>Now, I can already hear members of Charedi Substack feverishly tapping on the smartphone they have a ‘heter for business purposes’ to use to catch me in a lie. Don’t you know that Rav Emden was a kabbalist and believed in the Zohar? It was only the wicked maskilim and academics who took his words out of context to make him look like a sceptic.
Hi there.
I'm still not entirely sure what you believe, beyond that you are the only correct person in the universe. I have noticed you seem to entirely ignore the Vilna Gaon and his students. The mainstream Litvishe position is as far as I can tell pretty close to the Noda B'yehuda. We respect kaballa and genuine mekubalim, but we don't accept the teachings of the Zohar to overturn the Gemara (tefillin on chol hamoed notwithstanding), it's adopted as a system of thought that augments our understanding of Hashem and Judasim [and the wider world] (for example hearing how the mekubalim understand the 4 sections of tefilla has definitely helped me appreciate davening more). Also even today there's some heavy skepticism of the practises and kavanos of the chassidim based on Kaballa and their teachings that originates from that. But Misnagdism is an old and revered tradition and is partially based on the belief that the Vilna Gaon and his students understood kaballa better. But if you think the chassidim today are a threat to genuine Yiddishkeit then you are crazy (my current likely diagnosis).
You forgot to mention that the Noda Biyehuda in that derasha (which is really directed against the Chassidim) condemns the rationalists who excessively rely on their own Daas, and points out in their efforts to explain one problem that's bothering them they end up getting tangled up in many more of their own creation (not mentioning any names). He points out while people who involve themselves in kaballa end up with questionable practices and beliefs those who he terms 'philosophers' end up denying Torah and Mitzvos, I will leave it to the reader to speculate which group he found more objectionable.
Great. I can't wait! I was actually sure you are gearing up for a major frontal attack on chassidus so I'm glad to hear you haven't forgotten about us. By the way you summarized the Mitpachat Seforim very nicely, better then I did.
Right but it would be only as negative as something along the lines of עדה הרעה הזאת can get. I don’t think he meant it as a reference to an actual church
My guess (based on zero research and pure conjecture) is that the semantic value of the term is of modern provenance, as before the late 19th century it’s doubtful that churches would have ever been referred to as something other than a בית ע״ז. With the late 19th century and inventing of new words probably came כנסיה, which is a direct translation from the Greek Εκκλησία.
This taxonomy of strata is genuinely illuminating and the trajectory you trace from the Chasam Sofer to the Noda biYehuda's circle is sobering, especially given how confidently each generation assumed the one before had settled the question.
But I find myself unmoved, in the end, by where the historical argument lands. Whatever the conclusions about authorship, dating, or which passages are later insertions, none of it changes what the text actually accomplishes on the page. Composite or not, partly invented or descended into the world through some process we can't fully account for - the Zohar remains a literary achievement without parallel: an impossible, and yet somehow perfect, symbiosis of the entire architecture of Jewish thought. Its complexities, its associative leaps, its midrashim, its legends - all held together in a single, irreducible voice.
One doesn't need to agree with the dating, or with who actually held the pen, to recognise this. The Zohar is, in the end, ground to plant in. And what has grown from it. In thought, in speech, in practice, has been extraordinary regardless of the question of origin.
I personally regard the question of the authorship of the Zohar as relatively insignificant, except in as much as it was insisted upon, and is still insisted upon, by its proponents. The series is about the effects of Zoharism. Either people will be convinced by it or they won’t.
I read with fascination your "Modern Jewish History" series, and several of your other posts with great enjoyment. I remain confounded by the two-track nature of your (considerable) output, beyond the obvious truism that one can be interested in (and write competently about) more than one thing.
Your running commentary on contemporary Israeli society and issues is self-evidently *relevant* - if only because Israel is in the news daily. Meanwhile, I've been nonplussed by every item in the other track, left with the feeling of...who...gives...a crap? But let me defend this perspective: as an atheist Sefardic Jew (and other things, but these are the relevant parameters here), I look at these things as (i) exotic (happened somewhere else, to people from whom I'm not descended); (ii) irrelevant (because religion is); (iii) irrelevant again (because that whole ashkenazic culture ended up in mass graves; contradicted below).
Now, every one of your"Jewish History" posts has elicited considerable discussion, from commenters who clearly think about these things (and thus find them relevant). I'm not such a solipsist as to think that something's irrelevant, if it's irrelevant *to me*. But I puzzle over where you think these two intellectual streams converge. For sure, Haredim around the world, including in Israel, may care a lot about this rabbi's character or that 18th-century heresy - to them, this is *living* history. But I got a feeling from your *other* writings that what Haredim think (religiously) is not terribly relevant to the majority of Israelis (or did I get that wrong?). So, please take this as an invitation to connect the two strands: what does that ultra-niche religious historical stuff have to do with modern-day Israel? (if anything)
A lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is projection. I don't claim that my theory is true. Though I would not be surprised if it was because stranger things have been proven to be true. It's not a completely ridiculous idea that's some church commissioned writers made up the oldest parts of the Zohar and pretended to be rabbis within the community to spread it around. Moshe Deleon might have been chosen because he was deemed to be a good patsy.
I really enjoyed this lecture. Everything said about zoharism in this lecture is true. This is not a attack on the substance, but a constructive critique on the presentation. You have to, for all that is good and holy, edit out the filler words. The entire recording was laden with "uh, uhm, like, ya know, basically, essentially". If you are unable to wean yourself off these verbal tick habits then consider using editing tools to purge them from the final product. I know you are an intellectual. When you speak like a nervous frummy England high school boy, it really damages your credibility as a speaker. The key is to replace filler with silence. Speak slowly. Breathe. Think before speaking. I know that is how everybody speaks these days and it is a serious problem. For sensitive souls like myself, it makes it very difficult to concentrate on the content because I have to consciously filter out every "uh uhm like ya know basically essentially". They do not add anything except mental strain. Please seriously consider this before uploading your next recording.
I never understood: Why is the Noda B'Yehudah the only one to ask (not as forcefully as I'd like), Hey, I don't need to cite any kinds of proofs whatsoever. You can't just find a book and attribute to whomever you like. Without a chain of transmission (or other historical proofs), why is there is even anything to talk about? You made a claim -- now back it up.
Probably because if the fact that the greatest gedolim of a generation accept something isn’t sufficient to prove it is legit it opens up that can of worms for the entire “Mesorah”.
If not for the obvious and undeniable fallout of the S”T disaster it probably would have actually not garnered any serious opposition by anyone.
I suppose so, but it's awfully circular in practice. That reasoning itself is probably a large part of why "the greatest gedolim in the [next] generation accepted it," and so on.
Yeah, I mean... I don't put on my reddit atheist hat very often these days, but I'd have to wonder how well the Torah or any other holy text would really stand up to this kind of analytical scrutiny. It's not clear why inaccurate information about the murex snail's ecology is disqualifying but inaccurate information about the age of the planet borrowed from Babylonian creation myths isn't.
There are aspects to Kabbalah, Gnosticism and other 'fringe' religious traditions that I think are sincere and interesting attempts to grapple with the Problem of Evil, at least based on my admittedly cursory acquaintance with the material. Conversely I can see arguments for mainstream conservative theology on a "but this actually worked as a social regulator for thousands of years", ain't-broke-don't-fix-it basis. But trying to document some ironclad chain of custody going to back to Elohim Adonai seems like a fool's errand to me.
The issue is that “Mesorah,” when it comes to theology, isn’t really a thing. It’s always an evolution of ideas that gets refined over time and both takes from and gives to the surrounding culture.
I am pretty sure that all Luria was teaching was an Eastern-style metaphysics similar to what people like Bernardo Kastrup talk about today, and what Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta have been saying for as long as Judaism has existed in a recognizable form.
We don’t know exactly what he taught because he died young, and we depend on R. Chaim Vital for virtually everything, and he was, well… R. Chaim Vital.
Then S”T came along and blew the whole thing up in the way narcissistic non-dual gurus often tend to implode: by getting high on his own supply, having sex with everything that moved, (everything is one and holy either way, why are you so attached to being separate and different etc etc) and then collapsing in a spectacular explosion.
But the metaphysics itself is fairly consistent, I actually think it’s a lot more internally consistent then “Rationalist” metaphysics (I know you don’t love the Rambam but still worth mentioning here) and I have a feeling that if, instead of banning and repressing people like Eybeschutz, who for all his craziness was at least not R. Chaim Vital, was married to one woman who by all accounts he loved his whole life, got along with everyone, and whose teachings largely lacked the neurotic excesses that somehow became the parts we preserved, (sexual imagery aside) we would all be better off.
On the narrow claim about what we know about Luria, even if we disregard Vital entirely (which I don't think there are good grounds for) we know enough from Sarug and various lore to say that he was *not* merely an analytical idealist, but was a major league weirdo who had numerous practical applications of his theoretical doctrine that range from idiotic to depraved. I'll note that as sublime as Advaita Vedanta mysticism is/was in its elite form, you don't have to walk very far from the monastery to find a Hindu holy man who hasn't cut his nails in 50 years and drinks cow piss.
Yeah. Weirdos are endemic everywhere. And in the 1600s, your average “scientist” probably had beliefs about the world that were, in many ways, on par with the most superstitious weirdos of today. People, even those with genuine insight, often find ways of smuggling their cultural biases into otherwise very intelligent systems. ( i.e some otherwise very smart Indian philosopher whose grandmother swore that drinking cow urine was a cure-all will likely work that into his system. People are what they are.)
Preserving the good parts of a philosophy while discarding the superstitious parts is how advancement happens, both throughout history and across cultures.
Eybeshutz definitely seems like someone who was doing exactly that. And I’m not saying Luria was a modern analytic idealist any more than I’d say Isaac Newton was a modern rationalist. Like everyone else, he was subject to the assumptions, superstitions, and biases of his time and place and his own personality quirks and biases. Many of which no doubt seem and are insane by any civilized 21st century standard.
The Tzfat kabbalists weren't just incorporating traditional superstitious practices into their system, they were invented new ones at a rapid clip.
I'm familiar with the trope about Newton, but I don't think you can find anything in his life even remotely comparable to what we find in Shivhei Ari.
I don't see how ואבוא היום אל העין can possibly be called 'Preserving the good parts of a philosophy while discarding the superstitious parts'. Even leaving aside all the deviancy entirely, it's just grotesque (in the way Bernardo Kastrup uses the term).
Yeah. Eyebushutz’s imagery is a bit over the top and unnecessary (understatement of the year I know) But it’s a step forward. The racism is out. A lot of the neurotic demonologies are out. He’s still an 18th century mystic. It’s still weird. It’s not a normal modern theory of anything- not by a long shot. But it’s better than a lot of what you find before it. And he as a person and mystic seems a lot better than those that came before. That’s all I’m saying. And honestly I’m not sure that the crazy imagery would not have toned down as he got older as you even pointed out
Depends if you find the kind of non dualism that underlies it more compelling I guess. You are no doubt in good company. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses from a philosophical standpoint (not the weirdo stuff. I’m saying the non dualism vs “rational” or regular dualistic theism)
Where should authentic Jewish philosophy / theology come from? Do you exclude the Rishonim because of their influences? Is Tanakh & Hazal sources what’s only acceptable? Do you have Ikarrim that you subscribe to?
>Now, I can already hear members of Charedi Substack feverishly tapping on the smartphone they have a ‘heter for business purposes’ to use to catch me in a lie. Don’t you know that Rav Emden was a kabbalist and believed in the Zohar? It was only the wicked maskilim and academics who took his words out of context to make him look like a sceptic.
Hi there.
I'm still not entirely sure what you believe, beyond that you are the only correct person in the universe. I have noticed you seem to entirely ignore the Vilna Gaon and his students. The mainstream Litvishe position is as far as I can tell pretty close to the Noda B'yehuda. We respect kaballa and genuine mekubalim, but we don't accept the teachings of the Zohar to overturn the Gemara (tefillin on chol hamoed notwithstanding), it's adopted as a system of thought that augments our understanding of Hashem and Judasim [and the wider world] (for example hearing how the mekubalim understand the 4 sections of tefilla has definitely helped me appreciate davening more). Also even today there's some heavy skepticism of the practises and kavanos of the chassidim based on Kaballa and their teachings that originates from that. But Misnagdism is an old and revered tradition and is partially based on the belief that the Vilna Gaon and his students understood kaballa better. But if you think the chassidim today are a threat to genuine Yiddishkeit then you are crazy (my current likely diagnosis).
You forgot to mention that the Noda Biyehuda in that derasha (which is really directed against the Chassidim) condemns the rationalists who excessively rely on their own Daas, and points out in their efforts to explain one problem that's bothering them they end up getting tangled up in many more of their own creation (not mentioning any names). He points out while people who involve themselves in kaballa end up with questionable practices and beliefs those who he terms 'philosophers' end up denying Torah and Mitzvos, I will leave it to the reader to speculate which group he found more objectionable.
I’ll deal with the Lithuanian yeshiva movement in due course.
Great. I can't wait! I was actually sure you are gearing up for a major frontal attack on chassidus so I'm glad to hear you haven't forgotten about us. By the way you summarized the Mitpachat Seforim very nicely, better then I did.
I'll deal with them and then I'll get to you.
Did you think כנסיה meant church over there? It just means congregation.
Probably not, but I think the term is intended to carry a certain negative connotation.
Right but it would be only as negative as something along the lines of עדה הרעה הזאת can get. I don’t think he meant it as a reference to an actual church
I don't actually know when the term acquired that connotation.
My guess (based on zero research and pure conjecture) is that the semantic value of the term is of modern provenance, as before the late 19th century it’s doubtful that churches would have ever been referred to as something other than a בית ע״ז. With the late 19th century and inventing of new words probably came כנסיה, which is a direct translation from the Greek Εκκλησία.
https://hebrew-academy.org.il/%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94/
A bit earlier than that, but it seems a smidgen too late for Rav Fleckeles to have intended it.
This taxonomy of strata is genuinely illuminating and the trajectory you trace from the Chasam Sofer to the Noda biYehuda's circle is sobering, especially given how confidently each generation assumed the one before had settled the question.
But I find myself unmoved, in the end, by where the historical argument lands. Whatever the conclusions about authorship, dating, or which passages are later insertions, none of it changes what the text actually accomplishes on the page. Composite or not, partly invented or descended into the world through some process we can't fully account for - the Zohar remains a literary achievement without parallel: an impossible, and yet somehow perfect, symbiosis of the entire architecture of Jewish thought. Its complexities, its associative leaps, its midrashim, its legends - all held together in a single, irreducible voice.
One doesn't need to agree with the dating, or with who actually held the pen, to recognise this. The Zohar is, in the end, ground to plant in. And what has grown from it. In thought, in speech, in practice, has been extraordinary regardless of the question of origin.
I personally regard the question of the authorship of the Zohar as relatively insignificant, except in as much as it was insisted upon, and is still insisted upon, by its proponents. The series is about the effects of Zoharism. Either people will be convinced by it or they won’t.
I read with fascination your "Modern Jewish History" series, and several of your other posts with great enjoyment. I remain confounded by the two-track nature of your (considerable) output, beyond the obvious truism that one can be interested in (and write competently about) more than one thing.
Your running commentary on contemporary Israeli society and issues is self-evidently *relevant* - if only because Israel is in the news daily. Meanwhile, I've been nonplussed by every item in the other track, left with the feeling of...who...gives...a crap? But let me defend this perspective: as an atheist Sefardic Jew (and other things, but these are the relevant parameters here), I look at these things as (i) exotic (happened somewhere else, to people from whom I'm not descended); (ii) irrelevant (because religion is); (iii) irrelevant again (because that whole ashkenazic culture ended up in mass graves; contradicted below).
Now, every one of your"Jewish History" posts has elicited considerable discussion, from commenters who clearly think about these things (and thus find them relevant). I'm not such a solipsist as to think that something's irrelevant, if it's irrelevant *to me*. But I puzzle over where you think these two intellectual streams converge. For sure, Haredim around the world, including in Israel, may care a lot about this rabbi's character or that 18th-century heresy - to them, this is *living* history. But I got a feeling from your *other* writings that what Haredim think (religiously) is not terribly relevant to the majority of Israelis (or did I get that wrong?). So, please take this as an invitation to connect the two strands: what does that ultra-niche religious historical stuff have to do with modern-day Israel? (if anything)
And regardless, please keep writing.
I have a conspiracy theory. The church commissioned the zohar and used double agents to get it to spread around the Jewish world.
Protocols of The Elders of Yeshu.
A lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is projection. I don't claim that my theory is true. Though I would not be surprised if it was because stranger things have been proven to be true. It's not a completely ridiculous idea that's some church commissioned writers made up the oldest parts of the Zohar and pretended to be rabbis within the community to spread it around. Moshe Deleon might have been chosen because he was deemed to be a good patsy.
I really enjoyed this lecture. Everything said about zoharism in this lecture is true. This is not a attack on the substance, but a constructive critique on the presentation. You have to, for all that is good and holy, edit out the filler words. The entire recording was laden with "uh, uhm, like, ya know, basically, essentially". If you are unable to wean yourself off these verbal tick habits then consider using editing tools to purge them from the final product. I know you are an intellectual. When you speak like a nervous frummy England high school boy, it really damages your credibility as a speaker. The key is to replace filler with silence. Speak slowly. Breathe. Think before speaking. I know that is how everybody speaks these days and it is a serious problem. For sensitive souls like myself, it makes it very difficult to concentrate on the content because I have to consciously filter out every "uh uhm like ya know basically essentially". They do not add anything except mental strain. Please seriously consider this before uploading your next recording.
Incoming...!
I never understood: Why is the Noda B'Yehudah the only one to ask (not as forcefully as I'd like), Hey, I don't need to cite any kinds of proofs whatsoever. You can't just find a book and attribute to whomever you like. Without a chain of transmission (or other historical proofs), why is there is even anything to talk about? You made a claim -- now back it up.
Probably because if the fact that the greatest gedolim of a generation accept something isn’t sufficient to prove it is legit it opens up that can of worms for the entire “Mesorah”.
If not for the obvious and undeniable fallout of the S”T disaster it probably would have actually not garnered any serious opposition by anyone.
What is "the S”T disaster"?
Shabtai Tzvi
I suppose so, but it's awfully circular in practice. That reasoning itself is probably a large part of why "the greatest gedolim in the [next] generation accepted it," and so on.
Yeah…. that’s “Mesorah” for you. It’s as reliable as you want it to be. It’s also how religions develop.
One could reasonably make the “back it up” demand of Chazal and a lot of Meforshim on Tanach just as strongly.
Yeah, I mean... I don't put on my reddit atheist hat very often these days, but I'd have to wonder how well the Torah or any other holy text would really stand up to this kind of analytical scrutiny. It's not clear why inaccurate information about the murex snail's ecology is disqualifying but inaccurate information about the age of the planet borrowed from Babylonian creation myths isn't.
There are aspects to Kabbalah, Gnosticism and other 'fringe' religious traditions that I think are sincere and interesting attempts to grapple with the Problem of Evil, at least based on my admittedly cursory acquaintance with the material. Conversely I can see arguments for mainstream conservative theology on a "but this actually worked as a social regulator for thousands of years", ain't-broke-don't-fix-it basis. But trying to document some ironclad chain of custody going to back to Elohim Adonai seems like a fool's errand to me.
Kabbalah didn't work as a social regulator for 1000s of years. It didn't work as a social regulator for any years at all!
Sure, no argument there. I still think mainstream theology is a little lacking when it comes to solving the PoE, though.
The issue is that “Mesorah,” when it comes to theology, isn’t really a thing. It’s always an evolution of ideas that gets refined over time and both takes from and gives to the surrounding culture.
I am pretty sure that all Luria was teaching was an Eastern-style metaphysics similar to what people like Bernardo Kastrup talk about today, and what Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta have been saying for as long as Judaism has existed in a recognizable form.
We don’t know exactly what he taught because he died young, and we depend on R. Chaim Vital for virtually everything, and he was, well… R. Chaim Vital.
Then S”T came along and blew the whole thing up in the way narcissistic non-dual gurus often tend to implode: by getting high on his own supply, having sex with everything that moved, (everything is one and holy either way, why are you so attached to being separate and different etc etc) and then collapsing in a spectacular explosion.
But the metaphysics itself is fairly consistent, I actually think it’s a lot more internally consistent then “Rationalist” metaphysics (I know you don’t love the Rambam but still worth mentioning here) and I have a feeling that if, instead of banning and repressing people like Eybeschutz, who for all his craziness was at least not R. Chaim Vital, was married to one woman who by all accounts he loved his whole life, got along with everyone, and whose teachings largely lacked the neurotic excesses that somehow became the parts we preserved, (sexual imagery aside) we would all be better off.
On the narrow claim about what we know about Luria, even if we disregard Vital entirely (which I don't think there are good grounds for) we know enough from Sarug and various lore to say that he was *not* merely an analytical idealist, but was a major league weirdo who had numerous practical applications of his theoretical doctrine that range from idiotic to depraved. I'll note that as sublime as Advaita Vedanta mysticism is/was in its elite form, you don't have to walk very far from the monastery to find a Hindu holy man who hasn't cut his nails in 50 years and drinks cow piss.
Yeah. Weirdos are endemic everywhere. And in the 1600s, your average “scientist” probably had beliefs about the world that were, in many ways, on par with the most superstitious weirdos of today. People, even those with genuine insight, often find ways of smuggling their cultural biases into otherwise very intelligent systems. ( i.e some otherwise very smart Indian philosopher whose grandmother swore that drinking cow urine was a cure-all will likely work that into his system. People are what they are.)
Preserving the good parts of a philosophy while discarding the superstitious parts is how advancement happens, both throughout history and across cultures.
Eybeshutz definitely seems like someone who was doing exactly that. And I’m not saying Luria was a modern analytic idealist any more than I’d say Isaac Newton was a modern rationalist. Like everyone else, he was subject to the assumptions, superstitions, and biases of his time and place and his own personality quirks and biases. Many of which no doubt seem and are insane by any civilized 21st century standard.
The Tzfat kabbalists weren't just incorporating traditional superstitious practices into their system, they were invented new ones at a rapid clip.
I'm familiar with the trope about Newton, but I don't think you can find anything in his life even remotely comparable to what we find in Shivhei Ari.
I don't see how ואבוא היום אל העין can possibly be called 'Preserving the good parts of a philosophy while discarding the superstitious parts'. Even leaving aside all the deviancy entirely, it's just grotesque (in the way Bernardo Kastrup uses the term).
Yeah. Eyebushutz’s imagery is a bit over the top and unnecessary (understatement of the year I know) But it’s a step forward. The racism is out. A lot of the neurotic demonologies are out. He’s still an 18th century mystic. It’s still weird. It’s not a normal modern theory of anything- not by a long shot. But it’s better than a lot of what you find before it. And he as a person and mystic seems a lot better than those that came before. That’s all I’m saying. And honestly I’m not sure that the crazy imagery would not have toned down as he got older as you even pointed out
I don't see how this at all preferable to the metaphysics of rishonim 500 years earlier, let alone random goyim from the same era.
Depends if you find the kind of non dualism that underlies it more compelling I guess. You are no doubt in good company. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses from a philosophical standpoint (not the weirdo stuff. I’m saying the non dualism vs “rational” or regular dualistic theism)
Where should authentic Jewish philosophy / theology come from? Do you exclude the Rishonim because of their influences? Is Tanakh & Hazal sources what’s only acceptable? Do you have Ikarrim that you subscribe to?
This is a history series, but I'll answer some of these questions at the end.