1

How Dare You Translate Kabbalah!

|

How Dare You Translate Kabbalah!

by Avinoam Fraenkel

Avinoam Fraenkel’s new book, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah (Urim Publications, 2021), is a full facing page translation and expansive commentary on Shomer Emunim by R. Yosef Ergas, together with an extensive Kabbalah Overview systematically explaining key concepts of Lurianic Kabbalah in the context of a revolutionary framework of scientific understanding (see here).

His previous two-volume Nefesh HaTzimtzum (Urim Publications, 2015), is a full facing page translation and expansive commentary on Nefesh HaChaim together with all related writings by R. Chaim Volozhin, and a broad study on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum (see here).[1]

Before publishing Nefesh HaTzimtzum and Shomer Emunim, I sought the feedback and approbation of several scholarly Kabbalists of note. Most were warmly encouraging and actively supportive. However, I encountered some who vigorously opposed any form of translation of Kabbalistic texts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic and who fundamentally challenged my objectives in the strongest terms.

When subsequently approaching potential publishers, I discovered that this vocal group exerts substantial influence over various Jewish publishers serving the ultra-orthodox community. In 1996, Artscroll/Mesorah Publications was halfway into a Nefesh HaChaim translation project, when the project was suddenly shelved following the intervention of a respected Kabbalist.[2] I understand from an authoritative senior source at Artscroll, that the project was stopped as they were fearful that continuing would jeopardize their multimillion-dollar Talmud business. As a result, to this day, they do not publish serious Kabbalah works in English. For example, their publication of an English translation of Nachmanides/Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, while keeping the original Hebrew intact, omits the translation of all the many Kabbalistic comments. Feldheim Publishers, who act as a distribution channel for several Jewish book publishers, also refused to distribute English Kabbalah works.[3]

Then we have Judaica Press who published what they claim is a translation of Nefesh HaChaim, where in the translator’s introduction it states “Please note: The sections of Nefesh HaChaim dealing with Kabbalistic subjects have been omitted, as the subject matter is not suitable for translation.”[4] Given that Nefesh HaChaim is a Kabbalistic work with its primary messages expressed in Kabbalistic language, it is beyond comprehension how Judaica Press can consider their publication to be anything other than a radical distortion of the original work. Not only is the English translation severely expurgated and summarized, without any hint given to its reader either in its Hebrew or English sections, the original Hebrew text published at the back of the book has also undergone a drastic act of editing. It entirely omits R. Chaim Volozhin’s fifty-two notes, many of which are lengthy and Kabbalistic, amounting to a major part of the original Hebrew text, that were written and published as an integral part of Nefesh HaChaim.[5]

The Kabbalists of this genre that I encountered very firmly expressed their objection. Primarily, there were those who argued that the subtle and diverse array of multiple meanings and nuances of both names and expression of the Kabbalistic concepts, embedded within the original Hebrew/Aramaic, are entirely lost in translation. This, they explained, would result in a translated text that diverges from the original, misleading its reader into thinking that it may accurately capture at least some of the depth encrypted in the original. Surprisingly to me, they suggested this to be the case even when translating basic introductory texts that were specifically designed to combat widespread misinformation and distortion of Kabbalistic concepts. One such example is Shomer Emunim, which communicates the basic concepts simply, clearly and unambiguously, so that they cannot be taken out of context.[6] 

Remarkably, another view expressed by one individual, went even further. This view additionally holds that just as it is forbidden to eat non-Kosher meat, so too, it is forbidden to use either a foreign language or even scientific analogies to express Kabbalistic concepts!

These Kabbalists hardly pointed to any sources to support their position of forbidding the translation of Kabbalistic texts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic. We will soon look at the key points from the sources and arguments they did provide to appreciate the basis of their position.

However, before doing so, it is important to briefly examine why the communication of Kabbalistic ideas was historically considered so sensitive in general, even in its original language, thus generating a Kabbalistic culture that fostered an aversion to public discourse. In contrast, over the centuries there have been several highly esteemed Kabbalists who very openly broke rank and chose to record these concepts in a format for wider consumption. There were several primary factors and various historical triggers that motivated them to do so and for the purpose of this essay it will be helpful to focus on one of these triggers. It will then be relevant to reflect on the nature of contemporary access to Kabbalah by the many who are currently intrigued with it.

Kabbalah is the inner understanding of the depth of Torah. Given that Torah is the blueprint for all creation and for everything we see in the natural world around us, Kabbalah is therefore the body of knowledge that captures the underlying essence of God’s Creation.[7] As an essential part of the Torah, there is an obligation to study it just like every other part of the Torah. For example, the Baal HaTanya sets out a syllabus for an adult beginner in Torah study that includes a portion on Kabbalah, and advocates that the proportion of Kabbalah study is to increase as the beginner advances. In particular, there is a substantial obligation for every Torah scholar to study it.[8]

However, while Kabbalah study should certainly be an aspiration for all who study the Torah, R. Ergas also highlights that it is not necessarily for everybody and quotes the Lurianic caution for those beginning its study. In introducing this caution he states, “The foundations of the Kabbalah and the paths of Divine Wisdom are such that not every person is suited to search out and be involved with them as not everyone who wants to take God’s Name, [i.e., to study Kabbalistic knowledge,] should do so.”[9] Primary requirements for such engagement include a genuine aspiration for increased personal improvement, a rechanneling of life focus from physical pursuits to intellectually guided spiritual goals, and a maturity of understanding.[10] A Kabbalah teacher should therefore be discerning in choosing a student, as R. Ergas states based on a source from the Zohar, “It is incumbent on the teacher to only teach one who properly serves God.”[11]

Historically, after Moshe received the Torah on Mount Sinai and handed it over to the Jewish People, it was fervently transmitted from generation to generation. In contrast to the rest of the Torah, however, the transmission of Kabbalah from generation to generation has been heavily restricted. Instead of being passed down the generations via the entirety of the Jewish People like the rest of the Torah, the Kabbalistic tradition has been passed down via select individuals in each generation. These select individuals were all rabbinic sages of the highest caliber, however, while many were well-known, this chain also often included sages who were completely unknown.

This mode of transmission was very necessary due to the subtle nature of Kabbalistic concepts, especially in the earlier generations. Due to the limitations of human language to express these subtle non-physical ideas, it was all too easy for the highly cryptic expression of these concepts using human physically related language to be completely misinterpreted and used to build a physicalized perspective of God, either in a partial or complete way. Since a belief in any form of a physicalized perspective of God fundamentally contravenes the Jewish Faith, there was no choice but to restrict the Kabbalistic transmission to individuals of sterling character and maturity of understanding, with whom there would be zero risk of misinterpretation.[12]

During and beyond the Middle Ages, with the circulation of ancient cryptic Kabbalistic manuscripts, and particularly in the subsequent age of printing when these texts were frequently published, Kabbalistic ideas became increasingly widespread. The great fear the rabbinic sages had of the risk of distortion of the Kabbalah in physical terms, materialized in the most dramatic and public way with the appearance of the false messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi, in the mid-17th century. Shabbetai Tzvi distorted Kabbalistic concepts to justify gross Halachic malpractice, licensing flagrant and unspeakable transgressions of Jewish Law. With his extraordinary charisma, he spawned a wide following and sparked a movement that from approximately 1650 until 1800, attracted and led astray many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Jewish followers from authentic Judaism.

With the episode of the Shabbetai Tzvi, several great Kabbalist sages felt compelled to break rank from their avoidance of publicly explaining and widely sharing Kabbalistic concepts. The Kabbalistic concepts were already in the public domain, however the misinformation surrounding them now had to be urgently corrected to stem the flow away from authentic Judaism.

One example was R. Ergas, who was engaged in a vitriolic polemic with a follower of the school of Shabbetai Tzvi, Nechemia Chiya Chayun,[13] who distorted Kabbalistic principles, including the framing of God in a physical context. R. Ergas vigorously attacked Chayun’s position in his polemic work Tochachat Megula, expressing his intention to set the record straight by providing an explanation of these principles, commenting as follows:

If God grants [me] life, I will be the talebearer who reveals secrets that are hidden and hinted at about these [Kabbalistic] matters. [To explain] what is Tzimtzum? What is Makom Panui/Empty Space? What are the pipe[/Kav], dissemination, removal, marital relations, pregnancy and other similar expressions? To save students from error so that they should not stumble and be trapped in the net of error and distortion as happened to this excommunicated one, [to Nechemia Chiya Chayun].[14] 

R. Ergas expressed the inappropriateness of such a future act of revelation by stating that he would be a “talebearer who reveals secrets.”[15] Nevertheless, the circumstances of those times dictated that he must save future students from error. He did indeed subsequently materialize this intention in his writing of Shomer Emunim, whose succinct clarity of explanation of basic Kabbalistic concepts is striking.

Another stark example was from R. Ergas’ contemporary, R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal, who also attacked the Sabbatians in his work Kinat Hashem Tzvaot. This work addresses what the Ramchal perceived to be fundamental Sabbatian errors in the way they misinterpreted Kabbalistic concepts to license committing terribly sinful acts of lust. The Ramchal felt the urgent need to explain some very deep Kabbalistic secrets that had not previously been publicly explained. His motivation was that they would no longer be taken out of context and pose what he saw as nothing less than a life-threatening risk to the continuity of Judaism. In doing so he repeatedly justified the need to explain these matters and to override the strict policy of silence over them. In one of several such justifications he commented as follows:

Dear reader, know that I need to tell you the most awesome and significant secrets here in Part Two. Matters that stand at the highest point of the Universe, about which it states … “it is God’s honor to conceal a matter.”[16] However, you should know that “everything has its season and there is a time for everything,”[17]for it is “a time to act for God, they have voided Your teaching.”[18] Just as we were commanded to be silent about the smallest or greatest details of these exalted matters, so too, there is a great commandment and imposed obligation to save many great lives from the current destruction. There are substances that kill a healthy person but heal the sick, for “there is a time for silence and a time to speak.”[19] Since the area of failure of these foolish boors [the Sabbatians,] is with the roots of the Holy Wisdom [of the Kabbalah], I must therefore reveal these roots in their proper context, to properly establish them and to extract them from their untrue [Sabbatian] falsehood.[20]

While, during the Sabbatian crisis, individual Kabbalists responded to it by clarifying the distorted Kabbalistic concepts, the overarching rabbinic response was to publicly impose restrictions on Kabbalah study to dampen its allure. For example, the Brody ban of 1756 forbade the study of almost all Kabbalistic works for people under the age of 40. This was in response to a resurgence of a cult branch of Sabbatianism under the auspices of Jacob Frank and his followers, the “Frankists.” Although this policy of restriction may have eventually been successful, with Sabbatianism and its offshoots eventually dying out around 1800, nevertheless it added to the mystique surrounding the Kabbalah.

Moving forward to today and the age of the internet, not only does the mystique surrounding Kabbalah study still exist, it is also greatly accentuated due to the ease of access to information over the internet. There are many genuine knowledge seekers who are intrigued by the now very widely discussed Kabbalistic concepts and are thirsting to deepen their understanding. However, almost invariably and unknown to many of these seekers, the Kabbalistic information currently available via internet articles and presentations, and in the plethora of available books, is generally highly misleading and distorted. The presentation of Kabbalah information tends to present watered-down ideas based on secondary indirect sources, with the ideas for the most part being transformed into oversimplified motivational, behavioral and ethical messages, taken far from their original context. These watered-down ideas are also often used as a medium to support various disciplines of study, many of which are New Age related, but also appear in some more traditional disciplines such as psychology. In addition, it is unfortunately often the case that many of these distorted Kabbalistic ideas are disseminated by charlatan organizations and individuals, motivated primarily by financial gain. In sum, there are currently many thirsting for a real understanding of the depth of Jewish thought and for true Kabbalistic knowledge, who are unwittingly forced to quench their thirst with distorted information.

Against this background there is a Kabbalistic tradition brought in the Zohar that “as we draw closer to the future redemption, even children will be able to relate to hidden wisdom … and at that time it will be revealed to all.”[21] This piece from the Zohar elaborates with a depiction of a simultaneous opening of the gates of Kabbalistic and scientific knowledge from the year 1840 onwards together with the subsequent continued acceleration of the revelation of both these areas of knowledge over time. Before the “opening of the gates” the sheer depth of abstract subtlety of the Kabbalistic concepts made them impossible to transmit except on a one-to-one basis to a select few individuals alone. These individuals were able to relate to the concepts, even though they were framed with highly limited human language, without misinterpreting the vagueness of the analogies that were available at the time. The Zohar’s reference to the opening of the gates of both Kabbalistic and scientific knowledge is not accidental. It is the opening of the gates of scientific knowledge that acts as the primary key to provide a language of expression with more accurate and relatable analogies, enabling ordinary people to relate to the deepest Kabbalistic ideas in the run-up to Messianic times.[22]

Looking at the world around us it is impossible to miss the exponential pace of accelerating increase in scientific and technological knowledge. The Zohar predicts that there will be a corresponding increase in Kabbalistic understanding. Some Kabbalistic concepts can already be related to using analogies from relatively recent scientific discoveries, and as the Zohar notes, even by children.[23] As demonstrated in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, several fundamental Kabbalistic concepts can now be properly related to using very recently understood scientific concepts and language. These Kabbalistic concepts are therefore now truly accessible to the wider public in a way they have never previously been, and most importantly, without any danger of misinterpretation.

However, the sheer volume of distorted Kabbalistic information that is currently available is seriously preventing many from properly learning Kabbalah, and by extension from learning Torah. There are many who as a result of this distortion, disconnect Kabbalah from Torah and think they can be studied independently of one another. They engage with what they believe to be Kabbalah, often unwittingly disconnected from Torah, and with no appreciation of the depth of Kabbalah’s intrinsic and vital connection to Torah.

It is therefore incumbent upon those who are familiar with real Torah true Kabbalistic knowledge, to make this information widely and publicly available. In particular, it is imperative for them to use various languages, together with analogies of contemporary science, as mediums through which the many can now genuinely relate to the underlying concepts. As was the case in R. Ergas’ and the Ramchal’s day, now is also a “a time to act for God,” as those who earnestly search for true knowledge can have their thirst quenched with real Kabbalistic understanding framed in a language they understand and genuinely relatable contemporary analogies.

With all the above in mind, let us now return to the arguments of those few scholarly Kabbalists who vigorously oppose any form of translation of Kabbalistic concepts from their original Hebrew/Aramaic. A primary source they quote is a responsum of the Kabbalist, R. Yosef Chayim of Baghdad, the Ben Ish Chai,[24] answering a question posed to him if it is permissible to translate and publish one of the most esoteric sections of the Zohar, the Idra Rabba, into Arabic or other languages. A detailed English outline together with a link to the full original Hebrew text of this responsum is brought in the note.[25]

The opening comments of this responsum suggest that it may indeed have been the first responsum forbidding the translation of esoteric Kabbalistic texts. This could account for why this was the only authoritative Kabbalistic focused source quoted to me by the few Kabbalists I encountered who insisted that Kabbalah must not be translated into English.

The key points expressed by the Ben Ish Chai in this responsum are as follows:

  • The Kabbalistic texts – in particular the Zohar and the Lurianic texts (and also the texts of Shir HaShirim, and of the Aggadah/story narrative of the Talmud) – refer to God, His Attributes and Actions, in highly physical terms. Nevertheless, they are written in a highly esoteric and cryptic way, such that there is absolutely no literal meaning of their words. The keys to unlock the cryptic information were handed down, by word of mouth only, to individuals of great stature, and even then, almost always partially. Therefore, a literal translation of these texts cannot even begin to capture any truth of their meaning and can only mislead its reader into thinking that any understanding of the underlying text has been conveyed. Much worse, it can convince its reader that God can be related to blasphemously in physical terms.
  • Furthermore, the Ben Ish Chai understands that the Zohar was specifically written with Divine inspiration like the text of Jewish prayer, such that in addition to its words being written in the form of a deeply encrypted analogy, there is another dimension of encoded esoteric concepts. These encoded concepts are contained within the specific letter sequences and numerical values of the words and phrases of the Zohar. This clearly cannot even be vaguely hinted to in any form of translated text. The Ben Ish Chai therefore concludes that it is forbidden to translate the Zohar.
  • A final point is made by quoting a section from Shomer Emunim highlighting the sheer importance of not framing the Sefirot in a physical context, such that one should only focus on the concept of each Sefira and on the image of the Hebrew letters from which its name is constructed. The Ben Ish Chai understands from this that when the Sefirot names are translated, the letters of the translated names do not represent the same underlying encoded concepts as the original Hebrew names. A translation of these Sefirot names therefore bears no relationship with their original intended meaning.

The Ben Ish Chai’s position is crystal clear. He strongly forbids the literal translation of any Kabbalistic text that is written in a deeply cryptic style for fear of physicalizing God. However, he does not forbid a non-literal, highly explanatory translation of an encrypted Kabbalistic text that provides conceptual background underpinning Kabbalistic terminology referred to with transliterated Hebrew, (i.e., not translated). Much more significantly, he most certainly does not forbid the translation of an unencrypted Kabbalistic text designed to properly explain Kabbalistic concepts such that there is zero risk of any physical misinterpretation of Divine concepts.

The quotation brought by the Ben Ish Chai from Shomer Emunim to bolster his view is significant, in that it emphasized the clarity of that work in distancing its reader from the physicalization of God. As mentioned earlier Shomer Emunim communicates basic Kabbalistic concepts in a simple, clear and unambiguous manner. It was specifically written as an entirely unencrypted and accessible text. It is therefore extremely difficult to understand how any of the Kabbalists I encountered who forbid the translation of all Kabbalistic texts, including Shomer Emunim, can use the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum as a basis to support their opinion. Moreover, there is clear evidence that the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum has unfortunately been misrepresented by these Kabbalists, as per the example in the note.[26]

In addition to the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum, only one other source was mentioned. A responsum of the contemporary Halachist and prolific author, R. Menashe Klein.[27] While R. Klein had no claim of Kabbalistic expertise, he wrote an interesting rich responsum going much further than just forbidding the translation of encrypted hidden concepts. He forbade the translation of any texts of Jewish learning and primarily the Halachic texts.[28] He absolutely refused to endorse any translated text as he put it “especially in the current times when translations already exist of the Shulchan Aruch, the Talmud and the entire Torah such that it is as if [the Torah] was not given in the Holy Tongue.” He closed his responsum by objecting to outreach programs translating the Torah in order to reach those on the periphery of Judaism and stated that “they should be drawn near, by teaching them the Holy Tongue and only then teaching them Torah from holy works, rather than distancing them even further from Torah by translating the Torah for them.”

It is beyond any question that R. Klein’s extreme views on this are not accepted by the mainstream rabbinic authorities and publishing houses, including the ultra-orthodox publishers, and we are indeed blessed with a vast library of meaningful translated Torah texts that are of significant assistance to all requiring them in their Torah study. It is also clear that his outreach strategy is not taken seriously or considered acceptable by any of the successful outreach programs like Chabad and Aish HaTorah. R. Klein’s position therefore has no meaningful bearing on the Kabbalah translation discussion.

Another view encountered, as mentioned earlier, was the statement that just as it is forbidden to eat non-Kosher meat, so too, it is forbidden to use either a foreign language or even scientific analogies to express Kabbalistic concepts. This appears to be an incorrect assertion and the technicalities of this issue are discussed in the note.<[29]

From all the above, it is beyond question that great care needs to be invested to ensure that Kabbalistic concepts are correctly built up and presented in their proper context, especially when translated into other languages. However, it seems that the objection to the translation and proper explanation of these concepts is entirely unwarranted, especially in relation to the translation of unencrypted Kabbalah works such as Shomer Emunim. This is particularly true in our current times when, as stated above, it is “a time to act for God” for those who earnestly seek true knowledge.

No-one understood this better than the brilliant Kabbalist and prolific author, R. Aryeh Kaplan,[30] who blazed the trail in not only presenting Kabbalistic concepts in English, but also even going so far as to translating and unlocking encrypted Kabbalistic works, such as Sefer Yetzirah, with proper contextual explanation on a level that arguably had never been done before him.

When it came to the provision of ethical teachings for the future generations, our Sages never held back from heaping praise or providing stinging critique for various types of actions. There are a pair of Mishnayot in Yoma that starkly illustrate this.[31] The first Mishna praises four individuals for their different types of gifts and sponsored initiatives related to the Temple. In contrast, the second Mishna describes four groups of people, all of whom had perfected a specific area of knowledge that facilitated serving God in different ways. The commonality between these four groups is that they each refused to teach their acquired knowledge and for this our Sages severely castigated them. While there is discussion in the Talmud and various commentators as to whether some of these groups may or may not have been justifiably motivated in withholding this information, the overriding message of the second Mishna is that by default there is an obligation incumbent on all to share all knowledge facilitating our service of God.

This sentiment is echoed by the Kabbalist, R. Yehuda HaChassid, who says, “Anyone who God revealed information to and doesn’t write it and is capable of writing it, such a person is stealing from the One who revealed it, for [God] only revealed it to him so that he should write it, as written ‘God’s secret is to those who fear Him, and His covenant is to make it known [through] them.’”[32]

Therefore, in our day and age, in the run-up to Messianic times, there is an incumbent obligation upon all those who have knowledge of true Torah based Kabbalah, to translate, explain and share Kabbalah texts and concepts for the consumption of the many who deeply thirst and yearn for them.[33] Through this and the wider study of true Torah based Kabbalah, may it be God’s Will that the prophecy of the Zohar will be fulfilled that “In the future, Israel will taste of the Tree of Life, which is this book of the Zohar [the knowledge of Kabbalistic wisdom], and with it will exit the exile with mercy [with minimal hardship].”[34]

[1] The author’s conclusions in this essay are based on his observations, detailed research and consultations with various Rabbis and Kabbalists. In addition, his Kabbalistic translations, commentaries, and in-depth presentations have been published with the blessing and approbation of leading Rabbis and Kabbalists. Notwithstanding that, there may be those who disagree with him.

[2]  The Artscroll Nefesh HaChaim translation project had reached the end of the 2nd Gateway.

[3] This was certainly true as per inquiries made at the time of publishing Nefesh HaTzimtzum, when investigating publication possibilities with a boutique publishing house who used Feldheim Publishers as their distribution channel. Although not personally validated, I recently heard that Feldheim Publishers have changed their policy on this.

[4] This Judaica Press edition was published in 2009.

[5] The integral nature of these notes is clearly evidenced by several direct references to them from the main text of Nefesh HaChaim (see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 1, p. 54, fn. 50).

[6] R. Ergas’ Shomer Emunim was first published in 1736 and is also known today as Shomer Emunim HaKadmon. This is to differentiate it from the much later work first published in 1942, composed by the leader of a specific Chassidic sect that is known for its extreme views. As we will see, one of the primary objectives of Shomer Emunim was to specifically combat the Kabbalistic distortions of the Sabbatians.

[7] Mishna Avot 3:14: “A desirable vessel [the Torah] was given to them [Israel] … with which the world was created.” (It should be noted that this statement does not appear in all versions of Mishna Avot. It does however appear in the Bar Ilan Responsa version. It is also directly referred to in several important commentaries on this Mishna, including those from Rashi, Rabbeinu Yona, Tosefot Yom Tov and Tiferet Yisrael.)

Bereishit Rabba 1:1: “God looked into the Torah and created the world. The Torah states ‘With Reishit, God created’ [Bereishit 1:1], and there is no ‘Reishit’ apart from Torah.”

Zohar II Pekudei 221a: “When God wanted to create the world, He looked into the Torah and created it.”

See Nefesh HaTzimtzum: Vol. 1, p. 128, fn. 74; Vol. 1, p. 666/682; Vol. 2, p. 162.

[8] Detailed sources relating to the importance of including Kabbalah within a Torah curriculum from the Ramchal, Vilna Gaon, Baal HaTanya and others, are brought and discussed in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Translator’s Introduction, Chap. 4, pp. 46-52.

[9] Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Second Introduction, Third Prerequisite, p. 340.

[10] There are many who consider that Kabbalah study is primarily subject to a minimum age. However, the real criterion is not reaching a particular age, rather it is the attainment of a suitable level of maturity of understanding. This is explained with sources in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Translator’s Introduction, Chap. 4, pp. 51-52.

[11] Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Second Introduction, Fourth Prerequisite, p. 362 (and fn. 133 there).

[12] Details of the transmission contrast between the Kabbalah and the other parts of Torah are brought in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Translator’s Introduction, Chap. 5, pp. 58-63. The details touched on in the following paragraphs relating to the greater accessibility to Kabbalistic concepts directly resulting from recent scientific advancement are expanded upon in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Translator’s Introduction, at the end of Chap. 4, and also in Chap. 5.

[13] Details about Chayun are provided in several places in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah that can be found from its Index of People’s Names.

[14] Tochachat Megula, London, 1715, p. 9a

[15] A play on Mishlei 11:13. The connotation of a “talebearer” being highly pejorative, as e.g., expressed in the Mishna brought in Sanhedrin 29a.

[16] Mishlei 25:2.

[17] Kohelet 3:1.

[18]  Tehillim 119:126. This verse underpins a Halachic concept brought down in many places, e.g., Berachot 54a, that justifies developing or changing a previously accepted practice to prevent error arising from the changed circumstances of a new era. In this case it relates to the practice of being silent about Kabbalistic secrets.

[19] Kohelet 3:7.

[20] Kinat Hashem Tzvaot, as per the complete edition published in Ginzei Ramchal, compiled by R. Chaim Friedlander, Bnei Brak, 1980, pp. 73-74.

[21] Zohar I Vayera 118a.

[22] See further comment on this Zohar piece by R. Shlomo Elyashiv, the “Leshem,” in Leshem Shevo VeAchlama, Sefer HaDe’ah (Sefer Derushei Olam HaTohu), Vol. 1, Derush 5, Siman 3, Ot 4 (see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 153).

[23] E.g., there is a Kabbalistic principle that every whole contains all the parts but at the same time every part contains the whole. Until recently this was a very difficult concept to relate to. However, with the recent scientific understanding of what DNA is, every educated child knows that all human cells in a person’s body contain DNA and that the DNA is a code structure from which the whole body is constructed. So, using the DNA as an analogy a child can, nowadays, easily relate to this Kabbalistic concept.

[24]  The Ben Ish Chai (1835-1909) was an outstanding Kabbalist, a highly respected rabbinic authority, a gifted educator and a prolific author writing about all parts of Torah.

[25] Rav Pe’alim, Part 1, Yoreh De’ah, Question 56. The full responsum is lengthy and can be seen here. The following is a detailed outline of the key points of this responsum:

  • Previous authors have not forbidden translation of the Idra Rabba as it has not previously occurred to anyone to do such a thing.
  • There was however a precedent recorded in a responsum which the Ben Ish Chai quotes in full, from R. Yosef Chanina Lipa Meisels, the head of the Bet Din of Przemyśl, written to R. Chaim, the head of the Bet Din of Sanz. It deals with a question about the permissibility of translating Ein Yaakov, the Aggadah/story narrative of the Talmud, into German [This responsum was published in R. Meisels’ Tiferet Yosef, Przemyśl 1869 edition, p. 133a].
    • R. Meisels strictly forbids such a translation. His key point is that the Aggadah of the Talmud contains exalted secrets that are only accessible to select individuals and he states “it is forbidden to explain the majority of the Aggadah in a literal way so that one will not come to physicalize God, God forbid.”
  • If these sages were so zealous about translating Talmudic statements then how very much more so should this apply to the Idra Rabba, which is entirely comprised of exalted secrets. “It is certainly forbidden to translate it into any other language as a translation will [misleadingly] appear to its reader as giving over the real meaning of the original author.”
  • In addition, in contrast to the rest of the Torah, the book of Shir Hashirim was written as an analogy that significantly departs from its literal presentation as a love song. This is reflected in the official Targum, Aramaic translation, of Shir Hashirim, which is not a literal translation, compared to the Targum of the rest of Torah, which is literal. Therefore, in response to an approach by someone who had written a literal Arabic translation of Shir Hashirim for his young students, the Ben Ish Chai forbade it and considered it misleading for young children and the uneducated, who would consider the literal translation to be the real meaning.
    • This demonstrates that if a literal translation of Shir Hashirim is inappropriate, how much more so that the Idra Rabba should not be translated into another language.
  • A translation into Arabic of the Idra Rabba which literally expresses Divine concepts in physical terms, would expose it to misinterpretation by Jews and non-Jews, leading to erroneous understanding and blasphemy “when they see the Higher Realms described in physical terms.”
  • The Zohar and in particular its sections, the Idra Rabba and Idra Zuta, contains great depth and was written with multifaceted meaning in a highly encrypted way, such that it is only accessible to one who is on an appropriate level. The Lurianic teachings were also written down in an encrypted format such that only a great sage, who was verbally handed down the keys to relate to them, can unlock an understanding of their meaning. Even with this, there are concepts from the Lurianic teachings that have remained locked and beyond the grasp of even the greatest such scholars.
  • More than this, with the exception of the Arizal’s primary student, R. Chaim Vital, even the greatest students of the Lurianic teachings who heard them directly from the Arizal himself were requested by the Arizal to desist from their study as their incorrect understanding could lead them to blasphemy and self-destruction. How very much more so is this the case with one who studies these ideas from books without receiving a handed down verbal tradition.
    • “This is because these secrets can only be spoken about when framed in the context of human physicality … but they don’t have even the slightest physical nature about them at all.”
  • An additional strong argument as to why the Idra Rabba and Idra Zuta should not be translated is that they, together with the rest of the Zohar, were written with Divine Inspiration. This means that every word contains great encoded secrets, far beyond the meaning of the words, related to hinted meaning encoded in the sequence of its letters, numerical letter values etc., such that is found in the words of prayer constructed with Divine Inspiration by the Men of the Great Assembly.
  • Now, our Torah also contains great encoded secrets related to letter sequences, numerical values etc. so how can it be permitted to translate the Torah? There is a clear distinction, as with all the great secrets embedded in the Torah, it nevertheless has a true literal meaning. However, the Idra Rabba and Idra Zuta, together with the Zohar, only have encrypted and encoded meaning and do not have any literal meaning at all.
  • “With all that has been said above … it should suffice to forbid the translation of the Idra Rabba and Idra Zuta, and the Zohar, into any other language, and there is no need to elaborate on this.”
  • The Ben Ish Chai closes his responsum with the following statement:
    • “There is just one point I will bring to strengthen our words from the teaching of the well-known Kabbalist, R. Yosef Ergas in Shomer Emunim [2:11, from the discussion of the 5th principle ] as follows:
      • “‘Take care, that when you think about any of the Sefirot, that you should not apply your abilities of imagination [to them] and that through such imagination come to frame the Sefirot in a physical context. This is a complete mistake and serious offense. Rather, you should intellectually focus on the concept [of each Sefira] and imagine the form of the letters of the Names [of God, as each Sefira is associated with a different Name of God], as you are permitted to do this. But, one who imagines more than the letters, frames [the Sefirot] in a physical context. Imagining the letters [of the Names of God, is done] with the intellectual thought that this [structure of the Name] ‘YHVH’ relates to the secret of a particular Sefira as is known from Sefer HaKavanot and is similarly written in [R. Moshe Cordovero’s] Sefer Eilima [Maayan 1 (Ein Kol), Tamar 1, Chap. 5, which is the source for this entire statement].’
    • “[The Ben Ish Chai continues:] It is therefore that even with the names of the Sefirot it is required to think about their letters. As it is with [the letters] that the conceptual secret of the Sefira is hinted. If you translate the names of the Sefirot, which are Keter, Chochma, Binah, etc. to another language, constructing each Sefira out of different letters as per the foreign language, then you have corrupted the secret of that Sefira, as this is not the name of the Sefira or its secret. For that Sefira is only called with these letters of Keter, or Chochma, or Binah etc. When you read them with different letters [pronouncing them] as per a translation the result is that you are lying.
    • “These words are true and the Rav [R. Ergas] brought them from R. Moshe Cordovero. These are exactly the points that I argued above about the translation of the holy Idra [Rabba] into another language ….”

[26] R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel writes about the conditions and methods for Zohar study in his Vayeshev HaYam, Part 3, Siman 32, sect. 11, which includes the following statement (the original Hebrew is followed by its translation and analysis):

… ובפרט יש להודיע ולהזהיר, לגבי אותם הקטעים שבזוהר העוסקים על דרך הסוד, שאיסור חמור הוא לתרגם אותם, כי אין בהם שייכות עם הפשט, והם סודות מופשטים ונעלמים, ורק שהלבישום במשלים גשמיים, אבל אין להם שום דמיון עם המשל החיצוני לפי האמת. ולכן אין בתרגומם שום תועלת כלל, כי הרי אין הדברים כפשטן כלל. ואדרבא הוא מזיק מאד, שמגשים בתכלית את הסודות. (ופשוט דגם ללשון הקודש אין נכון לתרגם לשונות כאלו). וכבר האריך בזה בתשובה רבינו הרי”ח טוב ז”ל בשו”ת רב פעלים (חלק א’ חלק יו”ד סימן נ”ו), וגזר חרם ושמתא על אדם אחד על שתרגם שיר השירים והאדרות וספר שומר אמונים ללשון ערבי המדוברת בין היהודים (באותיות עבריות). ואסר בכל תוקף לתרגם סודות התורה, עי”ש באורך.

“It should specifically be made known and the caution given, that there is a severe prohibition to translate those passages of the Zohar that relate to Kabbalistic secrets, as they do not have any associated literal meaning. They are abstracted and concealed secrets expressed using physical analogies. However, in truth, they are not comparable with the external analogy. Therefore, there is no purpose in translating them at all, as these matters are not like their literal meaning at all. On the contrary, it is very damaging, as it absolutely physicalizes the secret concepts. (It is obvious that it is also improper to translate these expressions [from Aramaic] into Hebrew.) This has already been elaborated upon by R. Yosef Chaim in a responsum in Rav Pe’alim (Part 1, Yoreh De’ah, Question 56). He decreed the excommunication of an individual who translated Shir Hashirim, the Idrot [Rabba and Zuta] and the work Shomer Emunim into Arabic that was spoken by the Jews (using Hebrew letters). He forbade, in the strongest terms, the translation of the secrets of the Torah. Refer there at length.”

R. Hillel’s comment broadly echoes one of the key points of the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum. However, his brief closing statement summarizing the Ben Ish Chai’s responsum is highly inaccurate, as follows:

1. While the Ben Ish Chai strictly forbids translation, he did not decree excommunication of anyone;

2. There were three people involved in acts of translation, not one. One from Bombay who translated the Idra Rabba into Arabic, the primary subject of the responsum. Another, referred to in a quoted responsum, who translated Ein Yaakov into German. Then there was a third person from Baghdad who translated Shir HaShirim into Arabic, referred to within the detailed discussion;

3. The responsum gives no indication or any reason to assume that the translations were written down using Hebrew letters, and they all appear to have been written in their translated language of Arabic and German;

4. There is no mention in the responsum of anyone having translated Shomer Emunim into any language;

5. Most importantly, in contrast to explicitly stating that it is forbidden to translate Idra Rabba, and to literally translate Ein Yaakov and Shir HaShirim, the responsum does not say that it is forbidden to translate Shomer Emunim!

[27] R. Klein (1924-2011) penned at least 19 volumes of responsa together with more than 20 other works.

[28] Mishne Halachot, Vol. 10, Siman 164. R. Klein also wrote a brief responsum on Kabbalah study in current times (Mishne Halachot, Vol. 7, Siman 220) in which he unsurprisingly mentions his disfavor with the fact that “Kabbalistic works have already begun to be translated into English and studied in English.”

[29] The single individual providing this view explained that the Hebrew language is holy, whereas Aramaic is something called “Kelipat Nogah,” a milder form of impurity that can be used for the good. In contrast, he considered that other languages and scientific concepts, like non-Kosher meat, are part of what is called the “3 Core Kelipot,” a stronger form of impurity that has no good application. A proper contextual explanation of Kelipat Nogah and the 3 Core Kelipot has been provided elsewhere (see Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, Kabbalah Overview, Chap. 3, Section 4), however, the basic point is that the essential difference between them relates to different levels of impurity, and it this difference that specifically determines much of the Halachic legal practice required by the Torah. Most entities in this physical world are either Kelipat Nogah or from the 3 Core Kelipot. An entity that is Kelipat Nogah is what would Halachically be defined as “Mutar,” permitted to engage with, and the purpose of the Torah Commandments is to engage with Kelipat Nogah in a positive way to elevate it from impurity to holiness. For example, a Kosher piece of meat is Kelipat Nogah. If it is eaten in the correct measure to cater for the body’s needs so that the body is specifically empowered to engage in good activities, then the Kosher meat together with the person eating it are elevated in holiness by this action. However, if it is eaten gluttonously in surplus quantities for no other purpose than to satisfy an animalistic desire, then the person eating it descends into a level of impurity. This level of impurity is relatively easier to subsequently rectify. So, Kelipat Nogah is an entity that has the potential to either be used for holiness or impurity, it can go either way depending on how we choose to use it. In contrast an entity that is part of the 3 Core Kelipot is Halachically defined as “Assur,” as forbidden by the Torah to engage with. For example, a non-Kosher piece of meat is part of the 3 Core Kelipot. If it is eaten, the person eating it descends into a severe level of impurity that is far more challenging to subsequently rectify.

Against this background, the question is which category of Kelipah truly includes the foreign languages. Are they Kelipat Nogah and therefore Mutar, or are they part of the 3 Core Kelipot and Assur. There is a principle that Kabbalah must be consistent with Halacha and this is a key to answer this question (e.g., expressed by the Vilna Gaon, see Nefesh HaTzimtum, Vol. 1, p. 42). Therefore, if the Halacha permits the Torah to be translated into foreign languages, it must be Mutar and Kelipat Nogah. The Torah records Moshe’s instruction to the Jewish People that after crossing over the Jordan River into Israel, they should set up large stones upon which the Torah should be written,“Ba’er Hetev/in a well explained manner” (Devarim 27:8). Our Sages comment that “Ba’er Hetev/well explained” means “in 70 languages” (Sotah 32a/36a, see Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, p. 834, fn. 407 for deeper insight). It is therefore very clear that our Sages understand that it is Mutar to translate the Torah into 70 languages (see bracketed paragraph below marked with *). Furthermore, we have various Halachic practices that are specifically permitted to be performed in any language. For example, the Mishna Berura writes that “the Acharonim write that the [commandment of] counting the Omer can be fulfilled in any language” (Mishna Berurah, Hilchot Pesach, 489:1:5). It is therefore very clear that Torah permits the usage of any language, that all foreign languages are Mutar, Kelipat Nogah, and are not part of the 3 Core Kelipot as was asserted. (Note that in Likutei Moharan 1:19, R. Nachman of Breslov seems to say that the “holy language” is differentiated from the 70 languages which are part of the “3 Core Kelipot.” However, there is no contradiction, as other teachings from R. Nachman and his school clarify this by defining his use of the term “holy language” as referring to the purity and sanctification of speech, in all languages and not just Hebrew. E.g., see Likutei Eitzot, Erech Hitbodedut, 13/Erech Brit Pegamo Vetikuno, 11; Hishtapchut HaNefesh, Ot 70; Kitzur Likutei Moharan MiMoharanat, 1:19:9.)

In relation to the use of scientific concepts as analogies however, the individual who expressed this view is clearly unaware that much of the language of Kabbalah is based on and expressed through the contemporary scientific knowledge available at the time of writing. It is therefore clear that the use of scientific analogies to properly explain Kabbalah is also Mutar and is certainly not part of the 3 Core Kelipot. The historic usage of contemporary science to explain Kabbalah is detailed in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, p. 47-48, fn. 38.

*(Further insight is provided in the Kabbalistic work Shela, Masechet Shabbat, Perek Ner Mitzva, 13, who quotes the Halachic work Mateh Moshe, 464, which provides an explanation of why our Sages explain that we are required to review the Torah portion three times each week, twice in Hebrew and once with Aramaic translation. In particular, Mateh Moshe explains why fulfilment of this requirement is specifically in the sequence of first twice in Hebrew and only then the third time in Aramaic. He bases himself, without quoting it, on the Talmud, Chagigah 6b, which states “R. Akiva said: The generality and details [of the Torah] were said over at Sinai. They were repeated in the Ohel Moed/Tent of Meeting. They were repeated again BeArvot Moav/in the Plains of Moav.” It should be noted that Moshe’s instruction to set up large stones upon which the Torah should be written Ba’er Hetev, in 70 languages, was given BeArvot Moav. Mateh Moshe as quoted by Shela, says the following: “I heard the reason why it is necessary to complete the weekly portion [three times]. It corresponds to the Torah which was given three times. The first time on Mount Sinai. The second time in Ohel Moed and the third time Ba’er HeTev. It is for this reason that we read each verse twice [in Hebrew] and the third time is the Aramaic translation, corresponding to Ba’er HeTev.”)

[30] R. Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983) left a substantial legacy of Torah literature in English, plumbing all aspects of Jewish thought. This included several important works on Kabbalah.

[31] Mishna Yoma 3:10-11. The second of these, Mishna 11 (quoting Mishlei 10:7) is as follows:

“And these are to be denigrated: Those of the House of Garmu did not want to teach how to make the [Temple] showbread. Those of the House of Avtinas did not want to teach how to produce the [Temple] incense. Hugras the Levite had a special musical skill and did not want to teach it. Ben Kamtzar did not want to teach a [special] writing skill. Concerning the first ones [listed in the previous Mishna, Mishna 10], it is said ‘The mention of a righteous one is for a blessing.’ And concerning these [listed above in this Mishna], it is said ‘And the name of the wicked will rot.’”

[32] Sefer Chassidim, 530. A more complete quotation from this source is as follows:

“God decrees who will be wise and what the nature of his wisdom will be, how many years [he will live] and how many works he will produce. There are those who are decreed to produce one work, or two, or three. Similarly, [in producing commentary on the] Talmud. Similarly, [in producing] Scriptural explanations. Similarly, with other secrets. Anyone who God revealed information to and does not write it and is capable of writing it, such a person is stealing from the One who revealed it, for [God] only revealed it to him so that he should write it, as written ‘God’s secret is to those who fear Him, and His covenant is to make it known [through] them’ [Tehillim 25:14], and it is written ‘Your wellsprings shall disseminate outwards’ [Mishlei 5:16]. This is the meaning of the verse ‘Judgment is brought for all that which is concealed, [whether good or evil]’ [Kohelet 12:14], as he causes that it should be concealed, ‘whether good’ [meaning the information] that was revealed to him, ‘whether evil’ [meaning] that he does not write it [causing it to be concealed].”

R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, the “Chida,” wrote a commentary on Sefer Chassidim named Brit Olam (published at the end of the Livorno/Leghorn 1789 edition of the Chida’s work Lev David). His comments on Sefer Chassidim, 530, conclude with:

“I saw in the manuscript work of R. Ephraim on the Torah, on the Torah portion of [Ki] Tissa, that he wrote in the name of [the Kabbalist] R. Elazar of Garmiza of blessed memory [the author of Sefer HaRokeach], that whoever Heaven reveals Torah secrets to and does not write them will ultimately undergo judgement.”

[33] One may ask that surely the Talmud, Chagiga 11b, restricts the Kabbalistic study that it refers to as the “Maaseh Bereishit/Act of Creation” and “Maaseh Merkava/Act of the Chariot” to just one or two people. Therefore, how can we even begin to discuss the mass dissemination of this information? The answer is that the stern injunction given by this section of the Talmud is only applicable to the teaching of practical acts using Kabbalah and does not forbid the teaching and publication of general Kabbalistic knowledge. This is explained in context with sources in Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to Kabbalah, p. 49, fn. 40.

[34] Zohar Raya Mehemna III Naso 124b.