Aryeh Sklar
1) I agree that the texts we studied this semester can generally be categorized as part of the same tradition. This can be viewed through several prisms.
Firstly, let us define mysticism. We pointed out there is no unique Hebrew word for mysticism - it is translated as “mystica”, from Christian terms. Meaning, mysticism is not unique to Judaism, and in fact finds parallel structures in other religions and cultures. So, if we broaden the term for mysticism, we can say it means the study of mystical experience, which in theistic concepts is some kind of encounter with divine beings, which goes towards a feeling of extreme proximity or identity. Many religions have similar theurgic yearnings to Judaism. We noted Boaz Huss further argues that mysticism is a theological category. Others will say that it is really sociological-historical-cultural factors that ties these together.
Looking at the mystical experience as a definition, we can say that in terms of this tradition of mysticism, our texts we studied indeed fit into this tradition. Certainly, Hekhalot literature bespeaks such a mission. The very beginning has Rabbi Ishmael calling for this theistic encounter, specifically how to do it successfully: “Said Rabbi Ishmael: What are those songs which he recites who would behold the vision of the Merkabha, who would descend in peace and would ascend in peace?” We saw that even Rav Hai Gaon and Sefer ha-Arukh, who seem to feel uncomfortable with literal expressions of mystical experiences, still lend credence to the mission itself, to enter Pardes. In this vein, we saw that R. Judah ha-Hasid deals with the debates regarding the possibilities of what a person can see in a mystical state.
Hasidei Ashkenaz were fascinated with the concepts of unity when it came to God, as well as the precise visions of the mystic. Again, this is about the experience of the mystic in his experience. This is expressed clearly in the Shir ha-Yihud, which declares it impossible to see God, and anthropomorphic terms are the only way to describe anything in this area. However unity builds on the experience to be a new branch of the mystical doctrine. Thus, as Gershom Scholem states in Mystical trends (90): “The scope and variety of Hasidic speculation is far greater than that of the old Merkabah mysticism. In addition to the latter’s favorite subjects of meditation it introduces a species of mystical thought on a number of new subjects. Thus begins a new theosophy, the “mystery of God’s unity,” which, without entirely abandoning the old mysticism of the Throne, goes far beyond it and forms a special branch of mystical doctrine…”
However, Hasidei Ashkenaz change the tenor of speculative mysticism into a program of the mystical community. Thus significance of every-day actions like tefillin, with its attendant symbolism of the letter shin, can take on mystical properties and significance. As Gershom Scholem states in Major Trends (91): “Neither learning nor tradition of any kind are among the prime motive forces of Hasidism. What gave to the movement its distinctive character was, more than any other idea, its novel conception of the devout, the Hasid, as a religious ideal which transcended all values derived from the intellectual sphere and the realization of which was considered more desirable than any intellectual accomplishment. To be a Hasid is to conform to purely religious standards entirely independent of intellectualism and learning.”
This is still in keeping with our definition, and the mystical tradition we stated previously. As Scholem continues (95): “Such Hasiduth leads man to the pinnacles of true fear and love of God. In its sublimest manifestations, pure fear of God is identical with love and devotion for Him, not from a need for protection against the demons, or from fear of temptation, but because in this mystical state a flood of joy enters the soul and sweeps away every trace of mundane and egotistical feeling.”
Part of this emergence of Kabbalah of reality is the esoteric nature of prayer in Hasidei Ashkenaz. This is developed further by the systems of sefirot which can be seen in Sefer ha-Bahir, Zohar, and its further development in the Kabbalah of the Ari. Through this system of sefirot which goes beyond Sefer Yetzirah, various verses and phrases can be adduced to hint toward this esoteric knowledge of the mystical universe, and importance is placed on meditation toward certain sefirot in prayer and in daily life.
Another prism to view the relationship between all these texts is how the people studying them in their appearance in history understood their authorship and canonicity into the mystical tradition, very literally the Kabbalah. Meaning, did they themselves trace this text or teaching as part of the Jewish mystic tradition?
Certainly Hekhalot Rabbati uses the names of several Talmudic characters, including Rabbi Ishmael (as we saw above) and Rabbi Akiba, and the readers of this would have taken that as fact. Indeed, Rav Hai Gaon, in the responsa we referred to above, writes that the Tannaim created Hekhalot Rabbati. Similarly, all other texts that we saw make reference to and assume authorship of ancient and revered masters of the Talmud. For Lurianic kabbalah, concepts were uncovered that were previously laid dormant and esoteric. This is an underlying feature of these texts, and puts them in the same tradition at least from the perspective of its audience.
Lastly, and most importantly, is what we mentioned above: theological symbols and categories. Though Kabbalah can’t be said to have a single system of basic principles, Jewish mysticism of Kabbalah generally possesses a common range of symbols and ideas as part of a mystical tradition. The theory of the sefirot is one example, which exists fairly early on and is expanded upon by Lurianic kabbalah. But there are a range of issues that are discussed by almost all important kabbalistic texts. One such example is God’s nature, or how one can speak of God. Early on this is designated as “Ein Sof”, which we saw in the Zohar most prominently. Because of man’s inability to fathom this essence of God, the sefirot take its place as descriptions of the heavenly story. Creation, and the concepts of the broken vessels, become a cosmic drama that are worked out by the kabbalistic texts we saw, especially by Lurianic kabbalah. Another idea attached to this is the problem of evil, which we can find in the concepts of kelippot, as well as angelology which has a large place in the kabbalistic scheme. We also talked at length of the concepts of exile and redemption, especially in terms of the Shekhina’s exile in tandem with Israel’s. Additionally, a pantheistic outlook is also a major aspect of these works.
2) I think in some senses it is fair to say that Kabbalah has an immanent view of God, but in other ways this cannot be said. Kabbalistic literature seems to have two opposite extremes in it. In one sense, God is immanent and the Shekhina very much fills the world. The sefirot, although cosmic, very much are influenced and are repaired through our actions. As such, God in these senses is very close. On the other hand, God as God, can be said to be extremely impersonal. Distant and depersonalized, God is but the Godhead of an entire system. The “Ein Sof”, “Nothing” quality engenders this vision.
When we look at Hekhalot literature, for example, we find that the process of interacting with the heavenly kingdom is almost infinite. Scholem writes (55) “The fact is that the true and spontaneous feeling of the Merkabah mystic knows nothing of divine immanence; the infinite gulf between the soul and God the King on His throne is not even bridged at the climax of mystical ecstasy.” But when we look at Hasidei Ashkenaz, we find that God’s immanence is strongly expressed. So, for example, the Shir ha-Yihud states, “Everything is in You, and You are in everything; You fill everything and you encompass it; when everything was created, You were in everything; before everything was created, You were everything.” In the Zohar, there is a struggle latent in it for what to consider God and the divine experience. God has manifestations, but can it be said to be God Himself?
Lastly, Lurianic kabbalah has the concept of tzimtzum, which is a clear expression of the paradox. In order for the world to exist, God had to contract Himself. The assumption of this is two-fold. Firstly that Ein Sof cannot exist alongside its creation. And secondly that to contract is to allow emanation to begin. Both aspects make immanence a feature of this mystical tradition as much as transcendance does.
As a whole, the sefirot, man’s ability to impact them, and the inherent assumption for the mystical experience in communion with the divine, makes God as such immanent. Paradoxically, God as God, the Nothing, the Ein Sof, makes God transcendent and unknowable.
No comments:
Post a Comment