen and summarize the topic / passage, at least for now: is there a way a person can develop that intuitive capacity, similar to physical or intellectual ability, where a person studies more and “wracks his brain”? If so, how exactly?
Or is it something innate, or something that develops, if at all, through a person’s life experiences? As I understand it—and this is just a baseless hypothesis—those people really are just like you and me, except that they are in a state of mindfulness, and then perhaps it is easier for them to connect to those intuitions. That is also how I understood it from Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Indeed, similar to physical fitness, the more you train the mind, the more it improves. So too with intuition. True, ostensibly there is no feedback, but in fact there is. Additional intuitions and perspectives create cross-checks. Clearly we are born with it, but it can be improved. If we did not have such a capacity in principle, apparently we would not be able to build it from nothing.
Indeed, you are right that it doesn’t matter how it was discovered (in a dream at night, or just while sitting and thinking), but regarding justification—how can this be examined?
After all, as I understood it, the context of justification comes to resolve a certain randomness. For example, when a scientist discovers something, he now has to test whether it was a one-time occurrence; at least that’s also how I understood it from you.
(apologies if not)
How can I myself, or others, examine intuitions of this kind?
And another question that came to mind: in Jewish law, do the context of discovery and the context of justification also work in the same way? Because ostensibly the Torah came from the Holy One, blessed be He, who Himself constitutes the source of justification as I understand it—is that not so?
After all, in Jewish law you have no way to test whether something is right or not (of course there is), but what I mean is that this too is done within the four cubits of the framework of Jewish law itself.
I’ll try to give an example; I hope I succeed…
According to Jewish law one may not desecrate the Sabbath. Now there is a dispute whether X counts as desecrating the Sabbath, but the justification for the fact that one may not desecrate the Sabbath is already fixed, since we assume that this is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, who revealed this to us.
P.S. Sorry that the comments are a bit long, but this really is a topic that interests me.