Shorshei HaYam is Rav Hillel's sefer... that you can search easily enough online. This is an excerpt printed from it off of the Otzar HaChokhmah website, as can be seen from the digital wartermarks on the pages.
All that to say that yes this is from Rav Hillel.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think is disturbing about it.
> I'd be interested in hearing what you think is disturbing about it.
I guess I set myself up for that question. Here, briefly, is my reaction: while the article's core question (how are we to understand kabbalistic expressions that seem to equate G-d's creations with Elkus?) is easy to understand, the author's answer - that, in this context, the phrase "Elkus" means only that these creations enjoy a more direct relationship with G-d's will - is a bit speculative. The fact is that kabbalistic texts are notoriously ambiguous. The Zohar and Arizal might, with the term Elkus, have meant what R' Hillel said they did. Or they might not. I don't believe it can be known definitively. So as a non-kabbalist, my first reaction was at how easy it must be to justify drawing very different conclusions without having to stretch the words at all. The heresies of Chabad really can be read into the text without too much trouble. I'm certainly happy that R' Hillel wouldn't give them any credibility, but I don't see how you can discount them. Of course, that's not to say that Chabad heresies are in any way a legitimate expression of G-d's Torah, but that they might be able to claim some textual support from these sources. The next problem I had was with R' Hillel's straw man claim that non-kabbalists were incapable of properly understanding how G-d is mashgiach on such a lowly world. I assume he is referring to the Aristotelean-inclined rishonim who struggled with what they perceived as a contradiction between G-d's perfection and His connection to this world. But who really cares? Even if some can't scholars feel they have trouble explaining such things, we all stood at Har Sinai and SAW G-d interfering in this lowly world, so we know it happens. It's just that we might now know quite how. But does that detract in even the slightest from the quality of our avodah? And isn't that exactly what the Torah expected (Devarim 29:28)? But it's really worse: I'm a Hirschian. And R' Hirsch - in many places - makes a very powerful argument that we're not in this world to try to see (or undersand) G-d, but to see the world through G-d's eyes. In fact, Hirsch (Letter 18 from the 19 Letters) wrote that the real meaning of kabbalistic texts has long been lost. It was originally meant to be an inspirational literature like midrash, but has been corrupted into a kind of theosophy, with some even using it - pagan-like - to try to force G-d to do out will (I talking to you, Kupat Ha'ir). Finally (and perhaps worst of all), R' Hillel seems to suggest that those non-kabbalists who don't know how to "attach" their tefilos to various "Elkus-agents" are barely praying! On the contrary, the Dovid Hamelech I know and love taught (Tehilim 145:28) that G-d is close to all who call out to Him (in truth). We don't need any fancy, esoteric formulations to speak to our Creator! Chazal (at least their Talmudic representatives) offer not a whiff of any such conditions. And they spoke more than a little on the subject. What an unnecessary burden to place on what should be the most accessible and satisfying of acts of emunah! So that's (part of) why I found the article disturbing. Regards
that, in this context, the phrase "Elkus" means only that these creations enjoy a more direct relationship with G-d's will - is a bit speculative. The fact is that kabbalistic texts are notoriously ambiguous. Actually they are not ambiguous. Not at all. Both the Zohar and the Arizal say explicitly what Rav Hillel says here. The problem comes when they are not being learned correctly. By way of Mashal, the Torah tells us to chose life, and it tells us that healing is forbidden on Shabbat. How then are doctors able to perform life saving procedures on shabbat. Because our sages have consistently said that Chosing life(or as they phrase it Pikuach Nefesh) is of higher priority. It is the same here. We know that the sugiyot in the Zohar and the chapters in the Kitvei that explicitly make the claim that Rav Hillel is saying are essential for understanding the rest.
The next problem I had was with R' Hillel's straw man claim that non-kabbalists were incapable of properly understanding how G-d is mashgiach on such a lowly world. I assume he is referring to the Aristotelean-inclined rishonim No he is not. He is talking about those who superficially study Kabbalistic texts(and thus yes he is also talking about some brands of Chassidus). This is why he opens with a reference to his work Heven B'Hokhmah. He also makes this claim in Faith and Folly(Tihyeh Tamim in Hebrew).
Finally (and perhaps worst of all), R' Hillel seems to suggest that those non-kabbalists who don't know how to "attach" their tefilos to various "Elkus-agents" are barely praying! On the contrary, the Dovid Hamelech I know and love taught (Tehilim 145:28) that G-d is close to all who call out to Him (in truth). If that is how you understood Rav Hillel, than I am afraid that you did not understand him. He has said repeatedly, again see his Faith and Folly, that one does not have to be a Kabbalist to pray, that pure and simple faith is much better than the knowledge of Kabbalah. If you would like I will grab those pages and link them for you as well.
We know that the sugiyot in the Zohar and the chapters in the Kitvei that explicitly make the claim that Rav Hillel is saying are essential for understanding the rest.
I haven't seen any of these sources so I can't very well argue with you, but I'm not by any means convinced that there are all that many truly unambiguous passages among these texts. Even R' Hillel's quoting of pesukim in this article took them far from their straightforward meanings: אין עוד מלבדו - in its proper context - means nothing more than that there is no power that can stand before G-d. חלק אלוק ממעל (from איוב) means only that whatever Iyov had, he recognized as the lot awarded him from G-d. Attributing anything more to those pesukim seems - to me at least - to be derush.
He has said repeatedly, again see his Faith and Folly, that one does not have to be a Kabbalist to pray,
I read Faith and Folly many years ago, which is exactly why I assumed that R' Hillel was not the author of this article. At any rate, we don't seem to disagree in any key point of emunah, so nothing's been broken. Regards,
Are you sure this (very disturbing) essay has anything to do with R' Hillel? The page you link to mentions only R' Elkohen.
ReplyDeleteShorshei HaYam is Rav Hillel's sefer... that you can search easily enough online. This is an excerpt printed from it off of the Otzar HaChokhmah website, as can be seen from the digital wartermarks on the pages.
DeleteAll that to say that yes this is from Rav Hillel.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think is disturbing about it.
> I'd be interested in hearing what you think is disturbing about it.
DeleteI guess I set myself up for that question. Here, briefly, is my reaction: while the article's core question (how are we to understand kabbalistic expressions that seem to equate G-d's creations with Elkus?) is easy to understand, the author's answer - that, in this context, the phrase "Elkus" means only that these creations enjoy a more direct relationship with G-d's will - is a bit speculative. The fact is that kabbalistic texts are notoriously ambiguous. The Zohar and Arizal might, with the term Elkus, have meant what R' Hillel said they did. Or they might not. I don't believe it can be known definitively.
So as a non-kabbalist, my first reaction was at how easy it must be to justify drawing very different conclusions without having to stretch the words at all. The heresies of Chabad really can be read into the text without too much trouble. I'm certainly happy that R' Hillel wouldn't give them any credibility, but I don't see how you can discount them. Of course, that's not to say that Chabad heresies are in any way a legitimate expression of G-d's Torah, but that they might be able to claim some textual support from these sources.
The next problem I had was with R' Hillel's straw man claim that non-kabbalists were incapable of properly understanding how G-d is mashgiach on such a lowly world. I assume he is referring to the Aristotelean-inclined rishonim who struggled with what they perceived as a contradiction between G-d's perfection and His connection to this world. But who really cares? Even if some can't scholars feel they have trouble explaining such things, we all stood at Har Sinai and SAW G-d interfering in this lowly world, so we know it happens. It's just that we might now know quite how. But does that detract in even the slightest from the quality of our avodah? And isn't that exactly what the Torah expected (Devarim 29:28)?
But it's really worse: I'm a Hirschian. And R' Hirsch - in many places - makes a very powerful argument that we're not in this world to try to see (or undersand) G-d, but to see the world through G-d's eyes. In fact, Hirsch (Letter 18 from the 19 Letters) wrote that the real meaning of kabbalistic texts has long been lost. It was originally meant to be an inspirational literature like midrash, but has been corrupted into a kind of theosophy, with some even using it - pagan-like - to try to force G-d to do out will (I talking to you, Kupat Ha'ir).
Finally (and perhaps worst of all), R' Hillel seems to suggest that those non-kabbalists who don't know how to "attach" their tefilos to various "Elkus-agents" are barely praying! On the contrary, the Dovid Hamelech I know and love taught (Tehilim 145:28) that G-d is close to all who call out to Him (in truth). We don't need any fancy, esoteric formulations to speak to our Creator! Chazal (at least their Talmudic representatives) offer not a whiff of any such conditions. And they spoke more than a little on the subject. What an unnecessary burden to place on what should be the most accessible and satisfying of acts of emunah!
So that's (part of) why I found the article disturbing.
Regards
that, in this context, the phrase "Elkus" means only that these creations enjoy a more direct relationship with G-d's will - is a bit speculative. The fact is that kabbalistic texts are notoriously ambiguous.
DeleteActually they are not ambiguous. Not at all. Both the Zohar and the Arizal say explicitly what Rav Hillel says here. The problem comes when they are not being learned correctly. By way of Mashal, the Torah tells us to chose life, and it tells us that healing is forbidden on Shabbat. How then are doctors able to perform life saving procedures on shabbat. Because our sages have consistently said that Chosing life(or as they phrase it Pikuach Nefesh) is of higher priority. It is the same here. We know that the sugiyot in the Zohar and the chapters in the Kitvei that explicitly make the claim that Rav Hillel is saying are essential for understanding the rest.
The next problem I had was with R' Hillel's straw man claim that non-kabbalists were incapable of properly understanding how G-d is mashgiach on such a lowly world. I assume he is referring to the Aristotelean-inclined rishonim
No he is not. He is talking about those who superficially study Kabbalistic texts(and thus yes he is also talking about some brands of Chassidus). This is why he opens with a reference to his work Heven B'Hokhmah. He also makes this claim in Faith and Folly(Tihyeh Tamim in Hebrew).
Finally (and perhaps worst of all), R' Hillel seems to suggest that those non-kabbalists who don't know how to "attach" their tefilos to various "Elkus-agents" are barely praying! On the contrary, the Dovid Hamelech I know and love taught (Tehilim 145:28) that G-d is close to all who call out to Him (in truth).
If that is how you understood Rav Hillel, than I am afraid that you did not understand him. He has said repeatedly, again see his Faith and Folly, that one does not have to be a Kabbalist to pray, that pure and simple faith is much better than the knowledge of Kabbalah. If you would like I will grab those pages and link them for you as well.
We know that the sugiyot in the Zohar and the chapters in the Kitvei that explicitly make the claim that Rav Hillel is saying are essential for understanding the rest.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any of these sources so I can't very well argue with you, but I'm not by any means convinced that there are all that many truly unambiguous passages among these texts. Even R' Hillel's quoting of pesukim in this article took them far from their straightforward meanings: אין עוד מלבדו - in its proper context - means nothing more than that there is no power that can stand before G-d. חלק אלוק ממעל (from איוב) means only that whatever Iyov had, he recognized as the lot awarded him from G-d. Attributing anything more to those pesukim seems - to me at least - to be derush.
He has said repeatedly, again see his Faith and Folly, that one does not have to be a Kabbalist to pray,
I read Faith and Folly many years ago, which is exactly why I assumed that R' Hillel was not the author of this article.
At any rate, we don't seem to disagree in any key point of emunah, so nothing's been broken.
Regards,