I. The Kabbalah. A. Definition and Significance of Mysticism in General B. The Kabbalah – Jewish Mysticism: special character and emphases C. General History of the Literature of the Kabbalah: Zohar, Lurianic Mysticism and Hassidism. D. Its effect and influence. II. The Centrality of the Sabbath – Its spirituality. A. The "Additional Soul" B. The "Menorah Analogy" C. The "Sabbath Point" D. The Source of Blessing for the Days E. The Jewish Understanding of "Havdalah" III. The union of the spiritual with the historical.

The oneness of God is universally acknowledged as the foundation stone of Judaism and its main contribution to the world. The theme of the Shema, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,” underlies every single aspect of Jewish life and thought, and permeates every page of its vast literature. So powerful is this vision of God’s unity that inevitably it must express the corollary that the divine unity is the source of a unity that encompasses all existence.[1] Nowhere is the idea of yichud ha-shem, the Unity of God, given more poignant and intense express on than in the Kabbalah. In Jewish mysticism the Unity of God is not only one of the mightiest themes, but it becomes a living reality, per-haps the only reality. God’s unity is taken not alone as an arithmetic proposition, but as the unification of all existence, in all its awesome diversity, through God. It is symbolized, in the Kabbalah, by the unity within God Himself. It is this unity — elaborated, explained, enhanced, and expounded by kabbalists from the Zohar through the late Rav Kook — of which our modern world stands in such desperate need. If it was eve' necessary to reaffirm that theme, with its conscious rejection of all conflict, multiplicity, and fragmentation, it is today, when mankind stands poised, ready to blow itself to bits both physically and conceptually.In this paper we shall examine the treatment of the Unity of God in one expression of the Jewish spirit, the Kabbalah — particularly in the Zohar and in the works of its most recent exponent, the late Rav Kook, Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land; in one sacred institution of Judaism, the Sabbath; and in one famous hymn of the Prayerbook, the Lekhah Dodi, a kabbalistic poem which celebrates the Sabbath. Our purpose is not a his-torical presentation of the Unity Theme, but rather to see what it can yield for us in the way of instruction: its implication for moderns.The reader who is unacquainted with the atmosphere and terminology of the…

My dear Rabbi Lamm נ"י, When I read your article, "The Religious Implications of Extraterrestrial Life" in the l965/66 Vol.7-8 issue of Tradition it came to my mind how Gabirol in his כתר מלכות tried, in his own way and partly, based on the available knowledge of his time, to "penetrate" the great mysteries of the Universe. It was my intention to write to you soon after I had tried (to use the same word) "to penetrate" and to understand your 'flight' into outer space. But, as it happens so often, my letter then to be written to you, remained unwritten – until now.I was, however, reminded of that intention when I happened to see, in a recent New York Times Sunday edition, an article about Saturn and its "rings" and "moons".(All this is completely beyond the scope of my knowledge. Young students may learn and know more about such phenomena than the older generation to which I belong).I opened Gabirol's great hymn of which he wrote in his introductory words: ספרתי בה פלאי אלי חס and I wondered whether it would not be worthwhile, in connection with your above-mentioned essay, to present to the readers of Tradition an analysis of כתר מלכות, both his amazing insight into, and interpretation of, extraterrestrial areas, but also his brilliant, though somewhat flowery effort to cross the bridge from our human-Jewish existence to the mysteries of G-d's creation...לב הסודות אשר לא יכולים שבח ורעיוןI thought the idea might interest you. Since you wrote the article about "The Implications etc.", I could think of no one who would be better qualified to write, so to speak, a continuation of that venture into the Unknown, just as Gabirol did in his own days.We had the custom to read at least part of כתר מלכ' at the very end of the כל נדרי Service, The Rodelheim Machzorim have it preserved for those who still want to find in it a source of inspiration. And is it not indeed in a way closer to us today in our "famous" age of space exploration?...I suggest that such an article on Gabi…

Dear Mr. Rossman, The introductory course to the Kabbalah that I offer in the Erna Michael College is, because of the nature of the material, rather esoteric. There is not too much that you can read on it in English. Nevertheless, I might recommend, in addition to Gershom Scholem's Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, the book "The Kabbalah" and the Zohar by Christian Ginsburg. However, the latter book has already been superseded by the former, which remains the classic in the field.For Hebrew, the best introductory volumes are the introductions by the late Rabbi Ashlag to his commentary on the Zohar and on the writings of the Ari. Both have been reprinted recently, and are available from any bookseller.In addition, you might try two classical introductions to the Kabbalah, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero's *Pardes Rimonim* and Rabbi Joseph Irgas' *Shomer Emunim*. Frankly, I do not know if they are available for sale from the University Library, but any of the booksellers in the Lower East Side of Manhattan would have them.You might also try to obtain from the same booksellers a copy of Hillel Zeitlin's *In the World of the Kabbalah* (*Be-Olam ha-Kabbalah*).The end of the volume by Cordovero does contain a kind of glossary of Kabbalistic terms, but in order to understand it you already have to know something about the Kabbalah.I hope I have been able to answer your letter at least to some degree of satisfaction.Sincerely yours,Rabbi Norman Lamm

The concept of the Sephirot is generally understood in the Kabbalistic tradition, as events which take place within the life of God. The Sephirot are also a way of man relating to God and of explaining certain existential and historical phenomena. Whereas the system of Sephirot explains the emergence of the natural world, as the externalized language of God or as the emanation from the Ein-Sof and Its generative activity, this does not imply a clear and detailed metaphysic.The ethical dimension of the Sephirot was not neglected. Thus, Cordovero and his Tomer Devorah and de Vides in his Reshit Hokhmah write elaborate works of Musar. Nevertheless, the Kabbalah is here used in didactic fashion rather than in a sub-stantive way, and the Sephirot are invoked more Illustratively than substantively and mystically.R. Dov Ber of Mezeritsch, the”Great Maggid,” as a genuine Kabballst, and as a student of the Besht, both continues the Kabbalistic tradition and Introduces certain variations. These variations are not always reflective of what is popularly con-sidered Hasidism, but rather a profound turn of mind which lays the theoretical basis for later Hasidism, especially HaBaD.The Sephirot as metaphysics: The term is here used quite literally, as a non-physical explanation of the physical universe. One example is: An analysis of the phenomenon of change. Pre-Socratic and later Greek philosophers — differing views expressed by Thales and Parmenides. The Aristotelian system of metaphysics is based on the problem of change. Similarly, the Maggld di«-cusses the question of change. It has already been described in an article HUCA by the late Joseph G. Weiss. Essentially, it involved a meditation in which an object is regressed to the sphere of ^/י/-^^ , where annihilation of all differences and distinctness takes place, thus allowing It to egress in a changed form. I add two points to Weiss’ paper -- one an addition, one a revision. I am not convinced that Weiss is correct in term…

ההיסטוריה של הקבלה – ספרו האנגלי של גרשם שלום; הזהר – ספריו של י. תשבי ומשה לחובר, "משנת הזהר"; הקדמות קלאסיות לספרות הקבלה – רבי משה קורדובירו, "אור נערב"; רבי יוסף אירגאס, "שומר אמונים"; רבי יוסף ג’יקטיליה, "שערי אורה"; הקדמות מודרניות פופולריות לקבלה – הלל צייטלין, "בפרדס החסידות והקבלה"; הרב יהודה הלוי אשלג, כרך א’ של פירוש "הסולם" לספר הזהר וכן הקדמתו לספר עץ חיים להר"ח ויטאל; הרב ישראל שבתי רטנר, "לאור הקבלה". הגדרות כלליות – מהותה: Rufus Jones – "The type of religion which puts the emphasis on the immediate awareness of the divine presence"; Acquinas – "Cognitio dei experimentalis"; באמת אין באלה שום חידוש – תהלים: "טעמו וראו כי טוב ה’". ודוקא מפני כן – אין הגדרה זו מספיקה, כי כל חוויה דתית, אפילו בלתי מיסטית, מרכישה רגש של קרבת אלקים, אף על פי שזה בולם בחוויה מיסטית. גרשם שלום – הדתות ההיסטוריות; דו-קטביות (bi-polarity) של אלקים ועולם, מרחק לא-יגושר רק על ידי "קול" או "מאמר" (לוגוס); המיסטיקה דורשת את הסוד של מעבר ישיר של התהום הזה. הרקע של דרישה זו – נשמת האדם; הקשר הישר בין אלקים ואדם אופייני למיסטיקה; אף על פי שיש השוואות והקבלות, אין לדבר על "מיסטיקה" בכלל אלא על המיסטיקה המיוחדת לכל דת ומסורת. הקבלה – חקר אלקים בתורת הסוד; תושב”כ ותושבע”פ – יסודי היהדות ואורח חייה; תורת הח”ן – השקפת עולמה, טעם אורח החיים; רוב מסירותה בדורות הקדומים – בע”פ ורק לנבחרים, אח”כ בכתב ובקיצור נמרץ, ובהמשך נתפרסמה – האר”י, חסידות וכו’; קדמותה מיוחסת לאברהם ואף לאדם הראשון; ימי התנאים – יורדי מרכבה, "ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס", רשב”י; הזהר – ר’ משה די ליאון, רמב”ן, ר’ יוסף קארו, האר”י ובית מדרשו, הגר”א והבעש”ם עד להרב קוק. ספרותה – מעל שלושת אלפים ספרים בדפוס ויותר מזה בכתבי יד. ההקבלה בין מבנה תורת הסוד לתורת הנגלה (עפ"י הגר"ח מוואלוז’ין): משנה – ספר הזוהר (מסורה עד למשה מסיני); גמרא – הזוהר לכל חלקיו (רשב”י); שולחן ערוך – תורת האר”י; ביאור הגר”א על השו”ע – ביאור הגר”א על ספר דצניעותא. הקבלה נתפרסמה בקשטיליה אחרי 1275 בידי ר’ משה די ליאון, כסיפור מיסטי – מדרש קבלי – מיוחס לרשב”י וחבריו, עם מחלוקת על זהות מחברו, שפה זרה וקשיי הבנה. הקבלה כמסורת אישית – הכשרת תלמידים וביישנות אישית. סו…

מקור הדין: מקור הדין של אין קידוש אלא במקום סעודה (אקאב״ס) הוא בפסחים דק"א ע"א. שמואל ס"ל שאקאב״ס נגד רב שסובר שאין בורך למקום סעודה. ובגמ' שם מוכח שהרבה אמוראים ס״ל כשמואל – כגון רבה ור"ה ואביי – ולפיכך פסקו הראשונים כשמואל שאקאב״ס, אף כי הלכה כרב באיסורי. דאורייתא או דרבנן: והראשונים נחלקו אם כלל זה של אקאב"ס הוא מד״א, כך שאם קידש שלא במקום סעודה לא יבא י"ח והוי ברכה לבטלה וחייב לחזור ולקדש, או אם כלל זה הוא מדייר, ובדיעבד אם קידש שלא במקום סעודה א "ב לחזור ולקדש במקום סעודה. הרא"ש ס"ל שהוא מד״א, "וכיון דהלכתא כשמואל, המקדש בביהכנ״ס אי ליכא אורחין נראה דהוה ברכה לבטלה ... וה״ר יונה פירש דאינה ברכה לבטלה, והא דאמרינן אקאב״ס היינו מדייר, דאסמכוהו רבנן אקראי וקראת לשבת עונג. ועיקר הקידוש מה״ת הוא דכתיב זכרהו על היין בכניסה. הלכך כיון שיש בנ״א שאינם יודעים לקדש נהגו לקדש בביהכנ"ס כדי שיבאו ידי קידוש מה״ת". והרא״ש מתנגד לשיטת רבנו יונה, "והא דקאמר אקאב״ס לא משמע כפירושו אלא שאינו קידוש כלל... וכן הילכתא". וכן פסקו הגאונים לרבות רס״ג (עי׳ באובה״ג על אתר). ולכאורה דברי הרא״ש הם קשיי הבנה,שאיך ייתכן לומר שאקאב"ס הוא מד"א, הלא דרשת חז״ל היא זכרהו על היין, ומה לי ענין סעודה או לאו למבוה זו מד״א.ונראה להסביר מחלוקת ראשונים זו ששתי השיטות המנוגדות נעובות בשני טעמים שונים לדין אקאב"ס שהובאו בפירוש הרשב״ם לסוגיין, ואלה הם:א', "דכתיב (ישעי' נח) וקראת לשבת עונג, במקום שאתה קורא לשבת, כלומר קרייה דקידוש, שם תהא עונג, ומדרש הוא". וכ"ה בתד״ה אף, שם.ב', "א"נ סברא היא, מדאיקבע קידוש על היין, כדתניא לקמן (דק״ו ע״א) זכרהו על היין, מסתמא על היין שבשעת סעודה הוקבע דחשיב".ונראה שהרא״ש ס"ל שאקאב"ס הוא מד"א משום דס״ל כטעם הראשון שברשב"ם, שהלא מקורו הוא בפסוק, אע״פ שהוא מדרש על הפסוק. ורבנו יונה ס"ל שדין אקאב"ס הוא מדייר משום דס״ל כטעם השני ברשב״ם, ומקור הדין הוא מסברא בעלמא.ולפע״ד יש להסביר אחת, ושניהם מהווים דבריהם, שלטעם הראשון קידוש וסעודה הם מבוה קיום אחד בדין זכור את יום השבת לקדשו.והנה הדין של קידוש הוא שקיום עזר מבות זכור מתבטא ע״י סיפור או הבהרה בשבח קדושת היום ער כוס יין. והפסוק מישעיהו הוא המקור שחז״ר דרשו ממנו רייחס גם סעודה רמבות זכור את יום השבת רקדשו, דהיינו שיש מעשה-מבוה אחר…

I am grateful to you for sending me a copy of your new book, Metaphysical Drift: Love and Judaism. I read it through during the Pesach holiday and was absorbed by it. Since you solicit my reactions, let me tell you that I was gratified, angered, puzzled, piqued – all these, but also enlightened and instructed by your book. Because of the unusual combination of philosophical thinking and intimate, uninhibited autobiographical details, I feel that I know you personally more than I ever had before. While I did not at first quite understand your dichotomy between interestedness and intraestedness, in the course of reading I think – if you will excuse the pun as well as the adolescent lingo – I catch your drift. I sympathize with you and relish those rare moments of intraestedness, though I wonder if they warrant new nomenclature and such philosophical weight. I was somewhat taken aback at the passion of your protest against the rabbinic ideal that “all your actions should be for the sake of Heaven,” since the emotional intensity seems disproportionate and perhaps rooted in psychological rebellion against parental control. To me, that dictum is an inspiring agadic ideal rather than a stifling halakhah, and especially in its Hasidic interpretation it can unite all of life’s fragments into a meaningful whole without denying joy, freedom, or intraestedness. In your book, at times you impute to Judaism excessive control where I see little evidence of it, and yet I appreciate the honesty and integrity of your pathos-laden reflections. I especially value your trenchant comments on lishmah, though my address on the issue is secondary to Maimonides himself, and I must add that your occasional tone of faithlessness suggests not finality but a continuing, unfinished spiritual journey – one that I hope and pray will yet bring you back to your origins in a deeper and wiser form. Out of respect for you, your work, and your family, I extend my warm regards, together with thanks for a…

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I hope you are well, and enjoyed your summer. Just a brief fax regarding our discussion on the sefirot: I hope you received my letter dated 17th Tammuz, to which a serious reply I await. (Unfortunately, in many circles, especially those which I mentioned in my first letter, there is no serious discussion of anything, since the mere possibility that the rabbi may have erred will destroy their entire world view. Of course, the Torah does not have this problem, and in fact in Avot, ch. 5, the Mishna brings intellectual honesty as a necesarry prerequisite for a Hacham – and dishonesty for a Boor).One further source which I came upon, which I trust will be the final nail in the pantheistic coffin of the Tanya, is a book entitled "Hoqer U Mequbal” by the peerless Ramchal. The Vilna Gaon described this sage as having acquired the highest understanding of Torah which is humanly possible.It is quite coincidental that the opening discussion between the philosopher and the kabbalist is precisely the subject of our discussion – the sefirot, and their deification. The Ramchal states that if the sefirot were divine, they would be "Elohim Acherim" – a position which is antithetical with that of the Tanya, and which you mistakenly claim is shared by everybody. Furthermore, Rabbi J. David Bleich, your esteemed Rosh Yeshiva, has also argued in favor of Ramchal's position, in his book "With Perfect Faith," stating that praying to the sefirot [which are other than G-D] would be tantamount to idolatory.Dr Dale Gottlieb, now at Ohr Someach claims that "G-D is identical to each of the sefirot" even though he concedes that in our world view they are ten distinct entities. One only has to open a Siddur to see that they are in fact distinct and different – by very definition. There are even trinities eg. Habad, which are euphemistically referred to as triads "Partsufim".You have on many occasions bemoaned Rav Chaim Volozhiner's "intellectual ascetism." I put it to you that …

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Hi! I thought you might be interested in the below. It's part of a correspondence I have had with a Rabbi Dr Natan Ofir. He is a graduate of YU. Was chaplain in HU and now head of a Jewish meditation centre in Jerusalem. He contacted me for his research into nigun ect. I am not an academic nor the son of of an academic... but it's good to see that the seminal idea of Shir-taev in its kabbalistic context. MikeThank you for the lead to Sefer Hanigunim of Habad. That sounds really important.שיר תאב AboutI wrote about it in an article that I published as an introduction to Torei ZahavThe book entitled Torei Zahav begins with a 200 page kabbalistic commentary on ShirHaShirim (The Song of Songs) composed in Mainz 1814.The source is actually Tikunei Zohar 10, and was elaborated on by R. Naftali Herz Scheuer in Torei Zahav.תראיין, שם, עמי כח מצטט את 'תיקוני הזוהר', בתיקון העשירי כתוב 'בראשית, שיר תא״ב, והאי איהו שיר משוב מכל השירים, תאב כל השירים', ראה תקוני הזוהר, מהדורת ראובן מרגליות, ירושלים, דף כד, ע"ב (עמי 48).The book entitled Torei Zahav begins with a 200 page kabbalistic commentary on Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs) composed in Mainz 1814. The primary author, Rav Avraham Naftali Herz Scheuer, 1753-1822, (hereon referred to by the acronym Maharan), was a leading Rabbi in Germany. His grandson and successor in the Mainz Yeshiva. Rabbi Shmuel Bondi published Torei Zahav in Mainz in 1875. This is the last kabbalistic work known to have been printed in Germany and is a rich source of Torah and spirituality.For the printed version, R. Shmuel added many comments and expositions, incorporated several original exegetical and homiletical works and collated halachic responsa. Thus the book is the most important record available to preserve a taste of the rich learning, thought and interests in Mainz of the 18th-19th centuries. Long out of print, the reprint by Feldheim publishers is a welcome milestone. Now readers can easily explore, enjoy and analyze the …