Halklein, that is precisely the point. He regarded the scholarly study of kabalah as being like someone studying the four humors theory that dominated medicine for centuries, or the four elements theory of chemistry, or the Aristotelian laws of motion, without which one cannot understand classical works rooted in a world where those nonsensical theories were the accepted science of the day. The scholarship is worthwhile, but the subject of the study remains nonsense. And that is how Lieberman regarded kabalah — that it is nonsense r”l, but it is a fit subject for scholarship. Tell me how that does not make him an apikores.
Menu