2

According to Aruch Hashulchan seen here siff 8 , it was given at Sinai to Moshe. But is Kabbalah today the same as back then? (I hope this question is not unclear)

Is the Kabbalah as the Rabbis have it today the same Kabbalah as Moshe had?

Or is this another type of Kabbalah?

(if any of this is true)

kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58
Aigle
  • 1,478
  • 10
  • 18
  • The link to 'siff 8' is missing. This question needs to be restated. Whatever the OP is trying to find out isn't clear. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '16 at 13:17
  • 3
    When the halakhic works refer to kabbalah they're usually referring to the oral Torah rather than what we call kabbalah nowadays. – Daniel Sep 11 '16 at 13:24
  • @Daniel Then why do we have all the stuff we have today? – Aigle Sep 11 '16 at 13:37
  • @Daniel that is most definately not what the A.H. means there. – user6591 Sep 11 '16 at 14:04
  • Predicating a question on a particular 20th century writer makes it very difficult to answer. Especially since the line in question is tremendously oversimplified and goes against much if not most of what his predecessors held. – mevaqesh Sep 11 '16 at 14:04
  • 1
    Have you checked these out: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34302/did-r-moshe-de-leon-write-the-zohar?s=1|2.8931 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34269/did-rashbi-write-the-zohar?s=3|0.2354 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/48084/8775 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/44617/8775 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/40671/8775 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/50730/how-are-we-to-understand-lurianic-kabbalah http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/69583/8775? – mevaqesh Sep 11 '16 at 14:21
  • @mevaqesh I didn't check out the A.H. before posting that comment as the link was not present at the time so it should be taken as a general point of information. Should have clarified that when I posted – Daniel Sep 11 '16 at 14:31
  • The hotlink (which I provided from your text) is to Simon 44, se'if 1. Simon 44 does not have a se'if 8. Please clarify. – Avrohom Yitzchok Sep 11 '16 at 15:30
  • Is the limud gemara the same in reb chayim brisker and rashi.? – kouty Sep 11 '16 at 16:34
  • http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1380&pgnum=86 seems to think not – Double AA Sep 21 '16 at 20:04

1 Answers1

1

In order to answer your question, the first thing needed is to understand clearly what the Aruch HaShulchan is actually saying in the citation you bring. He is discussing there the subject of the requirements of blessings and specifically over what things we study is it required to make the blessings for Torah study.

צריך לברך בין למקרא, בין למשנה, בין לגמרא, בין למדרש, והיינו מדרש המקראות במכילתא וספרא וספרי (רש"י ברכות יא ב). ודע שיש להסתפק בלומד דברי אגדה, כמדרש רבה או חכמת הקבלה

"It is necessary to bless whether for the written Torah, or for the Mishnah, or for the Gamarrah, or for the Midrash, meaning the Midrash on the written Torah in the Mechilta, and Sifra and Sifri (Rashi on Brachot 11a). And know that there is a doubt in regard to study of the words of Agaddah, like Midrash Rabbah and the wisdom of the kabbalah..."

What the Aruch HaShulchan calls 'Midrash' he limits only to the three halachic midrashim found to the last three of the five books of Moshe like Rashi explains in tractate Brachot 11a. All other midrashim he calls 'Aggadot' which is from the same root as 'Haggadah' and 'Naggid' which mean 'to tell'. It means the oral tradition that originally was not permitted to be written down, but only shared face to face from teacher to student like is found in Gittin 60b and Temurah 14a.That portion of the oral Torah comprising Mishnah and Gamarrah also fell under this same restriction originally.

It was only as external troubles (like poverty and servitude to foreign conquerers) increased for B'nai Yisrael, and the level and quality of learning decreased, that compromises started to made in some areas. This was done so that the oral teachings, particularly those relating to proper practice of the commandments materially and physically, would not be lost like is recorded in the Igeret of Sherirah Gaon 1:1. Some parts of the oral teachings began to be written down. This is based upon the principle from Mishah Avot 1:17 taught by Rabbi Shimon be Gamliel that "the deed is the primary thing".

The more esoteric parts of the Torah remained oral and in some cases had a restricted circulation to only select, gifted and talented individuals. Over time and as the suffering increased, this writing down of the oral parts grew and expanded to include other areas of the oral teachings. Again, the more esoteric portions, even after being written down, were often restricted to small circles of select individual. And this continues even to this day.

But many of the esoteric materials, particularly following the time of the Ari z"l, Rabbi Yitzchok Luria, have been allowed to be circulated in increasingly broader circles until today, many books from ancient tradition and teaching are readily available.

What the Aruch HaShulchan is referring to as the 'wisdom of the kabbalah' is talking about these highly esoteric, but authentic teachings, which have been passed down from generation to generation since Moshe Rabbeinu and even before.

They comprise the same teachings in 'kabbalah' that we have always had. Examples can be found in Sefer Yetzirah, Sefer Pirkei Heichalot attributed to Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol, Sefer HaTagin attributed to Yehoshuah be Nun, Sefer Ma'ayan HaChochmah attributed to Moshe Rabbeinu, Masechet Atzilut from the time of David HaMelech, Sefer HaBahir, Sefer HaTemunah and Sefer HaKaneh attributed to Rabbi Nehuniah ben HaKaneh, and even Sefer Raziel HaMalach attributed to Adam HaRishon, Sefer Chanoch attributed to Chanoch ben Yered from Sefer Bereshit, and Sefer Noach attributed to Noach ben Lemech of the story of the flood and Ark. There are many other examples.

It should be noted with all this that even today, there are some manuscripts which still are not published and have extremely limited circulation amongst the Jewish people.

For someone who actually looks at these sources, it can be seen that kabbalah, what the Aruch HaShulchan refers to as "the wisdom of the kabbalah", is the same kabbalah that has been passed down through all the generations going back all the way to Moshe Rabbeinu and even before.

Yaacov Deane
  • 14,809
  • 22
  • 64
  • It means the oral tradition that originally was not permitted to be written down, but only shared face to face from teacher to student. That portion of the oral Torah comprising Mishnah and Gamarrah also fell under this same restriction originally. Do you mean Midrash or Haggadah? – mevaqesh Sep 12 '16 at 20:13
  • 1
    Some parts of the oral teachings began to be written down. This is based upon the principle from Mishah Avot 1:17 taught by Rabbi Shimon be Gamliel that "the deed is the primary thing". How is the Mishna connected? What is your source for this? – mevaqesh Sep 12 '16 at 20:14
  • 1
    If your answer is predicated on the attributions you present then it is highly dubious to put it mildly. – mevaqesh Sep 12 '16 at 20:17
  • I mean everything that falls under the domain of what we call today 'Oral Torah' originally fell under that restriction. This is discussed in detail in history books such as the 'Anvil of Sinai' series and the Igeret of Sherira Gaon. – Yaacov Deane Sep 12 '16 at 20:18
  • In answer to your question concerning the quotation from Avot, it is showing the clear teaching about the priority assigned to the 'deed' of mitzvah performance. – Yaacov Deane Sep 12 '16 at 20:21
  • 1
    To clarify, the question is as follows: One recent writer claimed that mysticism known as Kabbalah is Sinaic. The question is whether all mysticism today is the Sinaic. I don't see how all of this answers the question. – mevaqesh Sep 12 '16 at 20:21
  • 1
    Again, perhaps clarify why that is related to overturning a prohibition and edit in any sources who connect these two, or clarify if it is your own idea. – mevaqesh Sep 12 '16 at 20:22
  • 2
    What is authentic, true kabbalah today is the same thing that was taught from Sinai. If you're talking about the Hollywood stuff, there are numerous Rabbis, both here and in Israel, who have written clearly and publicly about what is authentic and what is not and the serious dangers associated with involvement in the fraudulent material. But that said, it is important to know that kabbalah, like we have today, is authentic and true Torah. – Yaacov Deane Sep 12 '16 at 20:29
  • For someone who actually looks at these sources, it can be seen that kabbalah, what the Aruch HaShulchan refers to as "the wisdom of the kabbalah" is the same kabbalah that has been passed down through all the generations going back all the way to Moshe Rabbeinu and even before This is bogus. It does not matter how many esoteric works you have studied, you still can't know which works AH is referring to, since he gives absolutely no context. – mevaqesh Sep 13 '16 at 02:17
  • Here are links to the "ancient works" you cite which supposedly date back to Moshe or before. Readers can follow them to learn how dubious the claims of their antiquity are. Sefer Raziel Hamalakh, Sefer HaTagin (Hebrew), Sefer HaBahir, Massekhet Atsillut, Sefer HaTemunah – mevaqesh Sep 13 '16 at 02:34
  • 1
    Sefer HaQaneh (Hebrew). Note that even were these works all billions of years old, it still would not answer the question of whether all the Kaballah that we have is form Sinai. Even if there were ancient mysticism, it by no means shows that all mysticism is ancient. – mevaqesh Sep 13 '16 at 02:36
  • Just curious how my comments linking to relevant discussions on this site are being deleted anonymously. And for @mevaqesh the attributions are from a kabbalistic sourcebook containing those texts and published under the approbation of Sha'ar HaShamayim Yeshivah in Jerusalem. That yeshivah is where Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's father served many years as Rosh Yeshivah. They specialize in teaching authentic kabbalah from authentic sources. That is why the reference to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was relevant to your critique. His father taught there. – Yaacov Deane Sep 13 '16 at 15:48
  • @mevaqesh Actually regarding the intent of the Aruch HaShulchan, he indicates in Yoreh Deah, Hilchot Talmud Torah, 246: 15 exactly the kind of sources he means and they are from kind of authors and sources I have cited. – Yaacov Deane Sep 13 '16 at 16:09
  • 1
    If there is a source that is essential to your answer then it should be edited in. – mevaqesh Sep 13 '16 at 18:40
  • @mevaqesh All your links 'proving' the dubious nature of the attributed origins are from Wikipedia. What they are talking about is when these books first appeared in published and relatively public format. That only agrees with what I wrote in my answer concerning the codification of all parts of the 'Oral Torah' including Mishnah and Gemarrah. The oral portion of Torah did not have the exacting copy requirements which existed for the 5 books of Moshe. See Avot reference in attached link. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/nyregion/abraham-i-katsh-92-scholar-and-researcher-of-judaica.html – Yaacov Deane Sep 13 '16 at 19:35
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane Why are you quoting the word "prove" when mevaqesh never used that word? He was just giving a direction to investigate for people to understand the dubious nature of many of the dating claims. And they are talking about when the text was composed not just when it was first published publicly. So it doesn't agree with what you claimed. – Double AA Sep 15 '16 at 15:17
  • @DoubleAA The 'prove' formatting is just for emphasis. It could have been done with italicization or bolding but those options aren't available in comments. Quotation marks would be like: "prove". According to the tour, "Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition." The view that mevaqesh is espousing in regard to the origins and authorship of the books mentioned is neither according to Jewish law or tradition. It's according to modern, secular research and speculation. – Yaacov Deane Sep 15 '16 at 15:41
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane And you are very wrong about mevaqesh. Some Rishonim agreed with him and some with you. Please stop pretending you're the only one around here who gets to lay claim to the mantle of Jewish Tradition. – Double AA Sep 15 '16 at 15:48
  • @DoubleAA I am making 'no accusation whatsoever' about mevaqesh. The accepted convention when there is a disagreement among Rishonim is to look for final piskei dinim among Acharonim. It should be noted that this is, in general about matters of halacha only. The subject here is Hashkafa. There is much more leniency and tolerance of divergent opinions in this area. The sources I pointed to are clearly accepted as 'traditional and authentic' by a very large percentage of observant Jewish people throughout time. Disqualifying these sources, also disqualifies them. No thank you. – Yaacov Deane Sep 15 '16 at 16:07
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane Some Rishonim "disqualified" (whatever that means) those sources and some didn't. Do you have a time machine to go check who's right? You stated incorrectly above that "The view that mevaqesh is espousing in regard to the origins and authorship of the books mentioned is neither according to Jewish law or tradition." Please stop pretending you're the only one around here who gets to lay claim to the mantle of Jewish Tradition. – Double AA Sep 15 '16 at 16:11
  • And in the context of this particular answer, the Aruch HaShulchan defines himself what kinds of sources he means in Yoreh Deah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 246:15. He mentions specific seforim from the earlier Rishonim, like Sha'arei Orah by Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla and "others like this". Gikatilla does, in fact, quote the books I mention above extensively. So what I have presented is accurate and correct in context also. – Yaacov Deane Sep 15 '16 at 16:34