R' Eliezer Berkotvits' Critique Of Mysticism

Berkovits is very much a rationalist in the Maimonidean tradition. But I would argue that despite what he writes and argues, there is very much a mystical side of Judaism that Berkovits ignores, one that strecthes from Akiva to Judah Halevi to the authors of the Zohar to hasidism. The mystical and rational very much find themselves in tension in the tradition.

Menachem Kellner, himself a stauch Maimonidean, has recently published a book called "Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism." It echoes much of what Berkovits argues here.

I knew i liked R' Eliezer Berkovitz. Similar to Prof. Yesha‘yahu Leibovitz, except without the angry polemics.

Just a quick comment that I wanted to add. I found many parallels between the "G-d, Man, and History" and that of "Halachic Man" by R'Soloveitchik. R'Berkovitz like R'Soloveitchk, too takes issue with the "Homo Religiosus" prefering the realm of ethics and halacha to define the "encounter" (I cannot recall if R'Soloveitchik ever uses that word, but he clearly describes the same concept) between the Jew and G-d. I was wondering if anyone else noticed similiar parallels?

I think it is also important to point out, that when R'Berkovitz means "mysticism" he has a preconceived understanding of what that term means. As a Lubavitcher friend pointed out to me, certain schools of mysticism could actually be quite compatible with R'Berkovitz world view. The Chabad notion of "dira batachtonim" comes to my mind, where the entire purpose of life is to infuse reality (as it is, not to nullify it) with G-dliness, brining G-d to man and not the other way round.

Erc,

Berkovits puts himself in the camp of R. Yehudah ha'Levi. In the first chapters of "God, Man and History" he criticizes Rambam and other very rationalistic Rishonim for making God unreachable.

Rael,

Chabad is not a good example because they are pantheists, and talk about being part of God. Needless to say that they don't have any basis in the Tanach or Talmud.

I do not know Rav Berkovits's view on Kabbalah per se; here and there he makes a few stray remarks to "certain forms of Jewish mysticism", but they are very rare, and his criticisms are always very slight and passing, especially compared to the vociferousness of his other criticisms. I think in Crisis and Faith, he says something about "even certain forms of Jewish mysticism" slightly echo a certain criticism he has just made, but he doesn't elaborate, and he continues to criticize what he had just been criticizing a moment prior, ignoring Kabbalah.

Now then, I don't think what Rav Berkovits here says is a criticism against Kabbalah. For it has been noted by scholars that Jewish mysticism, unlike other mystical systems, always preserved the boundary between man and G-d. While Hinduism, for example, would meet Rav Berkovits's description of mysticism here, Kabbalah would not. Cf. his Crisis and Faith, the chapter on drug use - he discusses mysticism, and his description there too is comparable to this one here, and moreover, he specifically refers to *Eastern* mysticism.

This doesn't mean he was necessarily favorable towards Kabbalah, but all the same, there is no proof from here, or from any of his writings which I have read so far, that he was antagonistic towards Kabbalah either. As best I can tell, he was ambivalent. For example, in G-d, Man, and History, after a certain theory of his about creation, he remarks in a footnote that what he says may be comparable to the Kabbalistic tzimzum, and he quotes Gershom Scholem. His reticence to definitively state whether or not he is following tzimzum, and his reliance on a secondary source such as this, implies either he was ignorant of Kabbalah, or that he was ambivalent and didn't give it much attention regardless of how much he know about it.

Especially given how vociferous he was in criticizing anything which did not meet his approval, and given his focus on the numerous problems of Jewish existence today (such as contemporary halakhah and the Oral Law, Zionism and the State of Israel, etc.), I'd imagine that if Kabbalah inspired serious concerns with him, he'd have mentioned so.

On the other hand, his treatments of philosophy are always very rational (in the modern sense, not in the scholastic-philosophical ("Rambam") sense) and not mystical. Thus, I want to say that while he wasn't opposed to Kabbalah, he wasn't in favor of it either - it seems to have simply not been on his radar.

(It is worth mentioning that I both revere Rav Berkovits, and decidedly do not follow Kabbalah. So rest assured, I have no agenda in trying to prove that Rav Berkovits was not opposed to Kabbalah.)

Ah, I just remembered what Dr. Berkovits is talking about when he says, "even certain forms of Jewish mysticism":

He is speaking about the use of erotic imagery in describing the love of G-d. He cites some Christian mystics as speaking erotically of their love, waxing lengthily and descriptively. His quotations read like Shir haShirim times a thousand, and he of course takes offense.

He then says, "even some forms of Jewish mysticism", but he doesn't elaborate, and he returns to his original target of criticism.

Therefore, I don't think that Dr. Berkovits primarily intended Kabbalah when he spoke of mysticism; I think he primarily meant Eastern, and sometimes Christian, mysticism.

On the other hand, being of the Hirschian school, Dr. Berkovits certainly emphasized Judaism as an anthropology and not a theology or a theosophy (and certainly not a theurgy!); no doubt there.