ההשקפה החב"דית באספקלריית דברי ימי אדמור"י וחסידי חב"ד לדורותיהם

Monday, July 5, 2010

Chassidus & Chakira

This past week I have been reviewing the Shar Hayichud of Choves Ha'Levoves. Though the polemical discussion of Creationist theory is a topic that lies essentially beyond the parameters of Chassidus, belonging rather to the realm of Chakira, Jewish Philosophical Doctrine (a discipline that is complementary to but distinct from Chassidus), I will nevertheless take the opportunity to summarize the arguments presented therein (perokim 5-6). In Chassidus this Choves Ha'Levovos is cited tens if not hundreds of times, as the principle that אין דבר עושה את עצמו - "no being can create itself".


The fact that the world was created by a Divine being, who’s existence cannot be qualified by the limitations of earthly existence may be established by logical deduction:

(The following briefly paraphrases the general content of Choives HaLevovos, Chapters 5 and 6. For the sake of simplicity, clarity and time I didn't go into every detail and I also changed the order in which the points are presented.)

a) Earthly existence cannot have existed for ever, for measurable time (in whatever form) must itself have a beginning. If time itself extends backward into infinitude, we could never (in any span of time) have traversed an infinite divide to arrive at any particular point in time. Hence, earthly existence (or indeed any existence that is defined by some form of measurable time-span) must have began at some point, prior to which it did not exist.

b) Being that Earthly existence at one point did not exist, it must have been created. We may consider only two possibilities, either it created itself or some other being created it. On considering, the first possibility must be dismissed, for if created existence did not yet exist it could not have created itself. Hence it must have been created by some entity already in existence.

c) If we pursue this line of thought to its logical conclusion, we must deduce that ultimately there must exists a Super-Being, who’s existence cannot be measured in terms of the limited dimensions of time and space, but rather exists essentially and without qualification. It is this Super-Being (the Creator) who caused the existence of all subsequent beings (the creations).

[In general terms, we may describe the difference between Chakirah and Chassidus as follows: Chakira seeks to prove G-d’s existence within the confines of natural human logic. Similarly Chakira attempts to establish and explain our general relationship with G-d, the study of Torah, the performance of Mitzvot, etc. in rational, human terms. One's recognition of G-d's existence and one's entire of view reality is measured and defined in terms of the self and on the basis of one's own perception of existence. Chassidus picks up where Chakira leaves off, taking the conclusions presented by Chakira as given conclusions, unchallenged facts, and seeking to change the very way we think about that acknowledged reality, that acknowledged relationship between the Creator and the creations. Chassidus teaches us to define ourselves in terms of our relationship with G-d, rather than defining our relationship with G-d in terms of ourselves. Chassidus employs human logic as a gateway, as a means to open up the human mind to a super-rational worldview. While Chaikra is content to discover the Creator in the context of our physical reality, Chassidus wishes to discover G-d as he exists essentially.

For more on the difference between Chakirah and Chassidus see Hatomim Vol. 2, page 490 and onward.]

12 comments:

  1. (1) Nothing creates itself, since the act of creating necessitates its existence (so also Saadia, "Emunot," i. 2)
    (2) the causes of things are necessarily limited in number, and lead to the presumption of a first cause which is necessarily self-existent, having neither beginning nor end, because everything that has an end must needs have a beginning
    (3) all composite beings have a beginning; and a cause must necessarily be created.

    - From Wikipedia

    ReplyDelete
  2. The aim of Chakirah is not simply to PROVE things. Chakirah is about man interacting with Hashem through his Sechel Enushi, which is precisely what Hashem told us to do, within the confines of Torah and Mitzvos. At different times the interaction was focussed on certain things. The Ramban's chakirahs and the Kuzari's chakiras were time borne, relating to the issues extant. The writings of the Rav zt"l are also chakirah, but they are no less uplifting and Gdly because they emanated from his Sechel Eloki as opposed to "metaphysical essence" as described in Chassidus. Furthermore, there is absolutely no halachic imperative that I know of to pursue one mode over another. The idea of man is to be Lifnei Hashem vis a vis VeHolachto BiDrochov. There are ingredients to becoming so. I have always felt that what brings "A" to this, may not be what brings "B" to this. A and B will share a large intersection called Halacha but one's sechel cum etzem may well differ to another's.

    To put it in stark terms, there are people who feel so "high" after understanding a chidush of say R' Chaim, and are so uplifted in their devykus through Torah to the (let's say) same extent as someone who learns a deep Maamer Chassidus and feels uplifted.

    V'Hamyseh Hu Haikkar.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Isaac,

    I'm really not sure what's bothering you. Your comment seems to be an attack on my presumed presumption that there is some imperative to study Chassidus over and above Chakirah, or that the former is more "inspiring" than the latter.
    Nowhere did I make any statement that alludes to such a presumption.
    In writing about Chassidus and Chakirah, I sought not to up one over the other, but only to describe the different areas covered by these two complimentary disciplines.
    Both are equally valid areas of Torah and hence the mandate of Yedias HaTorah (a Mitzvas Aseh De'oriasoh) is equally applicable to both of them. No one can say that he is absolved of his obligation to learn all parts of Torah.

    Your comment that "there are people who feel so "high" after understanding a chidush of say R' Chaim, and are so uplifted in their devykus through Torah to the (let's say) same extent as someone who learns a deep Maamer Chassidus" is pretty shallow:
    I myself can testify that properly grasping a Chidush of Reb Chaim is a very uplifting experience, however like any inyen in niglah it is an intellectual experience, which is (generally) not transparent on a revealed level to the Elokus which is invested in the chochmas haTorah. Chassidus and Chakira on the other hand provide an intellectual relationship directly with the Aibishter Himself. Without such a relationship the Chochmoh may be inspiring from an intellectual point of view, but may - at the very same time - remain divorced from its true context as Toras Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chabad-Revisited.

    I'm surprised you are not sure what is bothering me. It is well known that Chakira is (now) not permitted in Chabad. Whereas once, to get into Tomchei Tmimim you had to allegedly know Kuzari, now nobody touches any sifrei "chakirah" (unless there is a temporal kiruv angle)

    My understanding is that Chassidus is considered on a higher level and that Chakirah is dangerous. One has to submit one's sechel through bitul; something which contradicts chakirah.

    In the above light, you may well re-read what I wrote and understand where I was coming from. I didn't say that Chassidus isn't important etc rather, my point was that the one size fits all, chassidus is the only real thing isn't a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is well known that Chakira is (now) not permitted in Chabad."

    That's news to me - and I thought I was an insider!

    "once, to get into Tomchei Tmimim you had to allegedly know Kuzari,"

    Really! - that's news to me too, or perhaps you are mixing Toimchei Temimim with the Chadorim of the Alter Rebbe (only 120 years or so difference).

    "now nobody touches any sifrei "chakirah""

    I must be a nobody... or I have "a temporal kiruv angle".

    "My understanding is that Chassidus is considered on a higher level and that Chakirah is dangerous. One has to submit one's sechel through bitul; something which contradicts chakirah."

    Thankfully that's an understanding that no Lubavitchers that I know share with כ"ת.

    I'm really sorry Isaac, but I have re-read what you wrote and still fail to understand where you are coming from... wherever it is, it's not on my map. - Whoever claimed that a) "one size fits all" and b) "chassidus is the only real thing"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding the Chadorim of the Alter Rebbe, you had to be boki in Shas, Poskim and Kisvei HoArizal as well as Chakira. I doubt such demands could be made of the bochurim entering Toimchei Temimim, who often began in the Chadorim as young as 11 or 12.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isaac, but that they were versed in Kusari at age 11 or 12 is not beyond the scope of demands that could be made on these fledgling students?

    I have to side with Chabad-Revisted on this one. The only opposition i encountered studying Chakira back in the Yeshiva days was from a over-zealous contemporary who's fears i was able to put to rest by telling him i would only study the ones quoted in the footnotes of Lekkutie Sichos.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't suggest 11 or 12 year olds should study kuzari, nor am I suggesting that ANYONE study Chakirah.

    I just know from my life experience that chakirah is not studied in chabad. Yes there are a few who do, but so what? The Shita is to learn Chassidus, period. All else is subsumed.

    I will dig out the source for what one had to know to get into the original Tomchei Tmimim, but that is parenthetical. Walk into a Chabad Yeshivah and it is simply not on the agenda. I have 5 children who went through (some still at Chabad Schools) and I can tell you that Sifrei Chakira for boys was never ever mentioned let alone touched, and for girls there is a new subject called "machshava" which is really more about talking about problems of today. Will you ever get a textually based shiur? No.

    That being said, please read me correctly. I do NOT advocate that anyone be forced chakira, let alone chassidus or mussar. Whatever a person wants/needs for their Sechel/Neshoma is fine with me as long as they are free to choose and they don't say "mine's better/more important that yours"

    I guess this makes me sound somewhat like a brisker, but I'm far from that madrega, b'etzem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Issac,
    u are correct the official chabad doctrine is not To learn chakira, eventought the zemach tzedek quotes every Chakira sefer in print, even the Ralbag that was from the more raFDICAL CHOKRIM

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Walk into a Chabad Yeshivah and it is simply not on the agenda. I have 5 children who went through (some still at Chabad Schools) and I can tell you that Sifrei Chakira for boys was never ever mentioned let alone touched, and for girls there is a new subject called "machshava" which is really more about talking about problems of today. Will you ever get a textually based shiur? No.

    Isaac, i'm not really sure what your point is. That a serious methodical and textually based Chakira study program is not on the curriculum in Chabas Yeshivos? I hardly find that surprising. Does that mean there is some sort of fundamental shunning of it. I don't think so.

    "Whatever a person wants/needs for their Sechel/Neshoma is fine with me as long as they are free to choose and they don't say "mine's better/more important that yours""

    How do you suggest that ANY Yeshiva or institution of instructional learning [let alone a Chabad Yeshiva which claims to have a particular philosophical/theological vision it wishes to transmit] create an effective and systematic curriculum based on the above point of view? "hello, and welcome to Yeshiva. Now go learn whatever you feel your Neshama needs/wants...."

    ReplyDelete
  11. CR, you may not have said that Chassidus (and Kabbalah, for that matter) has a maalah over Chakirah, but it can't be denied that that's the way the Rebbeim present it, and in the very sources that you quote.

    I'm interested if, in your historical research, you might come across some info. on the way Chassidim traditionally viewed Chakirah. My guess is that it would not have been viewed favorably, for it would be viewed as instilling the hanochoh of olamos bipshitus, the exact opposite of the hanochoh of Chassidus that Elokus bipshitus--but you are welcome to prove to me otherwise.

    Moreover, the antipathy to Chakirah is not controversial at all; it has very strong backing from gedolei Yisroel of old. I don't have my copy handy, but I recall that in the pirush Lev Tov on Chovos Halevovos, there is a lengthy hakdomoh to the Shaar Hayichud quoting from gedolei Yisroel across the board over the ages who were vehemently opposed to studying it. Based on this, the commentator simply presents the text with no teitch whatsoever, unlike the rest of the sefer, which he paraphrases into modern Hebrew and explains quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RYO:

    Just wondering, did you actually read what I wrote? If not, please do. You may also find this interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...