HERMENEUTIKA DAN PEREMPUAN
(Hermeneutika Pembebasan Perempuan Dari Tindak kekerasan Berbasis Penafsiran)
Oleh: Suratno
jtau menolak jenis-jenis kekuasaan tertentu. Jadi, hermeneutika tidak hanya sebatas menjalankan penafsiran secara teknis, tetapi lebih jauh dari itu, setiap produksi tafsiran sesungguhnya selalu bermakna serta berakibat politis sehingga problem penafsiran hermeneutis sama nilainya dengan politik hermeneutika.
Politik hermeneutika ini secara umum mengandung dua persoalan yang saling berkaitan. Pertama, hermeneutika berkaitan dengan kedudukan penafsir, teks, serta konteks persoalan yang melingkupinya, baik dalam kurun historis maupun konteks sosiologis tertentu. Dengan demikian, problem pertama hermeneutika adalah menyangkut (politik) bahasa. Peranan bahasa menjadi sentral karena ia merupakan representasi (penghadiran kembali) segala persoalan, realitas, peristiwa, kekuasaan, identitas kelompok, gender dan seksualitas serta berbagai kepentingan lain yang menyertainya. Bahasa menjadi arena bagi kita untuk “hidup” karena ia pula yang menjadi situs untuk melakukan perjuangan. Lantas, dimana posisi Tuhan dalam bahasa itu sendiri karena Tuhan menjadi sosok yang dijadikan pertaruhan terakhir dalam arena konflik saat menafsirkan teks-teks kitab suci? Karl Barth menyatakan bahwa firman (kata-kata) Tuhan merupakan kebenaran absolut sehingga konsekuensinya kata-kata manusia yang terbatas (tidak absolut) tidak mampu dan tidak cukup merepresentasikan-Nya. Lebih lanjut, Barth menjelaskan bahwa pewahyuan teks-teks kitab suci merupakan ketidaktersingkapan kebenaran dalam ketersingkapan itu sendiri. Atau, merujuk Jacques Derrida yang menyatakan bahwa sejarah Tuhan dan nama Tuhan merupakan sejarah kerahasiaan. Oleh karena itu, segala jenis penafsiran merupakan usaha yang tidak akan pernah selesai dalam menyingkap kerahasiaan Tuhan tersebut.
Kedua, hermeneutika berkaitan dengan problem penafsiran teks. Teks berasal dari kata Bahasa Latin textus yang berarti sesuatu yang tertenun secara bersamaan. Apa yang tertenun tidak lain merupakan tanda dan kebahasaan yang dilatar belakangi konteks sejarah dan budaya tertentu. Bila suatu teks (seperti kitab suci) diproduksi dalam kurun waktu yang sangat lampau dan pengarangnya tidak dapat hadir, bagaimana kalangan agamawan pada saat sekarang (sebagai penafsir) dapat menafsirkan teks itu dengan baik dan benar? Dari segi teknis, teks-teks dalam kitab suci dan teks-teks pendukungnya merupakan produk bahasa tulisan yang tentu memiliki perbedaan dengan bahasa lisan. Dengan demikian, secara otomatis problem teknis-penulisan menjadi problem substansi-penafsiran. Untuk mengatasinya, metode hermeneutika yang akan digunakan bisa mengadopsi cara berpikir aliran strukturalisme dengan prinsipnya the death of the author (matinya sang pengarang). Atau seperti Paul Riceoeur, bahwa teks memiliki otonominya sendiri karena sudah terbebas dari intensi atau maksud si pengarangnya, dari situasi sosial dan dari kondisi budaya yang melatar belakangi lahirnya suatu teks, serta untuk siapa teks itu ditujukkan. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa yang menjadi problem bukan apa yang dimaksud si pengarang dengan teks yang dilontarkannya, melainkan pada kemampuan dan kepentingan politik si penafsir untuk “menghidupkan kembali” teks tersebut sesuai dengan kondisi yang menyertainya.
Dari uraian di atas, jelaslah bahwa problem penafsiran hermeneutis ataupun politik hermeneutika, pada intinya, terkait dengan proses menafsirkan teks yang muncul ketika seseorang mengalami keterasingan (alienation) terhadap teks dan maknanya. Namun, politik hermeneutika telah direfleksikan lebih jauh, sehingga tidak saja mencakup metode memahami teks asing, tetapi juga hakikat penafsiran itu sendiri dan bahkan hal-hal di luar teks dan penafsir, serta bahasa yang turut mengatur hasil-hasil penafsiran. Dalam konteks ini kita harus memahami 3 paradigma hermeneutika kontemporer dalam merespon problem penafsiran hermeneutis atau politik hermeneutika seperti di atas yakni hermeneutika teoritis, filosofis dan kritis . Ketiganya akan diterangkan secara ringkas berikut ini.
1. Hermeneutika Teoritis
Dalam hermeneutika teoritis, problemnya adalah metodologi. Jadi, yang menjadi masalah adalah metode apa yang sesuai untuk menafsirkan teks sehingga mampu menghindarkan seorang penafsir dari kesalahpahaman, dus menemukan makna objektif dan dengan metode yang valid. Menurut Schleiermacher, ada 2 bagian yang perlu diperhatikan dalam menafsirkan teks yakni gramatikal dan psikologis.
Dalam penafsiran secara gramatikal, ada 2 prinsip penting yakni; pertama, segala yang membutuhkan ketetapan makna dalam suatu teks tertentu hanya dapat diputuskan dengan merujuk pada lapangan kebahasaan –(kebudayaan)—yang berlaku diantara pengarang dan publik pendengarnya. Kedua, makna suatu kata dari sebuah batang tubuh teks ditetapkan dengan merujuk pada ko-eksistensinya dengan kata-kata lain di sekelilingnya. Dari kedua hal ini, bisa dipahami bahwa penafsiran selalu bersifat holistik dan parsial secara sekaligus dan hal ini oleh Schleiermacher disebut sebagai “Lingkaran Hermeneutik”, yang tidak bisa dipecahkan melalui logika struktural, tetapi melalui cara intuitif ataupun penafsiran secara psikologis.
Dalam penafsiran psikologis, kegiatan menafsirkan tidak hanya berarti bahwa si penafsir menggunakan pengetahuan linguistik dan sejarah kebahasaan yang diperolehnya, tetapi harus merekonstruksi secara imajinatif suasana batin si pengarang. Jadi dalam penafsiran psikologis, kegiatan menafsirkan bukan hanya sebagai peristiwa sejarah tetapi juga peristiwa mental (psikologis).
2. Hermeneutika Filosofis
Jika dalam hermeneutika teoritis penafsiran merupakan proses reproduksi makna sebagaimana diinginkan oleh si pengarang, maka dalam hermeneutika filosofis penafsiran berarti proses produksi makna baru, bukan reproduksi makna awal. Hans George-Gadamer menjelaskan bahwa penafsiran selalu merupakan proses sirkular sehingga kita hanya dapat memahami masa lalu (teks, pengalaman dan sejarah) dari sudut pandang kita dan sudut kekinian kita (our historical present). Oleh karenanya, Gadamer menolak pernyataan yang menganggap bahwa penafsiran merupakan reliving masa lalu dengan menghilangkan identitas penafsir. Penafsir dan teks senantiasa terikat oleh konteks tradisinya masing-masing sehingga sadar atau tidak, penafsir selalu memiliki pra-paham tertentu terhadap teks dan ini menjadikannya sulit menafsirkan teks dari sisi yang netral. Penafsiran hanya mungkin dilakukan melalui the fusion of horizons, yakni mempertemukan pra-paham penafsir dan cakrawala makna yang dikandung teks. Karena gagasan hermeneutika yang ontological oriented ini Gadamer dianugerahi predikat teoritikus yang merehabilitasi konsep prasangka (prejudice), yang krusial bagi pemahaman historis dan budaya. Ini tentu menarik, karena pada saat itu diskursus filsafat dan ilmu pengetahuan masih didominasi saintisme yang bercorak positivistik, di mana netralitas keilmuan dan objektivitas pengetahuan serta orientasi ilmu yang bebas nilai sangat anti-prasangka. Sementara, bagi Gadamer, prasangka sangat penting artinya bagi pemahaman.
3. Hermeneutika Kritis
Hermeneutika filosofis seperti di atas selanjutnya mendapat tentangan dari para pemikir kritik ideologi melalui konsep hermeneutika kritis. Jika dalam hermeneutika filosofis problem akhirnya adalah bahasa dan permainan bahasa, maka dalam hermeneutika kritis, faktor-faktor ekstra-linguistik ditempatkan sebagai masalah yang harus dipecahkan sehingga hal-hal di luar bahasa seperti kerja dan dominasi yang justru sangat menentukan terbentuknya konsep pemikiran dan perbuatan menjadi teramat penting. Menurut Jurgen Habermas, hermeneutika filosofis versi Gadamer telah mempra-anggap-kan pengetahuan yang bersifat steril, bersih dari jejak kepentingan yang menindas sehingga harus disingkap melalui refleksi kritis untuk membuktikan selubung ideologisnya. Jika bagi Gadamer penafsiran merupakan unproblematic meditation of subjectivites, maka bagi Habermas tradisi itu sendiri harus dikenai analisis kritis, yakni kita perlu mengetahui apa yang tersembunyi dibalik “consensus” dan bagaimana berbagai discontinuities dalam makna dan misunderstanding (kesalahpahaman) dapat dijelaskan. Jika bagi Gadamer bahasa merupakan landasan primer komunikasi dan terutama dasar eksistensi serta pengalaman, maka Habermas justru mengkritik bahasa sebagai medium dominasi dan kekuasaan dalam masyarakat. Banyak aspek dalam hermeneutika kritis memang tidak terkait langsung dengan wilayah dan kegiatan penafsiran. Namun, berbagai kritiknya terhadap 2 metode hermeneutika sebelumnya ternyata memberi kontribusi besar bagi diskursus hermeneutika kontemporer terutama pada kekuatannya untuk menghancurkan ilusi-ilusi penafsiran.
Jadi, hermeneutika kritis lebih layak disebut sebagai hermeneutika kecurigaan karena kepentingannya untuk menyingkap tabir-tabir ideologis di balik teks. Sementara, hermeneutika teoritis dan filosofis, keduanya layak disebut hermeneutika keyakinan karena berorientasi ke depan untuk mengapresiasi teks.
PEREMPUAN DAN KEKERASAN BERBASIS PENAFSIRAN
Kekerasan terhadap perempuan, sebenarnya, bisa saja disebabkan oleh banyak faktor, baik yang bersifat ideologis maupun budaya. Menurut hasil penelitian Rifka Annisa Women Crisis Center sekurang-kurangnya terdapat 3 faktor utama yang memungkinkan munculnya kekerasan terhadap perempuan yakni: (1) budaya patriarkhi yang meletakkan laki-laki sebagai makhluk superior dan sebaliknya, perempuan sebagai makhluk inferior, (2) pemahaman dan penafsiran yang keliru terhadap ajaran dan teks-teks agama, dan (3) peniruan (modeling) akibat terbiasa menyaksikan pola komunikasi sosial yang bias gender, yang mengandung banyak bentuk kekerasan terhadap perempuan. Jika kita lihat poin nomor dua (2) di atas maka kekerasan terhadap perempuan, salah satunya, disebabkan faktor pemahaman dan penafsiran yang keliru terhadap ajaran dan teks-teks agama itu sendiri. Hal ini sesuai dengan pendapat Asma Barlas bahwa dalam Islam, ajaran dan teks-teks agama termasuk al-Qur’an sebenarnya justru mengajarkan kesetaraan dan tidak ada inferioritas berdasarkan gender. Menurut Barlas, pembacaan misoginistis dalam Islam bukan berasal dari al-Qur’an melainkan dari upaya para penafsirnya. Dengan demikian, kekerasan terhadap perempuan bisa dikatakan sebagai hasil dari penafsiran yang keliru terhadap ajaran dan teks-teks kitab suci, dan bukan merupakan inti dan esensi dari ajaran-ajaran agama.
Bahkan, lebih jauh menurut Masdar F Mas’udi, penafsiran keliru teks-teks kitab suci terkadang justru menjadi faktor yang lebih dominan bagi lahirnya kekerasan terhadap perempuan dibanding 2 faktor lainnya. Hal ini karena, misalnya, dalam konteks
Dari hasil penelitiannya, Masdar menyimpulkan bahwa berbagai bentuk diskriminasi perempuan yang ada dalam kitab kuning (misalnya dalam kitab uqud dil-lijaini dan kitab qurrotul uyun) antara lain; tentang tata kehidupan sosial di mana kaum perempuan sebagai makhluk yang dinilai hanya separo laki-laki: dalam hal aqiqah, dalam hal warisan di mana perempuan menerima separo dari yang diterima laki-laki, ketika perempuan terbunuh juga hanya mendapat diyah separo dari nyawa laki-laki. Dalam hal pernikahan, laki-laki boleh menikah terhadap lebih dari satu istri, sementara perempuan hanya satu suami. Belum lagi dalam persoalan hubungan suami-istri di mana perempuan terkesan hanya sebagai obyek seksual belaka. Selain itu, sudah tidak asing lagi bahwa dalam kitab kuning pada umumnya termuat hal-hal yang menempatkan tanggung jawab mencari nafkah bagi suami dalam keluarganya. Kesadaran seperti ini, dalam istilah (terminology) modern telah memberikan kepada laki-laki (suami) suatu posisi supremasi sebagai borjuis, sementara kaum perempuan (istri) mewakili proletariat.
Selanjutnya, kalaupun terdapat pandangan bahwa perempuan sejajar dengan laki-laki, itu hanya pada kaca mata spiritualitas ketuhanan, kehidupan batin (ukhrawi) yang terdapat pada kitab kuning tafsir. Dan hal itu, menurut Masdar, tidak menunjukkan semangat persamaan (egalitarianisme) yang signifikan. Namun demikian, Masdar sadar bahwa kitab kuning adalah produk budaya pada zamannya, yakni zaman pertengahan yang didominasi oleh budaya Timur Tengah yang secara keseluruhan pada saat itu memang sangat laki-laki centris. Demikianlah penjelasan tentang kekerasan terhadap perempuan yang berbasis penafsiran. Pemahaman yang dihasilkan dari penafsiran yang keliru terhadap teks-teks kitab suci terlibat dalam pembentukan struktur dominasi kaum laki-laki terhadap kaum perempuan yang juga memperkuat adanya dikotomi wilayah domestik dan publik sehingga mempersubur terjadinya kekerasan terhadap perempuan berbasis gender. Sementara, gender berkaitan erat dengan proses keyakinan bagaimana seharusnya laki-laki dan perempuan berpikir serta bertindak sesuai dengan ketentuan sosial dan budaya. Dan, salah satu faktor yang menentukan keyakinan berpikir dan bertindak adalah konsep-konsep keagamaan (teologis) yang diperoleh melalui pemahaman dari penafsiran terhadap ajaran dan teks-teks kitab suci agama.
MENDOBRAK TRADISI KEKERASAN MELALUI REINTERPRETASI
Untuk mendobrak tradisi kekerasan terhadap perempuan khususnya yang berbasis penafsiran, tidak ada jalan lain yang harus dilakukan kecuali melakukan penafsiran ulang (reinterpretasi) secara kritis terhadap teks-teks kitab suci agama dan teks pendukungnya serta hal-hal yang dihasilkan dari teks tersebut seperti produk-produk hukum, norma, moral dan sebagainya.
Lantas, apa saja yang sebenarnya ingin dicapai melalui penafsiran ulang itu? Menurut Haryatmoko, setidaknya ada 3 hal yakni: (1) informasi tentang unsur temporalitas wacana atau sifat kesejarahan dari pemahaman teks suci agama, (2) kritik ideologi dan (3) dekonstruksi atau pembongkaran seluruh proses penafsiran yang kentara sekali nuansa bias gendernya.
Melalui penafsiran ulang diharapkan diperoleh informasi tentang unsur temporalitas wacana atau sifat kesejarahan dari pemahaman teks suci agama. Ini merupakan bentuk sikap kritis terhadap aspek historis teks-teks suci tersebut. Semua pemahaman bersifat kebahasaan, dalam arti bahwa orang hanya bisa memahami ketika dia mampu merumuskannya dalam bahasa. Oleh karena itu pemahaman bersifat prasangka, di mana ketika orang memahami suatu situasi, ia tidak pernah dalam keadaan kosong tetapi sudah membawa kategori-kategori pra-pemahaman. Tidak ada pemahaman yang murni terhadap sejarah tanpa kaitan dengan masa kini. Artinya, masa lalu juga beroperasi di masa kini. Melalui bahasa dan bertitik tolak dari prasangka tertentu itu, pikiran dapat diaktualisasikan dalam kondisi sejarah atau konteks tertentu. Karenanya, terhadap penafsiran yang kentara sekali nuansa bias gendernya dan berpotensi melahirkan kekerasan terhadap perempuan, kita harus mempertanyakan kembali dimensi kesejarahannya. Nah, melalui hermeneutika kita bisa menjelaskan momen-momen sejarah manakah dari penafsiran teks-teks kitab suci yang menghasilkan bias gender. Kategori lingkup privat dan publik dengan konsekuensi ketidakadilan terhadap perempuan bisa ditafsirkan ulang agar tugas rumah domestik-rumah tangga tidak melulu diidentikkan lagi dengan kaum perempuan.
Selanjutnya, melalui penafsiran ulang kita bisa melakukan kritik ideologi, yakni kritik atas prasangka-prasangka dan ilusi-ilusi yang menjadi bagian dari penafsiran teks-teks suci agama. Prasangka yang dimaksud yakni yang sarat nilai kelaki-lakiannya dan mempertahankan status quo dominasi laki-laki. Sementara, ilusi yang dimaksud yakni ilusi bahwa superioritas nyata laki-laki cukup memberikan pembenaran (legitimasi) atas segala bentuk penafsiran, membuat hukum dan memberlakukannya. Prasangka dan ilusi itulah yang harus diuji melalui kritik ideologi. Selain itu melalui penafsiran ulang kita juga bisa melakukan dekonstruksi untuk membongkar motivasi terselubung serta kepentingan politis, teologis, filosofis kaum laki-laki dalam proses penafsiran teks-teks suci agama.
Untuk melakukan ketiga hal di atas, harus dipertimbangkan juga bahwa terdapat beberapa hal yang membuat teks memiliki makna yang berbeda ketika ditafsirkan karena setiap penafsir dilingkupi latar belakang kepentingan sosial-politik yang berbeda-beda. Dalam hal ini kita dapat mengungkapkan kepentingan tersembunyi atau sengaja disembunyikan itu dengan merujuk pada pendapat tiga “Guru Hermeneutika Kecurigaan” yang sangat popular dalam hermeneutika.
Pertama, situasi psikologis sebagaimana dikemukakan oleh Sigmund Freud. Menurut Freud, kekuatan yang berpengaruh secara dominan dalam menafsirkan teks adalah kondisi ketidaksadaran serta ego si penafsir. Dalam hal ini psikologi Freud memang berpusat pada egoisme laki-laki, meski Freud tetap memiliki jasa besar dalam penafsiran teks karena kemampuannya menyajikan sisi gender yang sebelumnya jarang dipersoalkan dalam perdebatan bahasa. Freud juga memberi umpan pencerahan dalam pembongkaran bahasa yang serba diwarnai kekuatan phallogocentrum, yakni bahwa pusat logos kebahasaan sekaligus kebenaran terletak pada kekuasaan laki-laki yang disimbolkan melalui phallus (penis) yang dimilikinya.
Kedua, situasi ekonomi-politis sebagaimana dikemukakan Karl Marx. Menurut Marx, banyak penafsir yang dalam menafsirkan teks sangat dipengaruhi oleh kekuatan dominan yang menempatkannya pada kelas sosial tertentu dalam masyarakat. Materialisme Marx menunjukkan bahwa kesadaran sosial seorang penafsir teks sangat ditentukan oleh keadaan ekonomi dan politiknya, dan bukan sebaliknya. Di sini terlihat bahwa Marx melakukan pembalikan secara radikal, yakni menggeser idealisme (kesadaran seakan menentukan kondisi sosiologis) menjadi materialisme (persoalan ekonomi-politiklah yang justru paling dominan dalam kesadaran berbahasa). Jadi, tidak aneh jika si penafsir yang mendukung struktur kekuasaan yang sedang berlaku, hasil tafsirannya pasti berbeda dengan penafsir lain yang menentang struktur kekuasaan. Sejalan dengan hal itu, penafsir yang mendukung produk hukum yang membela kaum perempuan, tentu bertentangan dengan produk penafsiran yang digulirkan oleh penafsir yang ingin mempertahankan kekuasaan dan dominasi laki-laki.
Ketiga, dorongan atau kehendak berkuasa (will to power) sebagaimana dikemukakan Friedrich Nietzsche. Menurut Nietzsche, ketika seseorang menafsirkan teks, terdapat kehendak berkuasa atas klaim kebenaran yang harus diterima pihak lain. Sampai pada titik ini Nietzsche memberi kesimpulan sementara bahwa klaim serta kehendak terhadap kebenaran, tidak lebih merupakan wujud dorongan/kehendak berkuasa. Gagasan Nietzsche kemudian dielaborasi Michel Foucault yang melihat hubungan antara keinginan mengetahui, yang secara otomatis juga adalah kehendak untuk menguasai. Semakin seseorang mampu mengklaim mengetahui rahasia yang tersembunyi di balik teks, sesungguhnya serentak dengan itu juga memiliki kemampuan melakukan penguasaan terhadap teks itu sendiri. Puncaknya, Foucault menyatakan bahwa relasi antara kekuasaan dan pengetahuan tidaklah dapat dipisahkan sama sekali. Kekuasaan hanya niscaya dapat melangsungkan kehidupannya karena bersandar pada pengetahuan tertentu. Kekuasaan yang hegemonik-pun akan dengan sendirinya dapat digunakan untuk melegitimasi kebenaran dengan mengerahkan segenap pengetahuan yang dimilikinya.
WACANA HERMENEUTIKA PEMBEBASAN KAUM PEREMPUAN
Solusi yang bisa diberikan dalam tulisan ini, terutama menyangkut masalah tindak kekerasan terhadap perempuan berbasis penafsiran adalah bahwa kita harus menggagas suatu bentuk hermeneutika pembebasan kaum perempuan. Hermeneutika ini sekaligus merupakan bentuk pendekatan kritis terhadap problem penafsiran yang cenderung dominatif dan mono-interpretatif. Gagasan hermeneutika pembebasan sebagai kritik pendekatan konvensional, menandakan bahwa penafsiran atas teks-teks suci agama yang selama ini dilakukan belum memberikan spirit pembebasan dan perubahan positif di kalangan umat beragama. Oleh karena itu, hermeneutika pembebasan merupakan wacana bagi tindakan solutif terjadinya dialektika antara teks dan konteks sebagai lingkaran hermeneutika teks-teks suci agama. Hermeneutika ini juga berupaya mengaitkan penafsiran teks-teks suci agama agar lebih dekat dengan problem kemanusiaan seperti kemiskinan, kebodohan, penindasan dan ketidakadilan.
Terhadap produk penafsiran yang kentara bias gendernya, yang sering dijadikan referensi oleh pihak-pihak yang melakukan tindak kekerasan terhadap perempuan berbasis penafsiran, hermeneutika pembebasan mengupayakan 3 hal. Pertama, membongkar mitos tentang ajaran-ajaran yang seolah-olah telah terberi (taken for granted). Ini diperlukan guna menyadarkan umat beragama bahwa kemunculan ajaran-ajaran agama tidak berada dalam ruang hampa, melainkan penuh dengan kepentingan, baik kepentingan status quo maupun pemberontakan. Dengan begitu diharapkan tidak ada fanatisme sempit yang mencurigai dialog terhadap ajaran-ajaran agama dan persoalan perempuan sebagai pendangkalan aqidah (agama). Kedua, Mengeksplorasi aspek feminisme keTuhanan. Hal ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk membenturkan sifat feminin Tuhan dengan sifat maskulin-Nya melainkan lebih sebagai pengungkapan bahwa sifat feminin tidak identik dengan kelemahan sebagaimana dianggap oleh pendukung budaya patriarkhi. Ketiga, menjadikan ajaran-ajaran agama tidak sebatas keimanan, melainkan meneruskannya pada tingkat aksi. Ukuran kesalehan agama, dengan demikian, tidak diukur dari (hanya) menjalankan ritual tapi juga pada kesalehan sosial seperti perjuangan melawan kebodohan, kemiskinan, penindasan, ketidakadilan, diskriminasi kaum perempuan dan sebagainya.
Ajaran agama apapun, termasuk Islam, memang harus senantiasa didialogkan dengan realitas sosialnya dan salah satunya adalah masalah diskriminasi perempuan. Hal ini karena beberapa ajaran agama, yang sejatinya memposisikan perempuan sebagai mitra laki-laki, justru didominasi kepentingan laki-laki. Dalam ajaran Islam, misalnya, banyak tafsiran ayat-ayat al-Qur’an dan Haidst yang tidak memihak kepentingan kaum perempuan. Sebagai contoh, banyak kritik yang ditujukkan terhadap penafsiran bahwa yang menyatakan bahwa Islam tidak membolehkan perempuan menjadi pemimpin, dalam Islam “harga” perempuan cuman separo “harga” laki-laki, dalam Islam seorang istri tidak memiliki hak atas tubuhnya sendiri, karena kalau dia berani menolak permintaan (seks) suaminya maka ia akan dilaknat malaikat sampai pagi dan Islam membolehkan seorang suami memukul istrinya dan sebagainya.
Penafsiran seperti di atas tentu merupakan sebuah ironi, sebab salah satu misi turunnya al-Qur’an adalah untuk pembebasan manusia termasuk kaum perempuan yang pada saat itu mengalami diskriminasi dan penindasan.
Oleh karena itu dalam hermeneutika pembebasan ada 2 tahap yang harus dilakukan. Pertama, dekonstruksi produk-produk penafsiran yang bernuansa bias gender. Ini bisa dimulai dengan mencari jejak-jejak patriarkhi dalam tafsir yang merupakan sentral pemahaman relasi laki-laki dan perempuan dalam teks-teks suci agama. Kedua, setelah dekonstruksi, selanjutnya diperlukan rekonstruksi. Dekonstruksi tanpa rekonstruksi adalah kematian. Kesenjangan antara realitas dengan idealitas tentu saja harus dihilangkan melalui kerja-kerja intelektual praksis yang kritis terhadap teks-teks suci agama yang dijadikan pedoman. Kata kuncinya adalah penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap teks-teks suci seperti al-Qur’an, Hadist, Bible, Taurat dan sebagainya dengan menggunakan perspektif keadilan gender. Proses penafsiran ulang inipun harus memperhatikan konteks sosio-historis yang melatar belakanginya terutama untuk menemukan kembali spirit dan pesan keagamaan perennial; yakni bahwa agama (termasuk Islam) memberi perintah kepada manusia tentang pembebasan dan keadilan.
Penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap teks-teks suci agama harus diarahkan pada spirit dan pesan baik pembebasan maupun keadilan, termasuk kesejahteraan manusia. Misalnya, mengcounter pernyataan bahwa Islam melarang perempuan menjadi pemimpin. Orang-orang yang menganggap bahwa Islam melarang perempuan menjadi pemimpin biasanya mengklaim hal tersebut sesuai dengan penafsiran al-Qur’an
Penafsiran literal ayat tersebut sering dijadikan referensi oleh orang-orang yang melakukan kekerasan simbolik terhadap kaum perempuan berupa larangan perempuan menjadi pemimpin. Kita tentu tidak boleh dengan serta merta mengklaim penafsiran teks-teks suci hanya secara literal (sebagai mana bunyi ayat tersebut) karena setiap teks dalam ilmu kebahasaan (linguistics) memiliki 2-hal yang harus dicermati yakni; bunyi teks dan spirit teks. Melalui hermeneutika pembebasan, ayat-ayat harus ditafsirkan tidak hanya secara literal, melainkan secara menyeluruh dengan melihat konteks dan sejarah turunnya ayat tersebut (asbab al-nuzul) sehingga kita mendapatkan spirit teks ketika diaplikasikan dalam kontekstualisasinya di masa sekarang.
Menurut Nasaruddin Umar, sumber masalah dalam ayat di atas sesungguhnya pada kata qawwamuna yang diartikan pemimpin. Dan kekeliruannya adalah karena pengertian pemimpin dalam rangkaian terjemahan ayat di atas hanya ditafsirkan dalam konotasi kepemimpinan secara struktural. Padahal, kepemimpinan juga bisa ditafsirkan dalam konotasi fungsional dan memang itulah dimensi-dimensi dalam kepemimpinan. Selain itu, secara harfiah kata qawwamuna bisa juga diartikan sebagai pendamping, pemelihara dan penanggungjawab. Hal ini sesuai dengan terjemahan Yusuf Ali dalam bahasa Inggris terhadap ayat tersebut yakni: man are the protectors and maintainers of women….. (laki-laki adalah pelindung dan pemelihara kaum perempuan….). Ayat tersebut juga tidak serta merta dapat digunakan untuk melegitimasi penolakan terhadap kepemimpinan perempuan dalam Islam. Hal ini karena kalau kita melihat sejarah turunnya ayat tersebut, ayat itu diturunkan untuk menjelaskan kasus keluarga yang dilaporkan kepada Nabi SAW. Belum lagi, kelanjutan ayat tersebut justru memberikan penegasan bahwa yang berhak menjadi pemimpin adalah orang yang berpotensi dan memiliki kelebihan dibanding yang lain, tepatnya pada kalimat selanjutnya yakni bima fadhdhalallahu ba’dhahum ‘ala ba’dh (oleh karena Allah telah melebihkan sebahagiaan mereka atas sebahagiaan yang lain). Dengan demikian, person/individu yang dimaksud ayat tersebut bisa terdiri dari laki-laki ataupun perempuan, asalkan ia memiliki kecakapan dan potensi sebagai pemimpin. Melalui penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap ayat di atas dengan menggunakan metode hermeneutika yang tidak hanya memperhatikan aspek teks tapi juga konteks dan sejarah turunnya teks serta spirit dan pesan teks dalam kontekstualisasinya di masa sekarang, kaum perempuan tentu bisa terbebas dari kekerasan simbolik berupa larangan menjadi pemimpin. Implikasi pembebasan lainnya adalah bahwa kaum perempuan dapat berlomba-lomba berprestasi (fashtabiqul khairat) dengan laki-laki, termasuk memperoleh pendidikan setinggi-tingginya, memperkembangkan pengetahuan, wawasan dan keterampilannya sehingga menjadi pribadi yang berguna bagi dirinya sendiri, masyarakatnya, nusa, bangsa dan agamanya.
Contoh selanjutnya adalah mengenai mengenai penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap anggapan bahwa harga kaum perempuan hanya separo kaum laki-laki. Ini biasanya dirujukkan kepada penafsiran al-Qur’an
Melalui penafsiran ulang secara kritis menggunakan metode hermeneutika, kita tentu harus melihat konteks dan sejarah turunnya ayat serta spirit dan pesan yang terkandung dari makna ayat tersebut bila dikontekstualisasikan pada kondisi sekarang. Bila kita lihat sejarah turunnya ayat tersebut, dengan membandingkan realitas sosial pra-Islam, ajaran yang terkandung dalam ayat tersebut merupakan upaya perbaikan secara radikal (radical improvement) dalam mengangkat derajat dan martabat kaum perempuan. Jangankan untuk mendapat jatah waris 1/2 kaum laki-laki, diri perempuan sendiri pada waktu itu (pra-Islam) merupakan benda yang bisa diwarisi, bahkan oleh anak kandungnya sendiri. Dengan memberikan hak waris bagi kaum perempuan, spirit dan pesan yang bisa ditangkap dari ayat tersebut adalah bahwa Islam telah memberikan hak yang setara antara kaum laki-laki dan perempuan dalam hal sama-sama sebagai subyek waris. Lebih lanjut, kalaupun kaum laki-laki mendapat jatah lebih banyak dibandingkan kaum perempuan, maka ajaran yang berlaku dalam Islam adalah kaum lelaki yang wajib menanggung penuh kehidupan keluarga. Karena itu, meskipun laki-laki mendapatkan jatah lebih banyak namun pada akhirnya harta itu harus dia distribusikan kepada keluarganya. Berbeda dengan perempuan yang mendapat jatah warisan lebih kecil, namun harta tersebut menjadi miliknya secara utuh tanpa harus dibagikan lagi kepada pihak lain.
Contoh lainnya misal penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap al-Qur’an Surat An-nisa (4) ayat 1 yang berbunyi: Yaa ayyuhannaasuttaquu robbukumulladzii kholaqokum min nafs wahidah wakholaqo minha zaujaha wabatstsa minhuma rijaalaan katsiiroon wa nisaa’an (Hai sekalian manusia, bertaqwalah kepada Tuhan-mu yang telah menciptakan kamu dari diri yang satu, yang daripadanya Allah menciptakan isterinya; dan daripada keduanya Allah memperkembangbiakkan laki-laki dan perempuan yang banyak).
Dengan menggunakan metode hermeneutika kita mesti melihat teks, konteks dan kontekstualisasi ayat tersebut. Misalnya, kita mesti meneliti secara detail, kata nafs wahidah yang dalam terjemah al-Qur’an DEPAG diartikan sebagai “diri yang satu”. Siapa sesungguhnya yang dimaksud dengan min nafs wahidah (dari diri yang satu) tersebut? Siapa yang ditunjuk pada dhamir (kata ganti) minha (daripadanya)? Dan apa yang dimaksud zaujaha (pasangan) dalam ayat tersebut? Dalam kitab-kitab tafsir mu’tabar (standar) dari kalangan jumhur (mayoritas) seperti tafsir al-qurthubi (jilid I hal.484), tafsir al-mizan (jilid IV hal.135), tafsir Ibn Katsir (jilid I hal 448), tafsir ruh al-bayan (jilid II hal.159), tafsir al-kasysyaf (jilid I hal.495), tafsir as-sa’ud, tafsir al-bayan dan tafsir al-maraghi disebutkan bahwa lafazh min nafsiw-wahidah ditafsirkan sebagai Nabi Adam AS. Lafazh minha ditafsirkan bagian dari tubuh Nabi Adam. Sedangkan kata zaujaha ditafsirkan istri Adam yang tidak lain adalah Hawa. Mungkin, yang menjadi pusat masalah pada tafsiran ini adalah pada lafazh minhaa yang diartikan dari tubuh Nabi Adam. Dengan kata lain dhamir (kata ganti) haa dalam lafazh tersebut kembali kepada lafazh nafsiw-wahidah. Tafsiran yang dikemukakan para ulama tersebut tidak menutup rapat ruang diskusi. Sebab, ternyata Ar-Razi telah mengutip Abu Muslim Al-Isfahani yang mengatakan bahwa dhamir (kata ganti) minhaa bukan berarti dimaknai dari tubuh Nabi Adam, melainkan diartikan dari jenis Nabi Adam. Al-Isfahani berani berpendapat bahwa lafazh minhaa –yang kembali kepada lafazh nafsiw-wahidah—tidak selalu bermakna dari tubuh Adam, karena memang dalam kasus ayat-ayat yang lain, kata nafs tidak selalu merujuk pada Adam. Kata nafs terkadang juga bermakna jiwa. Dalam al-Qur’an Surat Asy-Syura ayat 11, misalnya, lafazh nafs juga diartikan sebagai asal-usul binatang. Kalau kata nafs selalu diartikan Adam, berarti beliau juga menjadi asal-usul kejadian binatang dong? Karena itu, tidak salah kalau lafazh minhaa oleh al-Isfahani diartikan dari jenis Nabi Adam. Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa bisa dipahami kalau asal-usul kejadian Hawa bukan dari tubuh Adam, melainkan dari unsur genetika yang satu, yakni sumber kejadian seluruh makhluk hidup.
Contoh lain misalnya penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap hadist Shahih Bukhari no.hadist 3084: ……. ‘an abii Hurairota RA qoola qoola rosuulullohi SAW istaushuu bi an-nisaa’I fa-inna al-mar’ata khuliqot min dhila’in wa in a’waja syai’in fii al-dhola’I a’laahu fa-in dzahabta tuqiimuhu katsartahu wa in taroktahu lam yazal a’waja fa-astaushu bi an-nisaa’I (Dari Abu Huraroh RA, dia berkata, Rasululloh SAW bersabda:” Nasehatilah kaum perempuan! Karena sesungguhnya perempuan tercipta dari tulang rusuk. Sedangkan bagian yang bengkok pada tulang rusuk adalah bagian atasnya (mulutnya). Jika kamu meluruskannya maka bisa mematahkannya. Namun jika kamu biarkan saja dia tetap saja bengkok. Oleh karena itu, nasehatilah kaum wanita!). Melalui penafsiran ulang secara kritis terhadap hadits diatas, tidak benar apabila ada yang mengartikan hadist tersebut dengan penjelasan bahwa Hawa tercipta dari tulang rusuk Adam, sebab secara harfiyyah (dari segi huruf) tidak tercantum nama Hawa maupun Adam di dalam matan hadits. Apalagi kalau hadits itu digunakan untuk menafsirkan al-Qur’an Surat an-Nisa (4) ayat 1. Menurut Quraisy Shihab , lafazh dhil’ (tulang rusuk) dalam matan hadits tersebut seharusnya dipahami dalam pengertian metaforis. Dengan kata lain, hadits tersebut memperingatkan supaya kaum lelaki memperlakukan kaum perempuan dengan bijaksana. Sebab, kecenderungan dan karakter antara perempuan dan laki-laki jelas-jelas berbeda. Jika hal ini tidak disadari benar oleh kaum lelaki; maka bisa menyebabkan mereka berlaku tidak wajar kepada lawan jenisnya. Mereka tidak akan mampu mengubah karakter kaum wanita. Kalaupun berhasil maka akan menimbulkan efek yang fatal sebagaimana tulang rusuk akan patah jika dipaksa untuk diluruskan.
Semua contoh diatas hanyalah sedikit ilustrasi bahwa kekerasan terhadap perempuan, terutama yang berbasis penafsiran, bisa dicari solusi alternatifnya melalui penafsiran ulang secara kritis dengan bersandar pada metode hermeneutika yang berorientasi pembebasan. Dalam wacana pembebasan ini, setiap penafsiran ulang harus dilakukan secara kritis dengan melihat tiga hal pokok yakni teks, konteks dan kontekstualisasinya. Meskipun demikian yang lebih penting lagi adalah memahami proses penafsiran dengan menggali spirit dan pesan pembebasan, keadilan serta kesejahteraan yang terkandung dalam teks-teks suci agama.
PENUTUP
Demikianlah penjelasan tentang wacana hermeneutika pembebasan kaum perempuan dari tindak kekerasan berbasis penafsiran. Hermeneutika pembebasan berupaya mengaitkan penafsiran teks-teks keagamaan dengan problem kemanusiaan seperti kemiskinan, penindasan dan ketidakadilan, termasuk ketidakadilan gender.
Oleh karena itu, hermeneutika pembebasan merupakan salah satu jawaban agama terhadap kebutuhan masyarakat beragama dewasa ini yang terkadang masih terkungkung oleh dogmatisme pemahaman keagamaan mereka sebagai hasil dari penafsiran literal teks-teks suci agama. Hermeneutika ini juga berupaya menarik gagasan-gagasan sentral teks-teks suci seperti al-Qur’an, Hadist, Injil, Taurat dan sebagainya kepada solusi problem kemanusiaan yang bersifat antropomorfistik-humanistik. Dalam konteks ini problem berupa beberapa ayat-ayat teks-teks suci agama yang menyangkut relasi laki-laki dan perempuan, yang memiliki tendensi dan atau biasanya ditafsirkan secara literal dan menghasilkan produk penafsiran yang bias gender dan berpotensi melahirkan tindak kekerasan terhadap perempuan; harus ditafsirkan ulang secara kritis dan juga dilakukan kritik terhadap metodologi penafsiran yang sebelumnya dilakukan. Hermeneutika pembebasan, dengan demikian, bisa menjadi satu solusi alternatif terhadap problem-problem mendasar tersebut. Tujuan akhirnya, fungsi agama sebagai rahmatan lil-alamin (rahmat bagi seluruh alam), termasuk bagi kaum perempuan dan kaum lak-laki secara egalitarian, dapat kita realisasikan, Amin.
END NOTES
1. Annie Leclerc adalah seorang feminis asal Perancis yang juga penulis buku tentang wanita terkenal yang berjudul “Parole De Femme”, terjemahan Indonesia berjudul Kalau Perempuan Angkat Bicara. Lihat Annie Leclerc, 2000, Kalau Perempuan Angkat Bicara (terj. Rahayu S. Hidayat), Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
2. Lihat Haryatmoko, 2002, Dominasi Laki-Laki Melalui Wacana, dalam situs: www. Sekitarkita.com, 2002, hal.1
3. Pierre Bourdieu, 1998, La Domination (Edisi terjemahan), Paris: Seuil, hal.7, lihat www.google.com
4. M Hilmi Faiq, 2004, Hermeneutika Sebagai Tafsir Alternatif. Lihat situs: www.waspadaonline.com
5. ibid
6. Lebih jauh tentang hermeneutika lihat Lorens Bagus, 1996, Kamus Filsafat, Jakarta: Penerbit Gramedia, hal.283 atau lihat E. Sumaryono, 1999, Hermeneutika (Sebuah Metode Filsafat), Yogjakarta: Kanisius.
7. Mengenai penjelasan tentang politk hermeneutika ini lebih jauh lihat Triyono Lukmantoro, 2005, Perempuan dalam Politik Hermeneutika, dalam www.kompas.com edisi 28 februari 2005.
8. Untuk penjelasan lebih lengkap tentang 3 paradigma hermeneutika kontemporer yakni hermeneutika teoritis, filosofis dan kritis, lihat Ilham B Saenong, 2002, Hermeneutika Pembebasan (Metodologi Tafsir Al-Qur’an Menurut Hassan Hanafi), Jakarta: Penerbit Teraju, hal.34-45
9. Lihat Josef Bleicher, 1980, Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique, London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, hal.15
10. Ibid, hal.15
11. Untuk penjelasan lebih lengkap tentang hermeneutika filosofis ini lihat Fransisco Budi Hardiman, 1991, Hermeneutika: Apa itu? Dalam majalah Basis, Edisi Januari 1991, Yogyakarta: Kanisius, hal.9-10
12. Janet Wolf, 1991, Hermeneutics and Sociology, dalam H. Etzkowits dan Ronald Glassman (eds), 1991, The Rennaissance of Sociological Theory, Ithaca: Peacock Publishers Inc, hal. 189
13. Josef Biecher, 1980, op.cit, hal.3
14. Ellman Crasnow, 1987, Hermeneutics, dalam Roger (ed), 1987, A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms, New York: Routledge and Paul Keegan, hal.111
15. Rifka Annisa Women Crisis Center adalah sekumpulan perempuan dan laki-laki yang melakukan pendampingan dan advokasi terhadap perempuan korban kekerasan domestik, pemerkosaan dan pelecahan seksual, kekerasan dalam pacaran dan kekerasan dalam keluarga, serta melakukan advokasi dan pendampingan kekerasan berbasis gender dengan menggunakan pendekatan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM), berperspektif korban dan keterlibatan laki-laki. Rifka Annisa berkantor pusat di Yogyakarta.
16. Uraian lebih lengkap lihat Triningtyasasih (eds), 1997, Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga, Yogyakarta: Rifka Annisa, hal.5
17. Asma Barlas adalah seorang feminis berkebangsaan Pakistan yang sudah tinggal di Amerika Serikat sejak tahun 1983. Uraian lebih lengkap tentang pemikirannya lihat Asma Barlas, 2002, Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretation of the Qur’an, Austin: University of Texas Press atau buku terjemahannya dalam bahasa Indonesia, Cara Qur’an Membebaskan Perempuan (Penerbit Serambi, 2005).
18. Kitab kuning adalah buku-buku/kitab-kitab klasik yang berisikan tafsiran dan penjabaran ajaran Islam yang ditulis oleh para ulama dengan pola pikir dan format pra-modern serta secara meluas dipakai dikalangan kyai/nyai tradisional dengan basis pesantren dalam menyampaikan agama Islam.
19. Uraian lebih lanjut tentang hasil penelitian Masdar ini bisa lihat pada Masdar Farid Mas’udi, 1993, Posisi Perempuan di Antara Lembaran Kitab Kuning, dalam Lies Marcoes-Natsir dan Johan Hendrik Meuleman, 1993, Wanita Islam Indonesia Dalam Kajian Tekstual dan Kontekstual, Jakarta: INIS.
20. Masdar Farid Mas’udi, 1993, op.cit, hal.155-163.
21. Cermati misalnya beberapa tafsir klasik yang berkaitan dengan al-Qur’an Surat An-Nisaa (4): 34
22. Jane Allenburger, 1996, Sociology of Women (terj. Budi Sucahyono dan Yan Sumaryana), Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta, hal.8
23. Masdar, 1993, op.cit, hal.162-163
24. Untuk uraian yang lebih lengkap, lihat Nur Said, 2003, Islam dan Teologi kemanusiaan: Kontekstualisasi Teologi Islam dalam Menghadapi Isu-Isu HAM di Indonesia, dalam Jurnal Tanwir, Keberpihakan Islam Terhadap kemanusiaan, Edisi Ke-3, Vol.1, No 3 September 2003, Jakarta: PSAP Muhammadiyah, hal.41-47
25. Haryatmoko, 2005, op.cit.hal.5
26. Lihat Triyono, 2005.op.cit, hal.2
27. Lihat Hilaly Basya, 2003, Refleksi Teologi Islam Mengenai Kesetaraan Gender, dalam rubrik Swara harian KOMPAS, edisi 10 November 2003, hal.2
28. Lihat Nasaruddin Umar, 2002, Agama dan Kekerasan Terhadap Perempuan, makalah yang disampaikan pada “Seminar Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (KDRT), diselenggarakan DPR RI di Jakarta 4 Juli 2002, hal.13
29. Lihat Nasaruddin Umar, 2001, Argumen Kesetaraan Gender (Perspektif al-Qur’an), Jakarta: Paramadina, hal.168
30. Lihat Maria Ulfah Anshor dkk, 2003, Modul Analisis Gender, Jakarta: PP Fatayat NU, hal. 118-119.
31. Nasaruddin Umar, 2001, op.cit, hal.236-242.
32. Quraisy Shihab, 1999, Membumikan Al-Qur’an, Bandung: Mizan, hal.271
REFERENSI
Allenburger, Jane, 1996, Sociology of Women (Terj. Budi Sucahyono dan Yan Sumaryana), Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Anshor, Maria Ulfah dkk, 2003, Modul Analisis Gender, Jakarta: PP Fatayat NU.
Bagus, Lorens, 1996, Kamus Filsafat, Jakarta: Penerbit Gramedia.
Barlas, Asma, 2002, Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretation of the Qur’an, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Basya, Hilaly, 2003, Refleksi Teologi Islam Mengenai Kesetaraan Gender, Jakarta: Harian KOMPAS, edisi 10 November 2003.
Bleicher, Josef, 1980, Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique, London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1998, La Domination (Edisi terjemahan), Paris: Seuil.
Budi-Hardiman, Fransisco, 1991, Hermeneutika: Apa itu? Dalam majalah Basis, Edisi Januari 1991, Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Crasnow, Ellman, 1987, Hermeneutics, dalam Roger (ed), 1987, A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms, New York: Routledge and Paul Keegan.
Faiq, M. Hilmi, 2004, Hermeneutika Sebagai Tafsir Alternatif, dalam situs: www.waspadaonline.com.
Farid-Mas’udi, Masdar, 1993, Posisi Perempuan di Antara Lembaran Kitab Kuning, dalam Lies Marcoes Natsir dan Johan Hendrik Meuleman, 1993, Wanita Islam Indonesia Dalam Kajian Tekstual dan Kontekstual, Jakarta: INIS.
Gadamer, Hans-George, 1977, Philosophical Hermeneutics (terj. David E Linge), California: University of California.
Haryatmoko, 2002, Diminasi Laki-Laki Melalui Wacana, dalam situs: www. Sekitarkita.com.
Leclerc, Annie, 2000, Kalau Perempuan Angkat Bicara (Terj. Rahayu S. Hidayat), Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Lukmantoro, Triyono, 2005, Perempuan dalam Politik Hermeneutika, dalam www.kompas.com edisi 28 februari 2005.
Nur said, 2003, Islam dan Teologi kemanusiaan: Kontekstualisasi Teologi Islam dalam Menghadapi Isu-Isu HAM di Indonesia, dalam Jurnal Tanwir, Keberpihakan Islam Terhadap kemanusiaan, Edisi Ke-3, Vol.1, No 3 September 2003, Jakarta: PSAP Muhammadiyah.
Saenong, Ilham B, 2002, Hermeneutika Pembebasan (Metodologi Tafsir Al-Qur’an Menurut Hassan Hanafi), Jakarta: Penerbit Teraju.
Shihab, Quraisy, 1999, Membumikan Al-Qur’an, Bandung: Mizan.
Sumaryono, E, 1999, Hermeneutika (Sebuah Metode Filsafat), Jogjakarta: Kanisius.
Trinigtyasasih (eds), 1997, Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga, Yogyakarta: Rifka Annisa Women Crisis Center.
Umar, Nasaruddin, 2001, Argumen Kesetaraan Gender (Perspektif al-Qur’an), Jakarta: Paramadina.
--------------------------, 2002, Agama dan Kekerasan Terhadap Perempuan, makalah yang disampaikan pada “Seminar Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (KDRT), diselenggarakan DPR RI di Jakarta 4 Juli 2002.
Wolf, Janet, 1991, Hermeneutics and Sociology, dalam H. Etzkowits dan Ronald Glassman (eds), 1991, The Rennaissance of Sociological Theory, Ithaca: Peacock Publishers Inc.
Rabu, 29 Agustus 2007
hermenetika tafsiran
kabalah
This article is about traditional Jewish Kabbalah. For other western Kabbalistic and esoteric mystical traditions see Hermetic Qabalah, Christian Kabbalah, Emanation: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Kabbalah Ma'asit.
Kabbalah (Hebrew: קַבָּלָה, Tiberian: qabːɔˈlɔh, Qabbālāh, Israeli: Kabala) literally means "receiving", and is sometimes transliterated as Cabala, Kabbala, Qabalah, or other spellings. It is held authoritative by some Orthodox Jews. According to its adherents, intimate understanding and mastery of the Kabbalah brings man spiritually closer to God and as a result humanity can be empowered with higher insight into the inner-workings of God’s creation.
The origins of the actual term Kabbalah are unknown and disputed to belong either to Solomon ibn Gabirol, (1021 - 1058) or to the 13th century CE Spanish Kabbalist Bahya ben Asher. While other terms are used in many religious documents from the 2nd century CE till the present day, the term Kabbalah has become the main descriptive of Jewish esoteric knowledge and practices. Main Kabbalistic literature that served as the basis for most of the development of Kabbalistic thought divides between early works such as Bahir and Heichalot (believed to be dated 1st Century CE) and later works dated 13th century CE of which the main book is the Zohar representing the main source for the Contemplative Kabbalah ("Kabbalah Iyunit")According to Kabbalistic tradition, Kabbalistic knowledge was transmitted orally by the Jewish Patriarchs, prophets, and sages (Avot in Hebrew), eventually to be “interwoven” into Jewish religious writings and culture. According to this tradition, Kabbalah was, in around the 10th century BCE, an open knowledge practiced by over a million people in ancient Israel [1], although there is little objective historical evidence to support this thesis.
Foreign conquests drove the Jewish spiritual leadership of the time (the Sanhedrin) to hide the knowledge and make it secret, fearing that it might be misused if it fell into the wrong hands [2]. The Sanhedrin leaders were also concerned that the practice of Kabbalah by Jews deported on conquest to other countries (the Diaspora), unsupervised and unguided by the masters, might lead them into wrong practice and forbidden ways. As a result, the Kabbalah became secretive, forbidden and esoteric to Judaism (“Torat Ha’Sod” Hebrew: תורת הסוד) for two and a half millennia.
According to most groups of Orthodox Judaism, Kabbalah dates from
The proper protocol for teaching this wisdom, as well as many of its concepts, are recorded in the Talmud, Tractate Hagigah, Ch.2.
[edit] Origins: Terms
Main articles: Ma'aseh Merkabah and Bereshit
Originally, Kabbalistic knowledge was believed to be an integral part of the Judaism's oral law (see also, Aggadah), given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai around 13th century BCE, though there is a view that Kabbalah began with Adam.
When the Israelites arrived at their destination and settled in Canaan (Canaanite: כנען, Hebrew: כְּנַעַן, for a few centuries the esoteric knowledge was referred to by its aspect practice - meditation (“Hitbodedut” Hebrew: התבודדות) (see Jewish meditation), translated as “being alone” or “isolating oneself”, or by a different term describing the actual, desired goal of the practice - prophecy (“NeVu’a” Hebrew: נבואה).
During the 5th century BCE, when the works of the Tanakh were edited and canonized and the secret knowledge encrypted within the various writings and scrolls (“MeGilot”), the knowledge was referred to as Ma'aseh Merkavah (Hebrew: מעשה מרכבה)[1] and Ma'aseh B'reshit (Hebrew: מעשה בראשית)[2]., respectively "the act of the Chariot" and "the act of Creation". Merkavah mysticism alluded to the encrypted knowledge within the book of the prophet Ezekiel describing his vision of the "Divine Chariot". B'reshit mysticism referred to the first chapter of Genesis (Hebrew: בראשית) in the Torah that is believed to contain secrets of the creation of the universe and forces of nature. These terms are also mentioned in the second chapter of the Talmudic tractate Haggigah.
[edit] Origins: Torah
Main article: Torah
According to adherents of Kabbalah, its origin begins with secrets that God revealed to Adam. According to a rabbinic midrash[citation needed] God created the universe through the ten sefirot. When read by later generations of Kabbalists, the Torah's description of the creation in the Book of Genesis reveals mysteries about the godhead itself, the true nature of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, as well as the interaction of these supernal entities with the Serpent which leads to disaster when they eat the forbidden fruit, as recorded in Genesis 2[3].
The Bible provides ample additional material for mythic and mystical speculation. The prophet Ezekiel's visions in particular attracted much mystical speculation, as did Isaiah's
The 72 letter name of God which is used in Jewish mysticism for meditation purposes is derived from the Hebrew verbal utterance Moses spoke in the presence of an angel, while the Red Sea parted, allowing the Hebrews to escape their approaching attackers. The miracle of the Exodus, which led to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and the Jewish Orthodox view of the acceptance of the Torah at Mount Sinai, preceded the creation of the first Jewish nation approximately three hundred years before King Saul.
[edit] Talmudic Era: Mystical Doctrines
Main article: Talmud
In Talmudic times (the early centuries of the first millennium AD), the terms Ma'aseh Bereshit ("Works of Creation") and Ma'aseh Merkabah ("Works of the Divine Throne/Chariot") clearly indicate the Midrashic nature of these speculations; they are really based upon Genesis 1 and Book of Ezekiel 1:4-28; while the names Sitrei Torah (Hidden aspects of the Torah) (Talmud Hag. 13a) and Razei Torah (Torah secrets) (Ab. vi. 1) indicate their character as secret lore. An additional term also expanded Jewish esoteric knowledge, namely Chochmah Nistara (Hidden wisdom).
In contrast to the explicit statement of the Hebrew Bible that God created not only the world, but also the matter out of which it was made, the opinion was expressed in very early times [citation needed] that God created the world from matter He found ready at hand. According to some[citation needed], this is an opinion probably due to the influence of the Platonic-Stoic cosmogony.
Eminent rabbinic teachers in the Land of Israel held the doctrine of the preexistence of matter (Midrash Genesis Rabbah i. 5; iv. 6), in spite of the protest of Gamaliel II. (ib. i. 9).
In dwelling upon the nature of God and the universe, the mystics of the Talmudic period asserted, in contrast to the transcendentalism evident in some parts of the Bible, that "God is the dwelling-place of the universe; but the universe is not the dwelling-place of God". Possibly the designation ("place") for God, so frequently found in Talmudic-Midrashic literature, is due to this conception, just as Philo, in commenting on Genesis 28:11 says, "God is called ha makom (המקום "the place") because God encloses the universe, but is Himself not enclosed by anything" (De Somniis, i. 11). This type of theology, in modern terms, is known as either pantheism or panentheism. Whether a text is truly pantheistic or panentheistic is often hard to understand; mainstream Judaism generally rejects pantheistic interpretations of Kabbalah, and instead accepts panentheistic interpretations.
Even in very early times in the Land of Israel, Jewish, as well as Jewish Alexandrian theology recognized the two attributes of God, middat hadin, the attribute of justice, and middat ha-rahamim, the attribute of mercy (see: Midrash Sifre, Deuteronomy 27); and so is the contrast between justice and mercy became a fundamental doctrine of the Kabbalah. Other hypostasizations are represented by the ten "agencies", (the Sefirot) through which God created the world: namely, wisdom, insight, cognition, strength, power, inexorableness, justice, right, love, and mercy.
While the Sefirot are based on these ten creative "potentialities", it is especially the personification of wisdom which, in Philo, represents the totality of these primal ideas; and the Targ. Jerusalem Talmud i., agreeing with him, translates the first verse of the Bible as follows: "By wisdom God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis Rabbah equates "Wisdom" with "Torah."
So, also, the figure of the Sar Metatron passed into mystical texts from the Talmud. In the Heichalot literature Metatron sometimes approximates the role of the demiurgos (see Gnosticism), being expressly mentioned as a "lesser" God. One text, however, identifies Metatron as Enoch transubstantiated (see: Enoch, III). Mention may also be made of other pre-existent states enumerated in an old baraita (an extra-mishnaic teaching); namely, the Torah, repentance, paradise and hell, the throne of God, the Heavenly Temple, and the name of the Messiah (Talmud Pesahim 54a). Although the origin of this doctrine must be sought probably in certain mythological ideas, the Platonic doctrine of pre-existence has modified the older, simpler conception, and the pre-existence of the seven must therefore be understood as an "ideal" pre-existence, a conception that was later more fully developed in the Kabbalah.
The attempts of the mystics to bridge the gulf between God and the world are evident in the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul, and of its close relation to God before it enters the human body — a doctrine taught by the Hellenistic sages (Wisdom viii. 19) as well as by the Palestinian rabbis. The mystics also employ the phrase from (Isaiah 6:3), as expounded by the Rabbinic Sages, "The whole world is filled with His glory," to justify a panentheistic understanding of the universe.
The tree of life.
From the 8th-11th Century Sefer Yetzirah and Hekalot texts made their way into European Jewish circles. Modern scholars have identified several mystical brotherhoods that functioned in
One well-known group was the "Hasidei Ashkenaz," or German Pietists. This 13th Century movement arose mostly among a single scholarly family, the Kalonymus family of the French and German Rhineland.
There were certain rishonim ("Elder Sages") of exoteric Judaism who are known to have been experts in Kabbalah. One of the best known is Nahmanides (the Ramban) (1194-1270) whose commentary on the Torah is considered to be based on Kabbalistic knowledge. Bahya ben Asher (the Rabbeinu Behaye) (d. 1340) also combined Torah commentary and Kabbalah. Another was Isaac the Blind (1160-1235), the teacher of Nahmanides, who is widely argued to have written the first work of classic Kabbalah, the Bahir.
Sefer Bahir and another work, the "Treatise of the Left Emanation", probably composed in Spain by Isaac ben Isaac ha-Cohen, laid the groundwork for the composition of Sefer Zohar, written by Moses de Leon and his mystical circle at the end of the 13th Century, but credited to the Talmudic sage Shimon bar Yochai, cf. Zohar. The Zohar proved to be the first truly "popular" work of Kabbalah, and the most influential. From the thirteenth century onward, Kabbalah began to be widely disseminated and it branched out into an extensive literature. Historians in the nineteenth century, for example, Heinrich Greatz, argued that the emergence into public view of Jewish esotericism at this time coincides with, and represents a response to, the rising influence of the rationalist philosophy of Maimonides and his followers. Gershom Scholem sought to undermine this view as part of his resistance to seeing kabbalah as merely a response to medieval Jewish rationalism. Arguing for a gnostic influence has to be seen as part of this strategy. More recently, Moshe Idel and Elliot Wolfson have independently argued that the impact of Maimonides can be seen in the change from orality to writing in the thirteenth century. That is, kabbalists committed to writing many of their oral traditions in part as a response to the attempt of Maimonides to explain the older esoteric subjects philosophically.
Most Orthodox Jews reject the idea that Kabbalah underwent significant historical development or change such as has been proposed above. After the composition known as the Zohar was presented to the public in the 13th century, the term "Kabbalah" began to refer more specifically to teachings derived from, or related, to the Zohar. At an even later time, the term began to generally be applied to Zoharic teachings as elaborated upon by Isaac Luria Arizal. Historians generally date the start of Kabbalah as a major influence in Jewish thought and practice with the publication of the Zohar and climaxing with the spread of the Arizal's teachings. The majority of Haredi Jews accept the Zohar as the representative of the Ma'aseh Merkavah and Ma'aseh B'reshit that are referred to in Talmudic texts.
[edit] Early Modern Era: Lurianic Kabbalah
Main article: Isaac Luria
.
Following the upheavals and dislocations in the Jewish world as a result of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, and the trauma of Anti-Semitism during the Middle Ages, Jews began to search for signs of when the long-awaited Jewish Messiah would come to comfort them in their painful exiles. Moses Cordovero and his immediate circle popularized the teachings of the Zohar which had until then been only a modestly influential work. The author of the Shulkhan Arukh (the Jewish "Code of Law"), Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), was also a great scholar of Kabbalah and spread its teachings during this era.
As part of that "search for meaning" in their lives, Kabbalah received its biggest boost in the Jewish world with the explication of the Kabbalistic teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572) by his disciples Rabbi Hayim Vital and Rabbi Israel Sarug, both of whom published Luria's teachings (in variant forms) gaining them wide-spread popularity. Luria's teachings came to rival the influence of the Zohar and Luria stands, alongside Moses De Leon, as the most influential mystic in Jewish history.
[edit] Kabbalah: ban against studying
The ban against studying Kabbalah was lifted by the efforts of the sixteenth century Kabbalist Rabbi Avraham Azulai (1570-1643).
I have found it written that all that has been decreed Above forbidding open involvement in the Wisdom of Truth [Kabbalah] was [only meant for] the limited time period until the year 5,250 (1490 C.E). From then on after is called the "Last Generation", and what was forbidden is [now] allowed. And permission is granted to occupy ourselves in the [study of] Zohar. And from the year 5,300 (1540 C.E.) it is most desirable that the masses both those great and small [in Torah], should occupy themselves [in the study of Kabbalah], as it says in the Raya M'hemna [a section of the Zohar]. And because in this merit King Mashiach will come in the future – and not in any other merit – it is not proper to be discouraged [from the study of Kabbalah]. (Rabbi Avraham Azulai)
[edit] Kabbalah: Sefardi and Mizrahi
The Kabbalah of the Sefardi (Portuguese or Spanish) and Mizrahi (African/Asian) Torah scholars has a long history. Kabbalah in various forms was widely studied, commented upon, and expanded by North African, Turkish, Yemenite, and Asian scholars from the 16th Century onward. It flourished among Sefardic Jews in Tzfat (Safed), Israel even before the arrival of Isaac Luria, its most famous resident. The great Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Arukh was part of the Tzfat school of Kabbalah. Shlomo Alkabetz, author of the famous hymn Lekhah Dodi, taught there.
His disciple Moses ben Jacob Cordovero authored Sefer Pardes Rimonim, an organized, exhaustive compilation of kabbalistic teachings on a variety of subjects up to that point. Rabbi Cordovero headed the Academy of Tzfat until his death, when Isaac Luria, also known as the Ari, rose to prominence. Rabbi Moshe's disciple Eliyahu De Vidas authored the classic work, Reishit Chochma, combining kabbalistic and mussar (moral) teachings. Chaim Vital also studied under Rabbi Cordovero, but with the arrival of Rabbi Luria became his main disciple. Vital claimed to be the only one authorized to transmit the Ari's teachings, though other disciples also published books presenting Luria's teachings.
Among the most famous was the Beit El mystical circle of Jerusalem, originally a brotherhood of twelve, mostly Sefardic, mystics under the leadership of Gedaliyah Chayon and Shalom Sharabi in the mid-18th century. The group endured into the 20th Century and there is still a yeshivah of that name in the Old City of Jerusalem.
[edit] Kabbalah: the Maharal
Main article: Judah Loew ben Bezalel
One of the most important teachers of Kabbalah recognized as an authority by all serious scholars up until the present time, was Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (1525-1609) known as the Maharal of Prague. Many of his written works survive and are studied for their deep Kabbalistic insights. The Maharal is, perhaps, most famous outside of Jewish mysticism for the legends of the golem of Prague, which he reportedly created. During the twentieth century, Rabbi Isaac Hutner (1906-1980) continued to spread the Maharal's teachings indirectly through his own teachings and scholarly publications within the modern yeshiva world.
[edit] Sabbatian Mysticism: Failure
Main article: Sabbatai Zevi
The spiritual and mystical yearnings of many Jews remained frustrated after the death of Rabbi Isaac Luria and his disciples and colleagues. No hope was in sight for many following the devastation and mass killings of the pogroms that followed in the wake the Chmielnicki Uprising (1648-1654), and it was at this time that a controversial scholar of the Kabbalah by the name of Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) captured the hearts and minds of the Jewish masses of that time with the promise of a newly-minted "Messianic" Millennialism in the form of his own personage.
His charisma, mystical teachings that included repeated pronunciations of the holy Tetragrammaton in public, tied to an unstable personality, and with the help of his own "prophet" Nathan of Gaza, convinced the Jewish masses that the "Jewish Messiah" had finally come. It seemed that the esoteric teachings of Kabbalah had found their "champion" and had triumphed, but this era of Jewish history unravelled when Zevi became an apostate to Judaism by converting to Islam after he was arrested by the Ottoman Sultan and threatened with execution for attempting a plan to conquer the world and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
Many of his followers, known as Sabbateans, continued to worship him in secret, explaining his conversion not as an effort to save his life but to recover the sparks of the holy in each religion, and most leading rabbis were always on guard to root them out. The Donmeh movement in modern Turkey is a surviving remnant of the Sabbatian schism.
[edit] Kabbalah: the Frankists
Main article: Jacob Frank
The Sabbatian movement was followed by that of the "Frankists" who were disciples of another pseudo-mystic Jacob Frank (1726-1791) who eventually became an apostate to Judaism by apparently converting to Catholicism. This era of disappointment did not stem the Jewish masses' yearnings for "mystical" leadership.
[edit] Kabbalah: the 1700s
Main articles: Israel ben Eliezer , Nachman of Breslov , Vilna Gaon , and Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
The eighteenth century saw an explosion of new efforts in the writing and spread of Kabbalah by four well known rabbis working in different areas of Europe:
- Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer (1698-1760) in the area of Ukraine spread teachings based on Rabbi Isaac Luria's foundations, simplifying the Kabbalah for the common man. From him sprang the vast ongoing schools of Hasidic Judaism, with each successive rebbe viewed by his "Hasidim" as continuing the role of dispenser of mystical divine blessings and guidance.
- Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (1772 - 1810), the great-grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, revitalized and further expanded the latter's teachings, amassing a following of thousands in Ukraine, White Russia, Lithuania and Poland. In a unique amalgam of Hasidic and Mitnagid approaches, Rebbe Nachman emphasized study of both Kabbalah and serious Torah scholarship to his disciples. His teachings also differed from the way other Hasidic groups were developing, as he rejected the idea of hereditary Hasidic dynasties and taught that each Hasid must "search for the tzaddik ('saintly/righteous person')" for himself—and within himself.
- Rabbi Elijah of Vilna (Vilna Gaon) (1720-1797), based in Lithuania, had his teachings encoded and publicized by his disciples such as by Rabbi Chaim Volozhin who published the mystical-ethical work Nefesh HaChaim. However, he was staunchly opposed to the new Hasidic movement and warned against their public displays of religious fervour inspired by the mystical teachings of their rabbis.
Although the Vilna Gaon was not in favor of the Hasidic movement, he did not prohibit the study and engagement in the Kabbalah. This is evident from his writings in the Even Shlema."He that is able to understand secrets of the Torah and does not try to understand them will be judged harshly, may God have mercy". (The Vilna Gaon, Even Shlema, 8:24). "The Redemption will only come about through learning Torah, and the essence of the Redemption depends upon learning Kabbalah" (The Vilna Gaon, Even Shlema, 11:3).
- Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (1707-1746), based in Italy, was a precocious Talmudic scholar who arrived at the startling conclusion that there was a need for the public teaching and study of Kabbalah. He established a yeshiva for Kabbalah study and actively recruited outstanding students and, in addition, wrote copious manuscripts in an appealing clear Hebrew style, all of which gained the attention of both admirers and rabbinical critics who feared another "Zevi (false messiah) in the making".
He was forced to close his school by his rabbinical opponents, hand over and destroy many of his most precious unpublished kabbalistic writings, and go into exile in the Netherlands. He eventually moved to the Land of Israel. Some of his most important works such as Derekh Hashem survive and are used as a gateway to the world of Jewish mysticism.
[edit] The Modern Era
One of the most influential sources spreading Kabbalistic teachings have come from the massive growth and spread of Hasidic Judaism, a movement begun by Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov), but continued in many branches and streams until today. These groups differ greatly in size, but all emphasize the study of mystical Hasidic texts, which now consists of a vast literature devoted to elaborating upon the long chain of Kabbalistic thought and methodology. No group emphasizes in-depth kabbalistic study, though, to the extent of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, whose Rebbes delivered tens of thousands of discourses, and whose students study these texts for three hours daily.
Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn of Lubavitch urged the study of kabbala as prerequisite for one's humanity:
"A person who is capable of comprehending the Seder hishtalshelus (kabbalistic secrets concerning the higher spiritual spheres) - and fails to do so - cannot be considered a human being. At every moment and time one must know where his soul stands. It is a mitzvah (commandment) and an obligation to know the seder hishtalshelus."[3]
The writings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1864-1935) also stress Kabbalistic themes:
"Due to the alienation from the "secret of God" [i.e. Kabbalah], the higher qualities of the depths of Godly life are reduced to trivia that do not penetrate the depth of the soul. When this happens, the most mighty force is missing from the soul of nation and individual, and Exile finds favor essentially... We should not negate any conception based on rectitude and awe of Heaven of any form - only the aspect of such an approach that desires to negate the mysteries and their great influence on the spirit of the nation. This is a tragedy that we must combat with counsel and understanding, with holiness and courage." (Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook Orot 2 )
Another influential and important Kabbalah character is Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ashlag 1884-1954 (also known as the Baal HaSulam — a title that he was given after the completion of one of his masterworks, The Sulam). Ashlag is considered by many to be one of the greatest Kabbalists of all time.
He developed a study method that he considered most fitting for the future generations of Kabbalists. He is also notable for his other masterwork Talmud Eser HaSfirot — The Study of the Ten Emanations — a commentary on all the writings of the ARI. Some today consider this work as the core of the entire teaching of Kabbalah. Baal Hasulam's goal was to make the study of Kabbalah understandable and accessible to every human being with the desire to know the meaning of life. There are several organizations that are actualizing his ideas today.
Renewed interest in Kabbalah has appeared among non-traditional Jews, and even among non-Jews. Neo-Hasidism and Jewish Renewal have been the most influential groups in this trend.
[edit] Ka
The Hebrew word Sefirah (סְפִירָה) literally means "Numbering" or "Numeration". Sefirot is the plural, "Numerations". Sometimes, Jewish midrashic interpretations reread the Hebrew letters of this word to mean "Spheres" or "Narrations".
[edit] Ten Sefirot as process of Creation
According to Kabbalistic cosmology, Ten Sefirot (literally, Ten Numerations) correspond to ten levels of creation. These levels of creation must not be understood as ten different "gods" but as ten different ways of revealing God, one per level. It is not God who changes but the ability to perceive God that changes.
While God may seem to exhibit dual natures (masculine-feminine, compassionate-judgmental, creator-creation), all adherents of Kabbalah have consistently stressed the ultimate unity of God, and that all parts of god are the same. For example, in all discussions of Male and Female, the hidden nature of God exists above it all without limit, being called the Infinite or the "No End" (Ein Sof) - neither one nor the other, transcending any definition. The ability of God to become hidden from perception is called "Restriction" (Tzimtzum). Hiddenness makes creation possible because God can then become "revealed" in a diversity of limited ways, which then form the building blocks of creation.
[edit] Ten Sefirot and physical sciences
Notable is the similarity between the concept in Kabbalah that the physical universe is made of Divine Light, and the modern concept in Physics that it is made of energy.
Moreover in Kabbalah, Divine Light is the carrier of consciousness.
"The human soul is a part of the Creator [that is, Divine Light]. Therefore, there is no difference between Him and the soul. The difference is that He is the 'whole' and the soul is a 'part'. This resembles a stone carved from a rock. There is no difference between the stone and the rock except that the rock is a 'whole' and the stone is a 'part'". (Yhuda Ashlag, Introduction in Ha-Sulam.)
Thus, a human's consciousness is a part of the Divine Consciousness, where the rest of the infinite Divine has been hidden from the human. This kabbalistic concept that consciousness is an aspect of Divine Light is similar to the protoscientific hypothesis that the electromagnetic field generated by the brain is the carrier of consciousness. In other words, consciousness would be an aspect of light (electromagnetic radiation) and not an aspect of the physical brain per se.
The Ten Sefirot mediate the interaction of the ultimate unknowable God with the physical and spiritual world. Some students of Kabbalah suggest that the Sefirot may be thought of as analogous to fundamental laws of physics. God's "Restriction" (Tzimtzum) within the spiritual levels is often compared with the Big Bang in the lowest physical level. Just as the resulting gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and weak force allow for interactions between energy and matter, the Ten Sefirot allow for interactions between God and creation. (Compare Theory of Everything.)
The Ten Sefirot are sometimes mentioned in the context of the Ten Dimensions that some physicists suspect the Superstring Theory may require.
[edit] Ten Sefirot as process of ethics
Divine creation by means of the Ten Sefirot is an ethical process. Examples: The Sefirah of "Compassion" (Chesed) being part of the Right Column corresponds to how God reveals more blessings when humans use previous blessings compassionately, whereas the Sefirah of "Overpowering" (Gevurah) being part of the Left Column corresponds to how God hides these blessings when humans abuse them selfishly without compassion. Thus human behavior determines if God seems present or absent.
"Righteous" humans (Tzadikim) ascend these ethical qualities of the Ten Sefirot by doing righteous actions. If there were no "Righteous" humans, the blessings of God would become completely hidden, and creation would cease to exist. While real human actions are the "Foundation" (Yesod) of this universe (Malchut), these actions must accompany the conscious intention of compassion. Compassionate actions are often impossible without "Faith" (Emunah), meaning to trust that God always supports compassionate actions even when God seems hidden. Ultimately, it is necessary to show compassion toward oneself too in order to share compassion toward others. This "selfish" enjoyment of God's blessings but only if in order to empower oneself to assist others, is an important aspect of "Restriction", and is considered a kind of golden mean in Kabbalah, corresponding to the Sefirah of "Adornment" (Tiferet) being part of the "Middle Column".
[edit] Ten Sefirot as vowel sounds
The Scholar and Rabbi Solomon Judah Leib Rappaport notes that according to the Masoretes there are ten vowel sounds. He suggests that the passage in Sefer Yetzirah, which discuss the manipulation of letters in the creation of the world, can be better understood if the Sefirot refer to vowel sounds. He posits that the word sefirah in this case is related to the hebrew word sippur - to retell. His position is based on his belief that most Kabbalistic works written after Sefer Yetzirah (including the Zohar) are forgeries. (Igrot Shir(Heb.) "Letters of Shir) - available on Google Books)
See also: Kabbalistic use of the Tetragrammaton; Masseket Azilut; Four graduated worlds; Tree of Life; Tree of Life (Kabbalah)
[edit] Kabbalah: Concepts
[edit] Kabbalistic understanding of God
Ein Sof(in-finite) and the emanation of angelic hierarchies (Universes or olamot עולמות)
Kabbalah teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created?
This question prompted Kabbalists to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first aspect of God as Ein Sof (אין סוף); this is translated as "the infinite", "endless", or "that which has no limits". In this view, nothing can be said about this aspect of God. This aspect of God is impersonal. The second aspect of divine emanations, however, is at least partially accessible to human thought. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but, through the mechanism of progressive emanation, complement one another. See Divine simplicity; Tzimtzum. The structure of these emanations have been characterized in various ways: Four "worlds" (Azilut, Yitzirah, Beriyah, and Asiyah), Sefirot, or Partzufim ("faces"). Later systems harmonize these models.
Some Kabbalistic scholars, such as Moses ben Jacob Cordovero, believe that all things are linked to God through these emanations, making us all part of one great chain of being. Others, such as Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Lubavitch [Chabad] Hasidism), hold that God is all that really exists; all else is completely undifferentiated from God's perspective.
If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as panentheism or pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet he includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that his creation of the world effected no change in him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts.
[edit] Theodicy: explanation for the existence of evil
Kabbalistic works offer a theodicy, a philosophical reconciliation of how the existence of a good and powerful God is compatible with the existence of evil in the world. There are mainly two different ways to describe why there is evil in the world, according to the Kabbalah. Both make use of the kabbalistic Tree of Life:
The ten Sephiroth or 'emanations' of God
- The kabbalistic tree, which consists of ten Sephiroth, the ten "enumerations" or "emanations" of God, consists of three "pillars": The left side of the tree, the "female side", is considered to be more destructive than the right side, the "male side". Gevurah (גבורה, "Might"), for example, stands for strength and discipline, while her male counterpart, Chesed (חסד, "Mercy"), stands for love and mercy. Chesed is also known as Gedulah (גדולה, "Glory"), as in the Tree of Life pictured to the right. The "center pillar" of the tree does not have any polarity, and no gender is given to it. Thus evil is really an emanation of Divinity, a harsh byproduct of the "left side" of creation.
- In the medieval era, this notion took on increasingly gnostic overtones. The Qliphoth (or Kelippot) ( קליפות, the primeval "husks" of impurity) emanating from the left side were blamed for all the evil in the world. Qliphoth are the Sephirot out of balance. Sometimes the qliphoth are called the "death angels", or "angels of death". References to a word related to "qlipoth" are found in some Babylonian incantations, a fact used as evidence to argue the antiquity of kabbalistic material.
- Not all Kabbalists accepted this notion of evil being in such intimate relationship with God. Moses Cordovero (16th century) and Menasseh ben Israel (17th century) are two examples of Kabbalists who claimed "No evil emanates from God." They located evil as a byproduct of human freedom, an idea also found in mythic form in Rabbinic traditions that claim most demons are either the "dead of the flood" or products of human sexual debauchery.
[edit] The human soul in Kabbalah
The Zohar posits that the human soul has three elements, the nefesh, ru'ach, and neshamah. The nefesh is found in all humans, and enters the physical body at birth. It is the source of one's physical and psychological nature. The next two parts of the soul are not implanted at birth, but can be developed over time; their development depends on the actions and beliefs of the individual. They are said to only fully exist in people awakened spiritually. A common way of explaining the three parts of the soul is as follows:
- Nefesh (נפש) - the lower part, or "animal part", of the soul. It is linked to instincts and bodily cravings.
- Ruach (רוח) - the middle soul, the "spirit". It contains the moral virtues and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
- Neshamah (נשמה) - the higher soul, or "super-soul". This separates man from all other lifeforms. It is related to the intellect, and allows man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. This part of the soul is provided at birth and allows one to have some awareness of the existence and presence of God.
The Raaya Meheimna, a section of related teachings spread throughout the Zohar, discusses the two other parts of the human soul, the chayyah and yehidah (first mentioned in the Midrash Rabbah). Gershom Scholem writes that these "were considered to represent the sublimest levels of intuitive cognition, and to be within the grasp of only a few chosen individuals". The Chayyah and the Yechidah do not enter into the body like the other three - thus they received less attention in other sections of the Zohar.
- Chayyah (חיה) - The part of the soul that allows one to have an awareness of the divine life force itself.
- Yehidah (יחידה) - the highest plane of the soul, in which one can achieve as full a union with God as is possible.
Both rabbinic and kabbalistic works posit that there are a few additional, non-permanent states of the soul that people can develop on certain occasions. These extra souls, or extra states of the soul, play no part in any afterlife scheme, but are mentioned for completeness:
- Ruach HaKodesh (רוח הקודש) - ("spirit of holiness") a state of the soul that makes prophecy possible. Since the age of classical prophecy passed, no one (outside of Israel) receives the soul of prophesy any longer. See the teachings of Abraham Abulafia for differing views of this matter.
- Neshamah Yeseira - The "supplemental soul" that a Jew can experience on Shabbat. It makes possible an enhanced spiritual enjoyment of the day. This exists only when one is observing Shabbat; it can be lost and gained depending on one's observance.
- Neshamah Kedosha - Provided to Jews at the age of maturity (13 for boys, 12 for girls), and is related to the study and fulfillment of the Torah commandments. It exists only when one studies and follows Torah; it can be lost and gained depending on one's study and observance.
[edit] Tzimtzum
Main articles: Tzimtzum and Four worlds (Kabbalah)
The act whereby God "contracted" his infinite light, leaving a "void" into which the light of existence was poured. The primal emanation became Azilut, the World of Light, from which the three lower worlds, Beriah, Yetzirah and Assiyah, descended.
[edit] Number-Word mysticism
Main articles: Gematria, Notaricon, and Temurah
Among its many pre-occupations, Kabbalah teaches that every Hebrew letter, word, number, even the accent on words of the Hebrew Bible contains a hidden sense; and it teaches the methods of interpretation for ascertaining these meanings. One such method is as follows:
As early as the 1st Century BCE Jews believed that the Torah (first five books of the Bible) contained encoded message and hidden meanings. Gematria is one method for discovering its hidden meanings. Each letter in Hebrew also represents a number; Hebrew, unlike many other languages, never developed a separate numerical alphabet. By converting letters to numbers, Kabbalists were able to find a hidden meaning in each word. This method of interpretation was used extensively by various schools.
There is no one fixed way to "do" gematria. Some say there are up to 70 different methods. One simple procedure is as follows: each syllable and/or letter forming a word has a characteristic numeric value. The sum of these numeric tags is the word's "key", and that word may be replaced in the text by any other word having the same key. Through the application of many such procedures, alternate or hidden meanings of scripture may be derived. Similar procedures are used by Islamic mystics, as described by Idries Shah in his book, "The Sufis".
[edit] Kabbalah: Primary Texts
[edit] On Texts
Main article: Kabbalah: Primary Texts
Title page of first edition of the Zohar,
Like the rest of the Rabbinic literature, the texts of Kabbalah were once part of an ongoing oral tradition, though, over the centuries, many have been written up. They are mostly meaningless to readers who are unfamiliar with Jewish spirituality and assume extensive knowledge of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Midrash (Jewish hermeneutic tradition) and Halakhah (practical Jewish law). Nevertheless, Kabbalistic literature uses powerful paradigms that are elegant, universal and easy for anyone to understand when pointed out.
Jewish forms of esotericism existed over 2,000 years ago. Ben Sira warns against it, saying: "You shall have no business with secret things" (Sirach iii. 22; compare Talmud, Hagigah, 13a; Midrash Genesis Rabbah, viii.). Nonetheless, mystical studies were undertaken and resulted in mystical literature, the first being the Apocalyptic literature of the second and first pre-Christian centuries and which contained elements that carried over to later Kabbalah.
Throughout the centuries since, many texts have been produced, among them the Heichalot literature, Sefer Yetzirah, Bahir, Sefer Raziel HaMalakh and the Zohar.
[edit] Kabbalah: Scholarship
[edit] Claims for authority
Historians have noted that most claims for the authority of Kabbalah involve an argument of the antiquity of authority (see, e.g., Joseph Dan's discussion in his Circle of the Unique Cherub). As a result, virtually all works pseudepigraphically claim, or are ascribed, ancient authorship. For example, Sefer Raziel HaMalach, an astro-magical text partly based on a magical manual of late antiquity, Sefer ha-Razim, was, according to the kabbalists, transmitted to Adam by the angel Raziel after he was evicted from Eden.
Another famous work, the Sefer Yetzirah, supposedly dates back to the patriarch Abraham. This tendency toward pseudepigraphy has its roots in Apocalyptic literature, which claims that esoteric knowledge such as magic, divination and astrology was transmitted to humans in the mythic past by the two angels, Aza and Azaz'el (in other places, Azaz'el and Uzaz'el) who 'fell' from heaven (see Genesis 6:4) A similar belief prevails in Islam, where the angels are named Harut and Marut (see Qur'an, Ch. 2: 102).
The appeal to antiquity has also shaped modern theories of influence in reconstructing the history of Jewish mysticism. The oldest versions have been theorized to extend from Assyrian theology and mysticism. Dr. Simo Parpola, professor of Assyriology at the University of Helsinki, remarks on the general similarity between the Sefirot of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and the Tree of Life of Assyria. He reconstructed what an Assyrian antecedent to the Sephiroth might look like,[4] and noted parallels between the characteristics of En Sof on the nodes of the Sefirot and the gods of Assyria. The Assyrians assigned specific numbers to their gods, similar to the numbering of the Sefirot. However, the Assyrians use a sexagesimal number system, whereas the Sefiroth is decimal. With the Assyrian numbers, additional layers of meaning and mystical relevance appear in the Sefirot.[citation needed] Normally, floating above the Assyrian Tree of Life was the god Assur (god), corresponding to the Hebrew Ay Sof, which is also, via a series of transformations, derived from the Assyrian word Assur.
Parpola re-interpreted various Assyrian tablets in terms of these primitive Sefirot, such as the Epic Of Gilgamesh. He proposed that the scribes had been writing philosophical-mystical tracts, rather than mere adventure stories, and concluded that traces of this Assyrian mode of thought and philosophy eventually reappeared in Greek Philosophy and the Kabbalah.
Skeptical scholars find attempts to read Kabbalah back into the pre-Israelite Ancient Near East, as Parpola does, to be implausible. They point out that the doctrine of the Sefirot started to seriously develop only in the 12th century CE with the publication of the Bahir, and that for this doctrine to have existed undocumented within Judaism from the time of the Assyrian empire (which fell from cultural hegemony in the 7th century BCE) until it "resurfaced" 17–18 centuries later seems far-fetched. A plausible alternative, based in the research of Gershom Scholem, the pre-eminent scholar of Kabbalah in the 20th Century, is to see the Sefirot as a theosophical doctrine that emerged out of Jewish word-mythology of late antiquity, as exemplified in Sefer Yetzirah, and the angelic-palace mysticism found in Hekalot literature, and then fused to the Neo-Platonic notion of creation through progressive divine emanations.
[edit] Kabbalah: Critique
[edit] Dualism
Main article: Dualism
Although Kabbalah propounds the Unity of God, one of the most serious and sustained criticisms is that it may lead away from monotheism, and instead promote dualism, the belief that there is a supernatural counterpart to God. The dualistic system holds that there is a good power versus an evil power. There are two primary models of Gnostic-dualistic cosmology: the first, which goes back to Zoroastrianism, believes creation is ontologically divided between good and evil forces; the second, found largely in Greco-Roman ideologies like Neo-Platonism, believes the universe knew a primordial harmony, but that a cosmic disruption yielded a second, evil, dimension to reality. This second model influenced the cosmology of the Kabbalah.
According to Kabbalistic cosmology, the Ten Sefirot correspond to ten levels of creation. These levels of creation must not be understood as ten different "gods" but as ten different ways of revealing God, one per level. It is not God who changes but the ability to perceive God that changes.
While God may seem to exhibit dual natures (masculine-feminine, compassionate-judgmental, creator-creation), all adherents of Kabbalah have consistently stressed the ultimate unity of God. For example, in all discussions of Male and Female, the hidden nature of God exists above it all without limit, being called the Infinite or the "No End" (Ein Sof) - neither one nor the other, transcending any definition. The ability of God to become hidden from perception is called "Restriction" (Tsimtsum). Hiddenness makes creation possible because God can become "revealed" in a diversity of limited ways, which then form the building blocks of creation.
- Later Kabbalistic works, including the Zohar, appear to more strongly affirm dualism, as they ascribe all evil to a supernatural force known as the Sitra Ahra ("the other side") that emanates from God. The "left side" of divine emanation is a negative mirror image of the "side of holiness" with which it was locked in combat. [Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 6, "Dualism", p.244]. While this evil aspect exists within the divine structure of the Sefirot, the Zohar indicates that the Sitra Ahra has no power over Ein Sof, and only exists as a necessary aspect of the creation of God to give man free choice, and that evil is the consequence of this choice. It is not a supernatural force opposed to God, but a reflection of the inner moral combat within mankind between the dictates of morality and the surrender to one's basic instincts.
- Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb notes that many Kabbalists hold that the concepts of, e.g., a Heavenly Court or the Sitra Ahra are only given to humanity by God as a working model to understand His ways within our own epistemological limits. They reject the notion that a Satan or angels actually exist. Others hold that non-divine spiritual entities were indeed created by God as a means for exacting his will.
- According to Kabbalists, humans cannot yet understand the infinity of God. Rather, there is God as revealed to humans (corresponding to Zeir Anpin), and the rest of the infinity of God as remaining hidden from human experience (corresponding to Arikh Anpin). One reading of this theology is monotheistic, similar to panentheism; another a reading of the same theology is that it is dualistic. Gershom Scholem writes:
"It is clear that with this postulate of an impersonal basic reality in God, which becomes a person - or appears as a person - only in the process of Creation and Revelation, Kabbalism abandons the personalistic basis of the Biblical conception of God....It will not surprise us to find that speculation has run the whole gamut - from attempts to re-transform the impersonal En-Sof into the personal God of the Bible to the downright heretical doctrine of a genuine dualism between the hidden Ein Sof and the personal Demiurge of Scripture." (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism Shocken Books p.11-12)
[edit] Perception of non-Jews
Another aspect of Kabbalah that Jewish critics object to is its metaphysics of the human soul. Since the Zohar was written, most Kabbalistic works assume that Jewish and non-Jewish souls are fundamentally different. While all human souls emanate from God, the Zohar posits that at least part of the Gentile soul emanates from the "left side" of the Sefirotic structure and that non-Jews therefore have a dark or demonic aspect to them that is absent in Jews.
Later Kabbalistic works build and elaborate on this idea. The Hasidic work, the Tanya, fuses this idea with Judah ha-Levi's medieval philosophical argument for the uniqueness of the Jewish soul, in order to argue that Jews have an additional level of soul that other humans do not possess.
Theologically framed hostility may be a response to the demonization of Jews which developed in Western and Christian society and thought, starting with the Patristic Fathers. By the Middle Ages, Jews were widely characterized as minions of Satan, or even devilish non-humans in their own right.
The Kabbalistic view concerning non-Jews can be compared with the Christian doctrine that baptized Christians form part of the Body of Christ while (at least according to Augustine of Hippo) all others remain in the massa perditionis.
In an article that appears in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth, David Halperin theorizes that the collapse of Kabbalah's influence among Western European Jews over the course of the 17th and 18th Century was a result of the cognitive dissonance they experienced between Kabbalah's very negative perception of gentiles and their own dealings with non-Jews, which were rapidly expanding and improving during this period due to the influence of the Enlightenment.
For a different perspective, one might consult the first chapter of Elliot R. Wolfson, Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford University Press, 2006). Wolfson provides extensive documentation to illustrate the prevalence of the distinction between the souls of Jews and non-Jews in kabbalistic literature. He provides numerous examples from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, which would challenge the view of Halperin cited above as well as the notion that "modern Judaism" has rejected or dismissed this "outdated aspect" of the kabbalah. There are still kabbalists today, and many influenced by them, who harbor this view. It is accurate to say that many Jews do and would find this distinction offensive, but it is inaccurate to say that the idea has been totally rejected. As Wolfson has argued, it is an ethical demand on the part of scholars to be vigilant with regard this matter and in this way the tradition can be refined from within.
[edit] Critique: Orthodox Judaism
Main article: Orthodox Judaism
The idea that there are ten divine sefirot could evolve over time into the idea that "God is One being, yet in that One being there are Ten" which opens up a debate about what the "correct beliefs" in God should be, according to Judaism.
- Rabbi Saadia Gaon teaches in his book Emunot v'Deot that Jews who believe in reincarnation have adopted a non-Jewish belief.
- Maimonides (12th Century) belittled many of the texts of the Hekalot, particularly in the work Shiur Komah with its starkly anthropomorphic vision of God.
- Rabbi Avraham ben haRambam, in the spirit of his father Maimonides, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, and other predecessors, explains at length in his book Milhhamot HaShem that the Almighty is in no way literally within time or space nor physically outside time or space, since time and space simply do not apply to His Being whatsoever. This is in contrast to certain popular understandings of modern Kabbalah which teach a form of panentheism, that His 'essence' is within everything.
- Around the 1230s, Rabbi Meir ben Simon of Narbonne wrote an epistle (included in his Milhhemet Mitzvah) against his contemporaries, the early Kabbalists, characterizing them as blasphemers who even approach heresy. He particularly singled out the Sefer Bahir, rejecting the attribution of its authorship to the tanna R. Nehhunya ben ha-Kanah and describing some of its content as truly heretical.
- Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet, (The Rivash), 1326-1408. Although as is evident from his responsa on the topic (157) the Rivash was skeptical of certain interpretations of Kabbalah popular in his time, it is equally evident that overall he did accept Kabbalah as received Jewish wisdom, and attempted to defend it from attackers. To this end he cited and rejected a certain philosopher who claimed that Kabbalah was "worse than Christianity", as it made God into 10, not just into three. Most followers of Kabbalah have never followed this interpretation of Kabbalah, on the grounds that the concept of the Christian Trinity posits that there are three persons existing within the Godhead, one of whom became a human being. [citation needed] In contrast, the mainstream understanding of the Kabbalistic Sefirot holds that they have no mind or intelligence; further, they are not addressed in prayer and they cannot become a human being. They are conduits for interaction, not persons or beings. Nonetheless, many important poskim, such as Maimonidies in his work Mishneh Torah, prohibit any use of mediators between oneself and the Creator as a form of idolatry.
- Rabbi Leone di Modena, a 17th century Venetian critic of Kabbalah, wrote that if we were to accept the Kabbalah, then the Christian trinity would indeed be compatible with Judaism, as the Trinity closely resembles the Kabbalistic doctrine of the Sefirot. This critique was in response to the knowledge that some European Jews of the period addressed individual Sefirot in some of their prayers, although the practise was apparently uncommon. Apologists explain that Jews may have been praying for and not necessarily to the aspects of Godliness represented by the Sefirot.
- Rabbi Yaakov Emden, 1697-1776, wrote the book Mitpahhath Sfarim (Scarf/Veil of the Books), a detailed critique of the Zohar in which he concludes that certain parts of the Zohar contain heretical teaching and therefore could not have been written by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Opponents of his work claim [citation needed] that he wrote the book in a drunken stupor. Emden's rationalistic approach to this work, however, makes neither intoxication nor stupor seem plausible.
- Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh, an early 20th century Yemenite Jewish leader and grandfather of Rabbi Yosef Qafih, also wrote a book entitled Milhhamoth HaShem, (Wars of the L-RD) against what he perceived as the false teachings of the Zohar and the false kabbalah of Isaac Luria. He is credited with spearheading the Dor Daim who continue in R. Yihhyah Qafahh's view of Kabbalah into modern times.
- Yeshayahu Leibowitz 1903-1994, brother of Nechama Leibowitz, though Modern Orthodox in his world view, publicly shared the views expressed in R. Yihhyah Qafahh's book Milhhamoth HaShem and elaborated upon these views in his many writings.
- There is dispute among modern Haredim as to the status of Isaac Luria's, the Arizal's kabbalistic teachings. While a portion of Modern Orthodox Rabbis, Dor Daim and many students of the Rambam, Maimonides, [citation needed] completely reject Arizal's kabbalistic teachings, as well as deny that the Zohar is authoritative, or from Shimon bar Yohai, all three of these groups completely accept the existence Ma'aseh Merkavah and Ma'aseh B'resheyt mysticism. Their only disagreement concerns whether the Kabbalistic teachings promulgated today are accurate representations of those esoteric teachings to which the Talmud refers. Within the Haredi Jewish community one can find both rabbis who sympathize with such a view,[citation needed] while not necessarily agreeing with it, as well as rabbis who consider such a view absolute heresy.
[edit] Critique: Conservative and Reform Judaism
Main articles: Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism
Since all forms of reform or liberal Judaism are rooted in the Enlightenment and tied to the assumptions of European modernity, Kabbalah tended to be rejected by most Jews in the Conservative and Reform movements, though its influences were not completely eliminated. While it was generally not studied as a discipline, the Kabbalistic Kabbalat Shabbat service remained part of liberal liturgy, as did the Yedid Nefesh prayer. Nevertheless, in the 1960s, Rabbi Saul Lieberman of the Jewish Theological Seminary, is reputed to have introduced a lecture by Scholem on Kabbalah with a statement that Kabbalah itself was "nonsense", but the academic study of Kabbalah was "scholarship". This view became popular among many Jews, who viewed the subject as worthy of study, but who did not accept Kabbalah as teaching literal truths.
According to Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson (Dean of the Conservative Ziegler School of Rabbinical Studies in the University of Judaism), "many western Jews insisted that their future and their freedom required shedding what they perceived as parochial orientalism. They fashioned a Judaism that was decorous and strictly rational (according to 19th-century European standards), denigrating Kabbalah as backward, superstitious, and marginal".
However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries there has been a revival in interest in Kabbalah in all branches of liberal Judaism. The Kabbalistic 12th century prayer Ani'im Zemirot was restored to the new Conservative Sim Shalom siddur, as was the B'rikh Shmeh passage from the Zohar, and the mystical Ushpizin service welcoming to the Sukkah the spirits of Jewish forbearers. Ani'im Zemirot and the 16th Century mystical poem Lekhah Dodi reappeared in the Reform Siddur Gates of Prayer in 1975. All Rabbinical seminaries now teach several courses in Kabbalah, and both the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Ziegler School of Rabbinical Studies of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles have fulltime instructors in Kabbalah and Hasidut, Eitan Fishbane and Pinchas Geller, respectively. Reform Rabbis like Herbert Weiner and Lawrence Kushner have renewed interest in Kabbalah among Reform Jews.
According to Artson "Ours is an age hungry for meaning, for a sense of belonging, for holiness. In that search, we have returned to the very Kabbalah our predecessors scorned. The stone that the builders rejected has become the head cornerstone (Psalm 118:22)... Kabbalah was the last universal theology adopted by the entire Jewish people, hence faithfulness to our commitment to positive-historical Judaism mandates a reverent receptivity to Kabbalah".[3]
[edit] Notes
- ^ Megillah 14a, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:22,Ruth Rabbah 1:2, Aryeh Kaplan “Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide” p.44 - p.48
- ^ See "Preface to the Wisdom of Truth" p.12 section 30 and p.105 bottom section of the left column as preface to the "Talmud Eser HaSfirot" by Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ha-Levi Ashlag (Yehuda Ashlag)
- ^ a b Artson, Bradley Shavit. From the Periphery to the Centre: Kabbalah and the Conservative Movement, United Synagogue Review, Spring 2005, Vol. 57 No. 2
- ^ Parpola S. 1993. The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 52(3) pp161-208
[edit] References
- Bodoff, Lippman, "Jewish Mysticism: Medieval Roots, Contemporary Dangers and Prospective Challenges": The Edah Journal 2003 3.1 [4]
- Dan, J., The Early Jewish Mysticism, Tel Aviv: MOD Books, 1993.
- __________, The Heart and the Fountain: An Anthology of Jewish Mystical Experiences,
- __________, “Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah,” AJS Review, vol. 5, 1980.
- __________, The ‘Unique Cherub’ Circle,
- Dan, J. and Kiener, R., The Early Kabbalah, Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1986.
- Dennis, G., The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism, St. Paul: Llewellyn Wordwide, 2007.
- Fine, L., ed., Essential Papers in Kabbalah, New York: NYU Press, 1995.
- ____________, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and his Kabbalistic Fellowship, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.
- ____________, Safed Spirituality, Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1989.
- ____________, ed., Judaism in Practice,
- Green, Arthur. EHYEH: A Kabbalah for Tomorrow.
- Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives.
- Idel, M., The Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid,
- _________, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic,
- _________, “Kabbalistic Prayer and Color,” Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, D. Blumenthal, ed., Chicago: Scholar’s Press, 1985.
- _________, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, New York, SUNY Press, 1988.
- _________, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, New Haven: Yale Press, 1988.
- _________, “Magic and Kabbalah in the ‘Book of the Responding Entity,’” in The Solomon Goldman Lectures VI, Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1993.
- _________, “The Story of Rabbi Joseph della Reina,” in Behayahu, M., Studies and Texts on the History of the Jewish Community in Safed.
- This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain.
- Kaplan, Aryeh Inner Space: Introduction to Kabbalah, Meditation and Prophecy. Moznaim Publishing Corp 1990.
- John W. McGinley, 'The Written' as the Vocation of Conceiving Jewishly; ISBN 0-595-40488-X
- Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah, Jewish Publication Society.
- Wineberg, Yosef. Lessons in Tanya: The Tanya of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (5 volume set). Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, 1998. ISBN 0-8266-0546-X
- Wolfson, E. Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism, Princeton:
- ________, Language, Eros Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination,
- ________, Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism,
- _______, Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death,
- _______, Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings From Zoharic Literature,
- The Wisdom of The Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, 3 volume set, Ed. Isaiah Tishby, translated from the Hebrew by David Goldstein, The Littman Library.