Hypocritical Banter

By: Jonathan Seidel

Jewish mysticism played a role in prophetic and apocalyptic literature but it only gained more sophisticated study in the early rabbinic age as its elements infused with later rabbinic Judaism. Its immersion onto the scene as central figure of thought followed the maimonidean controversy. Against Maimonides’ aristotelean philosophy they posited a neoplatonic model of thought ingrained in Judaism. If not for Maimonides’ demythologising, there may not have been too much blowback in the guide. The kabbalists heralded by French rabbis and then spilled into sephardic lands hailed by leaders such a Nahmanides and Ramah attuned even greater antrhopomorphic and celestial themes to the Torah. Developmentally, mysticism was almost non-existent to marginalised Ito the focus of Jewish philosophy. Its anti-maimonidean slogan carried major weight in its effect not only intellectually but also legally. 

Kabbalah’s neoplatonic origins cannot be dismissed. For all the criticism, Maimonides endured to claim he was veering off into greek heresy is quite hypocritical of those esoteric scholars who managed to also weaponise their new study as an elitist hierarchy. So for all the maimonidean evil, the kabbalists were not only brainwashed by Plato and his successors (as well as Pythagorus and his successors) but they also kept the knowledge to themselves with all the authority. How’s that for messed up and paranoid. A few examples to demonstrate its similarities begins with the mystical trend against hyper-rationalism. Secondly, the nature of emanation is congruent in identifying a deity in contact with the universe with material spheres or the sefirot. The division of the soul into three parts is neoplatonic. Similar to Maimonides, the kabbalists realigned neoplatonic concepts. Emanation is within God instead of without: panentheistic instead of pantheistic. 

Pointing to their metaphysical creations tzimzum or emanation comes to mind. Tzimzum is the process of God refracting himself in order to make space for the other. God is the universe and he needed to “separate” himself in order to make room for creation while still maintaining absolute power. This does not explain the origin of god himself but it does philosophically explain how the world could possibly come to be. The biblical text presents actions and kabbalah here explains how it is possible to have occurred. The infinite (‘ein sof’) is the absolute transcendence. The neoplatonic view of attribute-less figures its beyond-ness. The ten sefirot are a model of platonic forms. The forms are archetypical values resulting from divine creation. There are multiple worlds beginning from Adam Kadmon and moving down the ladder to Assiah. Atzilut is the neoplatonic one translating to duality in briah. Briah is the soul, aware of existence in nullification. Yetzirah is the formulated cosmos in an emotional angelic level. Assiah is matter, the material world encompassing both angles and mortals. 

In light of the demise of rabbinic legalism and the advent of aristotelean rationalism was to form a cosmology of sorts. Philosophy sought to explain the world. Yet, Maimonides scientific crutch limited is ability to explain reality. His negative theology seems to be a cop-out to avoid discussing divine ontology. He dismisses the biblical angelic characters as metaphors since his rationalism couldn’t coexist with such an illogic. Maimonides’ limitations opened him to heavy critique. His extensive allegorisation questions the comprehension of anything (yes this is ironic given the mystical elitist exclusion). Nevertheless, at least, the kabbalists pointed to a structured order than a bunch of red tape. Maimonides concerned himself with understanding this world which to be fair is the goal of religiosity. There is no mention of God’s origin nor why he decided at that moment to choose to create. He did and it’s a given that he wished to bequeath the universe. The Bible is a philosophy of man for man. The ancient stories are more educational than literal. Their purpose is to teach not just to remember. Still, the flexibility for understanding God and removing the rhetoric and recurring characters as solely symbolic is difficult to accept. 

Did the kabbalists go a little far and beyond? Yes, but their intentions were to maintain fidelity and structure. Maimonides’ version was revolutionary and potentially dangerous (though consistent polemics like any raging attack has a counter-effect of empowering that base namely immediately in Provence and resurrections throughout the years. As well as mishandling it and wreaking havoc of its own causing potential misuse and abandonment). Their intentions to construct a cosmology were not solely against Maimonides but against greek philosophy at large (supplying their own cosmology against greek cosmology). Maimonides simply was the spokesperson and the loudest most influential voice. Traditional talmudists were the first line of defence—the tosafists—and then kabbalah emerged as the second conservative strand. Kabbalah was offered as a new exegetical strand from religious discourse. Unlike philosophy which separated from Judaism and only attempted to incorporate Jewish ideas, kabbalah was an extension of the earlier texts deducing the text anew. Nahmanides biblical commentary is especially apparent in this regard. His esoteric interpretations are extrapolating from the biblical text, providing a new layer of understanding. His rereading followed the conservative talmudists before him in their revolutionary peshat understanding of the text. He took them a step further with a second layer understanding. 

Moving beyond the humble historical beginnings, its cosmological construction is profound. Its formulation of a cosmology drew similarities with neoplatonism but forwarded their own versions that complemented Jewish liturgy. Cosmology was a way of interpreting reality through the prism of Jewish divinity. Their novel supernal metaphysics cultivated ontological components—the sefirot—becoming the medium to explain God and man vice-a-vice teleological logic. It was a coherent synchronic model of connecting the divine realm with human experience. The mystical elements adapted existential emotions and meditative particularities in service to God. Like Maimonides, though on a more spiritual plane attempting to keep to traditional jargon, kabbalah invoked a philosophy of man to spiritually enhance his life. 

The neoplatonic effect was masterful and though kabbalists did in fact carve their own craft their implications were similar to their co-mystics. Kabbalah Judaised neoplatonic philosophy to procure its own conservative cosmology. Facing greek hegemony, kabbalah would be integral to Judaism. The structure may be platonic but the content is Jewish.