God's transcendence and Kabbalah

In response to my recent posts about God’s transcendence, several comments inferred that the approach I was proposing was a rational view but Kabbalah saw things differently with God seen as much more involved in the human condition. I am no Kabbalah expert but from the little I have read, I have the impression that there is what I would call authentic Kabbalah as opposed to popular Kabbalah which is probably Kefirah. The authentic Kabbalah is nothing more than an esoteric language used to describe philosophic and metaphysical concepts. It is not a revelatory theology but a rational attempt at reaching the limits of human understanding of God’s actions and how He runs the universe. It does not have any influence on practice other than in the mind.

The popular Kabbalah is an erroneous and incorrect way of “bringing God into the world”, an allegorical idea which is understood anthropomorphically and pantheistically. It is a cop-out and purports to give the believer the ability to influence God. A “holy man” gives a blessing and through his gifts and powers, through “Emunah Peshutah” of the petitioner, that blessing takes hold and the petitioner’s wish is fulfilled. This supposes that the purpose of doing Mitzvos and Avodas Hashem is to influence HKBH and make Him change His mind C”V, have Him interfere in the natural course of events to help this person or people. The premise for this is that HKBH is in the world, there is “presence” of God everywhere. The frustrating thing is that people think that it is a frum and Emunah Peshutah approach to Judaism while the rationalists, who repudiate this nonsense, are on the cusp of apostasy. In reality it is just the opposite.

This Shabbos I came across a Torah Sheleima in the Milu’im on Parshas Shemos where he discusses the argument of the Gra and the Ba’al Hatanya on “Melo kol Ho’oretz Kevodo”. The Ba’al Hatanya takes it literally, that God is everywhere while the Gra understands it to refer to God’s providence. I am not sure what the difference is in practice but I would imagine that misunderstanding Tanya’s approach one can end up seeing God in physical things, pantheism. Tanya in one of his letters ascribes the Gra’s opposition to him to this teaching of his. Of course he defends it by suggesting that he could defend himself if given the opportunity to present his case to Gra.

The Gra (in the Likutim at the end of Sifra Detznu’ata) on the other hand discusses the issue of Providence from this perspective and before he delves into it he makes the following statement; (my translation)

Know that the Ein Sof Boruch Hu one may not think about Him at all, (he is referring to God’s essence), because you CANNOT attribute to Him even Necessary Existence,(necessary existence is when something exists independent of anything else existing – it exists even if it is the only thing that exists - it is an attribute that can only be applied to God)…And when we do talk about Him, and about the Sefirot, All that discussion about His will and His providence, it is only from our perspective of how we view the result of His actions. (in other words Gra agrees that saying God exists is only a way of expressing the inexpressible)

The real Mekubalim were not that far away from Rambam. Ramban knew the Moreh backwards and forwards and used it as the basis for his own thoughts even when disagreeing. The basic concepts were the same. Rambam however held that there is a limit of how far the human intellect can go. It was a philosophical position and held that going further was pure fantasy. The early Mekubalim went further trying to understand more of the metaphysical aspects of God. Where they all agreed is that God is transcendent and His essence cannot be known. His attributes are just that, words that express in human language concepts that have no words. That includes the basic idea of existence.

To be able to discern true Kabbalah from false and even more, even when we know the Kabbalah of a particular author is legitimate by reputation, there still is a risk that our reading of that text is incorrect. I am appalled at some of the things I read online by some who think they understand Kabbalah. Other things I read I am not sure about but I have my doubts. I therefore stay away from that Chochma and leave it for the Tznuim who don't talk about it and follow the Hallacha 'velo bema'aseh merkavah beyachid..."