Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There is a famous dictum: 'lo ba'shomayim he', meaning that after the torah was given at Sinai its rules, mandates and precepts are determined by man and not dictated by heaven. An example is when there was an argument about the halachic status of an oven the ruling followed the majority in spite of a clear proclamation from heaven which supported the minority view (Bava Metzia 86b).

I would like to know if this applies to mystical or kabbalistic matters as well. For example if a majority of kabbalists view a phenomenon in a certain way, and Rabbi Yitzchak Luria disagrees. Would we follow the majority or would we say that since Rabbi Luria was divinely inspired (perhaps by Eliyahu or through some other divine assistance) we would follow his minority interpretation instead.

In short, do we apply the principle of 'lo ba'shomayim he' to kabbalah?

Note: Please answer in general, and not just for the above example.

share|improve this question
1  
Isn't it more related to the commandments in the Torah of Moses, rather than to other ideas? – Annelise Aug 30 '13 at 2:11
    
There is plenty of Torah about this question. – Hacham Gabriel Aug 30 '13 at 3:12
3  
"Would we follow the majority or would [...] we would follow his minority interpretation instead". What do you mean by "follow"? – Tamir Evan Aug 30 '13 at 4:35
    
1  
I sill don't understand: In the Halakhic process, even the rejected views are correct( 'Elu ve-'Elu Divrei 'Elohim Chayim), to the extent that some say that at a future date( sometime after the Mashi'ach comes) Halakhah will be decided according to Beit Shamai. The only problem is, that with many correct views, what do we do in practice, and the solution is to follow the majority view, even against a divinely supported one. In kabbalah, what does choosing a "normative position" say about the rejected ones? With more than one [correct?] view, why do we need to choose one as "normative"? – Tamir Evan Sep 2 '13 at 7:13

We find in Sanhedrin 104b how the Chachamim were about to count someone in to the list of those not set to have a part in Olam Habbah. Then his father's figure appeared and begged for his sake, but was ignored. A fire sprung up on the edges of their benches and they ignored it. They likewise ignored heavenly voices calling out his merits. However, what stopped them was when the heavenly voice said, 'Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, 'or whether thou choose; and not I etc.'

This is the attitude Mekubalim have when faced with the words of the Arizal. He knew and you assume, so you'll put aside your ideas and accept his. Actually, even in Halacha we put off our own judgement in favor of earlier traditions.

Although in Kabbalah, and non-Halachah in general, there is no Psak and Rov in the conventional sense (since it doesn't reach a Beis Din), there always exists the universal concept of consensus. When something is roundly rejected or accepted, that is taken as the true view. We find mentions of 'Daas Yachid' in topics not directly Halachah related.

share|improve this answer
    
I would argue that, while not technically halacha, the declaration of someone as not having Olam Habbah is most definitely not metaphysics/kabbalah. Essentially, the question is whether the Earthly Beis Din has the capacity to adjudge someone as violating a Bein Adam LaMakom whose punishment is the loss of Olam Habah. Thus, their voting on the question does seem legitimate (since if the defendant were alive they could decree him liable for bringing sin offerings). – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 2 at 13:46
    
@IsaacKotlicky Beis Din has the capacity to judge anything, including whether the hairs on a pomegranate are part of the peel or not, as long as it is a question of what to do. If there is no question of action Beis Din won't be deciding it, no matter how essential. They won't be discussing theistic evolution (unless it's for the practical purpose of considering someone a heretic). – HaLeiVi Mar 2 at 13:57
    
Considering that this is included in the Mishnah, there does seem to be a relevant halachic outcome - perhaps, as you note, in determining when someone has "crossed the threshold" into heresy? So it is important for B"D to decide whether a historical person has indeed trespassed for determining future issues. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 2 at 15:04
    
@IsaacKotlicky This is a discussion of the Chachamim not a ruling in Beis Din. – HaLeiVi Mar 2 at 15:26
    
R'Yehuda HaNasi codified Mishnayot to convey legal dialectic, not stories. Since Chelek specifically addresses "mi she'ayn lo chelek le'olam habah," this is a halachic discussion BY the chachamim that has PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS for future batei dinim. That is why it's included in Sanhedrin. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 2 at 18:18

The Maharal explains that the halachah is always the central point of all opinions that can be brought to bear on a subject.

Therefore Torah lo bashamayim hi because the reasoning of shamayim is not relevant to determining the centrality of halachic opinion.

Kaballah is the way things work, not the ratzon Hashem that acts upon those things. Things can work concurrently in contradictory ways, so there is no reason to look for the centrality of approach regarding kaballah.

share|improve this answer
    
"Things can work concurrently in contradictory ways" What does that mean? TTBOMK contradictions imply that I am an 7'5" astronaut and that Harry Truman is Zarathustra. – Double AA May 2 at 2:52
    
@DoubleAA Are you conflating lies with contradictions? – HaLeiVi May 2 at 12:56
    
@HaLeiVi No, I am not. Given as true two arbitrary claims, P and ~P, as well as the unknown claim Q = "I am an 7'5" astronaut and that Harry Truman is Zarathustra", we can first derive as true the claim P v Q via disjunction introduction. Then we derive as true the claim Q via disjunctive syllogism. QED. – Double AA May 2 at 14:41

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.