Rabbi Hirsch: is it acceptable to join his rejection of modern kabbala?

Back to marbitz.com

Between Frankfurt and Tzfas

Boruch Clinton

It should surprise no one when I note that among Jews - even Torah-loyal Jews - there have always been significant disagreements. Even such seemingly basic texts as Rambam's thirteen principles have long been the subject of dispute (if your shul includes "מכניסי רחמים" in their סליחות then they're obviously not too comfortable with Rambam's fifth principle). Safely navigating these disputes can be a challenge.(1) The question I'd like to address in this article concerns whether it's possible for an individual or community to adopt a philosophical system with a clear and reliable tradition even though it stands at odds with what has become a widely adopted orthodoxy.

Specifically, I'd like to explore embracing Rabbi S.R. Hirsch's views on the goals and impact of mitzva observance as opposed to those of the "Tzfas" interpretation of the Zohar and other related works. The differences between these two world-views are far more than purely theoretical and stand close to the very core of how we see our relationship with G-d and the way we approach mitzvos and tefila. Let's begin by mapping out the key differences.

Hirsch on Mitzvos

Rabbi Hirsch thought of Torah and mitzvos as practical tools created to help us grow into perfect human beings striving to build and maintain perfect communities. He consciously and explicitly avoided any theosophical discussions (or, in other words, any discussion of how performing a mitzva might have some magical effect on either the physical or spiritual world), apparently considering the possibility as a waste of precious time and a distraction from our real goal. Man's purpose, in Hirsch's view, is not to see G-d, but to learn to see the world through G-d's eyes. Why should we care what happens beyond our sphere of knowledge when many very real responsibilities lie waiting for our attention?

Thus, for example, the purpose of the Temple offerings is not to mechanically change (or “fix”) the universe, but to dynamically change ourselves by absorbing the many profound lessons taught by the avoda's complex symbolic details.

This is nicely illustrated in the fourteenth letter of Hirsch's Nineteen Letters, where he detailed how each category of Temple service was meant to impress particular thoughts upon us: "The aron represented the concept that the Torah is G-d-given; and the menorah and shulchan, the concept that the physical and mental faculties needed for implementation of the Torah are G-d-given, too." Individual elements of the avoda served unique educational roles, inspiring our "...consecrating to G-d our life (zerikas ha-dam), our sentiments (ketorus) and, indeed, our entire personality (olah) by fulfilling the Torah." In the same letter, Hirsch similarly describes prayer as a "cleansing of the thoughts and of the heart" rather than an expression of power.

Hirsch felt that the Torah opposes any attempt to represent G-d - whether as image or symbolic concept. His comments to Shemos 20:21 are an example of his firm belief that nowhere should we try to "bring heavenly things down to you on earth, but to elevate all earthly things up to Me. When you wish to come to Me, you have not to represent to yourselves things that you imagine are with Me in heaven, but rather to ponder on how I wish things to be carried on by you on earth."

Furthermore, everything a Jew could possibly need to achieve spiritual and moral perfection is easily within his grasp (as long, of course, as he's willing to work hard). There are, Hirsch points out in his comments to Devarim 30:11-14, no secrets or esoteric rituals needed in the pursuit of Torah greatness. “The teachings and actions which it has in view do not move in the sphere of the supernatural or the heavens, and nothing which was necessary for its being understood and accomplished remained in heaven in the Divine Revelation...”

Finally - and, in our context, quite significantly - anyone can achieve a profound relationship with G-d and His will without the need for the intermediary efforts of any other human being. See Hirsch's commentary to Bamidbar 11:29 and Tehilim 145:18.

Tzfas on Mitzvos

First some definitions. For the purposes of this article, by "Kabbala" I mean the interpretation of Zohar that was taught by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria ("the Ari") and his students. This is the interpretation that has subsequently been accepted as authentic by many Torah scholars of great standing (including Ramchal, the Gra and Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, and early leaders of the chassidus movement). If we take Rabbi Luria's student, Rabbi Chaim Vital, at his word, his is the only authoritative presentation of Rabbi Luria's teachings:



The key teachings of the Sixteenth Century Tzfas kabbalists - like the Ramban and others before them - revolved around the doctrine of tzimtzum.(2) However, Rabbi Luria expanded the scope of the doctrine far beyond the sefiros found at least implicitly in Zohar and later sources like Ramban.

Tzimtzum itself is used as a resolution to a philosophical conflict: if G-d is infinite, how does that leave room for a physical world? Tzimtzum proposed that G-d somehow withdrew into Himself to make room for creation, only revealing Himself and passing His influence through the medium of sefiros.

Rabbi Luria himself, however, proposed that human beings, when conscious of a "shattering of vessels" (שבירת הכלים) that accompanied tzimtzum, can become active in correcting the consequent flaws in creation through tikunim. A mitzva, therefore, takes on special theosophic importance within this context, because it can effect changes far beyond the local environment of the one performing it.

As far as I can see, a great deal of the substance of the mainstream literature of the Tzfas kabbalists is taken up with instructions on how to use mitzvos and tefila to, on some level, control the cosmos for both universal and personal purposes (with much of the rest focusing on describing and defining the supernatural realms and G-d Himself).

Hirsch on Kabbala

Even if he had made no explicit reference to Kabbala in his writings, I believe that the conflicts between its modern interpretation and most - if not all - of the basic principles of Hirschian thought would be obvious. But as it turns out, Hirsch did address the issue in his book "The Nineteen Letters" in two separate passages:

“Presently, a form of learning came into existence about which, not being initiated in it, I dare not venture to express any opinion. However, if I properly understand that which I believe I do comprehend, then it is, indeed, an invaluable repository of the spirit of the Tanach and the Talmud, but it was also unfortunately misunderstood; the eternal progressive development which it taught came to be considered a static mechanism, and what was to be understood as inner perception was seen as external dreamworlds. As this branch of learning came into being, the mind could turn either to external sharp-witted dialectics in the study of Talmud, mentioned before [i.e., the “pilpul” style of learning that was popular in centuries before Rabbi Hirsch], or to this new field of study, which appealed to the emotions as well. Had it been correctly comprehended, it might perhaps have imbued practical Judaism with spirituality; but, as it was misconstrued, the practice of Judaism was interpreted to be a form of magical mechanistic manipulation, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds.” (Letter Eighteen)

“What if, in addition, one aspect of Judaism, the actual repository of its spirit, was studied in such an uncomprehending way as to reduce its spirit to physical terms, and man's inner and outer endeavors came to be interpreted as a mere mechanical, magical, dynamic building of cosmic worlds - thereby often reducing all those activities that were meant to train and give vitality to the spirit to mere preoccupation with amulets?” (Letter Ten)

Here, Hirsch clearly makes two points: that the "form of learning" in its original state was a perfectly legitimate and valuable source of inspiration (probably in much the same way as midrash), and that a more recent - incorrect - interpretation has dominated and overpowered the original understanding to the point where the original has been lost.

I believe that Hirsch(3) felt that Zohar, in its original state, was meant to be a tool for firing our emotions with the thought of G-d's supernal greatness and then applying ourselves with even more vigor to the problems of religious life. However, he saw the Tzfas school's emphasis on trying to quantify G-d and His actions in a mechanistic way - or on trying to understand G-d at all - as, at best, a distraction. At worst, the (mis)use of mitzvos to "force" heavenly blessings of one sort or another would be seen by Hirsch as virtually pagan.

Hirsch vs. the World?

Now back to my original question: do I have the right to adopt the Hirschian system even when, in many ways, it is a rejection of "Tzfas principles" that have since become standards? Off the bat I can think of a couple of arguments suggesting that I can't. For one thing, weren't many of Rabbi Luria's interpretations received through various kinds of supernatural inspiration? That's certainly the claim of Rabbi Chaim Vital in his introduction to Eitz Chaim.

But that is itself a solid reason why Hirsch might have had no problem rejecting it. The Torah is no longer in the Heavens, and even prophets have no right to introduce innovations:



Secondly, since Rabbi Luria's teachings have been accepted by so many early Torah leaders (including Rabbi Yosef Karo and the Gra), what right does a later authority like Rabbi Hirsch have to reject his predecessors - and how could we choose to side with him? If it were just Rabbi Hirsch against all those powerful voices, then this would be a very strong question. So strong that, had he truly been alone on this, I can’t believe Hirsch would ever have written those words. But digging into the writings of rishonim and early acharonim reveals that sharp condemnation of the study and practice of kabbala without a direct personal mesora was widespread.

The Chavas Ya’ir, for instance, felt that even if some more modern rabbis have encouraged the popular seforim-based study of kabbala, their positions can’t possibly outweigh the consensus of their predecessors who forbade it. Quoting the Rema (in ספר תורת העולה), Chavas Ya’ir adds that there simply are no qualified living teachers left to safely transmit kabbalistic ideas so, effectively, it’s no longer a viable option.

Similar positions were clearly taught by שו"ת תשובה מאהבה שו"ת אליהו מזרחי ובעל נודע ביהודה. Among the rishonim, ריב"ש and רשב"ש, besides condemning any kabbalistic study outside of a personal mesora relationship, question the use of sefiros as part of our avoda and argue strongly for a simple relationship with G-d and His mitzvos – an approach that’s perfectly in line with that of Rabbi Hirsch. I certainly won’t claim that these opinions are binding. But I will suggest that, with their existence, one can’t say that the Hirsch approach is in any way "out of bounds" for us. On the contrary, it may well be far closer to the mainstream Judaism of the past few centuries.

---

Sources:

---

Footnotes:

Footnote One - In recent years, some have argued that the contemporary dominance of particular hashkafos can achieve the status of “psak” and can render even positions held by many rishonim as “kefira”. So how is a person supposed to learn and teach rishonim if he never knows which of their words is kefira and which kosher (and which will become kefira in another ten or twenty years)? I was told by one of the גדולי ראשי ישיבה to ignore the whole thing and continue teaching Ramban and Rambam as I always had. I consider that the starting point for this discussion.

Footnote Two - Isn't all this supposed to be a secret, known only to a few initiates and understood by even fewer? Once perhaps. More recently it can be called a secret in much the same way that the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program in the Dimona facility is a secret. Consider the רבונו של עולם prayer that follows ספירת העומר in most sidurim which, in the absence of familiarity with these basic Tzfas-inspired principles, would be entirely incomprehensible.

Footnote Three - Some who are largely unfamiliar with Rabbi Hirsch’s work will argue that he didn’t really believe many of the ideas he taught, but only used them as a kind of הוראת שעה in order to win over wavering Jews. But if such a thing were true, it would mean that he had essentially devoted his entire life to teaching things he knew were lies. And worse, that he then turned this lie around to harshly attack something (i.e., the Tzfas school) he would have known to be the truth. How could anyone with a trace of yiras shomayim act that way? But in any case, it’s not true. Rabbi Joseph Breuer, Rabbi Shimon Schwab, and Rabbi Yosef Elias all put themselves clearly on the record stating that Hirsch’s Torah im derech eretz position was entirely honestly held. I can’t imagine their understanding of this subject would be any different.