[Avodah] Rav Hirsch and Kabbalah

[Michael Makovi]

>From [Avodah] Tiqun Olam

> > 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.
> > Mikha'el Makovi

> 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
> ...
> 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.
> R' Rich Wolpoe

> > What needs iyun, however, is,
> > according to this shita, how did Rav Hirsch view Arizal et. al.?
> > Mikha'el Makovi

> 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
> R' Rich Wolpoe

Ah ha! Yes! Masterplan by R' Carmell:

Page xvii:
KABBALA
We have followed Rav Hirsch in omitting references to kabbalistic
(mystical) interpretations. In fact, however, it will be found that
the symbolic explanations given of certain mitzvot often have their
counterpart in the Zohar and other mystical works. This too is not
surprising when it is remembered that Kabbala itself is essentially an
exploration of the internal world of the unconscious mind and
especially of the non-ego layers of the human psyche.

Page 349 (notes to page xvii):
WE HAVE FOLLOWED RAV HIRSCH IN OMITTING REFERENES TO
KABBALISTIC...INTERPRETATIONS...: See Dayan I. Grunfeld's Introduction
to Horeb, pp. cxx-cxxix.

...KABBALA ITSELF IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXPLORATION OF THE INTERNAL WORLDS
OF THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND...: That the "worlds" of Kabbala are internal
was well understood by Rav Hirsch. He defines Kabbala as "inner vision
and concept" rather than "external dream-worlds" that people mistake
it for. (See Nineteen Letters on Judaism, Letter 18.) See also Rabbi
E. E. Dessler, Strive for Truth! III p. 221, and S.D.S. [Rabbi Solomon
David Sassoon] The Sephardi Heritage, London 1963.

-------------

So Rabbi Carmell posits that Rav Hirsch saw Kabbalah as psychological
rather than as theosophy and theurgy. While I said that Rav Hirsch
took the Zohar as a midrash whose p'shat was not its intent (as per
Rabbi Danziger) and therefore he tried to extract a rational meaning
from its allegorically form, Rabbi Carmell would agree that in any
case, Rav Hirsch did not subscribe to a conventional understanding of
Kabbalah. This is in contrast to Dayan Grunfeld, who says that Rav
Hirsch followed a 100% ordinary understanding of Kabbalah; he objected
only to the misunderstandings of the laity, and he didn't write about
Kabbalah simply because his audience was not receptive.

-------------

Strive for Truth, III p. 221:

the meaning of "worlds"

The four worlds of Kabbalah (in ascending order:'Asiya Yetsira,
Beriya, Atsilut) are neither palces nor universes; they are states of
consciousness. Why are they called "worlds"? What is the meaning
"spiritual worlds"?

We have mentioned earlier that our awareness of our self, our ego, is
direct and immediate. It depends neither on the meditation of the
senses nor on that of the intellect (See Volume I, pp. 227-233). We
may call this "absolute" knowledge.

...

What one sees as absolute constitutes one's "world." The person who
sees sense-experience as absolute lives in the world of 'Asiya. One
who sees moral and spiritual awareness as absolute lives in a higher
world - the world of Yetsira. Adam in Gan 'Eden and Israel at Mount
Sinai lived in that world. For them, reality was the life of of the
spirit.

So writes Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhyn, commenting on the verse "And all
the people saw the thundrous sounds..." ...