When it comes to yiddishkeit I often find myself to be rationalist-aphilic. I see a lot of positives and truth in removing myth and mysticism from places in Judaism that it seems to have been forced into. However, as with all good things, this is only true in moderation. I cannot abide by the notion that Judaism is meant to be devoid of the super-rational or mystical. Here’s why.

Let’s start with the chumash. In studying the chumash I feel the need to subscribe to what has been called “omni-significance” - in other words I believe that each and every word (or even letter) that is in the chumash has meaning. My argument for this is that the inverse would seem to be ridiculous. What I understand the opposing position to be is that some parts of the torah either had meaning at a certain time (korbanot) or who passages can be included in a narrative in order to teach a general lesson even if the particular passages are not necessary (census numbers). My question is why would this be so? If on the one hand chazal are always careful to expound an extra word (or even letter) why would there suddenly be whole chunks of text which for all intents and purposes don’t really matter?

The mystical approach resolves this in spades. Every last word is chalk-full of eternal meaning. Doesn’t that enhance kavod shomayim? If the options are a chumash that has sporadic meaning mixed in with whole swaths of text that are essentially superfluous (why do we need to know the genealogy of the kings of Eisav?) versus one in which the creator carefully and meticulously chose each and every word I cannot see the rationale for embracing the former.

This leads in to a discussion of meaning. If God says to do something I wholeheartedly agree that that statement is the one and only reason to do it. It is the best reason bar none. However, what would be a simple act of obedience can, and I would argue should, become much more significant if the internal mechanics that surrounded the command where better understood. I can tell my kid to eat her veggies, but if I can help her understand the benefits of doing so, the detrimental consequences of failing to do so and my role as her care taker and how I am making the request because of those factors. Then, not only will she have a greater appreciation and (hopefully) zeal and enthusiasm for doing what I say, but she will have a greater cognizance of me. She won’t just see me as the authority figure who barks orders, but will rather understand that we have a relationship and that I am contributing to it in a unique and important way. That realization will in-turn color how she views other statements I make (requests and directives).

The same is true of our relationship with God. Much of kabbalah is a description of the spiritual blueprints that underlie creation. Understanding this material helps a person have a deeper and, in my experience, more profound relationship to mitzvot. To be clear, there is a rationalist approach to understanding mitzvot as well. The Rambam assigns meaning to many mitzvot, however this is not done so for all mitzvot and many times the explanations are local such as sacrifices which he explains as a conceit to our desire to to have ritualistic sacrifice like the other nations. That’s apples to oranges when compared to the metaphysical understanding. It basically assumes no “real” significance for korbanot other than to appease the people at the time. It is localized. The kabbalistic approach relates to spiritual truths which existed from the inception of creation and continue to hold true. In this example I prefer the kabbalistic approach because it makes the fact that we still say the korbanot meaningful.

Furthermore I find the rationalist viewpoint on historical changes in Judaism to be problematic. One basic principle that I think everyone agrees with is that God orchestrates history. I would append to that an idea which, though not universally accepted, still carries weight, namely that the historical progression of the Jewish people is acutely divinely supervised. What that should yield is that if “the Jewish people”, which I agree is increasingly impossible to define, adopt some practice (such as kabbalat Shabbat) or have some sort of major event (holocaust, establishing the state of Israel) those things have actual spiritual significance. I’m not really interested in their exact origins.

I think this last point is one that rationalists take umbrage with, and I agree it can get messy trying to determine which practices and events should be treated as significant. Thankfully we have leaders in every generation; I am content to leave those decisions to them.

What about some of the really weird stuff on the mystical side? Blanket questions like that are never helpful in moving dialogue ahead. I will admit that there are ideas in kabbalah which are difficult to understand or accept at first blush. Then again, the same can be said for many other things in yiddishkeit which may not be in keeping with an individuals sensibilities. That is actually the crux of the matter. If you find something in Judaism that doesn’t make sense to you, it is important to do 2 things right away.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If you learn something that makes you doubt, question, or just plain angry, find someone more learned than you and get into a discussion. Expand your mind. Be open to the possibility that you may need to incorporate information that isn’t in keeping with how you’d like the world to be.

These are the most salient points that come readily to mind. I may add more over time.

Thoughts?