4

Chassidim seem to follow the views of kabbalah to a greater degree than non-Chassidim.

What status does kabbalah have in determing the practical halacha for non-Chassidim?

Avrohom Yitzchok
  • 47,518
  • 8
  • 47
  • 131
SAH
  • 19,756
  • 4
  • 56
  • 165
  • 1
    The Vilna Gaon was a kabbalistic and Zoharic scholar, no? – ezra Aug 25 '17 at 18:06
  • 1
    Recall even if you think Kabbala is totally true, you admit that nearly everyone didn't know any of it for millenia. Most Jews are content continuing in the traditions of their ancestors and don't need or want fancy new innovations. – Double AA Aug 25 '17 at 18:07
  • 1
    This seems too broad. The umbrella of mysticism which has all come to be known as kabblah, is quite broad, and there is no spokesman for all of Judaism excluding Hassidim. Additionally, there are various degrees ranging from "burn their books as heresy", to change millennia old practices in favour of anything mystical. The question should probably be narrowed to clarify what exactly you want. – mevaqesh Aug 25 '17 at 18:46
  • See here about one who denies kabbalah entirely. Note that the classical view has always been that one is not required to believe in kabbalah. (with most of the earlier literature focused on whether the beliefs are heretical, not their denial. || This would differentiate it from Torah which one must believe in. || Regarding those non-Hassidic rabbis that opposed the Zohar, the classical work of Kabbalahm, see here. – mevaqesh Aug 25 '17 at 18:56
  • @mevaqesh While I have more respect than you might imagine for your anti-kabbalah position, having been very strongly in that camp at one time, my understanding is that the POV of the majority of today's gadolim (seemingly summarized very nicely here: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/59890/1516 ) is in fact that the Zohar, etc., are part of the Mesorah, if not part of Torah, and have inherent holiness and truth value. To be clear, I don't really like that position either, but it's up to the gedolim, not to either of us – SAH Aug 25 '17 at 19:21
  • I don't know of too many halachot that emanate from Kabbalh (I'm not talking about the common phrase al pi kabbalah which is not a reference to Zohar.) I know that there seems to be a current trend for the Orthodox community to be more machmir than more mekil. (I have some theories as to why this shift has occurred in the last approx. 25 years, but a different discussion.) Assuming this, perhaps, people are trying to concentrate on halachic requirements without adding on Kabbalistic based practices and customs. – DanF Aug 25 '17 at 19:23
  • @mevaqesh ... i think the principality of "acharei rabim l'hatot" over even a bas kol really puts a lid on the matter – SAH Aug 25 '17 at 19:25
  • @DanF 1) What does "al pi kabbalah" mean if not that? Sorry for my ignorance! 2) In what areas have you noticed that the Orthodox community at-large tends to be machmir? I might agree if you were talking about Chareidim, or about the particular question of kashrus, but not sure what else 3) Would love to hear your discussion of why it happened 4) If they're shifting to machmirus in any case, why wouldn't kabbala's stuff be particularly fertile ground for growing in observance? It seems that there is a lot of untrammeled ground there for the maj of littaim. Which is the premise of my question – SAH Aug 25 '17 at 19:30
  • @SAH I have no idea what you are talking about, or how the views of classical non-hassidic authorities wouldn't be relevant to the views of non-hassidic Jews, but I think that https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/22487/8775 and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/84425/8775 would be instructive. – mevaqesh Aug 25 '17 at 19:38
  • @SAH 1) "AL pi kabbalah" I gather means similar to "an accepted practice" - similar to a minhag, but they may not know its source. 2) Briefly, I agree mainly in kashrut, but another area delves into e.g. meetings between boys & girls and separate meal seating. R. Binyamin Kamenetzky, a"h told me how common it was for men & women to sit together at weddings until about 35 years ago, approx. 3) Long discussion. But I think a large reason is b/c there are few gedolim around, now. And, I think people have become a bit "lazier" to do effective research themselves. (cont.) – DanF Aug 25 '17 at 20:13
  • @SAH 4) "Fundamental" halacha always has precedence. In a sense, some people feel "burdened" by the nuances of following halacha that they may not want to add the "burden" of Kabbalah to it. – DanF Aug 25 '17 at 20:14
  • @DanF 1) Thanks! 2) I think the boys and girls thing is not at all simple. I'm no chochomte and would welcome correction with open arms, but when I tried to find leniencies for it, I was very surprised by how few actually existed. There was the Ben Ish Chai and one other, the Eitz something, but they didn't go very far, and fell very short IMO of, say, allowance for coed school. Still have no idea what that is based on. 3) Interesting. But in that case, a move toward strictness is perhaps justified? I thought of one other example btw: CONVERSION 4) But if kabbalah is in fact Torah, I really.. – SAH Aug 25 '17 at 21:31
  • 2
    @DanF I've never heard Al pi kaballah used in that sense and 100% of the time heard it to refer to...kabbalah – robev Aug 25 '17 at 21:31
  • @DanF ...don't understand why, say, frum yeshivish people don't seem to hold much by kabala's pretty stern instructions – SAH Aug 25 '17 at 21:33
  • 1
    @SAH "But if kabbalah is in fact Torah" - Halacha has hierarchy, as you know. Compared to direct Torah and Rabbinical mitzvoth derived from Torah verses, Kabbalah is far lower. Generally, few people understand Kabbalah, and study of it is not exactly encouraged. In numerous cases, it's even DIScouraged. I can't say why Lubavitch has placed a heavy emphasis on Kabbalah, but, I would surmise that they're not much different, in that sense, from any other Hassidic group. I'm not up on the history as to why Hassidism, overall, emphasized Kabbalah. – DanF Aug 28 '17 at 13:05
  • @DanF But everything in the hierarchy of halacha is still binding (unless something on the same level or higher contradicts it.) So isn't kabbalah binding? – SAH Aug 28 '17 at 21:51
  • @SAH "Binding" - meaning what? As halacha? I'm not sure that is true. We do practice numerous customs as a result of things in Kabbalah. A number of our prayers (Ushpizin, for one, I believe) come from Kabbalah. But, offhand, I can't think of a halacha that emanates from Kabbalah. – DanF Aug 29 '17 at 13:23
  • @SAH Re the term "Al pi Kabbalah", or more specifically "Divrei Kabbalah" meaning pretty much as I have explained, above, and not specifally a reference to the Zohar, see https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/85008/5275 in the paragraph below the citation. – DanF Aug 29 '17 at 19:27
  • @DanF For sure Divrei Kabbalah means that, but do people really use "al pi kabalah" with that meaning? – SAH Aug 29 '17 at 20:12
  • @DanF Yes, binding as halacha. Maybe I'll ask that as another question. – SAH Aug 29 '17 at 20:16
  • @DanF that answer is only relevant if you assume al pi kabbalah == midivrei kabbalah, which it isn't. You yourself said above they're not the same, as you said al pi kabbalah is accepted practice, whereas midivrei kabbalah is from neviim – robev Aug 29 '17 at 22:40
  • @SAH I edited your question to try to reduce its breadth which seemed to threaten to close it (before, as you can see, I read all the comments.) Feel free to roll it back. – Avrohom Yitzchok Sep 01 '17 at 09:02
  • @AvrohomYitzchok thanks for your effort to keep my question alive. I shall let your edit stand – SAH Sep 01 '17 at 09:25
  • @SAH Thank you. I once heard the question of what one should do if one cannot get up to say Selichos in the morning. IIRC, Rav Feinstein recommended saying Selichos after a late maariv whereas a Sefardi authority said that is not possible because (al pi kabbalah) that is a time of judgement and it would be better to say the Selichos after the minchah - before maariv. So it may be that Sefardim are more influenced by kabbalah. – Avrohom Yitzchok Sep 01 '17 at 10:30
  • Now it conflates following with being bound. – mevaqesh Sep 01 '17 at 12:26
  • @mevaqesh Yeah. And I don't know why, if kabbalah is binding, it would be differently binding on chasidim and non-chasidim. In short I think the question still needs editing, but I'll leave that to the community – SAH Sep 01 '17 at 21:59
  • Slightly in support of @DanF's point about "al pi kabalah." Maybe. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/80580/where-does-kabbala-write-about-what-time-the-sabbath-ends?rq=1 – SAH Sep 12 '17 at 04:11
  • The "Eitz something" i mentioned above was the Seridei Eish – SAH Sep 12 '17 at 04:37

2 Answers2

2

The mishna berura writes in hilchos tefilin siman 36 in the name of the kneses hagedola that a person should follow every area of the kabola/zohar that is not in contradiction to halocha. but it is not obligatory

andrew tribe
  • 21
  • 1
2

Kabbalah is not binding for both non-Hasidim and Hasidim, simply because it is not of legalistic nature; it belongs to the occult field of Judaism. However those of Hasidic bent, not necessarily of the Hassidic movement (Hasidism) but of Hasidic behavior (Pious), chose to be bound by some of the Kabbalah in order to incorporate spiritual elements into their lives. On the other hand, non-Hasidim refer to Kabbalah to enhance their understanding or knowledge of different areas of Judaism. In instances where non-Hasidim act in accordance with Kabbalistic ordinances it is not because they are bound to do so but rather because at some point a predecessor adopted any certain practice and it became their custom (minhag).

(See Jacobs' 'A Tree Of Life' pg. 69 for a general observation of the influence of kabbalah on halachah.)

Oliver
  • 11,968
  • 30
  • 55