The Dichotomy of Two Paradigms

I. Tikkunim Chadashim of the Ramchal
A few days ago I was having a conversation with a friend as to how to understand the Ramchal's worldview as a Kabbalist. I mentioned to him that I felt that as he had not studied some of the Ramchal's more intensely Kabbalistic works, he was not seeing the full gamut of the Ramchal's approach. That night I could not fall asleep, and I decided, after the conversation I had just had, to open a fairly intense work of the Ramchal's that had long sat unopened on my shelf. It is called Tikkunim Chadashim and is probably best described as a neuvo-Zohar work of the Ramchal. It was one of his books that got him in trouble with the establishment as they felt it was inappropriate to write using the Zohar's dialect.
I quickly saw something that really amazed me which I would like to share with you. After I present the original Aramaic, I will translate his words and then endeavor to explain what he means.

זהר תנינא, דא זהר דבה תליא חדותא דאורייתא. ודא אקרי חמרא דארייתא, דביה ויין ישמח חיים מסטרא דכחמה ובינה. ואילין מארי קבלה מסטרא דעץ החיים. אבל מסטרא דעץ הדעת טוב ורע אתמר בה: שתוי יין אל יורה דעץ הדעת תמן יורה יורה ידין ידין יורה לימינא יורה לשמאלא, ידין לימינא ידין לשמאלא, ותמן יין המשכר דאצטריך לאסתמרא מנה. אבל מסטרא דעץ החיים, יין ישמח חיים, חדותא דזהר דא

The Ramchal begins his work by explaining that there are a number of different types of Zohar, of Splendor or Shine, that are bestowed upon the world. In this paragraph he is focused on the second one. He explains that this is the Zohar upon which the joy of Torah study is dependent. It is referred to as the Wine of Torah, about which the verse in Koheleth says that wine brings joy to life. This is the realm of Chochma and Binah,  and of the Kabbalists who operate in the paradigm of the Tree of Life. However, in the paradigm of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we are taught that one who has imbibed alcohol, may not issue a Halachic ruling. The Tree of Knowledge is the place of ruling one way or another, of discerning the law one way or another. Rule to the right, rule to the left. Discern to the right, discern to the left. That is where wine leads to inebriation and one must refrain. But within the paradigm of the Tree of Life wine brings joy to life, the joy of this Zohar.
The Ramachal is creating a dichotomy. On the one hand is Tree of Life, the home of the Kabbalists, to which wine brings joy, and on the other hand there is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the place of Halachic ruling, in which wine drinking will invalidate the procedures and lead to inebriation. What is the meaning of this distinction?

II. Quantum Halacha
Wine and Kabbalistc knowledge are intertwined. The Talmud teaches us that נכנס יין יצא סוד, that יין, wine, and סוד, Kabbalistic secrets, share the same Gematria. The result is that when one drinks wine he is in the realm where he can divine the secrets of Kabbalah, he is in the world of the Tree of Life. That is a realm in which אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים is very much alive and present. It is a world in which the deepest secrets of spiritual existence are known and where simultaneously seemingly divergent opinions can happily co-exist, because it is a place where no lines need to be drawn and all truths can be clearly seen.
However, step into the world of the Tree of Knowledge, the paradigm of right and wrong, there can no longer be a divergence of opinion. Lines must be drawn, decisions must be made. Choices of right and wrong, good and evil must be made at all times. We are not in the world of wine which diffuses those lines, and inebriation can be the only result of imbibing.
As an aside, I will mention here my Theory of Quantum Halacha. Quantum physics teaches us that when photons are shot through a two-slit screen they will travel through the right slit, through the left slit, through both and through neither. All four of these statements are true simultaneously. Fascinatingly, this changes if there is an observer at the time the photon passes through the slit. When there is an observer, only one path can be taken. In a similar vein there is a state of Torah study in which all opinions, even those which seem to be contradictory, are true. This is, again, what Chazal refer to as אלו ואלו, this opinion and that opinion are both the words of the true God. This is akin to the state mentioned above of the Tree of Life, the state in which no lines need to be drawn.
However, practically speaking, in the way in which we live, ultimately a decision must be made. Halacha is meant to be lived and not just theoretical, and one path must be chosen. The posek who issues the Halachic ruling is akin to the observer, under whose observation there ends up being only one path on which to walk. (This is, perhaps, why God demurred to give the Torah to angels. The angels could engage with the Torah in the realm of the Tree of Life, but could never engage in the sharply drawn world of the Tree of Knowledge.)

III. Choice
I was left with one question. Adam was in Gan Eden  and presented with the option of living in the paradigm of the Tree of Life or that of the Tree of Knowledge. He could live in a world where all was true, or one in which he would have to create distinctions and leave some things behind. Why did he choose to leave the one world and enter the other?
I would suggest (as others have before me) that in the world of wine, the world of the Tree of Life, there would be no place for him to exercise free will. It was an existence in which all options that could be created were all true and valid. Choice had no place.
But Adam wished to be Godlike, and God chose. God had chosen to create a Universe, and Adam wished to be a chooser as well. His only option was to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and enter into the realm of choice, so he could then emulate his Creator, as he was meant to do.

Understanding Kabbalah

The term "Kabbalah" has become a buzzword. May people talk about it, some try to study it. What is it at its essence?
I would suggest that the essence of Kabbalah is the study of relationships. At its root is the relationship between God and Creation and between God and Man. However it branches out into examining the relationship between various spiritual entities, between people and the spiritual world, between man and man, as well as between man and the world in which he lives.
The Hebrew root of the word Kabbalah is קבל. We also find this root used in the context of creating a relationship between two things. One example is found in Shemos 36:12 when the Torah discusses the weaving of tapestries with which to cover the Mishkan which are then to be connected with loops. קבילות to the loops on the opposite tapestry. A similar usage is found in many other places.

At the edge of each tapestry was a set of loops that were מ
Why was the study of Kabbalah traditionally discouraged for most people?
Think about relationships. Imagine if someone were to ask you why you love your spouse. Can you possibly give the essential answer? What will you say, that your spouse is beautiful? Oh, so beauty is love? Or they are are smart, or funny or any other adjective you could use. While each of these may be a significant element in your relationship and contribute to the love you feel, none of them are truly love. The essential truth of the relationship cannot be expressed in words. To whatever extent you can speak of it, you are missing the true essence.
This is why so many people misconstrue love. They are seeing the superficial trappings of love and mistaking them for love.
The same holds true for Kabbalah. All of the descriptions within Kabbalastic works are only able to explain certain aspects of the relationships described above, but at the end of the day, the essential relationship can never be explicitly defined. They are all sign points and frameworks to help direct us to discovering a relationship with God, but none of them actually describe the relationship. It is up to each individual to discover the relationship.
Some people have misconstrued the descriptions found within Kabbalistic works and understood them to be the essential elements rather than just symbols and parables to help reach the truth. At times this has led as far as idol worship, which takes spiritual concepts and assigns them physical attributes. It was felt that it was necessary for any student of Kabbalah to be well grounded in all areas of Torah thought so he not make any of these errors.

Challenging Nature - I

I just finished reading a very fascinating book Challenging Nature. The book is an interesting review of biotechnology and the challenges it presents for people of religious faiths. The author attempts to present the views of different faiths throughout the book and discuss how they can or cannot be reconciled with current scientific understanding.

Unsurprisingly, I was interested in seeing how the issues he presents challenge my understanding of Judaism, as well as how he presents Jewish understanding of many of these topics. Equally unsurprisingly, he gets much of the latter wrong. Over the next few weeks I will try to share with you some of the statements he makes and my views on them.

One of the classic mistakes he makes is the assumption that there is some sort of Judaeo-Christian world view. There is no such thing. On so many very basic issues Judaism and Christianity differ that the term Judaeo-Christian has no meaning whatsoever. This is evident in many places in the book. Furthermore, within Judaism, even within Orthodox Judaism, there is not one monolithic hashkafa (outlook) on many of the points this book raises. In the main where he fails is a seeming complete lack of any exposure to Kabbalistic thought. Many ideas which seem very clear cut and simplistic in Jewish thought, are actually revealed to be much more complex and multi-faceted when one is exposed to the Kabbalistic outlook on Judaism.

Finally, there are places where he simply has his facts wrong when it comes to Judaism. Yes, he apologizes for that possibility in his prologue, that doesn't change the facts.

The first such error is when he records a conversation with a Chabad rabbi (p. 9) during which the author asks "When does God give a human being a soul." The rabbi answered him that the soul is given at birth and not a moment before.

Unfortunately for the rabbi, this is clearly and unequivocally rejected by the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin. It states clearly that the soul enters at the time of conception. Frankly, it is shocking to me that a "rabbi" could have made such a blatant error.

The author then goes on to say (it is unclear to me is this came from the "rabbi" or if this is his own conclusion) that embryos before the 20th week of development can be removed at a woman's request because they are just her tissues, totally dependent on her body for vitality.

While there is much discussion in Halachic literature as to when abortion is and is not permitted, this blanket permission of a woman to have an early term abortion just because she feels like it is quite shocking.

I don't know exactly what this rabbi may have shared with the author, perhaps the author got it all wrong. That would only strengthen the dictum of חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם...

Charedi Chaos

Kabbalistic thought teaches us that the world was originally created in a state of תהו (tohu). This was a state in which the Sefiros, the spiritual atomic particles of existence, were not working in harmony. The result was a state of chaos in which each Sefirah was, so to speak, looking out for its own good, and not focused on unity within creation. Ultimately, the goal is to move from a state of תהו to one of תקון (tikkun), the state in which each Sefirah is able to relate to each other one in a harmonious manner. The state of תהו is a state of Galus, exile, in which the world is not achieving its potential. תקון brings with it the coming of Moshiach, a time of peace and harmony.

In the seminal Kabbalistic work Etz Chaim, Rav Chaim Vital quotes his brother-in-law Rav Gedalyahu as presenting an explanation of what leads to a state of תהו and what results in תקון. He explains that when someone is in a state of יראה, fear, he tends to see the deficiencies in another and will stay away for fear of being affected. Rabbeinu Yonah writes that one who has יראה will stay away from even the slightest doubt of wrongdoing. In the same vein, the Sefiros were conscious of the deficiencies they each had and stayed away from each other. The result was chaos.

The only way to overcome this is to leave the paradigm of יראה and move to that of אהבה, love. על כל פשעים תכסה האהבה. Love covers over all deficiencies. When we move from the paradigm of fear to the paradigm of love, we move from barrier building, and finding reasons to justify building them, to bridge building, relationship and connection.

These paradigms are reflected not just within Creation, but within the life of each individual as well as within each relationship. The constant challenge is how to remain in the paradigm of love and away from that of fear.

I find it interesting that over the past few decades the name Charedim (those who fear) has come into use to describe the so-called Ultra-Orthodox. According to Rav Gedalyahu it is that fear which leads them to build boundaries. However those boundaries, while needed according to their paradigm, prevent the achievement of תקון and the coming of Moshiach.

This would seem to support the need for a Breslovite or Kookian philosophy such as that espoused by Hachalban, Shlit"a, which emphasizes the mandate to learn to love every person, no matter how much they seemed to be caught in sinful behaviors.

Long Hair etc.

Yesterday's Torah portion discussed the idea of Nazir, a person who makes a vow and is thereby forbidden to cut his hair, drink wine, or defile himself by contact with the dead (e.g. attending funerals, or visiting cemeteries) for at least thirty days. Such a person is referred to as Kadosh (holy) by the Torah.
Why are these three elements needed to complete the profile of the Nazir. What do they signify? Kabbalistic thought teaches us that in the uppermost spiritual worlds all that can be seen is the infinite and unbounded kindness of God which is referred to as Chesed. In the process of creation, in order to leave room for Creation to exist, as well as to allow for free will and the ability to do wrong, this Chesed was subject to limitations and boundaries. The trait of binding and limiting is referred to as Din. We therefore live in world that is a mix of Chesed and Din and spend our lifetimes navigating the waters between them.
The Nazir, by contrast, is attempting by means of his vow and subsequent abstinence to raise himself up as much as possible to the spiritual worlds in which there is only Chesed and Din is completely absent.
It is for this reason that he is instructed to refrain from wine and all grape products. The redness of wine is a symbol of bloodshed, surely an act of Din. Death and all that is associated with it is also a product of Din. The Nazir has no place associating with either of these phenomena.
Kabbalsitic thought also teaches us that in the uppermost spiritual realms, hair represents the media through which God's Chesed is received and then transmitted to others. As that is the realm in which the Nazir wishes to temporarily repose, he should maximize his Chesed transmitting hair as much as possible.
Another way to understand the prohibition against drinking wine and shaving is that people often drink wine in order to enhance their spirit. Living in this world of a mix of Chesed and Din it can often be difficult to get in touch with one's Chesed side without the aid of some wine. The Nazir, inhabiting a world of Chesed at all times, should have no need for a boost to achieve that consciousness. Additionally, by inhabiting that upper world of the spiritual he is bringing himself to a point where Adam was prior to his sin. That is a world in which death has no part, therefore he should have no part of death.
These explanations can open our eyes to a better understanding of the most famous of all Nizirim, Shimshon (Samson). That will wait for the next post.