In conclusion, the main Ashkenazi approach is not to allow kabbalah to supersede the halacha. Indeed, R. Moshe Feinstein writes (OC 4:3) that the Arizal is to be viewed as just one of the many revered poskim, not the supreme one. This is also the opinion of even the Sephardic posek R. Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer (OC 9:105) and other places.
In the teshuva in the earlier post, Rav Moshe appears to be saying that you pasken by the most lenient opinion. But he equates Kabbalah to the Zohar, according to the MB.
ReplyDeleteSo is it the most lenient Kabbalah opinion, or can a classical halachic opinion be brought as well?
He is dealing with a situation where there is no agreement among poskim and he accepts the rule that in such a case we can accept the view from Kabbala as normative but he notes that doesn't mean the view of Arizal
DeleteThe best answer I ever heard was "The Mechaber and the Rema both knew Kabbala quite well. If they didn't pasken like it, then that should tell you something."
ReplyDeleteBut then you have Chasidim, especially Lubavitchers, who claim that the Zohar is the real Oral Law and always supercedes the Talmud which was only written for simple people at a low level.
There's certain aveiros that the Zohar says there is no teshuva for.
ReplyDeleteRambam, however, says that a person can do every aveira in the book and yet do teshuva on his last day, and he won't be reminded of a single aveira in his olam haba. So why accept the Zohar?
The Rambam has always been a thorn in the side of those who push the Zohar's authenticity and antiquity. It is very clear that the Rambam had no knowledge of it or that if he did, he felt it wasn't worth taking into consideration when understanding Judaism or paskening halakha.
DeleteBut the Rambam was a huge genius. From Moses to Moses, no one arose in Israel like Moses, as the saying goes. So how to square that circle?
There were other skeptics after the Rambam. Rav Emden, the Noda b'yehuda, and Chatam sofer makes reference to the amazing statement of Yavetz.
DeleteEven the Rema studied the Rambam philosophy and said that the Kabbalah can lead people astray.
I've read the full throttled defence of the authenticity of the Zohar in Shomer Emunim and Rav Slifkin's analysis showing it's a post-medieval work and the simplest way for me to understand it is that there probably was some text that Rashbi wrote but it wasn't a huge work, not unlike the Mishnah in style and probably a lot shorter. Then over time various later authorities added their own thoughts and finally Rav Moshe Deleon just put it all together.
DeleteAnd frankly, if he did, he's a major genius considering the size and content of the book.
The problem is that for the "authentic" folks, it's the real Torah ShBa'al Peh.
Problem is -
DeleteWhat is the theology of orthodoxy?
Ikkarim?
Role of scientific logic.
Toleration level of pantheism, polytheism etc?
Then - the Noda b'yehuda asks where is the mesora?
You can't just come up with a new mesechta that nobody has heard of. Why didn't the rif, geonim, Rambam write about it?
If the Gadol hador accepts the sefer hamormon, and his followers also, does it mean it's part of Torah she b'al peh?
(Not referring to sefer harimon)
R' Prof Marc Shapiro has a whole book (mayble a couple, come to think of it) on the question of what is the theology of Orthodoxy. The problem for the UO community is that there is no simple answer. They would like it to be "Torah-true theology is what we practice and it's always been that way since Sinai without any change" which is how Artscroll and others revise history to make it seem that way.
DeleteBut the variety of thoughts over the centuries is too much to be ignored.
Here's a radical thought - we are each meant to think for ourselves after having studied the sources.
That is Rav Kooks view
Delete