browsing here , i found a post by r micha , commenting that the tzemach tzedek attributed critique from the vilna gaon served to essential remove ‘avant-garde or anti-nomian elements’ from chassidus. am curious as to whether there are examples of those elements and streams that left and went else where. thank you
I have been interested in this: Have you heard of the concept of Averah Lishmah עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ, a sin done for the sake of the greater good? This is a controversial idea found in Kabbalah, there known as Yeridah tsorekh aliyah - יְרִידָה צוֹרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה - descent for the sake of ascent.
Can you imagine the debate and arguments that occurred when this idea became know?!
In Hasidic communities some rebbes taught that in certain situations, one could or should, at least in theory, engage in certain violations of halakhah on purpose, for the greater good. It was considered inappropriate for an ordinary Jewish person to even think about doing this, as the yetzer ha’ra (bad inclination) is so strong in most people.
However, for someone as great as a tzadik, it is believed that they would - at least in theory - know when it would be appropriate to do so. In Hasidic doctrine this idea became known as Yeridat haTzadik, Descent of the Tzadik.
Opponents of Hasidic Judaism - Mitnagdim - were especially concerned by this idea, and for a time held that Hasidic Judaism could lead to antinomianism and sin. This concern was not unfounded, as in fact this idea was used as justification for sin, idolatry by the infamous fake messiah Sabbatai Zevi, and then even more so by his successor Jacob Frank.
In practice, Hasidism themselves were quite aware of how this theoretical doctrine could be misused, and in practice later Hasidic literature neutralized the idea of doing an Averah Lishmah.
The mere possibility of such scandal ever happening was one of the reason that the opponents of Hasidic Judaism - mitnagdim - rejected Hasidism so strongly.
The idea of a popular kabbalistic movement - which included Yeridat haTzadik, - was considered too dangerous.
Eventually, Hasidic leaders themselves agreed that this idea was too dangerous to put into practice. Rabbi Gavin Michal writes
"The move away from early Chassidic radical mysticism was spearheaded by R. Naftali Tzvi of Ropshitz (1760–1827). He discouraged the practice of “elevating fallen sparks” as did R. Shneur Zalman of Lyadi (1745–1812) who wrote in his Tanya that this practice was only for the few tzadikim…
And then the concept of “descent of the tzadik” was soon abolished too, because not all rebbes were comfortable associating with the sinners and the non-observant. In this vein, R. Yitzhak Meir of Gur (1799– 1866) is quoted as saying: “It is well known that coming close to the wicked, even in order to uplift them, is of great danger, lest they draw the tzaddik to them…”
from - Is “holy sin” a bad theology? Gavin Michal
I’m hijacking this thread for a pet peeve of mine.
Whenever people can’t be bothered to look up a source, they blame it on קבלה or (specifically) the Zohar.
E.g. The concept of עבירה לשמה is discussed in the Talmud regarding Yael.
במסכת הוריות (י ע"ב) (ובמסכת נזיר (כג ע"ב)) נאמר בשם רב נחמן בר יצחק: “גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצוה שלא לשמה, שנאמר: תבורך מנשים יעל… מאהל תבורך”
For some reason it sounds more impressive when you give it kaballistic origins.
And then you can claim that it’s “a controversial idea.”
On the whole, I’m under the impression that the bulk of the Zohar that is understandable to the average person, can be found in the Medrash.
The rest of the Zohar makes no sense to the uninitiated, and can be twisted to mean anything you like.
They distribute the free מתוק מדבש booklets on various subjects. It’s a great explanation of the Zohar.
One or two lines of the Zohar and the rest of the page is explanation. Amazing ideas and concepts. Then go back to the original Zohar on the top of the page, and you discover that there’s no way you can put all that explanation back into the original. QED.
When I was growing up the hidden parts of the Torah were not learned nor discussed in public. Those that did it didn’t say and if anybody said it they definitely weren’t doing it. The source for this behavior is in the Talmud. (First few Daf of the 2nd Perek.)
But then, you had to learn Talmud and Medrash. They were not even search engines to help you find sources.
Back to the OP. Yes, we have heard of the concept, and the classic commentators on the Talmud (ibid) can help you decipher this entire undramatic Sugya.
Possibly some of the commentators on ספר שופטים will add something to the discussion.
כתיבה וחתימה טובה
-Danny
On some level, discussions about עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ, are overdramatized.
If you just think about עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ as larger goals or purposes vs. specific halakhic minutiae, it’s less interesting.
e.g. All discourse about “Heter Kiruv” are discussions of עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ. Or missing minyan or davening at a b’dieved time because you’re taking care of your kids. Or the cost/benefits of living in an “Out of Town” community, where one can’t get Chalav Yisroel milk or find a minyan that davens after Netz in the winter.
Decades ago, I wrote a Straussian take on R. Dr. Norman Lamm’s Torah U-Madda. As R. Lamm eventually seems to adopt a Chassidic theological model based upon Ha’alat/Birur ha-Nitzotzot, הַעֲלָאת הַנִּצּוֹצוֹת, elevating/liberating the sparks for studying Madda, I suggested, that R. Lamm was really advocating עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ: one has to study Z’nus and Avodah Zarah and engage in Bittul Torah for a larger goal.
Whether or not this was R. Lamm’s Straussian intent, or whether or not I was trolling in my essay, in practice this is what large swaths of the American Orthodox communities effectively practice.
R @ygbechhofer has a lot to say on the subject. Hopefully tagging him will get him to reply.