A couple of posts back I wrote about the complex depth of Jewish Mysticism, in general, and Chabad Chasidism in particular, as reflected in Prof. Elliot Wolfson's rather challenging style of delivery. I now feel compelled to compare his style to that of Prof. Don Seeman as exemplified in this lecture:
Indeed, Seeman himself (beginning at approx. 38:40) draws attention to an essential difference between what I will call their respective "styles of reading". According to Seeman, Wolfson readings emphasize "the coincidence of opposites and the sense of paradox", Seeman goes on to explain how he disagrees with this reading. "In my reading... there is actually very little focus on paradox, what there is - is a focus on the sense that opposites are often both true, which is then absorbed [or rationalised] in a kind of Lithuanian manner - 'two dinim'; this is true in this context and that's true in that context..." Thus, two contradictory statements within Chabad literature are usually to be interpreted as both being true.
What Seeman doesn't say is that in Chabad Yeshivahs this approach is so common that it is known by the catch phrase "s'vent'zich vu me'redt" (Yiddish: It depends on the context). What is not always emphasized enough in Chabad Yeshivahs is Seeman's qualifying statement to the effect that you cannot just "leave it like that", you have to find and explain "the particular concept, or in which particular conceptual framework this is true, and in which that's true". It is primarily in this qualification that Seeman strays from Wolfson's paradoxical approach. While I haven't yet read the particular book that Seeman is referring to I am reminded of how on reading Wolfson's article Revisioning the Body Apophatically: Incarnation and the Cosmic Naturalism of Habad Hasidism I remarked in an email to a friend on that,
Wolfson "seems to have a love for paradox simply for the sake of paradox (he seems almost inspired by the very impossibility on nonsensicality of the idea...) ...in talking of the Apophatic Body... he seems to circle around and around the point drawing attention to it but never putting his finger on it."
Of course, this itself captures the tension that undeniably continues to exist even as the contradictory statements are rationally contextualised and resolved, or as Wolfson might say, (un)resolved.
Even Seeman cannot escape the issue. As he himself goes on to explain, in Chabad thought the whole system in which different contexts or conceptual frameworks exists is itself a matter of context. Taking into account the Chabad principle that tzimtzum lav kipshuto - in Seeman's words, Tzimtzum is only "an inability for most people to recognise the fact that the or ha'mamaleh kol almin (immanent manifestation of Divinity) and the or hasovev kol almin (transcendent manifestation of Divinity) is really the same all the time". Ultimately there can be no separation between discrete realities, there is only the One ultimate reality. The discrete elements of existence experienced by ourselves is merely a matter of perspective and illusion. Here, Seeman slips seamlessly into phraseology quite reminiscent of the Wolfson he so disagrees with, "Chabad writers from the very beginning... have emphasized repeatedly and insistently that bittul ha'olamot (abnegation of the worlds) does not mean that the world is an illusion or that it doesn't exist... of course the world is real, its just that its not."
Ultimately, Wolfson is right. Whether our rationalist minds like it or not, a serious student of Chabad must acknowledge and confront the undeniable paradoxes that Chabad thought embraces, and which are most strikingly highlighted in the works of the late Rebbe specifically.
Ultimately, Wolfson is right. Whether our rationalist minds like it or not, a serious student of Chabad must acknowledge and confront the undeniable paradoxes that Chabad thought embraces, and which are most strikingly highlighted in the works of the late Rebbe specifically.
All of this, and many of the other issues touched on in the above lecture, provides much food for thought. Seeman does not fail to draw attention to the theological issue posed by the question of the created worlds "reality"; if it is not really real, then the validity and importance of the Divine commandments as proscribed in the Torah is thrown into question. On which note see this even more thought provoking letter, penned by Chabad scholar par-excellence, Rabbi Yoel Kahan - achron achron choviv.
It may be interesting to note their respective areas of recognized expertise.
ReplyDeleteWhile Wolfson has a PhD in Jewish mysticism and philosophy, Seeman has a PhD in anthropology.
--Lazer
Challenge me on this: Every maamar (mugah) of the Rebbe follows a pattern:
ReplyDelete1. Discover a paradox.
2. Develop the paradox and ascertain that it is certainly not resolvable.
3. Build a structure upon this paradox.
4. Conclude that the paradox is a window on Atzmus (or Yechida).
"S'vent zich vu m'redt" is an entirely different issue with entirely different applications:
Since Torah bichlal and especially pnimius haTorah principally deals not with solid substances but with relationships, therefore "everything is relative"—"s'vent zich vu m'redt". (Wolfson redt in ein inyan und Seeman oif a tzveiter.)
But the Rebbe's maamarim are dealing with completely different sorts of conflicts. The Rebbe demonstrates that our universe is b'etzem constructed of irresolvable conflicts, and the only way to see a resolution is by rejecting the notion that anything stands on its own, and embracing reality for what it really is: a deliberate expression of that which is entirely free of limitation.
The Rebbe's treatment of the kushia d'Beis Yosef is a classic example: The oil both burned and did not burn. The same with "Pada B'Shalom"—war and peace coincide at once. Similarly, the Rebbe's classic treatment of the inherent paradox between tefillah and emunah—concluding that the only answer is that a yid is "nosei hafachim" like his Creator.
And it all goes back to Shaar Hayichud V'ha-Emunah perek dalet: The Eibishter is both immanent and transcendent at once—here and not here.
I would venture into the Rebbe's studies at the University of Berlin at the time when his professors were grappling with the wave/particle paradox---but I'd get called out for epikursus.
Roman Foxbronner already made Don Seeman - & your point mamesh - ("s'ventach velchen dargeh...") - in his "Habad" (Harvard, U.P.), based on his doctorate thesis at Harvard under Isadore Twersky.
ReplyDelete- ZIY
Actually, IIRC, Foxbronner's point is that when there is a s'tireh in darges limaylah, the Alter Rebbe creates a new dargeh. (So it is al derech a "kosuv hashlishi.")
ReplyDelete- ZIY