Talk:Primary texts of Kabbalah

Newly created page. Text moved from Kabbalah, with a link/link para from and to that page. Abafied 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Torah as a primary text of kabbalah

Including the Torah as a primary kabbalistic text is strange and perhaps a bit POV. I know, I know, kabbalah is all about the Torah, the Torah is read as a mystical text by kabbalists etc. But only some kabbalists/kabbalah enthusiasts (perhaps there are many such people) would say that the Torah is primarily a mystical text. Most Jews, I understand, see the Torah also as the source of halakha, ethics, cosmogony, Israel's past, and recorded prophecy. In other words, Torah is the primary text of Judaism, not a primary text of kabbalah. The same cannot be said of any of the primary texts of kabbalah (again, unless you are one of the above mentioned kabbalists/enthusiasts).

In short, the Torah does not belong in this category. One can quite easily read the Torah without reading it mystically.

This article's content in the section on the Torah is also rather meaningless in this context, despite the citations. It does nothing at all to demonstrate that the Torah is a mystical work, rather it starts with that assumption and develops the thought further.

Lastly, including the Torah as a primary text of the kabbalah opens this article up to very broad criteria, generating a nearly endless list of texts that may merit inclusion. If the Torah is a primary kabbalistic text, then why not the Talmud? Midrashim? How about the Shulchan Aruch, it contains Zohar-based practices.

I know this issue came up back on the Kabbalah page, but I find it even more glaring on this newer smaller page. —חנינא

• The article quotes The Torah as a primary text of Kabbalah, not as primarily a Kabbalistic text; there is a huge difference between the two. If there is any question about the latter, perhaps it's best dealt with on wiki's Torah discussion page. As all Kabbalah is predicated on The Torah, its inclusion in this article is of prime importance. Abafied 13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be a very clear semantic distinction between "primary text of Kabbalah" and "primarily a Kabbalistic text," but there is no "huge difference between the two" for purposes of an encyclopedic article on the former. Any text that is not primarily mystical in nature cannot be primarily kabbalistic and therefore cannot be by itself a primary source for kabbalistic doctrines. While "all kabbalah is predicated on the Torah," it is so predicated by its own exposition of the Torah, not from a set of doctrines explicit in the Torah itself.

This discussion belongs here, where I raise the question of the Torah's inclusion, not on the Torah talkpage, which is unrelated to that question.

The imporance of the Torah to Kabbalistic thought is explained thoroughly on the Kabbalah page and does not necessecitate the inclusion of Torah on this page where inappropriate. Certainly, the actual content here on Torah is irrelevant to this article and should be on the parent Kabbalah page if anywhere. —חנינא

"While "all kabbalah is predicated on the Torah," it is so predicated by its own exposition of the Torah..." Of course it is; ergo, the Torah is a primary text of Kabbalah. That is the only logical conclusion. The many kabbalistic doctrines derive from exegesis of the Torah, which again makes the Torah a primary reference point and thus a primary text. That is exactly why the Torah is relevant to this page.abafied (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the "only logical conclusion." Some of Kabbalah's assumptions are not explicit in the Torah and are absent from exoteric Rabbinic writings (reincarnation is a good example). All of the other books listed in this article are undeniably mystical and are sources for important Kabbalistic doctrines like the sefirot. Yes, several of these texts cite the Torah as a proof text, but that is a reflection of the outlook of these texts and not of the Torah itself. The Torah is not mystical when it is approached al derekh ha-peshat or through the older midrash. חנינא (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As a complete outsider to this subject, I must agree with the questioning of the inclusion of the torah in this list. The argument made by abified is not unreasonable, however the content of the section does very little to explain the relationship between the Torah and Kabbalah. It instead summarizes what the Torah is. I suggest the section on the Torah be removed (maybe mention it in passing on the lead) or the content of the section be completely rewritten to focus on the relationship between Kabbalah and Torah. -Verdatum (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It could be better written, especially as important kabbalists such as Nachmanides wrote kabbalistic commentaries on the Torah. I'll do it when I've time. abafied (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As a consequence of the effort to remove the important Torah section of this article, it is my intention to return it to the Kabbalah article from which this article was taken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel that is particularly nessisary at this time. According to WP:SIZE, the article on kabbalah is fairly large as is. Removing the torah content is still less than half of the content of this article. So merging the remaining content would be a pretty large addition to the kabbalah article. Could you justify your position? -Verdatum (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see is that, now that this is a separate article, there is going to be an inclination for those whose interests are are not in traditional Jewish Kabbalah to make changes here that would clearly be unacceptable in the Kabbalah article itself (such as removing the Torah section.) On the other hand, the Kabbalah article could get along without this [1], which is interesting but adds little to the understanding of what Kabbalah is. It is such material that I wanted to move, and which could (if expanded)make an interesting separate article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Why do you feel there is going to be an inclination for those whose interests are are not in traditional Jewish Kabbalah to make changes here that would clearly be unacceptable in the Kabbalah article itself? Even if such is the case, what prevents interested editors from watching this page and reverting or discussing any edits they feel to be inappropriate? Regarding Kabbalah#Claims_for_authority, that sort of proposal belongs in the talkpage for kabbalah, not here. Still, according to WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT you should expand the content first, and then make a separate page. Likewise, to merge content back into a parent article, you should reduce one, the other, or both first, and then merge the content. As I interpret it, the general motivation of the guidelines are to prevent constant merging and splitting of content just for the sake of maintaining size. -Verdatum (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We can argue about it more, if necessary, after I return this to where it belongs -- the Kabbalah article. At this point I am just stating my intention so no one can complain it is a surprise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Verdatum. I oppose a move back for no good reason whatsoever. The section here on the Torah needs rewriting; that is all. I stand by the reasons I put up previously; the Torah is a primary text of Kabbalah (in that it is a source text), though not primarily a kabbalistic text. abafied (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not out to offend, but I still think the need for a Torah section here is nonexistant. It is like including Torah in a list of midrashic texts, or in a discussion of halakhic codes. Of course the Torah is both a major subject and object of Kabbalah(—just as the text of the Torah is the subject of midrash, and as its mitzvot are an object of halakha). But that doesn't make the text of the Torah itself a "primary text of Kabbalah" in the sense that the Zohar is.

Two factors, I think, have made this more of a heated issue than an objective observer would have expected:

• Much Kabbalah purports to be the innermost, true(est) meaning of the Torah. For those whose view of Orthodoxy and Judaism is dominated by Kabbalah, this claim is acccepted a priori as true. That's OK, and this point should be discussed where apropriate, but it is leading some sensitive editors to insert "Torah" inappropriately into areas such as our article. I suggest considering, again, a less controversial issue—the relationship of the text of the Torah and midrashic texts. Because Orthodox Jews accept midrashic and nonmidrashic readings of the Torah as simultaneously valid, one would have no objection to excluding the Torah from a list of midrashic texts. Our situation is analogous; it is more heated since Kabbalah often says it is the deep meaning of Torah, but that should not influence this article's pursuit of objectivity.
• The Torah, especially when one is discussing the "sod"/"nistar" secret aspects of it, is a rather broad concept inclusive of all of the wellspring of God's teachings for Jews and humankind. This way of using the term "Torah" is perfectly legitimate, but what one is then not discussing is the text of the Torah itself (i.e. the Five Books). What I'm saying becomes obvious when one considers the importance of the Torah she-be-al Peh (Oral Torah) to the broad sense of "the Torah." This article is quite plainly confusing these two meanings of "the Torah." An article about "texts" should not be discussing Torah in the very broad sense.

These points hold whether or not this article is stand-alone or part of the mother-article. Certaintly, if this article reverts into a section of the "Kabbalah" page, the content of the "Torah" subsection here properly belongs elsewhere in that article. חנינא (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no support for moving this article, I will leave it as is; and, at a later date, create a new texts section for the Kabbalah article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal back to Kabbalah page

"...at a later date, create a new texts section for the Kabbalah article." The Kabbalah page doesn't need it; there is a perfectly good intro. to texts on that page and a link to this page. The material on this page was moved out of the main Kab. page last year precisely because that article was too long, was due for splitting and this made a good stand-alone article (which could also be developed in time). It would help to know the history of the move. abafied (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More Torah

On your first factor, Hanina, the opposite holds. Precisely because, in their works, Torah is often quoted chapter and verse by kabbalists, it is obvious that they are using it as a primary source. That is why there should be an explanation on this page.

On the second, the same applies; kabbalists use particular texts/verses of the Torah; they do not "broadly" allude to the Torah. (I refer you to, as just one example, Gikatilla's Sha'arei Orah.) Many did that precisely because they did not want to be seen to drift away from scripture, needing its authority particularly because they were dealing with sod rather than exoteric interpretation.

I still say that all this section needs is to be rewritten to make it more relevant, and not translated back to the Kabbalah page.

Even if the current section were to go back to the Kabbalah page (and there is no logical reason why it should) a rewritten section is still needed here.abafied (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I never denied that Kabbalists quote from the Torah. They also quote from Na"kh and quote/paraphrase aggadot, none of which are Kabbalistic texts per se. It has not been shown that the "opposite holds." The point is simple, and well illustrated by an example from outside of this article: Midrashim almost exclusively relate to specific pesukim (chapter and verse), but these pesukim are obviously not themsleves midrash. The controversy here over an analogous assertion regarding Kabbalah is unwarranted, which is why I attempted to account for it with the two "factors" I listed above.

In any case, not every concept of Kabbalah is directly and incontrovertably derived from verses in the Five Books. The popular imagination, inspired by factual accounts of gematria and determinations of divine names, has run wild, and many think that Kabbalah is primarily a mystical hermeneutics and magical calculus. Let's avoid perpetuating that myth here: we must admit that the Oral Torah is the major authority invoked by Jewish mysticism—which is why it's called Kabbalah in the first place. חנינא (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some discussion of Oral Torah should probably be added, perhaps at the top of the article. It the Torah section stays, it should be first, not last. It might be good to have more mention of Oral Torah in the Kabbalah article also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Torah is not the problem

Citing Torah as a primary source is not the problem. The section on dealing with Torah could be better written. This article in general is suffering from a lack of primary sources in that statements made. Thus also leaving openings for glaring inaccuracies. In general I think much of this needs to be re-written.RavAlkohen (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing the Torah in this article is a problem for all the reasons given above. Right now, this article looks like a "One of these books is not like the others" game, with the right choice being obvious: The Torah. חנינא (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The current way the Torah portion is written is far worse than the way it was before. Speaking as a Jerusalem Kabbalist, Torah is a source text for Kabbalah. Even look at the Kitvei HaAri and you will find one of the Eight Gates devoted to exposition of the Torah text. So much is written by the Luria on the Torah that there is an entire five volume Humash featuring his commentary. Furthermore according to the introduction of Eitz Haim the entire Lurianic system is based on three things, 1)direct revelation from Elijah the Prophet, 2)Luria's understanding of Torah, 3) Zohar. That in itself ought to support a Torah section. To say that traditional Kabbalists read Torah very differently than mainline scholars would also be accurate. However to discusss Kabalah, especially any given system without discussing Torah as a source for it, would be equivalent to discussing Rashi without discussing Mikra or Talmud.--הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Torah" section was not substantially altered as of yet, only pruned back in size. Anyhow, repeating once again the importance of the Torah for kabbalists (which I have never denied) doesn't mean such a section belongs here. A text that is the subject of a mystical work is not then itself necessarily also a mystical text. Luria is reading the Torah mystically in his works; the Ari's works are then mystical texts, but that doesn't force the Torah to be a mystical text itself. The relationship between Torah and Kabbalah is covered in the main Kabbalah article. It could be discussed briefly in the opening to this article. But it doesn't justify inclusion of a "Torah" section here any more than "Mikra" and "Talmud" should be included alongside "Rashi" in a list of "Rishonim: Primary Texts." חנינא (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point it really depends on your understanding of Kabbalah and its history. If, like a traditional Kabbalist, you see Kabbalah as one part of Torah that was given to Moses at Sinai, then by definition the Written Torah is an indispensable source text, as all later texts such as the Zohar and so forth are simply the Oral Tradition that wen along with the reception of Torah written down for fear of loss. If you want to take a higher critical bent and classify all that is currently Kabbalah as a mystical system that developed within Judaism, no earlier than the 12th century, then yes you are right. However that distinction inherently lends bias. No Kabbalist in any traditional Kabbalistic Yeshiva would agree with you that Torah is not a primary text, but then they all see Kabbalah as being part of the Sinatic revelation and thus encoded, like all other Jewish law, within the Written Torah.הרב המקובל אלכהן (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect on various grounds.

• Opposing "Critical bent" to "traditional" outlook is irrelevant here. The traditional outlook is that midrash, for example, was part of the Sinaitic revelation and is "encoded" in the text of the Torah. But no one would then take the illogical step you have suggested: that Torah is therefore a midrashic text and is to be listed alongside Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifre etc. The author of the written Torah was not one of chaza"l, not an exegete and not a mystic. But it is chaza"l and the kabbalists who, in the traditional view, relayed and eventually recorded their components of the original Sinaitic revelation. Especially to a traditional Orthodox understanding, the distinction between the written Torah and the other books is obvious. More obvious still is the distinction between the written Torah and the Talmudim (which I will show to be not exclusively derived from "encoded" laws in the written Torah).
• If, on the other hand, one takes the (incorrect) position that only "higher critics" would oppose listing the Torah here, then one is equally guilty of "bias" in including Torah here without qualification.
• "Kabbalist[s]. . . see Kabbalah as being part of the Sinatic revelation and thus encoded, like all other Jewish law, within the Written Torah." In this statement, there is a fundamentally erroneous refusal to distinguish between torah she-bi-khtav and torah she-be-`al peh. Not "all other Jewish law" is "encoded" in the written Torah. To be sure, midrash is. But halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai is definitely not in the written Torah. A great deal of Kabbalah may take the form of midrash-like or parshanut-style commentaries on the Torah, but this type of Kabbalastic text is by no means exclusive. As a whole, Kabbalah draws its authority from a mesorah (or, literally, from a kabbalah) and not from point-by-point scriptural exegesis. Kabbalists may very often cite verses to support their principles, but not every point of every doctrine will have a proof-text. To its traditional adherents, Kabbalah is thus more like talmudic literature and less like midrashic literature: it is a written corpus of a segment of the torah she-be-`al peh, given alongside the torah she-bi-khtav on Sinai, not representing only midrash "encoded" in the text of torah she-bi-khtav, but instead representing an oral mesorah of its own inherent authority. חנינא (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems entirely reasonable to include a Torah section here, since (as Abafied says) it is indeed a primary text for Kabbalah and moreover, it is treated in a very particular manner by Kabbalists that needs explanation. חנינא says that there is possibility for confusion regarding what exactly is meant by "Torah" and the relationship between literal Torah and oral Torah. That may be true, and that is all the more reason to discuss the Torah here on this page, since here we have an opportunity to explain all these issues. I don't see how the relevance of the (literal) Torah to Kabbalah can be disputed, and what חנינא really seems to be complaining about is not its relevance but whether it is included in this article "without qualification". Well, then qualify it, but don't remove it. This is where readers will come to learn about the literary basis of Kabbalah, and to leave this section out would be to leave readers uninformed. Also, there's been no discussion on this topic for 5 years now, which indicates to me that no-one visiting the article during that time has been worried about the inclusion of this section. Fuzzypeg★ 11:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)