Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[muman613]

If one accepts the Talmud as the Oral law there are plenty of examples of mysticism in the Torah.

Mysticism does not deny that Hashem is the ONE GOD because all power is derived by him. I don't quite understand how there is a contradiction.

[muman613]

The Torah certainly refers to Hashem by multiple names. To deny this indicates that one has never read the Torah.

How about :

Elokim:
Yud-Kay-Vav-Kay
Hashem (Master)
Shadai (Who said stop)
Rachaman (Mercy)
Chesed (Kindness)
Arech-Apayim (Long Suffering)
Emet (Truth)

I mentioned some of the 13 attributes of Hashem. We consider all of Hashems names to be just the aspect of Hashem which we interact with.

Obviously nobody prays to a name of Hashem... I know that people have always had a problem understanding how names are used by man..

http://www.vbm-torah.org/roshandyk/13-eb.htm

Belief in the Sod (the hidden meaning) does not negate the Pshat.

[edu]

Dan Ben Noah quoted Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim:

These notions contain two grave errors:  1) equating G-d with creation; 2) assuming knowledge about G-d. Two Torah verses teach otherwise: “Man cannot know Me while alive (Exod. 33:20)” told to Moses. G-d also told Isaiah, “To what can you equate Me, and I will be similar? (Isaiah 40:25).”

I agree with point 1. Some high profile interpretations of the Kabbala (but not all) incorrectly go against classic Jewisht thought and equate G-d with creation.
Point #2 that you raised needs some further refining.
The literal translation of Exodus 33:20 is: And he said you will not be able to see my face for a man shall not see me and live. Your understanding of the verse is certainly a reasonable one, but I am not sure it is the only one.
Perhaps an alternate source that there is a limitation of how much we can fully understand G-d is in Yishayahu/Isaiah 55 verses 8 and 9. And also the last few chapters of the book of Iyov/Job seem to echo this theme.
But at the same time in Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 9:23 the verse indicates there is a certain level of Knowledge about  G-d that a person can indeed obtain.
As far as certain Kabbalistic ideas that you quoted Dan, although they definitely can be abused and interpeted in a way that is contrary to Judaism, however, there is a Torah mitzva to judge, the righteous for the benefit of the doubt and the ideas you quoted are interpreted by some followers of Kabbala as symbols for vaious Jewish ideals and not in a literal sense.
And there is a precedent for this in the Tanach itself, where the Tanach for example, talks about
the "eyes of G-d" to portray a symbolic idea, even though in truth G-d does not have a body.

[muman613]

My point is that the article is discussing 'mysticism' and not what is called Kabbalah. What exactly is mysticism? It means to me that there exist things in the world which we cannot perceive, the spiritual world, which exists apart from the physical one. The Torah contains many, many hints of the spiritual world.

The Torah expressly discusses Angels such as during the very creation when Hashem says "Shall We Create Man?" and the sages say that Hashem is addressing his Elokim, his angels which according to Midrash argued whether man should be created. This is not Kabbalah, this is simple Midrash and these stories are brought by the Sages in the Talmud. We have the stories of Abraham being visited by angels and the assorted midrashim which explain that the angels, who ordinarily do no eat, pretended to eat in order to allow Abraham to serve them their tongue sandwiches {which he slaughtered three cows for three tonguess}. If this is not mysticism what is?

Many of our Giant Patriarchs had experiences with Angels as in the case of Jacob who dreamed of the Angels going up and coming down the ladder, and later his encounter with the Angel of Essau with whom he wrestled. The sages are clear that this was a heavenly angel who actually had to leave in the morning to sing praises to Hashem.

The Torah, the Talmud, and the Prophets all hint at Moshiach but the Chumash never explicitly talk about Moshiach. Yet it is fundamental belief of Judaism that Hashem will send a redeemer of the Jewish people. This is learned through studying the various interpretations.

Even Rambam considered Resurrection of the Dead to be one of the Thirteen Basic Principles of Judaism even though the Torah nor the Tanach ever explicitly mention this. Is the Resurrection of the Dead mystical or is it something rational?

The system of PaRDeS or Pshat (Simple meaning) Remez (Hints), Drash (Moral/Philosophical), and Sod (Hidden/Secret) is used by all who learn Torah to understand the various messages contained in the Torah.

While I agree that Kabbalah can be misunderstood it is still considered a source for wisdom. I believe Kabbalah can help cement concepts in our brains once we have learned the Chumash, Tanakh, and Talmud.


See also:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/558595/jewish/Who-was-Gd-addressing-when-saying-Let-US-create-man.htm

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/41/Q1/

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:what-is-the-meaning-of-G-d-said-qlet-us-make-man-in-our-image-&catid=49:trinity&Itemid=501

http://torah.org/learning/perceptions/5768/netzavim.html

These are, of course, the four levels of Torah referred to as “Pardes,” a word which means “orchard,” but which also stands for the four levels of Torah learning: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod, literally: Simple, Hint, Exegesis, and Secret, or Mikrah, Mishnah, Talmud, and Kabbalah.

There are four levels [of Torah understanding] and the pneumonic is Pardes: Pshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod. A person needs to toil in all of them to the extent that he can, and seek out a teacher to teach them to him. If a person lacks one of these four levels relative to what he could have achieved then he will have to reincarnate. (Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Ch. 11)

They are the four levels on which a single Torah concept can be understood, and as one probes from level to level, he also moves from a lower level of consciousness to a higher one:

The rabbis taught: Four entered Pardes: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher, and Rebi Akiva. Rebi Akiva told them, “When you arrive at the Stones of Pure Marble, don’t say, ‘Water, water,’ because it says, ‘He who speaks falsehood will not be established before My eyes’ (Tehillim 101:7).” Ben Azzai gazed at the Divine Presence and died, and with respect to him it says, “Difficult in the eyes of G-d is the death of His pious ones” (Tehillim 116:15). Ben Zoma gazed and went mad — to him the following verse may be applied: “Have you found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for you, so that you do not consume too much and have to vomit” (Mishlei 25:16). Acher “cut off his plantings” (i.e., he became a heretic). Rebi Akiva entered in peace and departed in peace. (Chagigah 14b)

See also:
http://rabbibuchwald.njop.org/2006/10/16/bereishith-5767-2006/

While invoking the various interpretations of “Pardes” addresses many of the major textual issues, we are still left with another unresolved question. If the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, how could the Torah state in Genesis 1:3: “Va’yomer Eh’lo’him, ye’hee ohr v’ye’hee ohr,” And G-d said, let there be light, and there was light. What light was this, surely not the sunlight with which we are familiar? Here the rabbis invoke the element of “sohd“–mysticism, suggesting that the light that was created on the first day of creation was a “spiritual” light rather than a “physical” light, and that on the first day of creation the world was flooded with spiritual light. This spiritual light was taken away when the human being sinned and defied G-d in the Garden of Eden. Hidden away in the World to Come for safekeeping, it remains there until the end of days when the human souls will once again bask in this spiritual light.

[edu]

Muman613 is correct that there are many different names for G-d in the Tanakh and there is a strong ideological reason for each one of them, denoting a different type of interreaction with the world.
This week's parsha Vaera even stresses this point Shmot/Exodus 6:2 where G-d stresses that his interreaction with the Patriarchs was with one particular name of G-d and not the name primarily used with Moshe/Moses.

As a side issue, commentaries are bothered by the fact that we do sometimes find the name "Yud-Kay-Vav-Kay" (the name primarily with Moshe)
used sometimes when G-d is communicating to the Patriarchs, so why does Shmot/Exodus 6:2 at first glance imply that it was not used by them?

There are answers to the question, but I will leave it for others for the time being to deal with.

[edu]

As I stated above:

As far as certain Kabbalistic ideas that you quoted Dan, although they definitely can be abused and interpeted in a way that is contrary to Judaism, however, there is a Torah mitzva to judge, the righteous for the benefit of the doubt and the ideas you quoted are interpreted by some followers of Kabbala as symbols for various Jewish ideals and not in a literal sense.

Indeed our most prominent authority in Judaism on the laws of how to avoid slander and gossip, who is nicknamed the Chafetz Chaim, wrote in another one of his well-received books, the Mishna Brura, that although Zohar and Kabbalah are not on the level of standard halachic sources, when there is a conflict between Halacha and Kabbala, however, Zohar and Kabbala are legitimate sources to learn from and sometimes we can even apply ideas from the Zohar to our day to day religious observance. This is not an exact quote, rather it is a summary of his view.
Chafetz Chaim has clearly has found a way to interpret, some astonishing statements in the Zohar and Kabbalah, which is usually associated with mysticism, in a harmless way.

[muman613]

The Torah explicitly says that Hashem originally intended to take the Jews from Egypt by means of an Angel but he actually brought us out with his own 'hand'.

Parasha Ki Tisa

1. The Lord spoke to Moses: "Go, ascend from here, you and the people you have brought up from the land of Egypt, to the land that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: 'I will give it to your descendants.'
2. I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=15567&p=complete

My point is that the Torah is full of mystical {non-rational} ideas. The whole concept of Chokim are based on the fact that the law does not have a rational reason.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Edu, I think this rabbi would probably agree with some of what you're saying about a symbolic interpretation of certain ideas.  He is a follower of Shulchan Aruch, and if I'm not mistaking Rabbi Yosef Karo had some kabbalistic influence.  (Although I can't point to the places in the Shulchan Aruch where this influence shows up.)

 Tefillin on hol hamoed, Blessing of the moon.

[muman613]

Tefillin on hol hamoed, Blessing of the moon.

Arutz Sheva just today talks about Kiddush Levana {Sanctifying the Moon}.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11137

[muman613]

What really bothers me is when people think you are praying to the moon... That is insane...

I think what Tag Machir meant was that there is wisdom which states:

"Whoever pronounces the benediction of the new moon in its due time welcomes, as it were, the presence of the Shechina. (Sanhedrin 42a; Sofrim 20:1)

The Shechina is the 'feminine' presence of Hashem. Of course we know that Hashem has no physicality, thus it is a spiritual presence.



http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380026/jewish/The-Phases-of-the-Moon.htm

[edu]

I think what Tag-MahirTzedek is referring to is not the idea of thanking G-d for the moon itself.
That already appears in classical sources.
However, Rabbi Kosman once told me, that there is a dispute in Rabbinical sources when is the ideal time to say the blessing during the lunar month.
Rabbi Yosef Karo author of Shulchan Aruch, adds the view of Kabbalistic sources to take one side in the already existing argument of the Rabbis, to prefer pushing off the blessing until the 7th or 8th of the lunar month.
Since I don't follow Rabbi Yosef Karo on this point, I don't recall if it is the 7th or 8th.
The same thing also goes regarding the question of putting on Tefillin during Chol Hamoed.
There exists a debate among, non-kabbalistic sources if one does or does not put on Tefillin during Chol Hamoed.
Rabbi Yosef Karo adds the view of the Zohar to tip the balance in favor of the no Tefillin on Chol Hamoed viewpoint.

[edu]

The following is an english Youtube lecture of historian and Rabbi, Berel Wein
who proves that Chatam Sofer (or Chasam Sofer depending on your accent)
viewed the majority of the Zohar as a forgery.

[muman613]

Interesting that he believes this.... I have done a search, because I remember hearing or reading something he wrote where he mentioned the Zohar. I read a lot of Rabbis at Torah.org and most of the Rabbis there will always bring a quote from the Zohar to bring out a point. Torah.org publishes some of Rabbi Berel Weins articles but either he doesn't give sources or the sources he gives doesn't seem to include Zohar.

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=torah.org&q=wein+zohar&cmd.x=0&cmd.y=0&cmd=Go#q=wein+zohar+site:torah.org&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=7xYZT6jYB4KoiALtt5m5CA&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=bb4169f1315a16c6&biw=1217&bih=903

[edu]

Here is another interesting lecture on Kabbala that I found on the Yeshiva University Web site
Controversies in Early Kabbalah: On the Writing of the First Kabbalistic Texts 
Speaker:
 Dr. Jonathan Dauber
Given On:
 Sunday April 25, 2010
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/744393/Dr_Jonathan_Dauber/Controversies_in_Early_Kabbalah:_On_the_Writing_of_the_First_Kabbalistic_Texts
This lecture deals mainly with pre-zohar Kabbala

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I was referring to the times the Shulhan Aruch goes with the Kabbalists (inflenced the halahic rulings)

 "Rabbi Yosef Karo had some kabbalistic influence.  (Although I can't point to the places in the Shulchan Aruch where this influence shows up.) "

 Soo I brought 2 examples off my head, I'm sure their are more.

[edu]

Chatam/Chasam Sofer's attitude towards the Zohar is based on Rabbi Yaakov Emden {or Emdeen's) book on the subject.
Rabbi Emden/Emdeen's view from what I am told by others, is that the Zohar contains many valuable ideas that have to be taken into consideration. He just denies that most of it is from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.

The idea that different names of G-d can help bestow various influences in the world is a very old one in Judaism.
It is found in the Talmud and I contend if interpreted correctly in the Tanakh itself.

Mishna Brura indeed on the first Halacha in Shulchan Aruch states that concentrating on the Hebrew name Of G-d Yud_kay_vav_kay {I am not providing the Hebrew spelling here intentionally} together with special vowel signs under the first 3 letters, will help improve a person's fear of Heaven.
I have a friend that said to me that one of the things that brought him closer to Judaism, was by meditating on specific names of G-d and following some other medidation ideas that he found in a book by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.