Book Review: Joseph Dan's "Kabbalah: A Very Short Introduction"

Joseph Dan’s “Kabbalah: A Very Short Introduction” has a number of shortcomings. Nonetheless, it offers a good introduction to the subject. The book takes an approach that is largely historical, beginning with a chapter on key terms that presents some historical background, and then continuing with chapters on ancient Jewish mysticism, medieval Jewish kabbalah, modern Christian kabbalah, and several modern Jewish mystical and kabbalist movements (i.e., Safedian and Lurianic kabbalah, Sabbatianism, Hasidism, and contemporary kabbalah). Some of the chapters are excellent (especially chapters two, three, and six). But all the chapters are good, and the book contains a wealth of useful information. It is impossible to understand kabbalah without some knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic Judaism, which unfortunately cannot be adequately explained in a short introduction. Still, much of Dan’s book will be accessible to readers with little previous exposure to the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic Judaism, and I would recommend Dan’s book to anyone who is new to kabbalah. Regardless, I have a few complaints, which I will now set forth.

First, Dan greatly minimizes the ecstatic tradition of kabbalah associated with Abraham Abulafia. Granted, the ecstatic tradition may not have dominated medieval and modern kabbalah as did the theosophical-theurgical tradition (represented by the Zohar etc.), but the ecstatic tradition nevertheless exerted a significant influence on Safedian kabbalists, Hasidism, and even medieval theosophical-theurgical kabbalah, as Moshe Idel makes clear in his book “Kabbalah: New Perspectives.” (See, e.g., Idel’s discussion of Moses Cordovero on p. 101 and his discussion of Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazy on pp. 149-50.) Moreover, ecstatic kabbalah is intrinsically interesting apart from its historical importance, and should not be marginalized as Dan has done.

Second, although Dan spends a few pages on the subject, he fails to provide an adequate explanation of the theosophical-theurgical interpretation of the mitzvot in terms of the sefirot, which is arguably the heart of the theosophical-theurgical tradition (one of the two main kabbalist traditions, the other being the ecstatic tradition which Dan largely ignores). Some examples, such as those found in Adin Steinsaltz’s “The Thirteen Petalled Rose,” would have been helpful here.

Third, Dan’s discussion of the various theosophical-theurgical interpretations of the sefirot is extremely brief – too brief, I believe, for such an introductory text. (For details, see Idel, “Kabbalah: New Perspectives.”)

Fourth, Dan’s discussion of Hasidism is overly brief and confusing. For example, he says little to clarify the role of theurgy in Hasidism or Hasidism’s relationship with ecstatic kabbalah. On page 94, he describes the chief difference between the Hasidim and the mitnagdim (“the Opponents”) as follows: “While the Opponents are essentially loyal to the Lurianic kabbalistic concepts, the Hasidim introduced some new concepts, especially concerning mystical leadership and messianism, into their version of the kabbalah.” This is a badly inadequate summary of Hasidism, and Dan neglects to mention some of the most important aspects of Hasidism in the pages that follow, though he does provide a good explanation of the roles of the zaddik, dynastic leadership, and messianism in Hasidism. On page 103, Dan says that “Traditional kabbalah exists today mainly within the Hasidic communities.” What does he mean by “traditional kabbalah”? He doesn’t specify, but whatever he means, it’s problematic. Suppose that by “traditional kabbalah” he means Lurianic kabbalah. In this case, it should be pointed out that popular Hasidism rejected much of Lurianic kabbalah, at least initially. (I see Lurianic elements in some contemporary Chabad writings, but I wonder how recent or widely studied such ideas are in Chabad. At any rate, as I have already quoted, Dan himself says on page 94 that the Opponents were much more loyal to Lurianic kabbalah than the Hasidim.) Alternatively, suppose that by “traditional kabbalah” Dan means either the medieval theosophical-theurgical tradition or the medieval ecstatic tradition. In that case, it should be pointed out that Hasidism retained elements of both these traditions but rejected others, while Lurianic kabbalah (and so according to Dan the Opponents) did the same. In conclusion, I cannot make sense of Dan’s statement that “Traditional kabbalah exists today mainly within the Hasidic communities.”

Fifth, I think that Dan’s definition of mysticism on pages 10-12 is defective. For a definition that I believe is superior, see page xviii of Idel’s “Kabbalah: New Perspectives.”

Despite these complaints, Dan’s book is really quite a good introduction to kabbalah, and I strongly recommend it. Finally, I should mention that most of the shortcomings of the book are almost certainly due to the spatial limits imposed by Oxford’s Very Short Introduction series. I look forward to reading Dan’s monographs in the future.