[Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita

[David Riceman]

Micha Berger wrote:
> I think a problem is that people tend to conflate a number of very
> different distinctions:
>     Qabbalah vs Scholasticism
>     mysticism vs rationalism
>     maximalism vs minimalism
>   
This deserves a long, nitpicking post.  First of all Kabbalah itself was 
extremely scholastic.  Compare the Ramak's discussion of atzmuth 
v'keilim in Pardes Rimmonim to Scotus' discussion of substance in his 
essay "Concerning Metaphysics".  I used to think that the major 
distinction to be made was the classical distinction between 
Aristotelians and Platonists: do universals exist? Wolfson thought that 
Maimonides was an Aristotelian in this respect (see Crescas's critique 
of Aristotle pp.664-666, though he hedges a bit in The Philosophy of 
Spinoza I p. 152).  I'm no longer sure; the first part of the Guide, for 
example, reads like a Platonist's dictionary.

My current impression is less clearcut.   One of the things that's hard 
to remember nowadays is that there were two competing physical theories 
in those days, unlike today when modern scientists agree on the basic 
principles.  When it comes to physical phenomena (the existence of 
demons is a good example) the "philosophers" were Aristotelians and the 
Kabbalists were neo-Platonists.  Both had a legitimate scientific theory 
on their side (and today we would accept neither theory).

When it comes to spiritual phenomena, however, I don't think I can come 
up with a distinction that adequately differentiates the two groups.  I 
think the Rambam would have rejected the Zohar on the grounds of God's 
unity (see Tshuvoth HaRivash #157), but I don't think the kabbalists and 
the philosophers line up neatly on opposite sides of that issue.

Now to the detailed complaints:
> In the days of the rishonim, there were two competing tendencies in
> which problems bothered people, and therefore also in how to frame the
> answers -- Qabbalah and "Philosophy", by which they meant the use of
> Aristotilian and neo-Platonic thought to explain religion (Scholasticism).
>   
The kabbalists also used neo Platonic thought (and some Aristotelian 
types of argument) to explain religion.
> Scholasticism is only compatable with rationalism. You wouldn't see much
> point in using philosophical tools to understand religion if you weren't
> defining religion as something that is to be understood.
>   
See my remark above about the Ramak.  The kabbalists did think religion 
could be understood, they just used a different conceptual framework.  
The third group here was the philosophically naive Talmudists (for 
example, the Northern French contributors to the anti-Maimonidean 
polemic).  It complicates the dichotomy, but it makes your statement at 
least arguable.
> I use the word "Scholasticism" rather than the word the rishonim did,
> Philosophy, because the mequbalim also used philosophical terms: tzurah,
> chomer, atzilus, etc... are all found in Aristotle and Plato as well.
>   
Where do Plato or Aristotle mention "atzilus"? Maybe there are some 
parallels in Philo and Plotinus.
> <snip>
>
> In contrast, the mystic's faith focuses on the incomprehensible. Religion
> that is centered on G-d will have much that is simply beyond
> understanding. Rather, the mystic aspires to experience and live religion,
> and takes joy, not frustration, in the Divine Mystery.
>   
This is certainly the case for many Christian and Buddhist mystics.  Can 
you cite any examples of Jewish mystics who fit this description?
> <snip>
>
> In this sense of the term, Breslov is exceedingly mystical. They shun
> philosophy. Thinking gets in the way of happiness and thus brings on
> despair, which in turn is the road away from productivity in general and
> avodas Hashem in particular. The philosophical study of G-d objectifies
> Him; and thus interferes with emunah peshutah.
>   
Again I'd like to see sources.  I've read only a few bits of Likkutei 
Moharan, but it doesn't seem to me to fit this description.
> <snip>
>  However, what I mean by minimalism is
> an unwillingness to accept extraordinory claims. A maximalist would look
> at the mesorah, and not even raise questions as to how the universe could
> be only 6 days older than civil humanity. The whole world was flooded, and
> every species of animal fit on a floor that was 1.4 acres (using CI amos).
>
> But for a rationalist who already found a basis for accepting the reality
> of a G-d who can defy nature if He so chooses, maximalism is no less
> rationalist than minimalism. Both are fully explanable from the same
> first principles. It is no longer an issue of explanatory framework
> or which issues bother me, but of whether I believe G-d minimizes His
> interferance in the natural order.
>   
This is a nice distinction.  When did maximalism begin.  Can you, for 
example, name a rishon who was a maximalist?

David Riceman