Q&A: The Secret That Was Revealed 2
The Secret That Was Revealed 2
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I understand my commitment to the Talmud and to Jewish law: there was the revelation at Mount Sinai, God gave the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, which were transmitted from generation to generation. And over the generations there are rules that were passed down in tradition and others that were innovated: Mishnah / Talmud / medieval authorities (Rishonim), which the Jewish people accepted upon themselves {surely the Rabbi did not accept the medieval authorities upon himself…}, disputes and halakhic rulings—fine.
But I do not understand what obligation I have toward Kabbalah. I am not talking about all sorts of charlatans. Even if we say that these things are true and that God revealed Himself to select individuals and righteous people {not sarcastically} and taught them the secrets of creation—why should that obligate anyone??
Thank you, Rabbi.
Answer
Who said you have any obligation toward Kabbalah? It really is not binding. If you do not think it is true, then do not act accordingly. There may perhaps be an issue of custom with regard to those practices that were accepted by the broader public, but even regarding those it is not certain that you are obligated by the laws of custom, since their acceptance is based on the assumption that Kabbalah is binding or that it is true; and if in your view that is not the case, then I do not think you are obligated by it.
Discussion on Answer
Kabbalah is not mysticism. Mysticism too exists in almost every culture. Are they all dealing with Kabbalah as well?
The Talmud does not deal with Kabbalah. The entire style of writing and the ideas are completely different.
Even Hekhalot literature is not exactly Kabbalah, and it is brought in external books that were completely rejected by the Sages. Some of them are also of a very low level, with poor reliability, pseudepigraphic, and with claims that were completely rejected and today are considered heresy in the mainstream streams of Judaism.
The Zohar also brings very late Neoplatonic and Aristotelian claims. Even the sages who, according to the Zohar, make those claims have names suspiciously similar to Greek philosophers who made similar claims.
I also do not know how much time you spend on this site, but the Rabbi does not accept the authority of the medieval authorities, and beyond that there is also doubt as to how binding rulings whose source is Kabbalah really are. Even from the perspective of decisors who accepted Kabbalah and even engaged in it, but still do not think it is intended for the masses, who certainly do not understand the meaning of those commandments and intentions they are carrying out.
My response to A,
A. When I wrote “mysticism,” I meant the mystical side of Kabbalah. Obviously there are also forms of mysticism unrelated to Kabbalah.
B. There is a great deal in common between the mysticism in the Talmud and the mysticism in Kabbalah (both early and late)—demons, angels, worlds, entering Pardes, and so on.
There is also magic in the Talmud (a branch of mysticism)—for example, creating a calf before the Sabbath.
There is mention of using letters in a mystical way.
C. I am not going to get into comparisons between the legitimacy of Hekhalot and Merkavah literature and that of the external books. I will note in passing that even among the external books there are apparently some that are more legitimate than others, and some that probably are not legitimate at all. In any case, it is forbidden to treat them as Scripture.
D. I am not claiming there is a perfect parallel between the Zohar and early Kabbalah (Hekhalot and Merkavah literature).
E. There is a clear connection (even if far from perfect) between early Kabbalah and later Kabbalah; if necessary I can bring examples (for instance, adjuring angels, and much more, much more, much more).
I think that even in the eyes of most scholarship, Hekhalot and Merkavah literature can definitely be called “Kabbalah.”
First of all, we need to clarify what Kabbalah is.
The Talmud itself is full of mysticism and kabbalistic material (even if it differs from the Kabbalah that appears in the Zohar or in what came afterward).
And beyond the Talmud, all scholars agree that Hekhalot and Merkavah literature, which is Kabbalah and mysticism in every sense, took shape in the 2nd–3rd centuries BCE (and there are views that place it even earlier), that is, in the period of the earliest Tannaim, and some of them even appear in this literature. Afterward it underwent editorial development across periods, mainly in the first millennium CE. Very, very early.
That means there is an overlap among the people who stand behind the foundational halakhic texts that are binding—called the Mishnah, Baraita, and Tosefta—and mystical and kabbalistic texts as well (for example, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Ishmael, and others).
But even if we ignore all the “mysticism in the Talmud” and all “Hekhalot and Merkavah literature,” even some of the Kabbalah that was revealed later (the Zohar, etc.) obviously penetrated even the most basic Jewish law of the Jewish people—the Shulchan Arukh and more—and the Jewish people, who today practice in accordance with the Shulchan Arukh, do not always know that sometimes (not often) this is Kabbalah that made its way into its rulings.
Or in other words, I no longer think it is possible to separate Kabbalah from Jewish law.