|
Untitled Document
The following interchange extends the discussion of
Lippman Bodoff's detailed study of contemporary mysticism published in the Tevet 5763 edition of The Edah Journal. Yehuda Gellman
is Professor of Philosophy at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer
Sheva and a Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in
Jerusalem. He is the author of several books on hasidic masters and hasidic
thought. Lippman Bodoff is past Associate Editor of JUDAISM and author of
numerous scholarly articles in Jewish thought.
LOZ LEIBIN: A REPLY
TO LIPPMAN BODOFF ON JEWISH MYSTICISM
Yehuda Gellman
In the Tevet 5763 issue of The Edah
Journal Lippman Bodoff presents a
strong attack against mysticism and hasidism in contemporary Jewish
life. Bodoff calls for the readership of Edah to switch from
"admiration" to "revulsion" of these phenomena.
While the article is deeply learned and challenging, I cannot agree
with the author's main conclusions. In what follows, I will present
in a succinct manner the main difficulties I have with Bodhoff's
article.
1. Bodoff expresses the view that mysticism as
an attempt to escape from the real world became important because
of the phenomenon of German Jewry engaging in mass martyrdom in the
face of Christian persecution. Mass suicide was an escape from the
real world, thus creating legitimization for another escape from
the world - mysticism (pp. 5-6). Since those historical
circumstances are long gone, what we are left with is a misplaced
escapism from the world that should arouse our revulsion.
Reply:
(a) Bodoff provides insufficient
historical basis for linking mysticism and Jewish martyrdom. We
are given the "escape" analogy as a
major basis, which is not convincing. (More on this below.) If it
is historical explanation he is after, Bodoff might consider the
rise of mysticism in Christianity, and the age-old adage, "Vi Iz kriztelzich azoi yidilztich" ("The way it Christianizes, it
Judaizes.")
(b) Even if Bodoff were
correct about the historical roots of mysticism as a major force in
Jewish life, to judge mysticism throughout the ages and in
contemporary times based on its origin commits the
"genetic" fallacy. That fallacy exists whenever someone
insists that the genesis of an idea determines its truth or falsity
or its goodness or badness. There is no substitute for examining
closely how mysticism has functioned down the ages after its
inception in order to form an evaluation of it. And there is no
substitute for examining closely how mysticism, and its offspring,
hasidism, functions in Jewish life today. I would call on Bodoff to
give more thought to the claimed positive aspects of mysticism
throughout Jewish history, to weigh for the reader both the pros
and cons, and only then come to his conclusion. His case would be
more convincing.
(c) Bodoff's description of
"mysticism" as an "escape from the real world"
repeats a caricature that does not get at the full truth. The
mystic may seek experiences that "take him out of the
world," but it hardly follows that all persons who are mystics
are driven by a desire to escape the
LOZ LEIBIN: A REPLY
TO LIPPMAN BODOFF ON JEWISH MYSTICISM
Yehuda Gellman
In the Tevet 5763 issue of The Edah
Journal Lippman Bodoff presents a
strong attack against mysticism and hasidism in contemporary Jewish
life. Bodoff calls for the readership of Edah to switch from
"admiration" to "revulsion" of these phenomena.
While the article is deeply learned and challenging, I cannot agree
with the author's main conclusions. In what follows, I will present
in a succinct manner the main difficulties I have with Bodhoff's
article.
1. Bodoff expresses the view that mysticism as
an attempt to escape from the real world became important because
of the phenomenon of German Jewry engaging in mass martyrdom in the
face of Christian persecution. Mass suicide was an escape from the
real world, thus creating legitimization for another escape from
the world - mysticism (pp. 5-6). Since those historical
circumstances are long gone, what we are left with is a misplaced
escapism from the world that should arouse our revulsion.
Reply:
(a) Bodoff provides insufficient
historical basis for linking mysticism and Jewish martyrdom. We are
given the "escape" analogy as a major basis, which is not
convincing. (More on this below.) If it is historical explanation
he is after, Bodoff might consider the rise of mysticism in
Christianity, and the age-old adage, "Vi Iz kriztelzich azoi yidilztich" ("The way it Christianizes, it
Judaizes.")
(b) Even if Bodoff were
correct about the historical roots of mysticism as a major force in
Jewish life, to judge mysticism throughout the ages and in
contemporary times based on its origin commits the
"genetic" fallacy. That fallacy exists whenever someone
insists that the genesis of an idea determines its truth or falsity
or its goodness or badness. There is no substitute for examining
closely how mysticism has functioned down the ages after its
inception in order to form an evaluation of it. And there is no
substitute for examining closely how mysticism, and its offspring,
hasidism, functions in Jewish life today. I would call on Bodoff to
give more thought to the claimed positive aspects of mysticism
throughout Jewish history, to weigh for the reader both the pros
and cons, and only then come to his conclusion. His case would be
more convincing.
(c) Bodoff's description of
"mysticism" as an "escape from the real world"
repeats a caricature that does not get at the full truth. The
mystic may seek experiences that "take him out of the
world," but it hardly follows that all persons who are mystics
are driven by a desire to escape the world. Here is an analogy: My
friend spends an hour a day in his study with the door closed
riding his exercise bike. This effectively cuts him off from other
people, his responsibilities, tikun
olam, and so on. It hardly follows that
my friend, as a person, is driven by a desire to escape all of
these things. Indeed, his exercising might be motivated by a desire
to be in better physical condition so as to serve the world better.
Similarly, while mystical experiences may involve one degree or
another of "leaving the world," it hardly follows that in
doing so the mystic is driven by an escapist desire. Jewish mystics
have always appreciated the "ritzu" and "shav," the ascent and descent, as the rhythm of the
mystical life. Mystical teachings have always taught against the
dangers and temptations of escaping from the world. (Reb Levi
Yitzchak of Berditchiv attributes the bells on the High Priest's
clothes when entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to the necessity of
the kohen
to be grounded in the world by the tinkling sounds of the bells, so
that he won't "die," that is, simply escape from the
world.) In theosophical Jewish mysticism, the mystical ascent
serves to draw the supernal shefa into the world for its tikun. I am afraid that the escapism issue is more
nuanced than Bodoff would have us believe.
(d) Along with Bodoff's charge
of escapism, we should recall that many Jewish mystics were deeply
involved in the worldly life of the Jewish people. They were
married men with families, rabbis of communities, and leaders of
movements. When we look at the lives of Jewish mystics we find many
figures engaged in the world in most impressive ways. The greatest
Jewish mystic of the 20th century, Rav Kook, was a community rabbi,
Chief Rabbi of Palestine, and the author of hundreds of halachic
decisions concerning life as lived. A mystic of Safed, Rav Yosef
Karo, wrote the most popular halachic work in history, the Shulhan Arukh, dealing
with everything from soup to knots. The Baal Shem Tov, founder of
the hasidic movement, treated sick people, traveled from place to
place, and displayed an earthy love for all persons. Perhaps the
most mystical of the Hassidic Masters, the Admor Hazaken of Chabad, wrote his own Shulhan Arukh dealing
with all facets of life. In impressive activism, hasidic masters
spread their movement across Eastern Europe in an astonishingly
short time. These hasidic masters can hardly be said to be
"escapists" when involving themselves in the lives of
hundreds or even thousands of their hasidim on a regular basis, when they were active in
Europe in forming political movements, and when they are involved
in Israeli political life today through ultra-Orthodox parties.
Apparently, Bodoff refers to degenerate mystics in his escapism
charge. Again, a more balanced approach would have been
appreciated.
2. Bodoff identifies contemporary
"zealous Orthodox groups" as having a "predominantly
hasidic component," and the hasidim as the contemporary incarnation of the
escapist ills of mysticism.
Reply:
(a) I assume Bodoff refers to the
haredim
when he talks about "zealots." However, hasidim make up only one
component of that group, and they are not a majority. The other
components are the "Lithuanian" haredim whose outlook remains
that of the yeshiva world of Eastern Europe, and the sephardic haredim, who follow Rav
Ovadiah Yosef. Secondly, present day hasidim are in some respects
less separationist than are their Lithuanian counterparts. For
example, hasidic men do not tend to learn in kollelim for extended
periods, as do the "Lithuanians."
(b) The connection between
contemporary hasidism and mysticism is tenuous. While Chabad and
Breslov stand out as strongly oriented around mystical texts most
other hasidic courts are not. The hasidic court of Gur, the largest
group in Israel, has a weak connection, as a reading of the Sfat
Emet will show. The same applies to the hassidic courts of Slonim,
Belz, and many others. When it comes to mystical practices, of
inducing mystical illuminations and the like, the connection
between mysticism and hasidism today hardly exists. This might be a
new reason to reject hassidism (They aren't even doing anymore what
they were founded to do!), but that argument has to be made.
3. When Bodoff refers to scholarship, he
depends almost exclusively upon secular researchers for his
evaluation of qabbalah and hasidism.
Reply:
(a) As an academic myself, I am
not about to urge an obscuratinist rejection of secular scholars.
Their scholarship is indispensable for understanding Jewish
mysticism. But for religious people, to whom Edah speaks, they are not
sufficient. When evaluating a phenomenon we are invoking values and
background beliefs. Those of the Orthodox will be different from
those of secularist scholars. Here is one example where the
difference will surface: As religious people, we should not be
eager to reduce the explanation of religious phenomena to
historical explanation. We should be ready to recognize a
"religious impulse" at work, both on the national and
individual level, non-reducible to socio-political realities. There
is no doubt in my mind that Jewish mysticism and hasidism satisfy
for many people dimensions of religious yearning not satisfied
otherwise. This fact is independent of any story about how it all
began. A secular scholar is not likely to recognize a sui generis religious
impulse or allow it much historical value. Religious people must
factor such an impulse into their theological reckoning.
(b) The history of Jewish
mysticism is controversial, and the experts are divided on basic
issues. For example, while Gershom Scholem found the roots of qabbalah almost
entirely in Gnostic thought, Moshe Idel traces its ancestry to the
Rabbis. While Bodoff is entitled to be convinced by one scholar or
another, I would have liked him to explain why he depends on one
view rather than another.
4. Bodoff blames Jewish mysticism for Jewish
xenophobia and the resultant resistance to modernizing Orthodoxy.
Reply:
(a) There is some truth in this
claim. (Though I would not use the term "xenophobia"
here. The Jews suffered enormously at the hands of the goyim, and their
negative attitude had much to ground itself on.) On the other hand,
we don't need mysticism to find xenophobia in Jewish tradition.
There is plenty elsewhere. Nevertheless, clearly the Jewish
philosophical tradition affords a more congenial starting point for
Modern Orthodoxy. The mystical tradition did not only follow
rabbinic exclusion of non-Jews, it froze the category of
"non-Jew" into an eternal metaphysical category. This in
turn resists change pursuant to political and social changes on the
ground. However, the other groups in the haredi world,
historically and today, do not differ from the hasidic world in
their resistance and even venom against general culture. So while
Bodoff has a good point here, it does not serve to single out
mysticism for special condemnation.
The attitude toward non-Jewish culture
can change while staying within mysticism. Witness the writings of
Rav Kook, whose world-view was a clear break from the past. There
is no reason why this cannot be developed further yet, while
retaining the spiritual power that so many find attractive today in
Jewish mysticism.
3. Bodoff believes that those who
disagree with him must be thinking that mysticism offers
"unmitigated" "benefit and enrichment" to
Judaism (p. 23).
Reply:
(a) That is not my view, as can
be already discerned by my partial agreement with Bodoff's thoughts
on mystical "xenophobia." Bodoff might also have included
mysticism's raising the male-female dichotomy to a metaphysical
principle, a move impeding the modernizing of Judaism with regard
to women. In addition, Bodoff is certainly right to see the mass
defection from Judaism in the 19th century as due in part to
hasidic resistance to change. We must ask, however, what could have
been demanded of hasidic leaders ill equipped to deal with the
flood of modernity that no one, who was not omniscient, could have
foreseen. And we are entitled to ask Bodoff to compare the hassidic
reaction to the mitnagid one.
(b) My problem is not with
someone leveling criticism at the Jewish mystical tradition, but
with the Bodoff's seeming overly eager to condemn mysticism in the
blanket way he does. A careful weighing of good and bad would have
been in order, rather than a one sided extreme condemnation.
I would like to close by expressing my wish
that Lippman Bodoff further development his line of reasoning,
taking into account my comments, so that the important issues he
raises can be further engaged in by those, like him, so concerned
for the future of kelal yisrael.
LIPPMAN BODOFF REPLIES:
At the end of my paper I wrote:
The view of Gershom Scholem, probably the
greatest objective scholarly defender of Jewish mysticism, is that
it is caused by terror, and fear of evil in the world which is
viewed as coming from demonic forces, which Scholem considers
"one of the most dangerous factors in the development of qabbalah." He
concludes: "Anyone who concerns himself seriously with the
thinking of the great qabbalists will be torn between feelings of
admiration and revulsion." It is time, I believe to begin to
move from the former to the latter.
At the very beginning of his response, Yehudah
Gellman writes:
"Bodoff calls for the readership of Edah to switch from
"admiration" to "revulsion" against
"mysticism and hasidism."
There is a continuum clearly implied by my
suggestion, on which we begin to move from one end toward the other. Readers of my paper
will have difficulty, as I did, recognizing what I wrote in
Gellman's purported paraphrase. Moreover, I concluded my paper with my
observation, after spelling out and documenting my case, so
Scholem's words had a very long, concrete, heavily annotated
context for my readers. Gellman begins his paper with his "paraphrase,"
which sheds more heat than light on the issues between us.
The rest of Gellman's objections are fully
answered in my paper, and I see no point in repeating them for my
readers. Gellman's chief complaint seems to be that I did not
adequately present the "pros" of Jewish mysticism and
hasidism. I am not aware of any, except for Dan's claim that
attaching Luria's mythical and magical imperatives to observance of
the commandments, to mend a broken God (sic) who is also in exile, is
a benefit; See Dan's Jewish Mysticism
and Jewish Ethics. It was once,
evidently, a great balm to Jews who could not understand their
tragic galut plight of continued vulnerability and oppression, and far
too many periodic outbreaks of persecution. I doubt this was a
benefit or virtue, because there were too many opportunities when a
more rational accommodation to the galut trauma seemed possible and were discarded or
rejected, as I point out in my paper. It provides a reason for what
happened, not a benefit. In any case, I believe that magic and
myth, insularity and anti-rationality are dangers, not virtues, in
today's world.
Moreover, If Gellman is aware of any important
benefits of Jewish mysticism, past or present, I would have
expected him to mention them, at least, in his long response. I
can't find any such claims. I think that tells the whole story.
|
To view and print the pdf files you must have Adobe's Acrobat Reader installed, which you can get free from their website.