[Avodah] Tiqun Olam

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Many argue that Rav Hirsch was a Kabbalist, yes, and I have yet to be
> able to understand this.


Yeeks held that kabbalh was for privateyechidei sEgulah as a reaction to
Shabtai Z'vi. Kabbalh was put in the deep background [as nistar should be]





> In 19 Letters, he decries magical mechanism -
> Dayan Grunfeld says he is merely decrying the popular
> misinterpretation of Kabbalah, and DG does have textual basis.
> However, one cannot ignore the fact that everywhere in RSRH's writings
> where he interprets Kabbalah, he always takes the theosophy and
> theurgy out - for example, in Parshat Bereshit near the beginning, he
> says that our deeds influence the heavens because G-d sees what we do,


FWIW Rema equated kabbalh and Philosophy [just differing terminology]. I
assume that his version of kabbalah must have also eliminated or reduced
Theurgy and Theosophy



>
> He takes cognizance, and He responds accordingly. If I am not
> mistaken, I believe he might even have a partial quotation from the
> Zohar here; in any case, notice the parallel to the Kabbalistic notion
> of influencing upper worlds. But, Rav Hirsch has stripped all
> theosophy and theurgy. Dayan Grunfeld will insist that Rav Hirsch did
> so not because he denies, but only because his audience was not
> receptive.


Again see above. it is POSSIBLE that RSRH had a private view of kabbalah
that was nistar




>
> Rather, Rav Hirsch, I would say, simply stripped the theosophy and
> theurgy out of Kabbalah and read it like any midrash - true, he
> accepted Kabbalah per se, but on his own terms.


Quite possibly simlar to Rema
Or perhaps Kabbalh is a form of proto psycholoyg built on spirtual  rather
than Freudian terms but has no Theurgic consequence.



> It turns out that I am
> holding aliba d'Rabbi Shelomoh Danziger. What needs iyun, however, is,
> according to this shita, how did Rav Hirsch view Arizal et. al.?


AISI - Yekkes simply rejected Lurianic Kabbalh EXCEPT perhaps for yechidei
SEgulah as a result of S. Zvi above.  All Zohar, ana bechoach etc. were
removed  from the  liturgy

OTHO Kallirian mysticism remained in the Geramn liturgy

It is ALSO my thesis that the Shelah was NOT banned but widely influential
in Ashkenaz despite SZ.   Yekkes  did  Tikkyn Leil Shevuos and several
other  custosm intiatiated or  promoted by the Shelah


>
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
> _____




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080403/5c5edb0b/attachment-0001.htm>