Strong agree. Great Post! Unfortunately, with people like you checking out and eating pepperoni pizza instead of actually trying to restore Judaism to its roots is a huge part of the reason why Judaism stagnated.
You need to a priori be a part of the Jewish Halachic community to innovate. That's why Gush is successful but Renewal is not.
If people with doubts still committed to Judaism as a society we'd have a far more vibrant religion.
(There's fault to be placed on both sides why doubters check out).
I a million percent disagree. You don't need to be halachic to innovate Judaism. Zionism, a movement founded almost entirely by Jews who'd eat pepperoni pizza, was a huge success at reclaiming Judaism and reinvigorating it. Israel now exists and half our people speak fluent Hebrew because of some pepperoni eating Jews. Meanwhile chareidim, who take halacha the most seriously, is stuck in a stagnant Judaism and unlikely to ever move forward.
Also the author of this piece clearly didn't "check out." He's clearly engaging with Judaism as much as you are. No need to look down on those who don't practice Judaism like you do. Most Jews in the world don't.
If not for religious Jews at most 20% of births between the river and the sea would be to Jews today, and eventually it would probably hit 10%, due to the low fertility and high emigration of the secular Jews.
The spark that lit the flame was from a secular man, Theodore Herzl. But one spark turned into a huge flame because the longing for Zion was built into Judaism.
The Ramhal is not the 'roots' of Judaism. He was a fringe figure, almost universally condemned, and only rescued from oblivion because of the Gra.
EDIT: Someone pointed out to me that, whilst it is widely claimed, there is in fact no real evidence that the Gra reverenced the Ramhal. Actually, his works were resurrected by he Mussar movement. So, you might say that Benjamin Franklin also represents authentic Judaism.
I don't think that he was ever regarded badly in Sephardic lands. And while it's true that he was not appreciated by Ashkenazim during his life time, that was also a result of the Sabbatean Crisis.
Abraham Geiger wasn't 'regarded badly' in sephardi lands either, because no-one had ever heard of him.
It's quite probable that had he lived a bit earlier, Ramhal would have been met with greater sympathy, but, then, by the same token it's quite probable (certain, really) that he would have been an enthusiastic supporter of Shabtai Tzvi, if not a Shabtai Tzvi himself.
So, you dismiss teachings considered holy by Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Arizal, the Ramak, Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, the TaZ, the Maharal, and likely at least 90% of the Acharonim of that era as “heresy.” I have no doubt that you must be an immense scholar to make such a claim. But even so, as someone who ostensibly considers themselves religious, surely you can see how applying that term to the beliefs of figures of such stature renders it meaningless.
First of all, I am agreeing with you. As you demonstrate, the natural development of kabbalah is Shabtai Tzvi (or Eliezer Berland, or Ezra Scheinberg, makes no difference). Put provocatively, this is equivalent to the statement that kabbalah is heresy. If you don't want to scare the normies, you can say that 'it leads to heresy', or 'contains the kernel of heresy' or whatever. That's fine; no need to get het up about semantics.
As to your amusingly kitsch attempt to employ Charedi rhetoric in defense of kabbollocks, I guess I'm just immune. The answer is as follows. I can divide your list into two categories: the good ones I just say the same thing they would say about the Rambam and Greek philosophy. The bad ones, well they're bad. Maybe if Yitzhak Luria had lived to more than 38, he would have repented his practice of the occult, promotion of paganism and numerous teachings against halacha. But the Aibishter's mercies are not infinite.
To be clear, my position is simply that rejecting innovation as heresy just because an experiment didn’t work out or because the innovation was used to justify unethical behavior is a mistake. It’s no different from dismissing experimental science altogether because some unethical experiments were conducted in its pursuit. (There were plenty of those. And they were every bit as bad as anything religion has produced)
The idea that an unchanging God wrote a book, experiences jealousy, establishes rigid rules, and grants people things like land, for instance makes no sense. At all. On its face, it is completely incoherent.
If you want to build a religion and a way of life based on such a concept, you have to innovate. The Rambam did so in his own way. Personally, I find that the Kabbalistic framework resolves many contradictions more effectively than his, though ultimately, each person can choose the approach that speaks to them.
The capacity for bold innovation is what keeps religion meaningful and relevant. Without it, religion risks becoming a stagnant system of arbitrary rules and regulations, detached from reality, and increasingly less fulfilling in every possible way.
I’m also curious, have you read the Ramchal’s works? Da’as Tevunos in particular? Klach Pischei Cochmah requires familiarity with the terms and concepts, and may take more work. But I’m actually curious if you’ve read the material.
I’m fairly certain that every major Acharon from the time of the Arizal onward would vehemently disagree with your assessment of him. Not one of them would define his teachings as paganism. In fact, all of them, even those who came much later and fiercely opposed new Kabbalistic innovations, would still regard his teachings as the holiest of the holy. The same is true for the Ramak and others of his era.
Of course, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. Personally, I am completely secular in practice. However, labeling as heresy beliefs that every major thinker in the religion you practice held sacred renders the term meaningless.
I appreciate this take and have said this before as an illustration of the difference between traditional Kabbalah and Hasidism, but this article is unfortunately ignorant of the continued serious speculation that continued in the communities of the East. The Iraqi mequbalim, the Chidah, the Rashash and his progeny in Yeshivat Beit El- this is exactly what you were talking about. All of this was unfortunately interrupted by the ravages of modernity and the East’s confrontation with the dismissiveness of a Torah culture that called these people primitive without touching any of their sefarim.
Beautiful. I think there is a larger coalescence between the disciplines occuring than you might think but very well written and I agree with many of the points here.
The reason for this rejection, is that this simplicity is incompatible with תורה מסיני and Halacha, so the believer rightly sees where the heresy is going, and shuts it down.
Halacha is the rules given to push the buttons of the system. “Nevuah” is the perception or encounter with base reality by someone with a mind pure and uncluttered enough enough to not project their own biases and feelings into the the interpretation of the experience their brain ultimately gives. It’s actually not even that complicated. You just need to allow creativity and not fear change.
Will this affect how Halacha is applied? Of course. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.
This so called creativity is anything but the natural (or simplest)conclusion though. This doesn't just change how Halacha is applied, it points to its very root as human and arbitrary. I really don't see how this can be avoided.
I think the best you can do is highlight the natural world as stunning and worthwhile, and teach natural philosophy under the umbrella of מעשה בראשית, since the label as a distinct esoteric branch is obsolete.
I don't know you personally, but I agree with many of your thoughts expressed here. A simple God is the foundation of reality for (classical) Judaism. The pursuit of a simple theory at the base of reality is what motivates theoretical physicists (and other scientists, like Dawkins apparently).
I do think you've oversimplified and misdiagnosed what caused religion in the modern world to become less dynamic and creative. Perhaps Shabtai Tzvi was a significant moment, but ultimately the interaction with modernity has been disastrous for many religions, not just Judaism, over the past few hundred years. This has caused religion to become defensive, overly conservative, and somewhat anti-intellectual.
I do think there is much to be gained from physics and Torah. Perhaps you might like https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsToGod as an attempt to further the connection between physics and God (and through extending the Brisker method to physics and philosophy).
I bring up Shabtai Tzvi because, in my view, Kabbalistic speculation was uniquely scientific and resilient, even more so then more “rationalist” streams of the religious thought- capable of surviving where older religious frameworks crumbled, because it blends the spiritual and physical worlds into a structured, mechanical system. It provides a clear framework for how unchanging infinity manifests in our lived experience, and prescribes specific actions to address the challenges that arise in life and in the world, along with explanations for why they work and what part of the system they fix or damage. Klach Pischei Chochma reads as much like a book on physics as it does a theological work, albeit using religious terminology and written in Hebrew.
To the best of my knowledge, Shabtai Tzvi was Western religion’s first large-scale experiment in applying a theological system in this manner. The idea that galus results from specific features of a quasi-mechanical system, one that could, in theory, be influenced by people who are themselves part of that system, was a radical departure from conventional Western religious thought. This may explain why he gained such momentum and why nearly all the leading rabbinic figures of his time initially supported him. They accepted the system of the Arizal, and Shabtai Tzvi was simply attempting to put that system into practice. And he really tried. He did a bunch of Tikkunim, got on a ship went head to head to confront the leader of the most powerful empire of his time. He didn’t try and gather an army. He just “pushed the buttons” and went.
But the experiment failed catastrophically. Instead of revising and refining their theories, though some attempted to do so, the pain of this failure was used to justify shutting down further innovation. Those who tried to push forward were labeled as heretics, and silenced. From that point on, anyone who ventured into creative theological territory was relentlessly persecuted, their ideas crushed before they could take shape. The Ramchal is an exception in that he survived, but he too was hounded.
Ironically, this led to a situation where the only innovations that could thrive were those that escaped the influence of the Rabbonim, who would have otherwise suppressed them. As a result, movements like the Haskalah and Reform Judaism emerged, and thrived, where genuine theological innovation within a religious framework could have taken root instead. This caused an even stronger “circling of the wagons” so to speak, which leads us to where we are today.
That's an interesting perspective. I've looked at the popularization of kabbalah as an anti-rational reaction to the Enlightenment.
It sounds like you're arguing that there was the potential to develop kabbalah in an intellectual (I'll leave out "rational") manner that synthesized it with modern physics. Perhaps in a more secure environment that would have happened.
I don't know if what you are suggesting is the solution, or even part of the solution, to what ails Judaism today. I agree that something is wrong with the current failure of Judaism to engage the modern world in a more creative, mutually beneficial manner.
What???? An old man in the sky? This is not the Torah I know. And not one I’ve ever known
“they were mapping reality. They were tracing the emergence of complexity from absolute simplicity. They looked at the universe, recognized its patterns, and wove them into a unified system of thought.” This is Rav Moshe Shapiro! This IS Torah today! It’s absolutely here, now. כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד…
Love this! I try to point out to people that when they say “Kivayochol” they should think about what they even mean by the attribute they are trying to invoke to god. For some reason, they just say “yes we can’t understand god….but….we can still say that….”
"Imagine: mekubalim with access to experimental science." I direct you to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan of blessed memory, a mekubal with a Master's Degree in plasma physics. Like you, a fan of the Derech Hashem. Speaking of which, I don't think Ramchal would agree with your portrayal of the King of Kings as without emotion; after all, Derech Hashem also discusses things like celestial witnesses and active divine providence in the world that wouldn't be necessary if G-d didn't care (for lack of a better term).
Bonus round: Speaking of fans of Ramchal, Rav A.I. Kook once met Einstein. Einstein then explained his theory of Relativity, and Rav Kook replied with a kabbalah story that involved the curvature of space time. Einstein said that Rav Kook was one of the few people he had met in his lifetime who understood Relativity.
Contrariwise- Kabballah can never escape the distorted images of G-d, because it is a text based tradition, not an inquiry one. It is alive and kicking. People read Ramchal, but Ramchal and the like (and Ramchal is the best of them) hardly ever point out errors of others. They only say what G-d is, and not what he isn't. (the quotes you give above, everybody will nod. Add- therefore it is wrong and heretical to say G-d loves you, hates Hitler and cares about gay sex or ritual hand washing- and see the response).
Every system is “based on tradition” in that it emerges from the beliefs, language, and culture of its time. Science itself has its roots in religion, our earliest attempt to make sense of this strange experience we call existence. The further back in time you go the more science is phrased in religious terminology.
Kabbalah, while not science in the modern sense, was the first serious attempt by Judaism to map the machinery of reality and explore ways it could be manipulated. Between 1500 and 1750, however, it largely ceased to innovate, and never has since. It stopped innovating when experimental science was just taking off.
In the 1500s The Arizal pushed its framework to new heights, laying it out the details of the system and how he believed it worked. This culminated in the grand “Shabsai Tzvi experiment” an experiment nearly all the Gedolim of the time believed would succeed. It introduced far greater breaks from tradition than merely dismissing ritual hand washing. Had it not ended in physical catastrophe, Shabsai Tzvi would have been the first figure accepted by the greatest Torah Scholars alive (from the TaZ to R Shmuel Vital etc etc) to claim that even issurei deoraisa could be set aside if necessary to recalibrate the machinery of existence as he understood it. Needless to say, a frum person taking such a position today is unthinkable.
After the 1660s, any new ideas had to be carefully toned down to avoid persecution by the rabbinic establishment. If scientific progress had frozen in the 16th or 17th century, science too would look vastly different today.
As far as being rooted in tradition: Mekubalim innovated plenty, they just worked it backward, using methods like Gematria, Kollel Hakol, and Ribui, along with highly creative reinterpretations, to work their ideas into Pesukim, Words, or Chazal’s.
People often assume they are misreading the Ramchal or other Mekubalim when they reach conclusions like yours. But even the Ramchal is explicit: God does not “love” or “hate” in any human sense, nor does He “design” or have any thoughts or feelings. Those are all things humans have. And they necessarily denote change. The writings where he expresses this most clearly were mostly published posthumously and phrased cautiously which is precisely my point.
"Kabbalah, while not science in the modern sense, was the first serious attempt by Judaism to map the machinery of reality and explore ways it could be manipulated."
1) It is not a science in the ancient sense as well (as far as such a thing existed). Aristotle was an ancient scientist, who was focused on mapping the machinery of reality.
2) Mapping was done before Kaballah (unless you claim the Zohar to be Tanaic?). Sa'adia Gaon, RMBM, RLBG, Crescas.
3) The idea of manipulating was always done in mystical realms as far as I can see. I cannot think of one physical invention or discovery that can be attributed to Kabbalists. I'd love to see how I'm wrong, with Kabbalah being proven a useful methodology.
"As far as being rooted in tradition: Mekubalim innovated plenty, they just worked it backward, using methods like Gematria, Kollel Hakol, and Ribui, along with highly creative reinterpretations, to work their ideas into Pesukim, Words, or Chazal’s."
I assume you mean theologically, perhaps even philosophically. I think their innovations have not proven their worth. Do you have counterexamples? (The best I can think of is some continental philosophy dabbling in Lurianic models. Hardly a worthy payoff of so many minds.)
"But even the Ramchal is explicit: God does not “love” or “hate” in any human sense, nor does He “design” or have any thoughts or feelings. Those are all things humans have. And they necessarily denote change. The writings where he expresses this most clearly were mostly published posthumously and phrased cautiously which is precisely my point."
It’s an attempt to create a unified theory of the divine and physical worlds, how they both work, the rules that are inherent to them, and therefore how we can and should relate them. And at its most creative they had no problem with it changing Halacha, even in big ways. This is at the heart of modern science. As Steven Hawking put it “to know the mind of God” to the greatest extent we can. Not to posit a separate “spiritual realm”.
As far as Ramchal, he says it everywhere. Even in Derech Hashem. If you want to see and appreciate what he was actually doing, Klach Pischei Chochma is amazing. It is not light reading, and requires some knowledge of the language and methods of Kabbalistic thought and being able to read Hebrew (English translations are pretty much useless in these areas in my experience) He maps out a system in detail and posits how each step flows from the next. If you are interested, get the one from Machon Ramchal. Sod Hayichud printed by them is great as well.
I’m not saying that they figured it all out obviously. (I’m not even religious) I’m saying that in my opinion, this was a way more rational and creative way for religion to engage with the world, and Judaism had a uniquely beautiful and robust version of it.
I’m really enjoying this convo but have other things I gotta do for a bit. If I’m delayed in responding that’s why!
This is not just the Ramchal and the Mekubalim, it is in fact the Rambam as well as the Hasidim as well as the Gr"a and even Rav Kook (all of which are essentially based on the Zohar and the Ari)
Technically there is no jewish sage or source that allows the Christian idea of a man in the sky and according to all sources such a belief is pure heresy
I like how Rabbi David Aron starts his lectures "thanks God I am an atheist as not just I am an atheist but also Moshe Rabbeni was one, as he didn't believe in the non jewish GOD but in YKVK which is the pure reality)
I have a Telegram channel (mostly in Yiddish but also some English and Hebrew especially the sources) to explain this and Judaism in general (which is nowadays completely upside down)
Just because we throughly eradicated the corporeal view of god (due in large part to Muslim and Christian but mostly Muslim influence) doesn’t mean it didn’t use to be a major view. In fact when Rambam calls it a heresy Raavad interjects that it is a major view of רבים וטובים ממנו - old man in the sky - a corporeal god was a major view in classical Judaism and Rambam calling it a heresy was quite controversial and evoked some of the strongest criticism of Rambam that Raavad provided in his entire commentary. Anticorporealism is not a Jewish idea rejecting Christian ideas it is a Muslim and Christian idea which percolated into Judaism.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course G-d doesn't have feelings or emotions! The Rambam said it right there at the end of the first perek of his first Sefer Mada in Yesodei Hatorah-- and to believe otherwise is simply hisgashmus Haborei:
:טו [יב] והואיל והדבר כך הוא, כל הדברים הללו וכיוצא בהן שנאמרו בתורה ובדברי נביאים--הכול משל ומליצה הם, כמו שנאמר "יושב בשמיים, ישחק" (תהילים ב,ד), "כיעסוני בהבליהם" (דברים לב,כא), "כאשר שש ה'" (דברים כח,סג), וכיוצא בהן. על הכול אמרו חכמים, דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. וכן הוא אומר "האותי הם מכעיסים" (ירמיהו ז,יט); הרי הוא אומר "אני ה', לא שניתי" (מלאכי ג,ו), ואילו היה פעמים כועס ופעמים שמח, היה משתנה. וכל הדברים האלו אינם מצויים אלא לגופים האפלים השפלים, שוכני בתי חומר אשר בעפר יסודם. אבל הוא ברוך הוא יתעלה ויתרומם, על כל זה.
Find me mainstream sources who say the Rambam was wrong about hisgashmus Haborei being kefirah. Then find me sources who say emotions and feelings aren't a form of hisgashmus Haborei.
IIRC, Shir Hayichud (What many shuls recite Yom Kippur night after Maariv) backs me up.
I should probably stay out of this discussion because it’s above my head. I can’t make sense of half of the references and I don’t know what the word “Kivayochol” means.
But… It’s unclear to me how you can say that Judaism is not a system built on Commandments when we’re currently reading a parsha that is almost nothing but Commandments, when so much of the religion is tied to the 10 Commandments. Likewise, I don’t see how Judaism can ever completely repudiate an anthropomorphic God when Judaism is based on the Bible, whose God is anthropomorphic. Nor can we repudiate a Judaism that is based in Texts that are unassailable when it is a religion based on a text that is unassailable,
i.e. the Bible.
I’m not saying the religion can’t evolve. It obviously does. And it also feels to me like you're generalizing the Lakewood experience to the entire orthodox community. Because some of what you’re describing, doesn’t sound like what I experience in what I might call a Chabad-lite community.
But again, it may be that I’m just not understanding things that you’re saying because the context in the references are beyond me.
All that happened but said it’s a fascinating discussion and a well written post.
>>>Because in the end, both science and religion were meant to be after the same thing. Not ownership of truth but the endless pursuit of it.
Yes, religion was an attempt at pursuing truth. It broke off when science recognized that you need to follow the evidence and not just embrace wishful thinking and religion refused to do that. I don't see how religion can remain religion and embrace a true pursuit of truth.
Strong agree. Great Post! Unfortunately, with people like you checking out and eating pepperoni pizza instead of actually trying to restore Judaism to its roots is a huge part of the reason why Judaism stagnated.
You need to a priori be a part of the Jewish Halachic community to innovate. That's why Gush is successful but Renewal is not.
If people with doubts still committed to Judaism as a society we'd have a far more vibrant religion.
(There's fault to be placed on both sides why doubters check out).
I a million percent disagree. You don't need to be halachic to innovate Judaism. Zionism, a movement founded almost entirely by Jews who'd eat pepperoni pizza, was a huge success at reclaiming Judaism and reinvigorating it. Israel now exists and half our people speak fluent Hebrew because of some pepperoni eating Jews. Meanwhile chareidim, who take halacha the most seriously, is stuck in a stagnant Judaism and unlikely to ever move forward.
Also the author of this piece clearly didn't "check out." He's clearly engaging with Judaism as much as you are. No need to look down on those who don't practice Judaism like you do. Most Jews in the world don't.
>Zionism, a movement founded almost entirely by Jews who'd eat pepperoni pizza, was a huge success
You are right. As a short-term strategy secularism is great.
But in the long term it fails.
https://moshekoppel.substack.com/p/hebrew-speaking-goyim
If not for religious Jews at most 20% of births between the river and the sea would be to Jews today, and eventually it would probably hit 10%, due to the low fertility and high emigration of the secular Jews.
https://nonzionism.com/p/why-is-israel-fertile
https://nonzionism.com/p/why-is-israel-fertile/comment/80340263
https://www.shoresh.institute/publication.html?id=Pub034 Figure 15 pg. 14
https://chotam.org.il/media/37347/demography-of-religiosity.pdf
https://nonzionism.com/p/is-israeli-fertility-special
The spark that lit the flame was from a secular man, Theodore Herzl. But one spark turned into a huge flame because the longing for Zion was built into Judaism.
As if that's really an option in a society you'd be shunned from.
That's an an issue that started way back with the Haskala and led to the separatism vs unity arguments.
The Ramhal is not the 'roots' of Judaism. He was a fringe figure, almost universally condemned, and only rescued from oblivion because of the Gra.
EDIT: Someone pointed out to me that, whilst it is widely claimed, there is in fact no real evidence that the Gra reverenced the Ramhal. Actually, his works were resurrected by he Mussar movement. So, you might say that Benjamin Franklin also represents authentic Judaism.
I don't think that he was ever regarded badly in Sephardic lands. And while it's true that he was not appreciated by Ashkenazim during his life time, that was also a result of the Sabbatean Crisis.
Abraham Geiger wasn't 'regarded badly' in sephardi lands either, because no-one had ever heard of him.
It's quite probable that had he lived a bit earlier, Ramhal would have been met with greater sympathy, but, then, by the same token it's quite probable (certain, really) that he would have been an enthusiastic supporter of Shabtai Tzvi, if not a Shabtai Tzvi himself.
So, you dismiss teachings considered holy by Rabbi Yosef Karo, the Arizal, the Ramak, Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, the TaZ, the Maharal, and likely at least 90% of the Acharonim of that era as “heresy.” I have no doubt that you must be an immense scholar to make such a claim. But even so, as someone who ostensibly considers themselves religious, surely you can see how applying that term to the beliefs of figures of such stature renders it meaningless.
First of all, I am agreeing with you. As you demonstrate, the natural development of kabbalah is Shabtai Tzvi (or Eliezer Berland, or Ezra Scheinberg, makes no difference). Put provocatively, this is equivalent to the statement that kabbalah is heresy. If you don't want to scare the normies, you can say that 'it leads to heresy', or 'contains the kernel of heresy' or whatever. That's fine; no need to get het up about semantics.
As to your amusingly kitsch attempt to employ Charedi rhetoric in defense of kabbollocks, I guess I'm just immune. The answer is as follows. I can divide your list into two categories: the good ones I just say the same thing they would say about the Rambam and Greek philosophy. The bad ones, well they're bad. Maybe if Yitzhak Luria had lived to more than 38, he would have repented his practice of the occult, promotion of paganism and numerous teachings against halacha. But the Aibishter's mercies are not infinite.
To be clear, my position is simply that rejecting innovation as heresy just because an experiment didn’t work out or because the innovation was used to justify unethical behavior is a mistake. It’s no different from dismissing experimental science altogether because some unethical experiments were conducted in its pursuit. (There were plenty of those. And they were every bit as bad as anything religion has produced)
The idea that an unchanging God wrote a book, experiences jealousy, establishes rigid rules, and grants people things like land, for instance makes no sense. At all. On its face, it is completely incoherent.
If you want to build a religion and a way of life based on such a concept, you have to innovate. The Rambam did so in his own way. Personally, I find that the Kabbalistic framework resolves many contradictions more effectively than his, though ultimately, each person can choose the approach that speaks to them.
The capacity for bold innovation is what keeps religion meaningful and relevant. Without it, religion risks becoming a stagnant system of arbitrary rules and regulations, detached from reality, and increasingly less fulfilling in every possible way.
I’m also curious, have you read the Ramchal’s works? Da’as Tevunos in particular? Klach Pischei Cochmah requires familiarity with the terms and concepts, and may take more work. But I’m actually curious if you’ve read the material.
I’m fairly certain that every major Acharon from the time of the Arizal onward would vehemently disagree with your assessment of him. Not one of them would define his teachings as paganism. In fact, all of them, even those who came much later and fiercely opposed new Kabbalistic innovations, would still regard his teachings as the holiest of the holy. The same is true for the Ramak and others of his era.
Of course, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. Personally, I am completely secular in practice. However, labeling as heresy beliefs that every major thinker in the religion you practice held sacred renders the term meaningless.
Well said!
Shame we lost you....becau e it is the people like you that we need,
I appreciate this take and have said this before as an illustration of the difference between traditional Kabbalah and Hasidism, but this article is unfortunately ignorant of the continued serious speculation that continued in the communities of the East. The Iraqi mequbalim, the Chidah, the Rashash and his progeny in Yeshivat Beit El- this is exactly what you were talking about. All of this was unfortunately interrupted by the ravages of modernity and the East’s confrontation with the dismissiveness of a Torah culture that called these people primitive without touching any of their sefarim.
Just a thought, not a criticism
Beautiful. I think there is a larger coalescence between the disciplines occuring than you might think but very well written and I agree with many of the points here.
Agreed. I smiled throughout the read.
The reason for this rejection, is that this simplicity is incompatible with תורה מסיני and Halacha, so the believer rightly sees where the heresy is going, and shuts it down.
But it’s not…. If you’re creative.
Halacha is the rules given to push the buttons of the system. “Nevuah” is the perception or encounter with base reality by someone with a mind pure and uncluttered enough enough to not project their own biases and feelings into the the interpretation of the experience their brain ultimately gives. It’s actually not even that complicated. You just need to allow creativity and not fear change.
Will this affect how Halacha is applied? Of course. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.
This so called creativity is anything but the natural (or simplest)conclusion though. This doesn't just change how Halacha is applied, it points to its very root as human and arbitrary. I really don't see how this can be avoided.
I think the best you can do is highlight the natural world as stunning and worthwhile, and teach natural philosophy under the umbrella of מעשה בראשית, since the label as a distinct esoteric branch is obsolete.
I don't know you personally, but I agree with many of your thoughts expressed here. A simple God is the foundation of reality for (classical) Judaism. The pursuit of a simple theory at the base of reality is what motivates theoretical physicists (and other scientists, like Dawkins apparently).
I do think you've oversimplified and misdiagnosed what caused religion in the modern world to become less dynamic and creative. Perhaps Shabtai Tzvi was a significant moment, but ultimately the interaction with modernity has been disastrous for many religions, not just Judaism, over the past few hundred years. This has caused religion to become defensive, overly conservative, and somewhat anti-intellectual.
I do think there is much to be gained from physics and Torah. Perhaps you might like https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsToGod as an attempt to further the connection between physics and God (and through extending the Brisker method to physics and philosophy).
I bring up Shabtai Tzvi because, in my view, Kabbalistic speculation was uniquely scientific and resilient, even more so then more “rationalist” streams of the religious thought- capable of surviving where older religious frameworks crumbled, because it blends the spiritual and physical worlds into a structured, mechanical system. It provides a clear framework for how unchanging infinity manifests in our lived experience, and prescribes specific actions to address the challenges that arise in life and in the world, along with explanations for why they work and what part of the system they fix or damage. Klach Pischei Chochma reads as much like a book on physics as it does a theological work, albeit using religious terminology and written in Hebrew.
To the best of my knowledge, Shabtai Tzvi was Western religion’s first large-scale experiment in applying a theological system in this manner. The idea that galus results from specific features of a quasi-mechanical system, one that could, in theory, be influenced by people who are themselves part of that system, was a radical departure from conventional Western religious thought. This may explain why he gained such momentum and why nearly all the leading rabbinic figures of his time initially supported him. They accepted the system of the Arizal, and Shabtai Tzvi was simply attempting to put that system into practice. And he really tried. He did a bunch of Tikkunim, got on a ship went head to head to confront the leader of the most powerful empire of his time. He didn’t try and gather an army. He just “pushed the buttons” and went.
But the experiment failed catastrophically. Instead of revising and refining their theories, though some attempted to do so, the pain of this failure was used to justify shutting down further innovation. Those who tried to push forward were labeled as heretics, and silenced. From that point on, anyone who ventured into creative theological territory was relentlessly persecuted, their ideas crushed before they could take shape. The Ramchal is an exception in that he survived, but he too was hounded.
Ironically, this led to a situation where the only innovations that could thrive were those that escaped the influence of the Rabbonim, who would have otherwise suppressed them. As a result, movements like the Haskalah and Reform Judaism emerged, and thrived, where genuine theological innovation within a religious framework could have taken root instead. This caused an even stronger “circling of the wagons” so to speak, which leads us to where we are today.
I’ll check out your links. Thanks for sharing!
This is a good point
That's an interesting perspective. I've looked at the popularization of kabbalah as an anti-rational reaction to the Enlightenment.
It sounds like you're arguing that there was the potential to develop kabbalah in an intellectual (I'll leave out "rational") manner that synthesized it with modern physics. Perhaps in a more secure environment that would have happened.
I don't know if what you are suggesting is the solution, or even part of the solution, to what ails Judaism today. I agree that something is wrong with the current failure of Judaism to engage the modern world in a more creative, mutually beneficial manner.
What???? An old man in the sky? This is not the Torah I know. And not one I’ve ever known
“they were mapping reality. They were tracing the emergence of complexity from absolute simplicity. They looked at the universe, recognized its patterns, and wove them into a unified system of thought.” This is Rav Moshe Shapiro! This IS Torah today! It’s absolutely here, now. כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד…
.
R Moshe Shapiro was mapping reality!?
Sure! The spiritual Oneness unfolds into a thousand details of the physical world.
Yesss 😂
Love this! I try to point out to people that when they say “Kivayochol” they should think about what they even mean by the attribute they are trying to invoke to god. For some reason, they just say “yes we can’t understand god….but….we can still say that….”
"Imagine: mekubalim with access to experimental science." I direct you to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan of blessed memory, a mekubal with a Master's Degree in plasma physics. Like you, a fan of the Derech Hashem. Speaking of which, I don't think Ramchal would agree with your portrayal of the King of Kings as without emotion; after all, Derech Hashem also discusses things like celestial witnesses and active divine providence in the world that wouldn't be necessary if G-d didn't care (for lack of a better term).
Bonus round: Speaking of fans of Ramchal, Rav A.I. Kook once met Einstein. Einstein then explained his theory of Relativity, and Rav Kook replied with a kabbalah story that involved the curvature of space time. Einstein said that Rav Kook was one of the few people he had met in his lifetime who understood Relativity.
I’m so confused - but I love this conversation.
Contrariwise- Kabballah can never escape the distorted images of G-d, because it is a text based tradition, not an inquiry one. It is alive and kicking. People read Ramchal, but Ramchal and the like (and Ramchal is the best of them) hardly ever point out errors of others. They only say what G-d is, and not what he isn't. (the quotes you give above, everybody will nod. Add- therefore it is wrong and heretical to say G-d loves you, hates Hitler and cares about gay sex or ritual hand washing- and see the response).
Every system is “based on tradition” in that it emerges from the beliefs, language, and culture of its time. Science itself has its roots in religion, our earliest attempt to make sense of this strange experience we call existence. The further back in time you go the more science is phrased in religious terminology.
Kabbalah, while not science in the modern sense, was the first serious attempt by Judaism to map the machinery of reality and explore ways it could be manipulated. Between 1500 and 1750, however, it largely ceased to innovate, and never has since. It stopped innovating when experimental science was just taking off.
In the 1500s The Arizal pushed its framework to new heights, laying it out the details of the system and how he believed it worked. This culminated in the grand “Shabsai Tzvi experiment” an experiment nearly all the Gedolim of the time believed would succeed. It introduced far greater breaks from tradition than merely dismissing ritual hand washing. Had it not ended in physical catastrophe, Shabsai Tzvi would have been the first figure accepted by the greatest Torah Scholars alive (from the TaZ to R Shmuel Vital etc etc) to claim that even issurei deoraisa could be set aside if necessary to recalibrate the machinery of existence as he understood it. Needless to say, a frum person taking such a position today is unthinkable.
After the 1660s, any new ideas had to be carefully toned down to avoid persecution by the rabbinic establishment. If scientific progress had frozen in the 16th or 17th century, science too would look vastly different today.
As far as being rooted in tradition: Mekubalim innovated plenty, they just worked it backward, using methods like Gematria, Kollel Hakol, and Ribui, along with highly creative reinterpretations, to work their ideas into Pesukim, Words, or Chazal’s.
People often assume they are misreading the Ramchal or other Mekubalim when they reach conclusions like yours. But even the Ramchal is explicit: God does not “love” or “hate” in any human sense, nor does He “design” or have any thoughts or feelings. Those are all things humans have. And they necessarily denote change. The writings where he expresses this most clearly were mostly published posthumously and phrased cautiously which is precisely my point.
"Kabbalah, while not science in the modern sense, was the first serious attempt by Judaism to map the machinery of reality and explore ways it could be manipulated."
1) It is not a science in the ancient sense as well (as far as such a thing existed). Aristotle was an ancient scientist, who was focused on mapping the machinery of reality.
2) Mapping was done before Kaballah (unless you claim the Zohar to be Tanaic?). Sa'adia Gaon, RMBM, RLBG, Crescas.
3) The idea of manipulating was always done in mystical realms as far as I can see. I cannot think of one physical invention or discovery that can be attributed to Kabbalists. I'd love to see how I'm wrong, with Kabbalah being proven a useful methodology.
"As far as being rooted in tradition: Mekubalim innovated plenty, they just worked it backward, using methods like Gematria, Kollel Hakol, and Ribui, along with highly creative reinterpretations, to work their ideas into Pesukim, Words, or Chazal’s."
I assume you mean theologically, perhaps even philosophically. I think their innovations have not proven their worth. Do you have counterexamples? (The best I can think of is some continental philosophy dabbling in Lurianic models. Hardly a worthy payoff of so many minds.)
"But even the Ramchal is explicit: God does not “love” or “hate” in any human sense, nor does He “design” or have any thoughts or feelings. Those are all things humans have. And they necessarily denote change. The writings where he expresses this most clearly were mostly published posthumously and phrased cautiously which is precisely my point."
Can you point me to these writings?
It’s an attempt to create a unified theory of the divine and physical worlds, how they both work, the rules that are inherent to them, and therefore how we can and should relate them. And at its most creative they had no problem with it changing Halacha, even in big ways. This is at the heart of modern science. As Steven Hawking put it “to know the mind of God” to the greatest extent we can. Not to posit a separate “spiritual realm”.
As far as Ramchal, he says it everywhere. Even in Derech Hashem. If you want to see and appreciate what he was actually doing, Klach Pischei Chochma is amazing. It is not light reading, and requires some knowledge of the language and methods of Kabbalistic thought and being able to read Hebrew (English translations are pretty much useless in these areas in my experience) He maps out a system in detail and posits how each step flows from the next. If you are interested, get the one from Machon Ramchal. Sod Hayichud printed by them is great as well.
I’m not saying that they figured it all out obviously. (I’m not even religious) I’m saying that in my opinion, this was a way more rational and creative way for religion to engage with the world, and Judaism had a uniquely beautiful and robust version of it.
I’m really enjoying this convo but have other things I gotta do for a bit. If I’m delayed in responding that’s why!
Great explanation of why kabbalah is heresy.
This is not just the Ramchal and the Mekubalim, it is in fact the Rambam as well as the Hasidim as well as the Gr"a and even Rav Kook (all of which are essentially based on the Zohar and the Ari)
Technically there is no jewish sage or source that allows the Christian idea of a man in the sky and according to all sources such a belief is pure heresy
I like how Rabbi David Aron starts his lectures "thanks God I am an atheist as not just I am an atheist but also Moshe Rabbeni was one, as he didn't believe in the non jewish GOD but in YKVK which is the pure reality)
I have a Telegram channel (mostly in Yiddish but also some English and Hebrew especially the sources) to explain this and Judaism in general (which is nowadays completely upside down)
https://t.me/judaismfaq
Just because we throughly eradicated the corporeal view of god (due in large part to Muslim and Christian but mostly Muslim influence) doesn’t mean it didn’t use to be a major view. In fact when Rambam calls it a heresy Raavad interjects that it is a major view of רבים וטובים ממנו - old man in the sky - a corporeal god was a major view in classical Judaism and Rambam calling it a heresy was quite controversial and evoked some of the strongest criticism of Rambam that Raavad provided in his entire commentary. Anticorporealism is not a Jewish idea rejecting Christian ideas it is a Muslim and Christian idea which percolated into Judaism.
You gottit.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course G-d doesn't have feelings or emotions! The Rambam said it right there at the end of the first perek of his first Sefer Mada in Yesodei Hatorah-- and to believe otherwise is simply hisgashmus Haborei:
:טו [יב] והואיל והדבר כך הוא, כל הדברים הללו וכיוצא בהן שנאמרו בתורה ובדברי נביאים--הכול משל ומליצה הם, כמו שנאמר "יושב בשמיים, ישחק" (תהילים ב,ד), "כיעסוני בהבליהם" (דברים לב,כא), "כאשר שש ה'" (דברים כח,סג), וכיוצא בהן. על הכול אמרו חכמים, דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. וכן הוא אומר "האותי הם מכעיסים" (ירמיהו ז,יט); הרי הוא אומר "אני ה', לא שניתי" (מלאכי ג,ו), ואילו היה פעמים כועס ופעמים שמח, היה משתנה. וכל הדברים האלו אינם מצויים אלא לגופים האפלים השפלים, שוכני בתי חומר אשר בעפר יסודם. אבל הוא ברוך הוא יתעלה ויתרומם, על כל זה.
You're oversimplifying this discussion.
The Rambam is not the final voice. His views on this topic were controversial in his own time, and his theology is hardly mainstream today.
Many disagreed with these statements, and it's one of the reasons they burnt his seforim.
Claiming that all references to God's emotions are simply metaphor and figurative is difficult argument to make.
Find me mainstream sources who say the Rambam was wrong about hisgashmus Haborei being kefirah. Then find me sources who say emotions and feelings aren't a form of hisgashmus Haborei.
IIRC, Shir Hayichud (What many shuls recite Yom Kippur night after Maariv) backs me up.
One of the reasons they burned his seforim was his view on incorporeality.
We know this because the Ramban, in his letter defending the Rambam against his critics, argues why incorporeality is a valid Jewish view.
Overtime, the Rambam's simplicit via negativa became dominant in many areas of Jewish thought, but it was by no means the case at the time.
Shir hayichud is also controversial. The Maharshal, Shla, Gra (allegedly) banned saying it.
Well, the Chasidei Ashkenaz didn't have any problems with incorporeality--and that includes G-d not having emotions:
קהל הֲלֹא מִקֶּדֶם אֵל חַי אָתָּה, מֵאֲשֶׁר בְּךָ לֹא נִשְׁתַּנֵּיתָ:
חזן וְעַד הָעוֹלָם לֹא תִשְׁתַּנֶּה, וּמֵאֱלָהוּתְךָ לֹא תִתְגַּנֶּה:
קהל חָדָשׁ וְנוֹשָׁן לֹא נִמְצֵאתָ, חִדַּשְׁתָּ כֹּל וְלֹא חֻדָּשְׁתָּ:
חזן לֹא יָחוּלוּ זִקְנָה וּבַחֲרוּת עָלֶיךָ, גַּם שֵׂיבָה וְשַׁחֲרוּת:
קהל וְלֹא חָלוּ בְךָ שִׂמְחָה וָעֶצֶב, וְדִמְיוֹן נוֹצָר וְכָל דְּבַר קֶצֶב:
חזן כִּי לֹא יְסוֹבֵב אוֹתְךָ גּוֹשֶׁם, אַף לֹא תִדְמֶה אֶל כָּל נֶשֶׁם:
According to this historian, the Gra was misunderstood.
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/19158
And the Maharshal banned 13 ikkarim as well. But all mikkubalim are on board with 13 ikkarim.
We can traverse through sources ad infinitum, but let me ask you something.
If I were to say God has a face, that would be heresy. But the Tenach says it a hundred times. Why? What does it mean?
I know we say metaphor, but metaphor for what exactly? Why frame descriptions of God in almost every verse that mentions Him in a heretical way?
Why not use absolute terms, and if absolute descriptions aren't an option, why not just say that?
Why write in a manner, that if understood literally, is actually heretical. Is that not deceitful?
I should probably stay out of this discussion because it’s above my head. I can’t make sense of half of the references and I don’t know what the word “Kivayochol” means.
But… It’s unclear to me how you can say that Judaism is not a system built on Commandments when we’re currently reading a parsha that is almost nothing but Commandments, when so much of the religion is tied to the 10 Commandments. Likewise, I don’t see how Judaism can ever completely repudiate an anthropomorphic God when Judaism is based on the Bible, whose God is anthropomorphic. Nor can we repudiate a Judaism that is based in Texts that are unassailable when it is a religion based on a text that is unassailable,
i.e. the Bible.
I’m not saying the religion can’t evolve. It obviously does. And it also feels to me like you're generalizing the Lakewood experience to the entire orthodox community. Because some of what you’re describing, doesn’t sound like what I experience in what I might call a Chabad-lite community.
But again, it may be that I’m just not understanding things that you’re saying because the context in the references are beyond me.
All that happened but said it’s a fascinating discussion and a well written post.
>>>Because in the end, both science and religion were meant to be after the same thing. Not ownership of truth but the endless pursuit of it.
Yes, religion was an attempt at pursuing truth. It broke off when science recognized that you need to follow the evidence and not just embrace wishful thinking and religion refused to do that. I don't see how religion can remain religion and embrace a true pursuit of truth.
“Ramchal would probably have more in common with Richard Dawkins than with Avigdor Miller.”
This will never get old!
I love it…
I used to read those (“Toras Avigdor”)pamphlets religiously every week.
There were very triggering things, like the extreme homophobia, love of violence and misogyny.
But what got me to stop was the relaxation that the angry god was just to much.
I can’t live a life where god will kill millions - because one person didn’t listen to him…