chapter 3 Merging Traditions: The Sha’ar haShamayim Yeshiva
Criticism against the Sharabian Monopoly
The exclusivity of the RaShaSh’s way also drew criticism from some Jerusalem- based kabbalists who espoused different traditions or a new interpretive ap- proach These factors did not consider the Sharabian meditative prayer to be the center of the kabbalah world, nor did they view the RaShaSh’s writing to be the definitive and most accurate reading of the Lurianic mystical tradition. Upon acquainting himself with Jerusalem’s kabbalists in 1922, Yehuda Leib Ashlag (1885–1955) excoriated them for, above all, their meager comprehen- sion of the kabbalah’s inner meaning. More precisely, he asserted that they were clueless in all that concerns Lurianic knowledge. At the time, Jerusalem had several kabbalah centers, but the brunt of his criticism was apparently directed at the mekhavvnim that followed in Sharabi’s footsteps and interpret- ed HaARI’s kabbalistic works on this basis. Ashlag’s contentions turn up in a shelved introduction to one of his books:
Upon finally meeting the most famous among them, namely people that had already spent their [best] years learning the works of HaARI and the Zohar and managed to acquaint themselves with HaARI’s books to the point of astonishment, I asked them if they had studied under a rabbi with an understanding of the inner nature of things, and they answered me – I am hesitant to remind you, there is no internalness save for the words as they are written [and] transmitted to us and nothing else. So I asked them if R. Hayyim Vital comprehended the inner nature of things, and they answered me – He certainly did not attain more than we do. I then asked them about HaARI himself, and they answered me – He cer- tainly did not know internalness any more than we do; and everything that he did know, he passed on to his disciple R. Hayyim Vital, and these [insights thus] reached our hands. In consequence, I laughed at them a great deal; for if this is so, how did the insights take shape in HaARI’s heart without any understanding and knowledge. And they answered me – the work of the things [i.e., the kabbalah wisdom] he received from the mouth of Elijah, and he knew the internalness because he was an angel.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi 10.1163/9789004321649_004
At this point, I released my frustration on them, for I had run out of pa- tience to stand next to them.1
By this point in his life, Ashlag had already begun to develop his own unique interpretation of Luria’s works, which had a major impact on kabbalists in the second half of the 1900s. Moreover, he saw himself as the current receptacle of HaARI’s itinerant soul, so that his commentary was the final word on the distinguished rabbi’s gospel. Ashlag attracted a small yet loyal following. In around 1938, he established “beit ulpana rabata itur rabanim [the Ornament of Rabbis Great Seminary] for the Study and Dissemination of the Wisdom of Kabbalah in Jerusalem.” Operated out of Ashlag’s house, this outfit was basically a foundation for advancing the study of kabbalah and publishing the founder’s books, which diverged sharply from the Sharabian kabbalah.2 R. Israel Abuhatzeira (the Baba Sali, 1889–1984), who earned quite a reputa- tion as a miracle worker in the State of Israel, is said to have voiced his own reservations concerning the RaShaSh’s approach to kabbalah during visits to Palestine in circa 1922 and 1933.3 Nevertheless, Abuhatzeira studied this brand of kabbalah while in Jerusalem with Eliyahu Yaakov Lag'imi (the aforemen- tioned sage who was affiliated with Beit El and Rehovot haNahar). In parallel, he took steps to publish the works of his brother David.4 Shlomo Elyashiv (1841–1926), a respected kabbalist from Lithuania who provided his own take on HaARI’s gospel in Sefer Leshem Shevo ve-Aḥlamah, also raised concerns about the monopoly of the RaShaSh’s kabbalistic thought and the intention-oriented approach. Towards the end of his life (circa 1922), Elyashiv settled down in Jerusalem, where he formed bonds with circles of mekhavvnim. For a short while, he was a regular and taught classes at Rehovot
1 Ashlag, “Haqdama Pi Ḥakham,” in Hakdanot haSulam, 188. Also see his letters criticizing the Sharabian way and Jerusalem’s kabbalists; idem, Igrot haSulam, 264–266 (letter 47), 273 (letter 48), 284–285 (letter 52), 333 (letter 62). 2 For a disquisition on Ashlag and other Jerusalem-based kabbalists, see Meir, “Wrestling with the Esoteric;” idem, “New Findings,” 345–368; Huss, “Altruistic Communism,” 109–130. 3 Abuhatzeira immigrated to Israel in 1951. For more on this figure, see Abuhatzeira, ha- Saba Qadisha, vols. 1–2; Rigel, Abir Yaacob, 289–395; Harel, Maor Yisrael. These qualms are tied to the difference between Sharabi’s work and that of the Baba Sali’s grandfather, R. Yaakov Abuhatzeira, also known as abir yaakov (Master Jacob). Manor, Kabbalah and Ethics , 33–34. 4 Abuhatzeira, haSaba Qadisha, vol. 1, 91–95, 104, 182, 193–194; Rigel, Master Jacob, 296–299. Lag'imi wrote (together with the Court of the Holy Community of the Maghrebis in Jerusa- lem) an approval for David Abuhatzeira’s books that came out in Jerusalem between 1923 and 1928. See Abuhatzeira, Petakh haOhel; idem, Reisha veSaifa; and idem, Seikhel Tov.