Rav Kaduri’s Position of Tanya: My Current Understanding…
So yes, I’m doing this Tiyul in Tanya series, still haven’t decided to stop that. However, my reading of Tanya and thoughts on it have far surpassed what I have distilled into print here. One of the things that I come back to is Rav Kaduri’s insistence that I not learn it. Something that I have also seen Rav Shalom M. Hedaya ZTz”L say, and have heard in the name of Rav Mordechai Sharabi ZTz”L.
Yet reading the book I find some rather profound wisdom there. So how can these Gedolim have said such a thing? What is more I still believe that they are right. Why? Simply put, I do not think that Tanya would be helpful for the person starting out in serious Kabbalistic study. Quite the opposite in fact, I think it could be quite confusing.
There are several points, as I will point out in chapter 1(when I get there) and going on, where the Baal HaTanya quite drastically departs from what is written in the Eitz Chaim, while claiming and sourcing his views to the Eitz Chaim. There are three possible explanations for that(please read them as well as my view before picking up the stones, or alternately jumping to the comments section to tell me I am wrong):
- He had a defective text
- He had a defective understanding of the text
- He expected his audience to have an intimate familiarity with the text and thus understand the point he was trying to illustrate.
Personally I fall out on the side of number 3. For an indepth analysis of why see my next few installments of Tiyul in Tanya(I know shameless advertising), but for now let me give over in a general way in my own understanding. First by paraphrasing something that Rav Steinsaltz says in his commentary toward the end of chapter 1, the Rav did not mean to give a detailed explanation, but rather to simply set the background for his overall point. See I don’t think that the Rav intended to write a commentary on the Eitz Chaim. However, his continual sourcing of it, and more his giving precise locations as opposed to abstract allusions, tells me that he fully expected his readers to have access to those texts, and quite possibly to be intimately familiar with them. Thus it seems to me that he expected them to be familiar with all the complex details of what he was saying, so he was himself highlighting individual points, in order to make his point.
However, without that intimate familiarity with the Eitz Chaim and in fact the whole of the Kitvei HaAri(something which will not be at an aspiring mekubal’s fingertips for many years) Tanya could be quite confusing, because it could thus seem to the initiate that the Arizal had said something which he never said, and that certain things were not as they are. This could be quite dangerous for the budding mekubal, especially as he moves into the realm of the Kavanot. In fact misinformation could be more harmful than the ignorance that he is already saddled with.
This does not mean that Tanya is not true or that it does not contain truth, rather it contains to a certain extent many relative truths used to build its final point. I know that some may still have problems with that, but that cannot be helped. There is no other way to explain some of the things that the Baal HaTanya says, which diverge from what is written.
the problem with your assessment is that chabad chassidim dont delve much into the kitvei ari, they believe (atleast so it seems) that the tanya has replaced the kitvei ari as the primary source for torat emet.
I have a side question and i thought you could enlighten me. I just finished learning rav fetayas minhat yehuda (probably one of the first sefarim that i simply could not put down, simply fascinating) and he quotes the arizals fasting numbers, how much fasts for what sins etc. Until this point, i basically glossed over these numbers because i believed that fasting for our generation is irrelevant and we have to use different techniques. (this i had understood from the gra, rav nachman, mashmaot from the ben ish chai etc.) now i see that rav fetaya holds it is still very much applicable if you can handle it. my question is this, whats the main mehalech in the kabbalistic world today amongst sfardi mekubalim. If for example, i could fast well without feeling pain or it taking away from my learning (especially short winter days), should i fast or is this frowned upon?
I’m not sure that where Chabad Chassidim are today is where they were in the time of the Baal HaTanya. Many Rabbanim(non-Chabad), and quite a few Admurim, feel that they are not. But that is a different story.
Anyway fasting, especially since we are in the time of the Shovavim T”T, yes the majority of the mekubalim fast. Many even fast shavua l’shavua. If you want advice on that please email me… Michael.Elkohen@gmail.com
@Confused, you wrote “torat emet”. Surely you meant “hokhmat haEmet.”
yea thats what i mean.
I have been wondering how much the Baal HaTanya’s understanding of Kitvei HaAri were influenced and filtered through the lense of the Shelah and the Maharal, as I have heard (I think I read this in Tanya) that Tanya was based on their teachings. i am by no means an expert or even relatively versed in the text of these authors, but these were my initial thoughts. Maybe the Maharal and the Shelah had a different understanding of the Ari and that is where the perspective of the Tanya comes from. Could you comment on the relation of these texts to the Kitvei HaAri and the Baal HaTanya?
Many if not most of the Baal HaTanya’s Hiddushim are truly his own. I wouldn’t say that the Shelah or the Maharal have that divergent a view of the Arizal, not the to point of excluding or ignoring what is written upon the page.
Like I said, this post was a bit pre-mature, but I put it out there anyway, because I couldn’t see putting into another post. However to give an example here the Baal HaTanya writes that the Arizal says in Shaar 50, chapter 3 that there are two souls to the Jew. An animal soul(nefesh) and a G-dly soul(Neshama).
The Ari actual says in 50:3 that each human has 4 souls(nefashot) and does not talk about the Neshama there at all. Those five souls in order of supernality are Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, and Speaking.
The Baal HaTany speaks, at length, of the Animal soul, but ignores the others, most especially the “Speaking” which is also a Helek Elokim.
That is simply one example.
It’s my recommendation that you stop learning Tanya, as your kabala background is relatively simple and superficial. An approach based on deep understanding is what’s needed to begin to crack the surface of the Baal HaTanya’s intentions, and the Sefardi derech HaKabala, which focuses on raw knowledge and fact, is far removed from the Chabad derech of probing and understanding. Don’t waste your time.
@Tilya: I think the probing technique you speak of has to do with faith in the Rebbe, and the thought process goes like this: “The rebbe is 100% emes, every single expression of his lips is kodesh kedashim. Any lack that I can see in his words, is actually a lack in me. So, I have to probe and delve and absorb “mitbonen” the words of the rebbe, so as to do a tikkun to my neshama.”
It sounds like you are falling into the trap of extremism, of “I’m right, you are wrong.”
There is hardly anything probing about this when the goal is to come to a per-determined outcome. You will arrive to your own personal ‘complete’ understanding, which is completely limited by your intellectual and conceptual faculties. We know that rebbeim recieve the measure of Ruach Hakodesh needed to mehalech their particular groups, ONLY through this can one make sense of divergent torah opinions, by realizing that their divinity is limited to their malchut, and any overstepping results in strife.
This is really the approach and level of devekut with which one should study all/any torah, and is in no way limited to chabad. If you think the sefardi derech haKabala is simple and tends toward absolutism, you are correct. Your misjudge simplicity, for it is a lot more powerful than complexity. It is wisdom concentrate. Much like “rebbe parables.” Sefardi kaballa is a lot more about patterns, flows, associations, and metaphor. Chabad kabbala is a lot more verbose, if anything challenges the mind LESS by drawing all the conclusions for you. This is good for his target of ‘beinonim’, but this is not to say that great depth cannot be extrapolated from such a work.
Sefardim deal with raw hokhma, requiring a high level of daat. Tanya uses hokhma to explain things, they are not directly comparable, are meant for different types of people. Not all people are compatible, and meant to live together, or we would have been all created the same, without tribes and nations. An arm needs different exercises than a foot.
To say examining the tanya is a waste of time for someone on a different derech is probably accurate, but that is if they were studying it to be lead by it – which is not the purpose here. My guess is that the purpose here is a bit personal for Rav Elkohen, given his history with chabad.
The fact is that there are clear differences between the tanya and the etz hachayim, and not just in terminology. This should not bother you. Who is right for you is a personal issue, and is a matter of faith.
I may not have explained myself well enough earlier:
The extent to which rabbanim recieve ruach hakodesh is so precise, that they can teach the right lessons for the right people even if their source texts are flawed, the faith (and resulting inspiration) guides the intellect. This part of the reason why proper respect and fear of your Rebbe is so important, he should be treated like a “malakh elokim tzvakot”.
Even with a defective text (1), or/and a defective understanding (2), whatever is transmitted, is appropriate for target audience (3).
My Kabalah background is neither simple nor superficial. The approach of Beit El or Nahar Shalom are based entirely on deep understanding. We learn the Kitvei HaAri B’Iyun day and night. Your statement is based in ignorance of what goes on within the wall of a Kabbalistic Yeshiva.
>>>He expected his audience to have an intimate familiarity with the text and thus understand the point he was trying to illustrate.
Sounds like apologetics to me. The peshat is more like option 1 or 2.
Apologetics? Perhaps. My apologetic is more focused on why Rabbanim such as Rav Morgenshtern, Rav Benayahu, The Matok U’M'dvash will all cite the Baal HaTanya, in explaining parts of the Eitz Haim.
I guess you could say that he got some things right and others wrong. However:
אלו דברים שאדם עושה אותם אוכל מפרותיהם בעולם הזה והקרן קימת לו לעולם הבא ואלו הן כבוד אב ואם וגמליות חסדים ובקור חולים והכנסת אורחים והשכמת בית הכנסת והבאת שלום בין אדם לחברו ובן איש לאישתו ותלמודתורה כנגד כולם
It does not say that there is a berakha for making a machloket, but rather for making peace. So apologetics they may be but that is derekh haTorah.
Let me be clear. I do not think any less of the Baal HaTanya for being mistaken on certain points. He was a greater person than I will ever be and much of what he wrote SHOULD be learned. If he has a good point to make, we should welcome it.
However, if he quotes something incorrectly (especially in matters of Kitvei Ari where we know that the 18th century texts in Europe were full of mistakes), or states something in opposition to the mesora, the honest thing to conclude is that he is mistaken.
Do you really believe that his misquotes and “incorrect” references to the Ari were really based on a deep understanding combined with an assumption that his audience knew the “real” source and would understand his misquote to be highlighting the essential points? I do not.
First of all I have to congratulate you! I have been following your blog for about a year now on and off and I have seen an evolution in your thinking about chassidus from very negative to finally treating it as a valid derech. Now I even see you writing a commentary on Tanya (a commentary not refutation!). I just want to encourage you because I think your knowledge of Kabbalah will only add to an understanding of the subject. I hope you wont let extremists get in the way. Looking forward to learning from you!
(I’m wondering, has Rav Morgenstern a great mekubal whos work you post frequently been an influence? In a recent gilyon he is quoted that its impossible to understand the full depth of the kisvei Ari without the writings of Chabad chassidus. I’m sure he means the average person not the greats like Rav Kaduri and the like)
Rav Morgenshtern played a part, but I would have to admit it was a rather small part. While his Gadlut is without question he is a Daat Yahid on enough issues that it would be easy to dismiss him on this as well.
No it came more from learning with a couple of Rabbanim(I’m sorry I don’t have permission to publish their names in the public sphere, and as one has published several sefarim without his name upon them, I’m not going to put his name on my blog), one of whom learned with Rav Kaduri for 45yrs.
At some point Chassidus came up in our discussion and I told him what I had heard from the Rav. He said to me that I had misunderstood the Rav. That what Rav Kaduri had meant is that if one wants to learn Kabbalah, at first one shouldn’t study CHassidus until the proper foundations are in place. Then once those foundations are in place that it is necessary to study Chassidus(and the other derakhim of Kabbalah, i.e. the GRA and Ramchal).
Part of the problem is, and I really don’t mean this as an insult to anyone, but there are many people who try to be Mashpia in Chassidut(whether Lubavitch or Breslov) that would be better served sitting and learning b’iyun. It is really hard to find a valid mashpia who knows the Chassidut, and those that are, are often treated with derission within their own circles.
I remember when Rav Steinsaltz first started publishing his commentary on Tanya in English, I asked a Lubavitcher Shliah about it, the response was far from complimentary. Which is really sad, because Rav Steinsaltz is one of the few people I think who really has done the iyun to be mashpia.
Breslov Chassidus is much harder in fact. Considering that nearly all of his mashalim are taken from Zohar(which most people don’t know), the Kitvei HaAri, and overwhelmingly from obscure Gemarras, and he doesn’t source them, really with his Chassidut the phrase אין עם הארץ חדיד is especially true, you have to be a high caliber Talmid Hakham to even start to crack his text. Though most of those who set themselves up as Mashpia, don’t have that.
Anyway I am glad you like my thoughts on Tanya, I really wouldn’t call it a commentary. You are probably one of the few who actually appreciates it. Most seem quite put off by it.
I do appreciate it. And I also agree with your comments about many current Mashpiim. There are still some really good ones though, B”H.
There are some really good ones.