I remember at the Kabalah yeshiva in the Old City the Rashash guys always asking for someone to come in off the street for kadish. I went in once because,hey, it's just for kadish how long could it take...
When Bet El started its intellectual decline (it took a few generations to finish working through the Rashash's system) it was replaced by the Sadeh and his Talmidim. Notably, the haskamos to Sadeh are from the European Leshem and Munkatcher. He revived intellectual stimulation (and acceptance of Ashkenazi mekubalim) and together with others like Emes Leyaakov who worked with the Toras Chochom, caused the revival of both creativity and personal growth.
Wow. I don’t even know where to start... like always you’re drawing conclusions that "ho-ho" conveniently end up proving that the Zohar is the main culprit behind Sabbatean messianism and halakhic transgression. Reading the title, I thought, OOOK... maybe now we're finally going to learn something about anti-Sabbatean Sephardic positions that still lived and breathed within a Zoharic world. Instead, you suddenly start talking about Sharabi... why? It's not really clear why...And sorry, but Sharabi is not Zoharic. At least not in the sense you're presenting him. That's just inaccurate. Sure, there are obvious Zoharic elements, like in pretty much all post-Lurianic Kabbalah, lol, but Sharabi develops something quite different from the European Zohar-centered tradition.The bigger issue is that you're overlooking the fact that the Sephardic world (european let's say) produced some of the strongest anti-Sabbatean voices from within a thoroughly Zohar-engaged intellectual universe, not outside of it. I've already mentioned Jacob Sasportas several times. Have you read Tzitzat Novel Tzvi? It's basically one long quasi forensic report on how Sabbatean ideas spread through actual rabbinic networks that were still functioning entirely within the authority and language of the Zohar. That alone completely complicates your neat little "Zohar --> Sabbateanism" pipeline.And Sasportas wasn't some isolated weird exception. You also have rabbis like Jacob Hagiz and later Moses Hagiz; deeply committed Kabbalists who spent years fighting Sabbateanism. So maybe the problem isn't the Zohar after all... why some actual zoharic kabbalists were anti Sabbatean?So Is the issue really the Zohar, or is it just messianism?How many messianic movements were born within Judaism before the Zohar? Quite a few. And how many after it had very little to do with the Zohar itself? So why reduce everything to one convenient cause? As for Safed, I already discussed (proved) that elsewhere. My position remains the same: they knew perfectly well the Zohar was pseudepigraphic (yes!), which is precisely why they were never simply Zoharic like the “eurosephardos” who believed the Zohar wasn't just a Castilian text but almost a biblical one. Luria is not just commenting on the Zohar the way some academics like to portray him. His system doesn't depend on the Zohar. He builds an entire metaphysical architecture that goes well beyond it. The same goes for Sharabi. He isn't "Zoharic" in any straightforward sense, and he certainly isn't just repeating Luria the way many Sabbateans recycled Lurianic language. More importantly, you simply don't find halakhic transgression in mainstream Kabbalah… That's a product of radical messianism, not of just reading the Zohar. You're mixing completely different phenomena almost at random. What Sharabi actually does is transform the Lurianic system into a disciplined practice of kavanot: prayer becomes an exact sequence of mental operations, and the Divine Names become the primary operative units. You don't even need complete theoretical mastery of either the Zohar or Luria to practice Sharabi's method. It's still incredibly esoteric and can almost feel "mantric" perhaps closer to what oRigINaL KaBbalAh mAy haVe lOokEd LikeE (and yes, in this case I actually think "original" is the right word).
1) That problematic millenarian / apocalyptic / antinomian tendencies equally existed in pre-Zoharic Judaism.
2) That rabbis such as Rabbis Sasportas and Hagiz x 2 were 'zoharists' who were nevertheless opposed to the millenarian / apocalyptic / antinomian tendencies of the Sabbateans.
3) That Rabbis Luria and Sharabi innovated so much out of whole cloth in developing their systems that, despite their claims of lineal descent, in reality they are not zoharists, and may have claimed lineal descent for reasons of rabbinic convenience.
●I don’t require a secretary, nevertheless thank you for your effort (I suppose).
●NZ asked for a point-by-point exposition of the whole comment (…or perhaps this?…😒)
●I declined his request because he did not specify nowhere how the comments were supposed to be delivered.
●If NZ is genuinely interested in engaging with my argumentation and addressing the questions I raised (AND HE IS NOT) after reading his essay twice, he is perfectly capable of doing so directly.
●You have managed to simplify and mutilate my comment to the point where it becomes almost a parody of the original; though I assume/hope that was not your real intention. To be a Zoharic and to be a Zoharist (frankist) in the Sabbatean/anti-Sabbatean context matters deeply; the two concepts stand in opposition and are not synonymous.
●All context, all conceptual atmosphere, and essentially everything that actually gives my argument its structure has been removed (Why 😭?).
●What remains is a convenient abstraction that looks tidy precisely because it no longer contains any of the substance it was meant to convey.
●You also omitted the questions and the actual critical context that form the core of my response to his thesis. That is not a minor detail; it is, in fact, the entire point (😭!!)
●Next time you feel inclined to act as my secretary, you might (please) consider asking first. It’s called manners.
After reading this exhaustive and well done analysis of what appears to a modern critical thinker as a combination of escapism and science fiction via Judaism ( in name at least) you thank הקב״ה that this stuff is basically the domain today of a few obscurantists and a small group of individuals who still need the escapist outlook .
I am inspired by the lofty thoughts of a Ramban ( with his Kabbalah tied down where it belongs ) Ibn Ezra , Radak , Abravanel , Ramban , Rashi, Rashbam and the modern likes of Hirsch , Netziv , Malbim and whole host of others . A Judaism of this world by this world and of this world.
I remember at the Kabalah yeshiva in the Old City the Rashash guys always asking for someone to come in off the street for kadish. I went in once because,hey, it's just for kadish how long could it take...
When Bet El started its intellectual decline (it took a few generations to finish working through the Rashash's system) it was replaced by the Sadeh and his Talmidim. Notably, the haskamos to Sadeh are from the European Leshem and Munkatcher. He revived intellectual stimulation (and acceptance of Ashkenazi mekubalim) and together with others like Emes Leyaakov who worked with the Toras Chochom, caused the revival of both creativity and personal growth.
Wow. I don’t even know where to start... like always you’re drawing conclusions that "ho-ho" conveniently end up proving that the Zohar is the main culprit behind Sabbatean messianism and halakhic transgression. Reading the title, I thought, OOOK... maybe now we're finally going to learn something about anti-Sabbatean Sephardic positions that still lived and breathed within a Zoharic world. Instead, you suddenly start talking about Sharabi... why? It's not really clear why...And sorry, but Sharabi is not Zoharic. At least not in the sense you're presenting him. That's just inaccurate. Sure, there are obvious Zoharic elements, like in pretty much all post-Lurianic Kabbalah, lol, but Sharabi develops something quite different from the European Zohar-centered tradition.The bigger issue is that you're overlooking the fact that the Sephardic world (european let's say) produced some of the strongest anti-Sabbatean voices from within a thoroughly Zohar-engaged intellectual universe, not outside of it. I've already mentioned Jacob Sasportas several times. Have you read Tzitzat Novel Tzvi? It's basically one long quasi forensic report on how Sabbatean ideas spread through actual rabbinic networks that were still functioning entirely within the authority and language of the Zohar. That alone completely complicates your neat little "Zohar --> Sabbateanism" pipeline.And Sasportas wasn't some isolated weird exception. You also have rabbis like Jacob Hagiz and later Moses Hagiz; deeply committed Kabbalists who spent years fighting Sabbateanism. So maybe the problem isn't the Zohar after all... why some actual zoharic kabbalists were anti Sabbatean?So Is the issue really the Zohar, or is it just messianism?How many messianic movements were born within Judaism before the Zohar? Quite a few. And how many after it had very little to do with the Zohar itself? So why reduce everything to one convenient cause? As for Safed, I already discussed (proved) that elsewhere. My position remains the same: they knew perfectly well the Zohar was pseudepigraphic (yes!), which is precisely why they were never simply Zoharic like the “eurosephardos” who believed the Zohar wasn't just a Castilian text but almost a biblical one. Luria is not just commenting on the Zohar the way some academics like to portray him. His system doesn't depend on the Zohar. He builds an entire metaphysical architecture that goes well beyond it. The same goes for Sharabi. He isn't "Zoharic" in any straightforward sense, and he certainly isn't just repeating Luria the way many Sabbateans recycled Lurianic language. More importantly, you simply don't find halakhic transgression in mainstream Kabbalah… That's a product of radical messianism, not of just reading the Zohar. You're mixing completely different phenomena almost at random. What Sharabi actually does is transform the Lurianic system into a disciplined practice of kavanot: prayer becomes an exact sequence of mental operations, and the Divine Names become the primary operative units. You don't even need complete theoretical mastery of either the Zohar or Luria to practice Sharabi's method. It's still incredibly esoteric and can almost feel "mantric" perhaps closer to what oRigINaL KaBbalAh mAy haVe lOokEd LikeE (and yes, in this case I actually think "original" is the right word).
“Wow. I don’t even know where to start”.
I would start by reading the entire article, and then organising your response into paragaphs, preferably with one main theme or argument in each one.
1) That problematic millenarian / apocalyptic / antinomian tendencies equally existed in pre-Zoharic Judaism.
2) That rabbis such as Rabbis Sasportas and Hagiz x 2 were 'zoharists' who were nevertheless opposed to the millenarian / apocalyptic / antinomian tendencies of the Sabbateans.
3) That Rabbis Luria and Sharabi innovated so much out of whole cloth in developing their systems that, despite their claims of lineal descent, in reality they are not zoharists, and may have claimed lineal descent for reasons of rabbinic convenience.
Dear Shaya Grosskopf,
●I don’t require a secretary, nevertheless thank you for your effort (I suppose).
●NZ asked for a point-by-point exposition of the whole comment (…or perhaps this?…😒)
●I declined his request because he did not specify nowhere how the comments were supposed to be delivered.
●If NZ is genuinely interested in engaging with my argumentation and addressing the questions I raised (AND HE IS NOT) after reading his essay twice, he is perfectly capable of doing so directly.
●You have managed to simplify and mutilate my comment to the point where it becomes almost a parody of the original; though I assume/hope that was not your real intention. To be a Zoharic and to be a Zoharist (frankist) in the Sabbatean/anti-Sabbatean context matters deeply; the two concepts stand in opposition and are not synonymous.
●All context, all conceptual atmosphere, and essentially everything that actually gives my argument its structure has been removed (Why 😭?).
●What remains is a convenient abstraction that looks tidy precisely because it no longer contains any of the substance it was meant to convey.
●You also omitted the questions and the actual critical context that form the core of my response to his thesis. That is not a minor detail; it is, in fact, the entire point (😭!!)
●Next time you feel inclined to act as my secretary, you might (please) consider asking first. It’s called manners.
●Thank you for your understanding.
Best wishes.
After reading this exhaustive and well done analysis of what appears to a modern critical thinker as a combination of escapism and science fiction via Judaism ( in name at least) you thank הקב״ה that this stuff is basically the domain today of a few obscurantists and a small group of individuals who still need the escapist outlook .
I am inspired by the lofty thoughts of a Ramban ( with his Kabbalah tied down where it belongs ) Ibn Ezra , Radak , Abravanel , Ramban , Rashi, Rashbam and the modern likes of Hirsch , Netziv , Malbim and whole host of others . A Judaism of this world by this world and of this world.
https://youtu.be/4VabfmZjSrc?si=yLkBuTFXweMTaStX
It's interesting to see that nowadays bet-el is an epicenter of messianic baboonism..