JTF.ORG Forum

Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Sefardic Panther on January 15, 2009, 01:24:46 PM

Title: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Sefardic Panther on January 15, 2009, 01:24:46 PM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 15, 2009, 01:36:10 PM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists

Stop spreading lashon hara
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 15, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
But in all seriousness, why do you talk gossip on here as if it's a reasoned argument?   You don't provide a source, you don't provide a logic other than wishful thinking ("I want this to be so, I don't like his opinion and so therefore it must be so"), and then you again name a famous kabbalist and say that since so-and-so (in this case, the Ramban) was a kabbalist, everyone else has to be, or else they are taking a cheap shot at the Ramban.   This line of argument is ridiculous.     
For example:  (Rambam was NOT a kabbalist.  So anyone arguing against a point from the zohar can use your same line of reasoning and say, 'all those of the chachamim of today who happen to be kabbalists and disagree, surely they don't think of themselves greater than the Rambam!?'  Do you not see that that is a ludicrous argument?)     

Stop grasping for straws.   Either deal with the arguments at hand or drop the subject and admit to yourself you are not prepared to acknowledge or grapple with the kashiya's of the opposing view.   It's not in the spirit of Torah (afterall, dealing with criticism and battling with the logic and basis behind opposing views is the approach to lead us on the path of wisdom and will ultimately lead you to greater clarity, as opposed to shying away from an intellectual challenge and crawling up in a corner), but certainly the shtus you write here is not at all in the spirit of anything.   It's like you're telling us you heard some whispers of rumors in the back room of a tea party.   What's the relevance?

You're not comfortable with the opinions of the non-kabbalists.   We get it.   But to many of us here, their points were/are quite valid.    And hashkafically, not all Torah Jews are the same.   If you can't debate the points on their merits, that's not our problem, it's yours.

And I say this with all due respect, SP.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Ulli on January 15, 2009, 02:07:22 PM
If this is practical Kabbalah, you should stay away from it.

Nobody can control this spiritual beings and I really didn't see the profit in the attempt.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 03:51:17 PM
If this is practical Kabbalah, you should stay away from it.

no, nobody is suggesting to do practical kabbalah. I would guess that sephardic panther knows that better than you. 

Not even the arizal and the baal shem tov did it.  I read that the arizal apparently said we don't have ashes of the red heifer, and are impure and so we shouldn't.. And the baal shem tov, that he used it once to get across a river, and he wouldn't do it again.  Nobody is suggesting it.

If it was possible, then kabbalists should have created golems to invade germany!

What sepfardic panther is saying is quite silly. And KahaneBT has answered him very well.



Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 15, 2009, 03:58:26 PM
If this is practical Kabbalah, you should stay away from it.

Nobody can control this spiritual beings and I really didn't see the profit in the attempt.

What makes you say this?

I have just heard in a Shuir I was listening to that Yaakov was able to summon the angels {Molochs} which he sent to meet Eisav. There are Tzadiks who can gain control over the spiritual beings. Also remember that Yaakov wrestled with the angel of Eisav.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: sefardic panther
The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah?

sefardic panther - it's possible that the world was just created 5 seconds ago, and all that you've experienced is just a memory.

But you have to base things on evidence.

You could also accuse rabbi bar hayyim of being a secret kabbalist.. but just not publicising it because he thinks it should not be publicised. And criticising aspects of it because he wants to turn people away from it because he thinks it's not for them.

Just take rabbis for what they say.. And if you think they are lying or playing psychological games, then avoid them.   The only ones that lie or play psychological games, are kabbalists that deflect any criticism by saying that their opponents are really kabbalists. They can turn the whole thing into a cosmic battle. Setting themselves up so that they can't be disproven. And idiot followers say "maybe, maybe".  Maybe there's a pink elephant circling your head. Oh, you can't see it? It's invisible. Oh, you can't smell it? It has a bath every day.


If you have no evidence, then at least be plausible.. It is plausible that some intelligent people have fooled themselves into believing something about hte cosmic world that is false..   And it is not plausible that any rabbi that writes strongly against kabbalah, arguing against doctrines, really agrees with them!

Why don't you say that Rabbi Bar Hayyim is a closet kabbalist.
Judeanoncapta is close to him.. Rabbi Bar Hayyim would reject what you say. Judea would reject what you say. Anybody who has heard rabbi bar hayyim would know how ridiculous what you say is.  
But you could say "maybe"..  I think rabbi bar hayyim might say "what can I say to such a person".  

You are a fool. And I mean that, very sensibly. In the sense that an intelligent person can be a fool.   Like the RAMBAM referred to fools and ignoramouses.  Not in the secular sense of like somebody that goes around with a balloon on their head blowing a whistle.

Quote from: sephardic panther
Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.

you know what.. we dealt with this argument already.

I'm sure that we are all better endowed than you, so just don't mess with people here and stop repeating this.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Ulli on January 15, 2009, 04:12:56 PM
If this is practical Kabbalah, you should stay away from it.

Nobody can control this spiritual beings and I really didn't see the profit in the attempt.

What makes you say this?

I have just heard in a Shuir I was listening to that Yaakov was able to summon the angels {Molochs} which he sent to meet Eisav. There are Tzadiks who can gain control over the spiritual beings. Also remember that Yaakov wrestled with the angel of Eisav.



What Yaakov did was different. The meeting came to him. He did not call for it. It was alone G-d's will.

Perhaps G-d listens to the prayers of Zaddiks more than to the prayers of normal man, but what do you think of the banning of sorcery in the books of Moses. And I remember that Saul was killed by his enemies after he went to the female evocator to call Samuel.

Please answer me a question. What is the sense of trying to call and command spiritual beeings?

Imo the ruling of the sphere is nothing for us.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 15, 2009, 04:29:38 PM
If this is practical Kabbalah, you should stay away from it.

Nobody can control this spiritual beings and I really didn't see the profit in the attempt.

What makes you say this?

I have just heard in a Shuir I was listening to that Yaakov was able to summon the angels {Molochs} which he sent to meet Eisav. There are Tzadiks who can gain control over the spiritual beings. Also remember that Yaakov wrestled with the angel of Eisav.



What Yaakov did was different. The meeting came to him. He did not call for it. It was alone G-d's will.

Perhaps G-d listens to the prayers of Zaddiks more than to the prayers of normal man, but what do you think of the banning of sorcery in the books of Moses. And I remember that Saul was killed by his enemies after he went to the female evocator to call Samuel.

Please answer me a question. What is the sense of trying to call and command spiritual beeings?

Imo the ruling of the sphere is nothing for us.

It is my understanding of Emmunah that I see every messenger in this world as if he/she/it is an angel from Hashem. Everything comes from him and it is my responsibility to seek the meaning in the message. I believe that Practical Kabbalah assists a man to see Hashems hand in all creation and in all historical events.

I have not yet begun to read this sefer I bought from Feldheim press but I will possibly start reading it next week.

http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=1-58330-893-8&type=store&category=search

It is called 'Living Kabbalah : A guide to the Sabbath and Festivals in the teachings of Rabbi Refael Moshe Luria' and it disucusses the Secrets of Shabbat Kodesh.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Tzvi Ben Roshel1 on January 15, 2009, 04:29:55 PM
If someone knows hebrew their is an article that can be sent about Kabbalah and why it is true. ( I didn't read it- I dont understand Hebrew well) But either way, right now I am completly impartial to the subject, I dont reject, nor do I accept.  ( I can send both views of for and agains't).
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 04:54:54 PM
What Yaakov did was different. The meeting came to him. He did not call for it. It was alone G-d's will.

You did say
"Nobody can control this spiritual beings and I really didn't see the profit in the attempt."

Jacob did beat Esau's angel in a wrestling match. That's control !!

Note- Muman still writes as if he doesn't understand that you are not jewish.. Or just assumes that you believe the judaism that he does. And that you should accept everything the anonymous rabbi told him  in an unnamed talk that he gave - prob over the internet.   


Perhaps G-d listens to the prayers of Zaddiks more than to the prayers of normal man, but what do you think of the banning of sorcery in the books of Moses. And I remember that Saul was killed by his enemies after he went to the female evocator to call Samuel.

Please answer me a question. What is the sense of trying to call and command spiritual beeings?

Imo the ruling of the sphere is nothing for us.

the types of sorcery are defined in our oral law.

kabbalists may say that somebody came to them in a dream or they came to somebody in a dream, and told them something.
So they may say that it's not illegal to do that

As to you searching for a reason to "command" an angel..
I would say, request something of an angel..

I'm sure that if angels have responsibilities and G-d gives them some free reign, some leverage, to do their action in the world.  Then if you have an issue, you can take it up with the angel.

they plead with G-d themselves.. and do the role assigned to them..  It's then sensible to plead with them.

nobody controls or commands spiritual beings other than G-d.

it's feasible that one may request something from them, or a spiritual being does favours for somebody. Not because he is controlled or commanded like a puppet, by a person.

requesting things from angels is still dodgy terrain, because we're meant to be praying to G-d. Not other things in heaven.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Ulli on January 15, 2009, 05:03:46 PM
Perhaps you have a point with Jakob. But althrough the circumstances are different from performing rituals in order to get power and control over spiritual beeings.

Yakov was choosen by God himself. Were there really another possibility of the run of this night?

P.S.: Knows Judaism the difference between demons and angels? And what is it's view about those.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 05:32:50 PM
Perhaps you have a point with Jakob. But althrough the circumstances are different from performing rituals in order to get power and control over spiritual beeings.

Yakov was choosen by G-d himself. Were there really another possibility of the run of this night?

P.S.: Knows Judaism the difference between demons and angels? And what is it's view about those.

the bible talks of rituals that G-d wants us to do.

kabbalah is not derived from the bible.   At most, there may be some verses that hint to a small bit of it..or some verss that speak of a -tiny- bit, like the idea of meditation. 

i'm sure there are even some kabbalists that claim to know the anatomy of an angel or demon, I wouldn't take it too seriously.  These aren't in classical judaism.  Even demons are barely spoken of.

The christian new testament talks of demons apparently. But notice that the tenach doesn't.   

You can go on and on asking imaginative questions, but at hte end of the day, all we have are what books themselves say.  I even found something on the internet where somebody asked a rabbi why men have nipples. And he gave some wild kabbalistic answer. He obviously made it up.
Point is though, even with tenach, I don't bother asking creative questions.. I just ask what the text says. And usually it's obvious.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 07:08:12 PM
Perhaps you have a point with Jakob. But althrough the circumstances are different from performing rituals in order to get power and control over spiritual beeings.

Yakov was choosen by G-d himself. Were there really another possibility of the run of this night?

P.S.: Knows Judaism the difference between demons and angels? And what is it's view about those.

the bible talks of rituals that G-d wants us to do.

kabbalah is not derived from the bible.   At most, there may be some verses that hint to a small bit of it..or some verss that speak of a -tiny- bit, like the idea of meditation. 

i'm sure there are even some kabbalists that claim to know the anatomy of an angel or demon, I wouldn't take it too seriously.  These aren't in classical judaism.  Even demons are barely spoken of.

The christian new testament talks of demons apparently. But notice that the tenach doesn't.   

You can go on and on asking imaginative questions, but at hte end of the day, all we have are what books themselves say.  I even found something on the internet where somebody asked a rabbi why men have nipples. And he gave some wild kabbalistic answer. He obviously made it up.
Point is though, even with tenach, I don't bother asking creative questions.. I just ask what the text says. And usually it's obvious.

Angels are spoken about extensively in the Talmud, in Psalms and they are also found in the morning prayers we say daily and of course brought up famously in Tanach in the story of Abraham and the tent as well as Jacob's "wrestling with the angel of Esau".

Now whether or not people understand what these verses mean is a different story.

But the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles.

Many many Rabbis discouraged the study of Kabbalah simply because it uses terminology most people do not know how to decipher so learning it could easily lead to some very mistaken conclusions about things and worse.

However, from the times of the Arizal (teacher of the author of the Code of Jewish Law the Bais Yosef) on it has been established that it is now a "mitzvah to reveal this great wisdom".
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 07:31:16 PM
Angels are spoken about extensively in the Talmud, in Psalms and they are also found in the morning prayers we say daily and of course brought up famously in Tanach in the story of Abraham and the tent as well as Jacob's "wrestling with the angel of Esau".

Now whether or not people understand what these verses mean is a different story.

But the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles.

Many many Rabbis discouraged the study of Kabbalah simply because it uses terminology most people do not know how to decipher so learning it could easily lead to some very mistaken conclusions about things and worse.

However, from the times of the Arizal (teacher of the author of the Code of Jewish Law the Bais Yosef) on it has been established that it is now a "mitzvah to reveal this great wisdom".


I said demons aren't discussed in tenach..  Of course angels are.

in the talmud(a massive work) even demons get a brief mention..

your position is obviously one that kabbalah - post talmud- is true.. this is the majourity position -stated- in our times.  Others, perhaps a silent majourity, just don't take it too seriously

The idea that the RAMBAM would say mathematics is an angel.. that is absolutely ridiculous. He was a very logical philosopher.

I would be very amused to see you quote him where he says that.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of talk of demons in the talmud -if- it's not  a tradition from sinai.. I don't know.  There are kabbalistic traditions in the talmud that are spoken of.. from sinai of course.  But anything after that doesn't have the strength of the siniatic revelation
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 07:42:15 PM
2) What is the way to love and fear G-d? Whenever one contemplates the great wonders of G-d's works and creations, and one sees that they are a product of a wisdom that has no bounds or limits, one will immediately love, laud and glorify [G-d] with an immense passion to know the Great Name, like David has said, "My soul thirsts for G-d, for the living G-d". When one thinks about these matters one will feel a great fear and trepidation, and one will know that one is a low and insignificant creation, with hardly an iota of intelligence compared to that of G-d, like David has said, "When I observe Your heavens, the work of Your fingers ... what is man, that You are heedful of him?". Bearing these things in mind, I shall explain important concepts of the Creator's work, as a guide to understanding and loving G-d. Concerning this love the Sages said that from it will come to know G-d.

3) Everything that G-d created in His world can be placed in one of three classifications. Firstly, there are those creations, such as the bodies of men and animals, plants and the molten images, which have a shape and form which always exist and can be spoiled. Secondly, there are those creations which have a shape and form which does not vary from body to body or in appearance, like those in the first category do, but their shape is fixed by their form and can never change. These are the spheres and the stars contained therein. Their form and shape are like none other. Thirdly, there are those creations which have a form but no shape. These are the angels, which have no bodies, but whose form vary from angel to angel.

4) If so, what did the Prophets mean when they said that they saw angels of fire with wings? This is owing to the riddles of prophetic vision, for angels [in reality] have no bodies and are not affected by physical limitations, for it is written, "For the Lord your G-d is a consuming fire". This fire is merely analogous, as it is written, "...who makes the wings His messengers".

5) In what, therefore, are these forms different if they no bodies? They are not equal in their existence, some being below others and owing their existence to those above them, and all of them owe their existence to the power of G-d and to His goodness. Solomon in his wisdom hinted at this by saying, "...for there is a High One that watches over him that is high".

6) The phrase 'some being below others' does not refer to positions in physical height, but just as one person can be more learned than another and we say that he is 'above' the other, and just as says that one set of circumstances is 'above' another, so is the meaning of this phrase.

7) Each level of angel has a different name. The highest level consists of the Holy Chayot, then come the Ophanim, the Erelim, the Chashmalim, the Seraphim, the Malachim, the Elokim, the Keruvim and the Ishim. The highest level is that of the Holy Chayot and there is none other above it, except that of G-d. Therefore, in the Prophecies, it is said that they are underneath G-d's throne. The tenth level consists of the Ishim, who are the angel who speak with the Prophets and appear to them in prophetic visions. They are therefore called Ishim - 'men' - for the reason that their level is closest to that of the intellect of Man.

8) All these forms live and know their Creator exceedingly well; each form according to its level and not according to its size. Even those on the topmost level cannot comprehend the reality of [the existence of] G-d for the reason that their intellect is insufficient for them to do so, but they understand and comprehend better than those on the levels below theirs do. Even those on the tenth level have some understanding of G-d, but it is beyond the capabilities of Man, who comprises both form and shape, to understand as well as those on the tenth level do. None know G-d the way He Himself does.

9) All things that exist, with the exception of G-d, from the Holy Chayot down to the smallest mosquito that lives in the mud, do so on account of G-d's might. Since G-d knows His own self and recognizes His own greatness, glory and reality, He knows everything, and there is nothing that is hidden from Him.

10) G-d recognizes His own reality and knows it as it is, but not with an external intellect in the way that we know things, since us and our intellect are not one. G-d, His intellect and His life, however, are one, in all manners of oneness. It would transpire that he is simultaneously the One that knows, the One that is known and the knowing itself, all as one. This subject cannot be spoken or heard, and it is beyond Man's understanding to recognize his Creator. Therefore, it is written, "By the life of Pharaoh", "As your soul lives" [but], "As the Lord lives"  10, and not, "By the life of the Lord" - for the Creator and His life are not two, like physical life or the life of the angels. Therefore, G-d does not know the creations because of their own existence, but knows them of His own accord. Therefore, He knows everything, for everything relies on Him for continued existence.

11) What's been said in these two chapters is like a drop on the ocean compared to what has to be said to [fully] explain it. The explanations of the concepts in these two chapters is mystical and esoteric speculation.


Hilchos Yesodei Hotorah.

 I don't expect everyone to understand what the Rambam is saying here but the Lubavitcher Rabbis have dealt extensively with these concepts: shape without form, and form without shape etc. If you study these concepts well you will find that your preconveived notions about angels are quite illogical, but rather angels are an analogy for something that is quite logical. And you will also find by extension that YES all set forms in this world are examples of angels...not winged creatures flying around (that is NONSENSE)...but math itelf is a set form that is non-physical, and lacks the ability to change and is therefore an angel...it is a creation with a form but no shape.


Anyone who thinks the Rambam did not know Kabbalah (the study of how G-d created the world and it's nature) obviously hasn't even learned the first few chapters of his most famous book.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 15, 2009, 07:50:03 PM
Angels are spoken about extensively in the Talmud, in Psalms and they are also found in the morning prayers we say daily and of course brought up famously in Tanach in the story of Abraham and the tent as well as Jacob's "wrestling with the angel of Esau".

Now whether or not people understand what these verses mean is a different story.

But the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles.

Many many Rabbis discouraged the study of Kabbalah simply because it uses terminology most people do not know how to decipher so learning it could easily lead to some very mistaken conclusions about things and worse.

However, from the times of the Arizal (teacher of the author of the Code of Jewish Law the Bais Yosef) on it has been established that it is now a "mitzvah to reveal this great wisdom".


I said demons aren't discussed in tenach..  Of course angels are.

in the talmud(a massive work) even demons get a brief mention..

your position is obviously one that kabbalah - post talmud- is true.. this is the majourity position -stated- in our times.  Others, perhaps a silent majourity, just don't take it too seriously

The idea that the RAMBAM would say mathematics is an angel.. that is absolutely ridiculous. He was a very logical philosopher.

I would be very amused to see you quote him where he says that.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of talk of demons in the talmud -if- it's not  a tradition from sinai.. I don't know.  There are kabbalistic traditions in the talmud that are spoken of.. from sinai of course.  But anything after that doesn't have the strength of the siniatic revelation

Here is interesting material concerning RAMBAMS ideas concerning Molochs {Angels}:


http://74.125.95.132/custom?q=cache:E_-ip_BlZ64J:www.vbm-torah.org/archive/jewphi/34bkuzar.doc+rambam+angels&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=google-csbe

Quote
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE KUZARI:

AN INTRODUCTION TO JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

by Prof. Shalom Rosenberg
 

Lecture #34b: Attributes and Archetypes, part 2

Holiness

      Up to this point we have analyzed isolated elements of the question of anthropomorphism.  Now, we must expand these elements to form complete units.  Allow me to present another example, which seems very significant to me, because it focuses on a prayer which is recited daily, the Kedusha.  When reciting the Kedusha, we join together with the angels and pronounce a fundamental truth.  These pronouncements originate from the visions of the prophets Yechezkel and Yeshayahu who heard the angels proclaim: "Holy Holy Holy ... blessed is the glory of God ...."  In this prayer we mention the "Ofanim" (celestial wheels) and the holy "Chayot" (beasts).  What do these terms mean?  Every child asks this question upon reading this prayer; however, soon after the question we tend to forget it, and lay it to rest with all our other unanswered queries.  Consequently, we fail to grasp the depth of these concepts.  Let us attempt to reach this deeper understanding together, following the footsteps of the Rambam.

       As we all know, this description of the Chayot and the Ofanim originates in Yechezkel's famous Vision of the Chariot.  The Rambam explains that this vision is a depiction of the relationship between the world, including the angels, and God, and a demonstration of the impenetrable barrier between the two spheres.  Without delving into the issue of the celestial beings, we will assume the existence of spiritual entities above man, just as we know of there are beings that are beneath him.  The prophet first describes the impassable chasm between the Creator and the world through the image of the distance between the rider and the chariot itself.  He then proceeds to illustrate the gap between God and the angels.  The chariot is composed of beasts, a type of horse, and of technology.  The most significant and revolutionary technological element of the chariot is the wheel, or what the prophet calls the "Ofan."  The image of the chariot conveys the sense that the components of our world are merely an insignificant cog in the machinery.  The Chayot appear in the vision in place of the horses drawing the chariot, except that the image is augmented by an additional element.  These Beasts are different than their earthly counterparts, for they are actually composites of various animals.  The angels are not described as additional passengers in the chariot, but as the Chayot and Ofanim which pull it.  They are merely a part of the chariot's mechanism, while the distance between them and their passenger remains constant and unbridgeable.  In the vision, a kind of platform is described, which separates the chariot from everything beyond it.  This platform symbolizes the heavens, which in turn illustrates the unbridgeable gap between the Creator and all other creatures.  God is symbolized by the man in the chariot; however, we must remember that the human form is one of the faces that appear among the Chayot.

      I would like to point out another detail, which is relevant to one of our previous lectures.  In his description of the Chayot, Yechezkel the prophet says that "their leg was a straight leg."  This is the position that we imitate in the Kedusha and in the Amida prayer.  This means that the angels have only one leg, which teaches us that they are beyond a division into sexes.  How much more so is God beyond such distinctions.

      This description of the chariot illustrates the full meaning of the barrier that separates the creature from its Creator.  The prophet uses physical representation; however, the vision is carefully constructed, and is actually a statement opposing any physical representation of God.  The utter gap between the creature and the Creator is expressed in the fifth principle of the Rambam's thirteen principles of faith.

      Do the angels belong to a sphere beyond our own?  This question is disputed among Jewish thinkers.  However, clearly the assumption of the existence of angels means that just as we know that distant galaxies exist in the natural world, we believe in the existence of a spiritual reality that is not of our own creation.

      Rabbi Avraham Ben David of Posquieres, better known by his acronym Ra'avad, opposed a number of aspects of the Rambam's approach.  His opposition stemmed from the perspective of the Kabbalist.  We have seen, for example, that when the Scriptures write, "the eyes of God," we take human reality and try to apply it in the expression of religious ideas.  However, there are two possible approaches to this type of interpretation.  To understand the difference between the approach of philosophy and the kabbalistic approach, we must point out the difference between allegory and symbol.  After the allegory is written, it can be translated, for example by writing "Divine Providence" in place of the "eyes of God."  The eye is an allegory.  However, the Kabbalists say otherwise.  In fact, the opposite is true, and the fact that man has eyes is not coincidental.  All of our earthly reality is a reflection of its archetype in the spiritual world.  The symbol is not a mere linguistic invention; it is an expression of the relationship between our everyday reality and the spiritual world.  This does not mean that God has eyes, but that Divine Providence possesses a characteristic which is expressed in the eye.  The eye is a symbol.  The symbol and the object symbolized are much more closely connected than the allegory and its interpretation.  The philosopher claims that the use of the term "the eyes of God" is meant to explain the spiritual reality to people in terms that they can understand.  This is anthropomorphism, the use of human language.  However, for the Kabbalist the direction is reversed; the lower world can be seen as a model for the spiritual reality of the higher world.  In a similar vein, some doctors claim the ability to discover diseases through an eye examination.  A doctor of this type does not use eyes as an allegory.  He sees them as intrinsically significant and necessary, for his method is based upon the assumption of a parallel between the appearance of the eye and the state of the entire body.  The Torah uses the language of symbols. 

      The Kabbala perceives everything in our world as a distorted, imperfect reflection of the upper world.  Man has two hands which function differently, one hand being stronger than the other.  This asymmetry reflects the fact that in the upper world there is a lack of symmetry between the divine attributes of Law, symbolized by the Left, and of Mercy, symbolized by the Right. 

      One final example.  The lowest Sefira is called Malkhut (royalty, or dominion).  The Sefira of Malkhut is symbolized by the Hebrew letter Dalet.  The letter Dalet is the symbol of  dearth (Hebrew: dalut), or passivity.  The Sefira of Tif'eret is the symbol of activity, represented by the Hebrew letter Vav.  The connection between them is, in essence, the connection between the giver and the recipient of charity.  This is symbolized by the graphic connection between the letter Vav and the letter Dalet, which creates the letter Heh, the symbol of true Malkhut.  According to the Kabbala, this connection is reflected on every plane.  Thus, when a person gives charity, he gives to the Dal, the needy, and forges a connection between the Vav and the Heh. 

      This compels us to see the larger picture in a different light.  Take the example of the word "book."  We can view this word as a pointer referring to all books.  In this simple approach, the written word, made of letters, suggests the reality.  However, this is only half the truth.  The Kabbalists claim that reality itself is composed of letters.  In other words, our reality is also a written text, which suggests the existence of something deeper that itself.  It would be a mistake to think that our perception of reality is the end of the analysis.  Reality itself is a text, which hints at a deeper reality.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 07:54:28 PM
No offense to anyone but it's really impossible to have a logical conversation about something if we're not speaking the same language.

So one person will say "this is an angel" and the other person will say "that can't an an angel because that would be illogical"...well how do you know it's illogical if you don't know what an "angel" is to begin with.

First you need to ask: What is an angel? What is a demon?
Once we define our terms we could discuss whether this or that fits the definition.

Otherwise it's like someone speaking Chinese to you and you say "that's not logical". It's not logical because you don't know Chinese.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 08:07:17 PM
No offense to anyone but it's really impossible to have a logical conversation about something if we're not speaking the same language.

So one person will say "this is an angel" and the other person will say "that can't an an angel because that would be illogical"...well how do you know it's illogical if you don't know what an "angel" is to begin with.

First you need to ask: What is an angel? What is a demon?
Once we define our terms we could discuss whether this or that fits the definition.

Otherwise it's like someone speaking Chinese to you and you say "that's not logical". It's not logical because you don't know Chinese.



you were attributing something to the RAMBAM

"the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles."

The RAMBAM would never have said that mathematics is an angel.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 15, 2009, 08:50:57 PM
No offense to anyone but it's really impossible to have a logical conversation about something if we're not speaking the same language.

So one person will say "this is an angel" and the other person will say "that can't an an angel because that would be illogical"...well how do you know it's illogical if you don't know what an "angel" is to begin with.

First you need to ask: What is an angel? What is a demon?
Once we define our terms we could discuss whether this or that fits the definition.

Otherwise it's like someone speaking Chinese to you and you say "that's not logical". It's not logical because you don't know Chinese.



you were attributing something to the RAMBAM

"the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles."

The RAMBAM would never have said that mathematics is an angel.

q_q_,

There is apparently evidence to support Lubabs position.

I realize Wiki is not the ultimate source of Jewish information but I came across this mention on the Maimonides wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

Quote

...
While these two positions may be seen as in contradiction (non-corporeal eternal life, versus a bodily resurrection), Maimonides resolves them with a then unique solution: Maimonides believed that the resurrection was not permanent or general. In his view, G-d never violates the laws of nature. Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.[17]
...

This idea apparently comes from RAMBAMS 'Commentary on the Mishna, Avot 5:6'


Apparently Pirkie Avot 5:6 also mentions that evil spirits were created on the Friday before the 1st Shabbat:

"
Ten things were created on Sabbath eve at twilight, and they are:
The mouth of the earth, the mouth of the well, the mouth of the she-ass, the rainbow, the manna, the staff, the shamir, the letters, the writings; and the tablets. And some say: Also the harmful spirits , and the burial place of Moses, and the ram of our father Abraham. And some say: Also the tongs made with tongs.
"
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 09:33:51 PM
No offense to anyone but it's really impossible to have a logical conversation about something if we're not speaking the same language.

So one person will say "this is an angel" and the other person will say "that can't an an angel because that would be illogical"...well how do you know it's illogical if you don't know what an "angel" is to begin with.

First you need to ask: What is an angel? What is a demon?
Once we define our terms we could discuss whether this or that fits the definition.

Otherwise it's like someone speaking Chinese to you and you say "that's not logical". It's not logical because you don't know Chinese.



you were attributing something to the RAMBAM

"the Rambam explains the concept quite beautifully. In short, angels are set forms or paradigms. Those can be good or bad. Anything in the world that works in a mechanic way without free choice such as the laws of gravity, mathematics, and different philosophies are all different examples of angles."

The RAMBAM would never have said that mathematics is an angel.

You say that because you a) don't know what an angel is. b) don't understand what Rambam is telling us.
Muman is correct. For the last time angels=set forms or constructs. Including all the laws of nature.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Muman- I don't have a copy of the rambam's commentary on the mishna.. That wikipedia article doesn't quote the RAMBAM..  and even if it did, sometimes something in one place is explained by something in another and you have to read the whole lot.  Particularly with the RAMBAM, and particularly on the subject of angels, where he was a bit odd. Nevertheless.. if that thing you quoted from wikipedia were true, then it suggests that the RAMBAM doesn't think angels exist..
He calls them a metaphor.. A metaphor is like rhetoric, it's not a literal thing, it's a fictional thing to explain something.   If it is indeed the case that the RAMBAM did not believe in angels.. Then that doesn't support lulab.

I must say.. the RAMBAM's views on angels were controversial.. He says in The Guide, that all prophecy is through an angel. (he may not have included moses's prophecy., but it is still controversial).  Infact I heard that rabbi yaakov emden wrote that that paragraph about angels in "the guide" must be a forgery and  cannot have been written by him - he who wrote the mishneh torah.   I would think the RAMBAM did write the Guide. And that he did write whatever he wrote in the commentary to the mishna..  But I don't have a copy of his commentary on the mishna. And anyhow it would not be in agreement with lulab. Lulab believes alot of kabbalah, which would say that angels DO exist. Kabbalists and pretty much any religious jew would say that they are living spiritual beings. Not just metaphors.

Lulab thinks every single rabbi prior to some lubavitch rabbi, are in agreement on everything, not disagreeing. And all their disagreements can be resolved.
This may well be a proper legit chabad belief.   Many misnagdim hold it too, though for silly reasons less theological, more out of respect.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 09:37:27 PM
Muman- I don't have a copy of the rambam's commentary on the mishna.. That wikipedia article doesn't quote the RAMBAM..  and even if it did, sometimes something in one place is explained by something in another and you have to read the whole lot.  Particularly with the RAMBAM, and particularly on the subject of angels, where he was a bit odd. Nevertheless.. if that thing you quoted from wikipedia were true, then it suggests that the RAMBAM doesn't think angels exist..
He calls them a metaphor.. A metaphor is like rhetoric, it's not a literal thing, it's a fictional thing to explain something.   If it is indeed the case that the RAMBAM did not believe in angels.. Then that doesn't support lulab.

I must say.. the RAMBAM's views on angels were controversial.. He says in The Guide, that all prophecy is through an angel. (he may not have included moses's prophecy., but it is still controversial).  Infact I heard that rabbi yaakov emden wrote that that paragraph about angels in "the guide" must be a forgery and  cannot have been written by him - he who wrote the mishneh torah.   I would think the RAMBAM did write the Guide. And that he did write whatever he wrote in the commentary to the mishna..  But I don't have a copy of his commentary on the mishna. And anyhow it would not be in agreement with lulab. Lulab believes alot of kabbalah, which would say that angels DO exist. Kabbalists and pretty much any religious jew would say that they are living spiritual beings. Not just metaphors.

Lulab thinks every single rabbi prior to some lubavitch rabbi, are in agreement on everything, not disagreeing. And all their disagreements can be resolved.
This may well be a proper legit chabad belief.   Many misnagdim hold it too, though for silly reasons less theological, more out of respect.


Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 09:49:37 PM
<snip>
Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.


The only source so far  -for you- about the rambam has been a paragraph of wikipedia quoted by muman.

this paragraph is saying that they are are metaphor, not a living being.

a metaphor is a fictional construct.. used to explain something.

taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist.


"
Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.
"

Funnily enough.. if he says that all prophecy is through an angel.  That makes sense if he thinks that angels are according to that paragraph!!!
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 10:00:31 PM
<snip>
Of course he did not believe there are winged invisible creature flying around. He's saying it's a metaphor and so am I for the 100th time!
But it's a metahor for something that certainly does exist.


The only source so far  -for you- about the rambam has been a paragraph of wikipedia quoted by muman.

this paragraph is saying that they are are metaphor, not a living being.

a metaphor is a fictional construct.. used to explain something.

taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist.


"
Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.
"

Funnily enough.. if he says that all prophecy is through an angel.  That makes sense if he thinks that angels are according to that paragraph!!!

"taking this paragraph for what it says.. It doesn't say angels exist.. And if angels are what it says.. then unless it leaves out something crucial.. it is saying that the RAMBAM holds that angels don't exist."

When you say "it doesn't exist" are you talking about the analogy or the analogue?

The analogy does not exist in the real world. The analogue does. That's the truth. But I'm trying to figure out what you're saying because you keep referring to "angels" without telling me whether you're talking about winged creatures (the analogy) or contructs (the analogue).

Certainly you are not saying that the analogy AND the analouge for angels do not exist because you'd be denying some major parts of the Torah. I know you're not saying that.

Please clarify.



Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 10:35:37 PM
i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM,  the rambam believes that angels do not exist

put it this way..
if you say  "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means. 

If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.

Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..

The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.

If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X.  Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist.  To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c.  We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.


This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.

It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.

It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world.  It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 11:50:17 PM
i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM,  the rambam believes that angels do not exist

put it this way..
if you say  "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means. 

If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.

Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..

The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.

If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X.  Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist.  To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c.  We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.


This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.

It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.

It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world.  It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.


Why do you say I brought you no proof? I quoted you from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah where is talking about three categories of creation and angels are one of them and he says they are forms without shapes. In hebrew this is "tzurah". So clearly the analouge does exist. He's saying it's part of creation.

Now you used another term that we need to define. You implied I think angels are "living beings". Well, that's another sticky one. Is something that has a form but no (physical) shape a "living being" in your book? Is gravity a "living being". It has a set form. But it's not physical. You can't see or touch it.   

So I think we both agree that angels (as most people understand them) do NOT exist. That fantastical creature is a METAPHOR for something. You could use a real thing as a metaphor (like the flower as you did) or you could use a fictional thing as a metaphor.

That quote that muman brought from the wikipedia article does exist, but it's not in that location in his commentary on avos. They are citing that section to support that notion that miracles are not neccesarily out of the realm of nature.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 16, 2009, 12:36:15 AM
Let me remind everyone what the hebrew word for angels is...

Is not the word Moloch, which means Messenger. In a manner of speaking anything which is a messenger of Hashem is indeed a Moloch and by definition an angel. This does include the forces of nature including gravity and time and space. I have always considered Moloch to mean any force which is an emanation of Hashems will. These include earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, and all forms of disaster. Molochs also provide us kindnesses and goodness. There is a angel of healing and an angel of death, an angel of fire and an angel of air. Every aspect of creation does indeed have its guardian angel. Yosef saw the angels coming down and going up. They come to this world to bring their message to humanity. The are not physical beings like popular literature portrays. Our Rabbis discuss the way Molochs stand and sing praise to Hashem, this is in the heavenly incorporeal world.

I do not think we disagree by very much in this area. We have not even touched on the Kabbalistic understanding of Molochs.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 16, 2009, 12:43:00 AM
Let me remind everyone what the hebrew word for angels is...

Is not the word Moloch, which means Messenger. In a manner of speaking anything which is a messenger of Hashem is indeed a Moloch and by definition an angel. This does include the forces of nature including gravity and time and space. I have always considered Moloch to mean any force which is an emanation of Hashems will. These include earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, and all forms of disaster. Molochs also provide us kindnesses and goodness. There is a angel of healing and an angel of death, an angel of fire and an angel of air. Every aspect of creation does indeed have its guardian angel. Yosef saw the angels coming down and going up. They come to this world to bring their message to humanity. The are not physical beings like popular literature portrays. Our Rabbis discuss the way Molochs stand and sing praise to Hashem, this is in the heavenly incorporeal world.

I do not think we disagree by very much in this area. We have not even touched on the Kabbalistic understanding of Molochs.


These forces of nature DO "sing" G-d's praises IN THIS WORLD TOO because we see His power through them. And we see the way these forces perfectly follow G-d's instructions without fail. And when we see how many different forces, each with no mind of it's own, work together harmoniously this DEMANDS the conclusion that there is higher intellegent force that is directing them according to His will.

This is why the angels of the chariot conncted their "wings" and only then could transport the "Man on The Chair".

The wings are the aspect of the forces that demand the realization of a higher power. We don't see that from just one force, paraigm or construct. We see that when the wings "connect" i.e. when we realize how they work together which is impossible without a "driver" of all these forces.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 16, 2009, 04:22:30 AM
i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM,  the rambam believes that angels do not exist

put it this way..
if you say  "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means. 

If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.

Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..

The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.

If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X.  Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist.  To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c.  We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.


This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.

It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.

It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world.  It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.


Why do you say I brought you no proof? I quoted you from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah where is talking about three categories of creation and angels are one of them and he says they are forms without shapes. In hebrew this is "tzurah". So clearly the analouge does exist. He's saying it's part of creation.

Now you used another term that we need to define. You implied I think angels are "living beings". Well, that's another sticky one. Is something that has a form but no (physical) shape a "living being" in your book? Is gravity a "living being". It has a set form. But it's not physical. You can't see or touch it.   

So I think we both agree that angels (as most people understand them) do NOT exist. That fantastical creature is a METAPHOR for something. You could use a real thing as a metaphor (like the flower as you did) or you could use a fictional thing as a metaphor.

That quote that muman brought from the wikipedia article does exist, but it's not in that location in his commentary on avos. They are citing that section to support that notion that miracles are not neccesarily out of the realm of nature.



oh, I see you made a post quoting from hilchot yesodei hatorah.. I didn't know what it was 'cos it didn't say at the top where it was from, I didn't read far enough to see it was the RAMBAM.. Now I see it is..


When I talk of something being alive, a living being, I mean, "thinking".
Having knowledge. (though maybe if angels don't have free will, then they think no more than a computer does. They don't think)

I think angels in tenach appeared in human form and did things.

G-d is living and formless. That doesn't mean he is a concept. 

I would say the same about angels.  So I wouldn't compare them to mathematics.

For some reason my hilchot yesodei hatorah has vanished some time ago.  I see the RAMBAM has some unusual definition of Alive. He even refers to planets as alive.  (maybe he was wrong and thought they were organic)

I looked up organism.. and here are some definitions of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
not that it helps much when talking about angels.

I suppose in chassidut, you think that everything has a soul.. even a knife and a fork.

What about a dead body?
I know in kabbalah one has 3 souls. The one in the blood(nefesh), the pure soul(neshama), and the one that binds them(ruach).   Suppose the person is dead - neshama gone. And suppose blood is gone, so nefesh gone.  would you say he is still alive? is the ruach still there and is that why?
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Shlomo on January 16, 2009, 11:05:14 AM
Awesome discussion.

Lubab, I have thought these things about angels for a long time and it makes everything much more clear and logical.

Even when someone says something kind to someone and it effects them in a positive way... then they are kind to someone else and it continues. I would consider this type of "force" set forth into motion a type of angel (as stated when someone "creates" good or bad angels). But I do believe that there is an even deeper spiritual level to these entities that we cannot perceive and that they do have a type of "life" from Hashem.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Sefardic Panther on January 17, 2009, 10:39:02 PM
Kahane-Was-Right BT don’t accuse me of lashon hara!!! I avoided lashon hara by not naming any names.

I did not state as fact that any Kabbalah sceptic Rabbi is a closet Kabbalist. I know Kabbalah is true and I don’t know how any Rabbi can totally reject it, so I speculate could their public rejection of Kabbalah be similar to what parents tell their children when they ask where do babies come from? All I am trying to do is to reconcile opposing interpretations. 2 Jews 3 opinions may be good for most secular issues but there ought to be consistency with Torah. If you are a rationalistic Kabbalah rejector how do you explain the crossing of the Yam Suf and all other miracles in the Tanak?

I can never post anything on this forum without someone disputing me. If pro Kabbalistic opinions are not tolerated then fine. I am not going to waste time trying to prove something which so many Hakamim knew was true and they were far bigger than anyone in the world today!!! And don’t bother replying with “the Rambam was a big Hakam too and he rejected Kabbalistic doctrines” that is just not an equally valid point because the Rambam is the exception not the rule.

Q_Q_ DON’T CALL ME A FOOL!!! You don’t even know me and you would’nt want to know me!!! The condescending armchair hakam may intimidate the semi observant but I know better.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 17, 2009, 11:03:49 PM
Sefardic panther:  you are changing the subject.

just stop repeating the argument that this big rabbi says .  And are you are bigger than that rabbi. It has been answered many times. And I don't think you are the biggest person here in Torah, so you could choose not to dispute people here.

I do believe in the miracles in tenach.. (tenach was a public revelation).

WHO HERE DOES NOT?

Believing that does not mean that I accept a private revelation as having the same weight.

That's the main reason why I don't take kabbalah as seriously as classical judaism.. the Torah-oral and written, as recieved by Moshe.

And others here have expressed the same reason.

Don't assume that we are like you, just following personalities. Many here seek truth.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 19, 2009, 01:01:59 PM
Kahane-Was-Right BT don’t accuse me of lashon hara!!! I avoided lashon hara by not naming any names.


It was tongue-in-cheek what I said.   I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it.   I'm implying that calling a rabbi a secret kabbalist is lashon hara.    That was a joke.    Although I do feel there is a kernel of truth in it.     

But I didn't actually think you were doing lashon hara per se.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 19, 2009, 01:09:20 PM
. 2 Jews 3 opinions may be good for most secular issues but there ought to be consistency with Torah.

There are plenty of cases in the Talmud, (containing the elements of Torah she baal peh now codified), where there is a significant machloketh (disagreement) between different rabbis, who have different opinions on the same issue.

Quote
If you are a rationalistic Kabbalah rejector how do you explain the crossing of the Yam Suf and all other miracles in the Tanach? 

Why do I have to be a kabbalist to accept that miracles happened/happen?   This is absurd and a straw man argument.   Of course the splitting of the sea occurred because Hashem has the power to do anything in the world, and he is not bound by the natural order or natural law (unlike some secular philosophers want to claim).   And it is written in the Torah explicitly, which is quite good evidence.

I'm not sure where you get this kind of idea.    Here's a very clear example in case you wish to dispute what I just wrote.   As the classic example I've brought many times now, The Rambam was not a kabbalist and he clearly believed that Hashem parted the sea.    What's your kashya?

Quote
I can never post anything on this forum without someone disputing me.

No, not when you post sheker.

Quote
If pro Kabbalistic opinions are not tolerated then fine.

What's the matter, you can't deal with the arguments against?   That shows what a flimsy belief you must have.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 19, 2009, 03:51:30 PM
This 'on-going' debate is not going anywhere. It seems we must be content with saying that some rabbis accept Kabbalah as a part of Judaism while other reject it. I am of the opinion that most rabbis do believe that there is Sod {Hidden} meaning in Torah. Kabbalah has been a part of Judaism since the days of Abraham and I accept it as part of my emmunah in Hashem.

There will be no proof of Kabbalah just as nobody will be able to prove that Hashem exists. This is part of the Olam {Hiddenness} which is manifest in all of creation.

I think squabbling about it is simply childish.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 19, 2009, 11:55:46 PM
This 'on-going' debate is not going anywhere. <snip>

on-going debate with -you- doesn't get anywhere with you.

But kahaneBT is an intelligent person.. and when he speaks it isn't squabbling.

KahaneBT is clearly winning the argument and making good points.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 20, 2009, 01:49:10 AM
This 'on-going' debate is not going anywhere. <snip>

on-going debate with -you- doesn't get anywhere with you.

But kahaneBT is an intelligent person.. and when he speaks it isn't squabbling.

KahaneBT is clearly winning the argument and making good points.

Really... You are about to show us that Kabbalah is not accepted in Judaism. I have not seen any proof of this. I see someone trying to argue minutia about the initial post. I dont know if the Rabbis who reject Kabbalah are secretly Kabbalists but who is going to prove one way or the other?

What do you suppose is this 'truth' that KWRBT spoke? Is it Lashon Hara to suspect that Rabbis may be secretly Kabbalists? I think not. It is known that many Rabbis taught Kabbalah only to their closest students while not revealing it to the general public. I have read the history of Kabbalah according to Rabbi Bar Tzaddok and there have been many Rabbis who would not reveal to the public their belief in Kabbalistic secrets of Torah.

I dont see the point of arguing about this. It may be possible that what SP said is true. It is up to your belief.


Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 02:18:49 AM
This 'on-going' debate is not going anywhere. <snip>

on-going debate with -you- doesn't get anywhere with you.

But kahaneBT is an intelligent person.. and when he speaks it isn't squabbling.

KahaneBT is clearly winning the argument and making good points.

Really... You are about to show us that Kabbalah is not accepted in Judaism.


no i'm not

I have not seen any proof of this. I see someone trying to argue minutia about the initial post. I dont know if the Rabbis who reject Kabbalah are secretly Kabbalists but who is going to prove one way or the other?

not you that's for sure.

but it's obvious that you should judge a rabbi based on what he has said..

and if you want to ascribe some other belief.. you need some evidence..
not just maybe.
Or you can ascribe alot of things.

and it's completely implausible to even consider that any rabbi writing against some post talmudic kabbalah, is a closet kabbalist.  And chances of one being one are minimal..  Infact, I would like to see one example of one that is?
A rabbi that wrote against kabbalah and is a secret kabbalist.
The RAMBAM came from the same school of thought as the Saadya Gaon.. he feld fast to the Gaonim.. There is no concept of reincarnation. The Saadya Gaon wrote against it..  Yet it's in the Zohar.

Now, if there is some evidence - however weak  - that the RAMBAM was a secret kabbalist.. I wouldn't throw it in here!! Not with you or mr panther.

I would have the discussion with KahaneBT, judea, e.t.c. even Tzvi!

<snip>
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 20, 2009, 11:59:20 AM
q_q_,

I could care less that you have your 'good-buddies' who you want to prove something to. I can care less whether you believe or you don't believe in Kabbalah, and I can care less what you think about RAMBAM. You will still prove nothing but that q_q_ cares only about his ego and enjoys disparaging a fellow Jew. This speaks clearly about your character traits and you obviously need some tikkun and teshuva.

It is not my duty to correct your sick character traits. You pretty much meet my expectations as a rude, crude, and un-friendly loner.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 12:33:10 PM
q_q_,

I could care less that you have your 'good-buddies' who you want to prove something to. I can care less whether you believe or you don't believe in Kabbalah, and I can care less what you think about RAMBAM. <snip>

that is a massive improvement, no assumptions.

It is not my duty to correct your sick character traits. You pretty much meet my expectations as a rude, crude, and un-friendly loner.

good
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 20, 2009, 01:14:56 PM
I am of the opinion that most rabbis do believe that there is Sod {Hidden} meaning in Torah.

I agree that of course there is hidden meaning in Torah, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, on either side of the debate.   The point is, Zohar is not it.    Or in other words, Sod is not limited to what's in the Zohar or kabbalistic seforim.   And just because zohar claims the title of "sod" of the Torah, does not make everything in it true and/or infallible.

And no, I don't see anything childish about this discussion accept the first post, which caused all the response.   If the author can't take the heat or the debate, he shouldn't post sheker.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 20, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
I am of the opinion that most rabbis do believe that there is Sod {Hidden} meaning in Torah.

I agree that of course there is hidden meaning in Torah, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, on either side of the debate.   The point is, Zohar is not it.    Or in other words, Sod is not limited to what's in the Zohar or kabbalistic seforim.   And just because zohar claims the title of "sod" of the Torah, does not make everything in it true and/or infallible.

And no, I don't see anything childish about this discussion accept the first post, which caused all the response.   If the author can't take the heat or the debate, he shouldn't post sheker.

I do agree with everything that you wrote KWBT. I do not argue that Zohar is all there is to Sod, or even Kabbalah. But amongst most of the Rabbis I have listened  and read the Zohar is pretty much accepted. I am not arguing to prove Zohar or even Kabbalah.

Im sorry if I implied your response was childish. What I find beneath us is namecalling and bickering about things which cannot be proved in this world.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 04:55:43 PM
Did anyone see how the Rambam went into detail in that Chapter from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah about how G-d created the physical and spiritual worlds. That IS kabbalah (how G-d created the world). The Rambam is right there teaching you Kabbalah and some here are still claiming he rejects kabbalah?! This is madness.

I think these people just don't know what kabbalah is. They think kabbalah=something illogical and mystical. When it fact it is quite logical, and only appears mystical to those that don't understand what it is saying.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 05:01:50 PM
Awesome discussion.

Lubab, I have thought these things about angels for a long time and it makes everything much more clear and logical.

Even when someone says something kind to someone and it effects them in a positive way... then they are kind to someone else and it continues. I would consider this type of "force" set forth into motion a type of angel (as stated when someone "creates" good or bad angels). But I do believe that there is an even deeper spiritual level to these entities that we cannot perceive and that they do have a type of "life" from Hashem.

Yes! And this is also the notion of the sending off the "weekday angels" and welcoming the "shabbos angels". These "angels" are the frame of mind of the person. We say goodbye to the weekday attidute where we are focusing on means to an end and hello to the shabbos angels which are when we think about goals primarily.

And yes, there are deeper and deeper kind of angels, and infinite amount of angels, in fact as it says "is there any numbers to His troops?" Job 25:3

P.S. I would disagree with the notion that even demons are given slight mention in the Talmud. Demons many times.


Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 06:57:05 PM
Did anyone see how the Rambam went into detail in that Chapter from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah about how G-d created the physical and spiritual worlds. That IS kabbalah (how G-d created the world). The Rambam is right there teaching you Kabbalah and some here are still claiming he rejects kabbalah?! This is madness.

I think these people just don't know what kabbalah is. They think kabbalah=something illogical and mystical. When it fact it is quite logical, and only appears mystical to those that don't understand what it is saying.


there is of course the kabbalah in the talmud.., the chariot, and on beraishit, and the mention of sefer yetzirah.
saadya gaon has a commentary on sefer yetzirah. Apparently the RAMBAM was the same school of thought as the saadya gaon..

I haven't read it at all but apparently also "Duties of the Heart" is that old.. I guess its author was of the Geonim..  There is a whole story here, regarding sufism.  The RAMBAM's son , who was te rabbi that took over from the RAMBAM ruling egypt, he believed that the sufis had run into the hebrew prophets and picked things up, but they had since become islamized, so he saught to unislamize it and retrieve the original. We don't know if the RAMBAM himself held by that, but it's possible if his son did.. his son defended his father's works from criticism of others. Of course, anything is possible. We really have to go by what the RAMBAM said..
Thing is though, also, he stayed strongly to the Geonim.. I think "duties of the heart" might have been an accepted classic.. i'm not sure.

Thing is though, as KahaneBT said, that does not mean that these things included all that is in the Zohar.  It doesn't mean that a mystic then was what people mean when they say mystic now.

The Zohar describes G-d quite radically.. You can't ascribe that to jews of then.  unless you have evidence of it..  I'm not sure if "Duties of the heart" describes G-d in that way, I doubt it. Though maybe sufis do.. the 10 gates may be the 10 sefirot..  I have no idea, haven't studied it..

There is kabbalah in the talmud, and a kabbalah I guess around with the Geonim.  I think judea and i've heard others mention, that the saadya gaon is important because he had an unbroken tradition directly linked to the talmudic academies of babylon..  The implication being, as i've heard from an unreliable maimonidean, that the rabbis in france didn't have that. 

What you are saying lulab though, was very simple and stupid, and you're smart enough not to make the mistake.
You take the word kabbalist, and you ascribe to it everything people throw in today.. including the zohar which published till quite late and was controversial when it appeared. And you ascribe it to a rabbi of old. 
It's pure intentional manipulation for you to do that.
Like muslims say Islam means submission. they'd say it means submission to G-d..  So Moses and the rest were muslims.  Still they'd never say mother teresa was a muslim, I guess that wouldn't benefit them.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 07:23:31 PM
i'm saying that according to that paragraph from wikipedia on the RAMBAM,  the rambam believes that angels do not exist

put it this way..
if you say  "A pink elephant is a metaphor for an embarrassement"
We are really saying what people mean by pink elephant.
A metaphor is poetic, it's not a literal thing, but we aren't talking poetically. We really mean that when the expression "pink elephant" is used, that is what it means. 

If it is indeed literally telling us what is meant by pink elephant, then, it's saying they don't exist. And it's a metaphor for an embarrassement.

Here is a case of a metaphor where the subject, the analogue, does exist.
If you say "A flower is a metaphor for humanity". That is a poetic statement. It's not telling us what a flower is. Normally one would say He sees in the flower a metaphor for humanity..

The RAMBAM was not writing poetry, and wikipedia articles are not poetry.

If the RAMBAM had, in describing what angels are, said that angels are a metaphor for X.  Then he is saying that is what is meant by angels. That is what "they are". It looks like a fairly complete definition to me.. perhaps saying what they aren't, they aren't anything but that.
That was only wikipedia of course, not the RAMBAM.
You may have another text from the RAMBAM, which shows he thinks angels are living.. Maybe he does in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.
But, just taking the RAMBAM for what he says.. *according to that wikipedia article*, he is saying angels don't exist.  To put it another way. He is describing what angels are and he syas they are a metaphor and doesn't even say they exist. Infact.. the metaphor that he uses is very much like the metaphor we use for G-d's emotions - anger.. joy e.t.c.  We say G-d does not literally have these emotions.
It's also consistent with something else I think the RAMBAM said in The Guide.. that the incident with Jacob and Esau's angel where Jacob wrestled esau's angel.. that was in a dream according to the RAMBAM.


This is purely a discussion based on a wikipedia article.. You have brought no source from the RAMBAM yourself.

It boils down to this..
You either take the RAMBAM for what he says.. (even if it astounds you)
or
You read things in.. just like those that say he was secretly a kabbalist.

It doesn't suprise me, given that the RAMBAM was a **RATIONALIST** that he rationalized angels and believed they were metaphors for divine interaction in the world.  It would be just like G-d's anger is a metaphor for a divine interaction with the world.


Why do you say I brought you no proof? I quoted you from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah where is talking about three categories of creation and angels are one of them and he says they are forms without shapes. In hebrew this is "tzurah". So clearly the analouge does exist. He's saying it's part of creation.

Now you used another term that we need to define. You implied I think angels are "living beings". Well, that's another sticky one. Is something that has a form but no (physical) shape a "living being" in your book? Is gravity a "living being". It has a set form. But it's not physical. You can't see or touch it.   

So I think we both agree that angels (as most people understand them) do NOT exist. That fantastical creature is a METAPHOR for something. You could use a real thing as a metaphor (like the flower as you did) or you could use a fictional thing as a metaphor.

That quote that muman brought from the wikipedia article does exist, but it's not in that location in his commentary on avos. They are citing that section to support that notion that miracles are not neccesarily out of the realm of nature.



oh, I see you made a post quoting from hilchot yesodei hatorah.. I didn't know what it was 'cos it didn't say at the top where it was from, I didn't read far enough to see it was the RAMBAM.. Now I see it is..


When I talk of something being alive, a living being, I mean, "thinking".
Having knowledge. (though maybe if angels don't have free will, then they think no more than a computer does. They don't think)

I think angels in tenach appeared in human form and did things.

G-d is living and formless. That doesn't mean he is a concept. 

I would say the same about angels.  So I wouldn't compare them to mathematics.

For some reason my hilchot yesodei hatorah has vanished some time ago.  I see the RAMBAM has some unusual definition of Alive. He even refers to planets as alive.  (maybe he was wrong and thought they were organic)

I looked up organism.. and here are some definitions of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
not that it helps much when talking about angels.

I suppose in chassidut, you think that everything has a soul.. even a knife and a fork.

What about a dead body?
I know in kabbalah one has 3 souls. The one in the blood(nefesh), the pure soul(neshama), and the one that binds them(ruach).   Suppose the person is dead - neshama gone. And suppose blood is gone, so nefesh gone.  would you say he is still alive? is the ruach still there and is that why?

When chassidus and kabbalah talk about a "soul" it can mean two things. 1. A life force. 2. A consciosness. A dead body does not have consciousness (the neshama) but has a life force as evidenced by the fact that there is energy, nutrients etc. in the body which is why insects gain sustenance from it. The fork also has a life force, it has energy e.g. it will resist you if you try to break it. All life has this basic life force which is more broad than the scientific definition of life. If you look at the nuclear level you'll find that all matter is very much alive.

That basic life force (or energy) in the body remains in this world eternally, decomposed into plant-life possibly, but never leaves...it's the conservation of energy principle.

 
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 07:46:30 PM
Did anyone see how the Rambam went into detail in that Chapter from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah about how G-d created the physical and spiritual worlds. That IS kabbalah (how G-d created the world). The Rambam is right there teaching you Kabbalah and some here are still claiming he rejects kabbalah?! This is madness.

I think these people just don't know what kabbalah is. They think kabbalah=something illogical and mystical. When it fact it is quite logical, and only appears mystical to those that don't understand what it is saying.


there is of course the kabbalah in the talmud.., the chariot, and on beraishit, and the mention of sefer yetzirah.
saadya gaon has a commentary on sefer yetzirah. Apparently the RAMBAM was the same school of thought as the saadya gaon..

I haven't read it at all but apparently also "Duties of the Heart" is that old.. I guess its author was of the Geonim..  There is a whole story here, regarding sufism.  The RAMBAM's son , who was te rabbi that took over from the RAMBAM ruling egypt, he believed that the sufis had run into the hebrew prophets and picked things up, but they had since become islamized, so he saught to unislamize it and retrieve the original. We don't know if the RAMBAM himself held by that, but it's possible if his son did.. his son defended his father's works from criticism of others. Of course, anything is possible. We really have to go by what the RAMBAM said..
Thing is though, also, he stayed strongly to the Geonim.. I think "duties of the heart" might have been an accepted classic.. i'm not sure.

Thing is though, as KahaneBT said, that does not mean that these things included all that is in the Zohar.  It doesn't mean that a mystic then was what people mean when they say mystic now.

The Zohar describes G-d quite radically.. You can't ascribe that to jews of then.  unless you have evidence of it..  I'm not sure if "Duties of the heart" describes G-d in that way, I doubt it. Though maybe sufis do.. the 10 gates may be the 10 sefirot..  I have no idea, haven't studied it..

There is kabbalah in the talmud, and a kabbalah I guess around with the Geonim.  I think judea and i've heard others mention, that the saadya gaon is important because he had an unbroken tradition directly linked to the talmudic academies of babylon..  The implication being, as i've heard from an unreliable maimonidean, that the rabbis in france didn't have that. 

What you are saying lulab though, was very simple and stupid, and you're smart enough not to make the mistake.
You take the word kabbalist, and you ascribe to it everything people throw in today.. including the zohar which published till quite late and was controversial when it appeared. And you ascribe it to a rabbi of old. 
It's pure intentional manipulation for you to do that.
Like muslims say Islam means submission. they'd say it means submission to G-d..  So Moses and the rest were muslims.  Still they'd never say mother teresa was a muslim, I guess that wouldn't benefit them.

Again we can't have a rational conversation because you don't know or simply have a different idea about what kabbalah is than I do.

I KNOW that Rambam and all our great sages had an intimate knowlege of science and the secrets of the universe covered books like the Zohar (not one of them was unable to raise the dead, for instance).  That means I can call them "kabbalists". You don't have to. But the argument is only semantic. We both know they well familiar with the concepts of the evolution from spiritual to physical that G-d uses to create the world as amply demonstrated by those exerpts from Hilchos Yesodie Hatorah.

You call that tomatoae. I call it tomatoe. Fact is, he's discussing the same concepts discussed in Zohar and in the teachings of the Arizal, making him someone who was fully steeped in the concepts of Kabbalah.


Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: lulab
When chassidus and kabbalah talk about a "soul" it can mean two things. 1. A life force. 2. A consciosness. A dead body does not have consciousness (the neshama) but has a life force as evidenced by the fact that there is energy, nutrients etc. in the body which is why insects gain sustenance from it. The fork also has a life force, it has energy e.g. it will resist you if you try to break it. All life has this basic life force which is more broad than the scientific definition of life. If you look at the nuclear level you'll find that all matter is very much alive.

That basic life force (or energy) in the body remains in this world eternally, decomposed into plant-life possibly, but never leaves...it's the conservation of energy principle.

lulab, that is pseudo-science..  

it's it's not science.  and i'm guessing it's not kabbalah either, unless perhaps the lubavitcher rebbe claimed it.. making it very modern kabbalah, and no reason to think that earlier kabbalists would have made such a claim.

The idea that the soul is ENERGY, is nonsense.  Energy is a scientific concept.. there is kinetic energy, and so on.  I'm not sure that it's always even something that really exists.  Something at a greater height is -SAID TO- have more "gravitational potential energy", certainly it works to explain, say, a swing's movement, and to do calculations. Nobody has discovered a "soul energy"..maybe if the soul was discovered it wouldn't be called an energy, energy being too physical.

It would make more sense if discussing kabbalah, to see the kabbalistic explanation, not a scientific rendering of it.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 07:58:25 PM
<snip>
Again we can't have a rational conversation because you don't know or simply have a different idea about what kabbalah is than I do.

I KNOW that Rambam and all our great sages had an intimate knowlege of science and the secrets of the universe covered books like the Zohar (not one of them was unable to raise the dead, for instance).  That means I can call them "kabbalists". You don't have to. But the argument is only semantic. We both know they well familiar with the concepts of the evolution from spiritual to physical that G-d uses to create the world as amply demonstrated by those exerpts from Hilchos Yesodie Hatorah.

You call that tomatoae. I call it tomatoe. Fact is, he's discussing the same concepts discussed in Zohar and in the teachings of the Arizal, making him someone who was fully steeped in the concepts of Kabbalah.

The RAMBAM did not know whether the earth was at the center or the sun was or what.. I think he writes in the mishneh torah hilchot kiddush hachodesh, as if the earth is at the center. And he writes in The Guide,  he said we had traditions but they were lost. that we use the greek astronomical concept which is a -hypothesis-. The calculations work even if the model is not correct, it works.

Also, in the talmud bavli, there is discussion.. they didn't know whether the earth was flat or round.   The Talmud Yerushalmi  got it right, and so did te Zohar.  Those were really the 2 options "known at the time" going around the nations anyway..So it was 50/50.  Point to you is, that they didn't know.

And why don't you state something very important here..
You, as a really serious chabad man, believe that every rabbi prior to a certain one, agrees. And never disagreed.  So you have a very different premise to others. And you read things in because of it.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 21, 2009, 09:41:38 PM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.


My Grandfather lived and died in Mougador Morocco. He was a Orthodox Rabbi and he was an expert on kabbalah. My Mom has told me that her father ( Rabbi Yamin Bougamin )
told her when she was little that the kabbalah was magic...but that it was also very dangerous! My Mom never studied it nor would I. We listen to the wise!
An example of practical kabbalah could be compared to putting a baby seal in a tank with a shark. The situation could be dangerous / or deadly.
The kabbalah is for the experts who have mastered Torah.

                                                                                               Shalom - Dox


Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 21, 2009, 09:54:54 PM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.


My Grandfather lived and died in Mougador Morocco. He was a Orthodox Rabbi and he was an expert on kabbalah. My Mom has told me that her father ( Rabbi Yamin Bougamin )
told her when she was little that the kabbalah was magic...but that it was also very dangerous! My Mom never studied it nor would I. We listen to the wise!
An example of practical kabbalah could be compared to putting a baby seal in a tank with a shark. The situation could be dangerous / or deadly.
The kabbalah is for the experts who have mastered Torah.

                                                                                               Shalom - Dox

It would be dangerous if it worked then all that may well be correct. You assume that it does work.
 
Maybe your mother's father never did it either. (he just studied theory).

If it was so powerful , these kabbalists would have used it effectively on our enemies, and not been persecuted so much for 2000 years.

I guarantee that they tried.

You have succeeded in lowering the level of intelligent discussion though.  With stories about how dangerous it is..

Doing that happens to be a classic set up for a con.. like the egyptian strong man clip on memri.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 21, 2009, 10:05:50 PM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.


My Grandfather lived and died in Mougador Morocco. He was a Orthodox Rabbi and he was an expert on kabbalah. My Mom has told me that her father ( Rabbi Yamin Bougamin )
told her when she was little that the kabbalah was magic...but that it was also very dangerous! My Mom never studied it nor would I. We listen to the wise!
An example of practical kabbalah could be compared to putting a baby seal in a tank with a shark. The situation could be dangerous / or deadly.
The kabbalah is for the experts who have mastered Torah.

                                                                                               Shalom - Dox

It would be dangerous if it worked then all that may well be correct. You assume that it does work.
 
Maybe your mother's father never did it either. (he just studied theory).

If it was so powerful , these kabbalists would have used it effectively on our enemies, and not been persecuted so much for 2000 years.

I guarantee that they tried.

You have succeeded in lowering the level of intelligent discussion though.  With stories about how dangerous it is..

Doing that happens to be a classic set up for a con.. like the egyptian strong man clip on memri.

Obviously you cannot make a reply without an insult. Typical Liberal !
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 21, 2009, 10:36:54 PM
<snip>
Obviously you cannot make a reply without an insult. Typical Liberal !

Look who takes offence!  You Bolshevik!
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 22, 2009, 12:08:39 AM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.


My Grandfather lived and died in Mougador Morocco. He was a Orthodox Rabbi and he was an expert on kabbalah. My Mom has told me that her father ( Rabbi Yamin Bougamin )
told her when she was little that the kabbalah was magic...but that it was also very dangerous! My Mom never studied it nor would I. We listen to the wise!
An example of practical kabbalah could be compared to putting a baby seal in a tank with a shark. The situation could be dangerous / or deadly.
The kabbalah is for the experts who have mastered Torah.

                                                                                               Shalom - Dox

It would be dangerous if it worked then all that may well be correct. You assume that it does work.
 
Maybe your mother's father never did it either. (he just studied theory).

If it was so powerful , these kabbalists would have used it effectively on our enemies, and not been persecuted so much for 2000 years.

I guarantee that they tried.

You have succeeded in lowering the level of intelligent discussion though.  With stories about how dangerous it is..

Doing that happens to be a classic set up for a con.. like the egyptian strong man clip on memri.

Obviously you cannot make a reply without an insult. Typical Liberal !

Republicandox,

Take no heed of q_q_, he is always insulting and degrading to almost everyone. I think it is a compliment when he insults people. Some people have developmental problems and don't know how to relate to other people. I believe q_q_ is one of those loner types who 'didn't get along with others' when he was growing up.

Just look at his history of postings...

PS: Make his will your will, so that Hashem may make your will his will.

PPS: Kabbalah is NOT magic... No more than Chemistry is magic. It is our belief that Kabbalah is the mechanism by which the universe was created. If we could harness it we could understand all the secrets of creation. Only very humble tzaddicks even have a chance of using it to alter reality.

BTW, in the shuir on the Secrets of Lashon HaKodesh the Rabbi mentioned a fact I had heard before. The words "Abbra Cadabra" are based on Hebrew. In Hebew the words "Avera CaDabera" roughly translates to "I do what I speak".


For a very good overview of what Kabbalah is and isn't check out Rabbi Arial BarTzaddoks website @
http://www.koshertorah.com/
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 12:44:10 AM
<snip>
PPS: Kabbalah is NOT magic... No more than Chemistry is magic. It is our belief that Kabbalah is the mechanism by which the universe was created. If we could harness it we could understand all the secrets of creation. Only very humble tzaddicks even have a chance of using it to alter reality.

When gentiles get it wrong I let them because they shouldn't be using the term in the first place and sounding jewish..

But you should know better. The plural of Tzaddik is Tzaddikim.  Not saddicks or Tsaddicks or whatever you think.

You don't just add an 's' to a hebrew word to make a plural. Sometimes people do it  if a word is difficult.. (like the plural for tallus/tallit may not be obvious to people). But everybody gets Tzaddikim right!

BTW, in the shuir on the Secrets of Lashon HaKodesh the Rabbi mentioned a fact I had heard before. The words "Abbra Cadabra" are based on Hebrew. In Hebew the words "Avera CaDabera" roughly translates to "I do what I speak".

Well if you have heard the fact before you should know it's based on the aramaic. I doubt that you heard it wrong twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra

It is a well known and not particularly significant fact.. I guess you found it a great "secret".

<important snip>
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 22, 2009, 12:57:51 AM
<snip>
PPS: Kabbalah is NOT magic... No more than Chemistry is magic. It is our belief that Kabbalah is the mechanism by which the universe was created. If we could harness it we could understand all the secrets of creation. Only very humble tzaddicks even have a chance of using it to alter reality.

When gentiles get it wrong I let them because they shouldn't be using the term in the first place and sounding jewish..

But you should know better. The plural of Tzaddik is Tzaddikim.  Not saddicks or Tsaddicks or whatever you think.

You don't just add an 's' to a hebrew word to make a plural. Sometimes people do it  if a word is difficult.. (like the plural for tallus/tallit may not be obvious to people). But everybody gets Tzaddikim right!

BTW, in the shuir on the Secrets of Lashon HaKodesh the Rabbi mentioned a fact I had heard before. The words "Abbra Cadabra" are based on Hebrew. In Hebew the words "Avera CaDabera" roughly translates to "I do what I speak".

Well if you have heard the fact before you should know it's based on the aramaic. I doubt that you heard it wrong twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra

It is a well known and not particularly significant fact.. I guess you found it a great "secret".

<important snip>

q_q_,

You are one to correct peoples spelling? I realize that it is misspelled now and I apologize for the error. But that doesnt detract from what I was saying.

It is no big secret the fact that the origin of Abra Cadabra is from the hebrew.

According to the Chabad site, and according to the Rabbi I listened to last night, the orgin is from the hebrew.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361874/jewish/Abraham.htm
Quote
Abraham was also fully aware of the magical and idolatrous uses that could be developed from these mysteries, and the Talmud states that Abraham had a tract dealing with idolatry that consisted of 400 chapters. There is also a Talmudic teaching that Abraham taught the mysteries involving “unclean names” to the children of his concubines. This is based on the verse, “to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away…to the lands of the East” (Genesis 25:6). These gifts consisted of occult mysteries, which then spread in eastern Asia. It is no wonder that in many of the eastern religions we find parallels to Kabbalistic teachings. One of the most simple and striking examples of the transmition of the occult is that every child knows a magician uses the phrase “Abracadabra.” This magical expression is none other than an Aramaic extension of the Hebrew abra— I will create, k’adabra—as I will speak—the knowledge of creation using letters and names as documented in Sefer Yetzirah.

You may learn something from Rabbi Mordechi Kraft @ http://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Mordechai_Kraft/2009-01-01/secrets_of_hebrew_language/Rabbi__Mordechai_Kraft__secrets_of_hebrew_language__2009-01-01.wmv (http://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Mordechai_Kraft/2009-01-01/secrets_of_hebrew_language/Rabbi__Mordechai_Kraft__secrets_of_hebrew_language__2009-01-01.wmv)

Listen to the Rabbi @ 1:10:20 when he explains how Abra Cadabra comes from the hebrew letters.

Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 22, 2009, 01:07:46 AM
According to this wiki site Aramaic was a language of exile. The Jews adopted Aramaic during the Babylonian exile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language#Aramaic
Quote
Aramaic

    Main article: Judeo-Aramaic language

Aramaic is a North-West Semitic language, like Canaanite. Its name derives either from "Aram Naharayim" in Upper Mesopotamia or from "Aram", an ancient name for Syria. Various dialects of Aramaic coevolved with Hebrew throughout much of its history, as major languages in the region. The words in Greek and Hebrew at the time corresponding to the word "Hebrew" (Εβραις, Εβραιστι, עברית יהודית) are distinguished from Aramaic συριστι συριακη.[22]

The Persian Empire that captured Babylonia a few decades later adopted Imperial Aramaic as the official international language of the Persian Empire. The Israelite population, who had been exiled to Babylon from Jerusalem and its surrounding region of Judah, were allowed to return to Jerusalem to establish a Persian province, usually called Judea. Thus under occupation and enslavement, Aramaic became the administrative language for Judea when dealing with the rest of the Persian Empire.

The Aramaic script also evolved from the Paleo-Semitic script, but they diverged significantly. By the 1st century C.E., the Aramaic script developed into the distinctive Hebrew square script (also known as Assyrian Script, Ktav Ashuri), extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls and similar to the script still in use today.

...

Displacement

By the early half of the 20th century, most scholars followed Geiger and Dalman in thinking that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel by the start of Israel's Hellenistic Period in the 4th century B.C.E., and that as a corollary Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. Segal, Klausner, and Ben Yehuda are notable exceptions to this view. During the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archaeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has disproven that view. The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in 1946-1948 near Qumran revealed ancient Jewish texts overwhelmingly in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Qumran scrolls indicate that Hebrew texts were readily understandable to the average Israelite, and that the language had evolved since Biblical times as spoken languages do. Recent scholarship recognizes that reports of Jews speaking in Aramaic indicates a multi-lingual society, not necessarily the primary language spoken. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew co-existed within Israel as a spoken language.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Shlomo on January 22, 2009, 01:19:33 AM
q_q_,

This is no way for an Orthodox Jew to conduct himself. While it does not excuse the others' behavior, the other members are starting to respond negatively and it's time this stops. Unity is important for our movement if we are to succeed.

As Jews, we are commanded to show kindness, patience, and to be slow to wrath or angry speech. We are also commanded by Torah to speak against lashon hora.

This is a warning. I am very close to banning you. It's a shame because I believe you are a good Jew but I cannot allow this type of conduct on the forum. By allowing you to continue, it sets a precedence and makes others feel afraid to share their opinions.

Please heed my warning and stop criticizing and insulting the other members. Also, you are not one to correct the others' spelling or grammar. This has gone on long enough.

If this thread does not continue on topic, I will be forced to lock it... which is a shame because it contains good material.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 22, 2009, 08:01:18 AM
Did anyone see how the Rambam went into detail in that Chapter from Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah about how G-d created the physical and spiritual worlds. That IS kabbalah (how G-d created the world). The Rambam is right there teaching you Kabbalah and some here are still claiming he rejects kabbalah?! This is madness.

I think these people just don't know what kabbalah is. They think kabbalah=something illogical and mystical. When it fact it is quite logical, and only appears mystical to those that don't understand what it is saying.


There are many Rabbis whom I know personally who said point blank, "The Rambam did not have the kabbalah."    I have yet to meet a single rabbi who tried to claim that Rambam was a kabbalist in the conventional sense of the term (as we use it today - Yes, mystical).    The only disagreement from the various rabbis I talked to was over whether "if the Rambam had had the kabbalah, would he have written what he wrote, or would he have "changed his views"  "    Some (whose opinions I find ridiculous) have said that if Rambam was shown the kabbalah, his views would have been way different.    Other rabbis have said it is mistaken to suggest such a thing, and that had Rambam seen kabbalah or not seen it, his views would have been what they were and his writings would be what they are today.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 22, 2009, 10:28:42 AM
I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists but when they had to give lectures to secular and semi observant Jews they would tell them to “stay far away from Kabbalah. It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10”. The reason for this was not only because people without adequate Toranic knowledge tend to misunderstand Kabbalah but also to stop them getting into Practical Kabbalah.

Practical Kabbalah tells one how to command the Jin (what european fools would call “angels” and “demons”). Shlomo HaMelek was famous for this. The big danger is that Jin don’t like to be bossed around by humans and unless the Practical Kabbalist is a Tzadiq gadol the Jin will eventually kill them.

The Morrocan Yehudim and Temani were big into Practical Kabbalah. Is it possible that Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh and other Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah knew that Kabbalah was real but publicly rejected it to try to put an end to the widespread use of Practical Kabbalah? Afterall such Hakamim were going against the grain and I am sure they did not think they were bigger than the Ramban.


My Grandfather lived and died in Mougador Morocco. He was a Orthodox Rabbi and he was an expert on kabbalah. My Mom has told me that her father ( Rabbi Yamin Bougamin )
told her when she was little that the kabbalah was magic...but that it was also very dangerous! My Mom never studied it nor would I. We listen to the wise!
An example of practical kabbalah could be compared to putting a baby seal in a tank with a shark. The situation could be dangerous / or deadly.
The kabbalah is for the experts who have mastered Torah.

                                                                                               Shalom - Dox

It would be dangerous if it worked then all that may well be correct. You assume that it does work.
 
Maybe your mother's father never did it either. (he just studied theory).

If it was so powerful , these kabbalists would have used it effectively on our enemies, and not been persecuted so much for 2000 years.

I guarantee that they tried.

You have succeeded in lowering the level of intelligent discussion though.  With stories about how dangerous it is..

Doing that happens to be a classic set up for a con.. like the egyptian strong man clip on memri.

Obviously you cannot make a reply without an insult. Typical Liberal !

Republicandox,

Take no heed of q_q_, he is always insulting and degrading to almost everyone. I think it is a compliment when he insults people. Some people have developmental problems and don't know how to relate to other people. I believe q_q_ is one of those loner types who 'didn't get along with others' when he was growing up.

Just look at his history of postings...

PS: Make his will your will, so that Hashem may make your will his will.

PPS: Kabbalah is NOT magic... No more than Chemistry is magic. It is our belief that Kabbalah is the mechanism by which the universe was created. If we could harness it we could understand all the secrets of creation. Only very humble tzaddicks even have a chance of using it to alter reality.

BTW, in the shuir on the Secrets of Lashon HaKodesh the Rabbi mentioned a fact I had heard before. The words "Abbra Cadabra" are based on Hebrew. In Hebew the words "Avera CaDabera" roughly translates to "I do what I speak".


For a very good overview of what Kabbalah is and isn't check out Rabbi Arial BarTzaddoks website @
http://www.koshertorah.com/



Hi Muman, thank you for your kindness. I will not worry about this. I know that sometimes on forums people ( pick ) on other people, so I am not too shocked.
I was simply just sharing my story about my Grandfather, and how he was a Rabbi and studied Kabbalah. I am very proud of my Grandfather, he died before I was born
so all I have of my Grandfather are stories about him from my Mom and her sisters. I suspect that qq may have seen my posts about Moslems or Liberals, while I speak my opinion so freely and some may not agree with me, I do not attack any one person. I only respond accordingly if I am verbally attacked first.
If I have ever offended anyone on the forum I am sorry. Like I said, I do not hide my feelings about Moslems and the things Liberals do, but at the same time I don't want to fight with anyone.
Thank you again Muman !                                                                    Shalom - Dox
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 22, 2009, 10:37:14 AM
q_q_,

This is no way for an Orthodox Jew to conduct himself. While it does not excuse the others' behavior, the other members are starting to respond negatively and it's time this stops. Unity is important for our movement if we are to succeed.

As Jews, we are commanded to show kindness, patience, and to be slow to wrath or angry speech. We are also commanded by Torah to speak against lashon hora.

This is a warning. I am very close to banning you. It's a shame because I believe you are a good Jew but I cannot allow this type of conduct on the forum. By allowing you to continue, it sets a precedence and makes others feel afraid to share their opinions.

Please heed my warning and stop criticizing and insulting the other members. Also, you are not one to correct the others' spelling or grammar. This has gone on long enough.

If this thread does not continue on topic, I will be forced to lock it... which is a shame because it contains good material.


Thank you Shlomo, I do appreciate you trying to help. I was just talking about my Grandfather and that seemed to annoy QQ. I did call him/her a Liberal but that was after he/she said I lowered the level on intelligent discussion. I am sure you saw the post and reply.
I never meant to do anything other than to talk about my Grandfather!

                                                                                     Thank you again.    Shalom - Dox 
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 12:12:10 PM
well republicandox.. I see you are female, I didn't see that before..

i'm normally more tolerant with females because most are expected to be somewhat more emotional and less logical.. in my books.

if your name was Natalie or Rachel or something female, you'd have gotten away with your "argument" a little more easily! I don't think you really noticed what you made it look like you were arguing.  There is nothing annoying that I see about your grandfather.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Sefardic Panther on January 22, 2009, 02:55:41 PM
G-d bless you republicandox. I highly revere all Orthodox Rabbis and their offspring. Moroccan Yehudi women are very very intelligent like Dihya Al-Kahina who was famous for her use of practical Kabbalah. You should never be intimidated by anyone!!!

Tread carefully q_q_! “bolshevik” is a very bad name to call any religious Jew especially the grand daughter of a Rabbi!

Regardless of what anyone says practical Kabbalah oviously works! If it did not there would not be such a strong prohibition against practicing it!!!

You may argue that “if it worked why did’nt the Jews use it to destroy their oppressors?” Perhaps it was Kabbalah Masit which enabled the Jews to survive for so long among people who hated them so much. Anyway if Hashem wanted to punish us the biggist Kabbalist in the world would not have been able to save us!

This name calling between Litaim and Hasidim should stop right now before we become like the sunni and shia!!! I do not look down on Litaim for rejecting mysticism, some of the best Yehudim in the Holy Land are Litaim. We both have our own way of fallowing Torah so what? We should agree to disagree!!!
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 22, 2009, 03:33:50 PM

This name calling between Litaim and Hasidim should stop right now before we become like the sunni and shia!!! I do not look down on Litaim for rejecting mysticism, some of the best Yehudim in the Holy Land are Litaim. We both have our own way of fallowing Torah so what? We should agree to disagree!!!

What are "Litaim"  ?    What are you talking about?   

I haven't engaged in any namecalling.   It appears you refuse to face the arguments against your wild theories that you are posting here.   
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Tzvi Ben Roshel1 on January 22, 2009, 03:46:55 PM

This name calling between Litaim and Hasidim should stop right now before we become like the sunni and shia!!! I do not look down on Litaim for rejecting mysticism, some of the best Yehudim in the Holy Land are Litaim. We both have our own way of fallowing Torah so what? We should agree to disagree!!!

What are "Litaim"  ?    What are you talking about?   

I haven't engaged in any namecalling.   It appears you refuse to face the arguments against your wild theories that you are posting here.   

I think he means lithuanians (the Haredi, non-Hassidim). The truth is that he got this wrong because many (almost all) Lithuanian Haredim accept Kabbalah.
  (Anyway i am out of this discussion beause proof for me isn't- my community accepted or rejected this or that, it's more on solid proof, soo I am not jumping to any conclusions- recently I saw the ant- Kabbalah/Zohar side, and I asked for the pro and proof- soo I emailed Rav Mizrachi Shlita and his thing was in Hebrew, and he also sent it to Judea-  Soo once again, time and evidence will tell).
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 22, 2009, 04:02:31 PM
G-d bless you republicandox. I highly revere all Orthodox Rabbis and their offspring. Moroccan Yehudi women are very very intelligent like Dihya Al-Kahina who was famous for her use of practical Kabbalah. You should never be intimidated by anyone!!!

Tread carefully q_q_! “bolshevik” is a very bad name to call any religious Jew especially the grand daughter of a Rabbi!

Regardless of what anyone says practical Kabbalah oviously works! If it did not there would not be such a strong prohibition against practicing it!!!

You may argue that “if it worked why did’nt the Jews use it to destroy their oppressors?” Perhaps it was Kabbalah Masit which enabled the Jews to survive for so long among people who hated them so much. Anyway if Hashem wanted to punish us the biggist Kabbalist in the world would not have been able to save us!

This name calling between Litaim and Hasidim should stop right now before we become like the sunni and shia!!! I do not look down on Litaim for rejecting mysticism, some of the best Yehudim in the Holy Land are Litaim. We both have our own way of fallowing Torah so what? We should agree to disagree!!!


Thank you. I am Sephardic ( spanish ) and English from my Fathers side. My Mom and the rest of her siblings came to America in the mid 1950's, from Morocco.
My fathers family has been here for over 200 years. I have many second cousins living in Israel and France.
soon I will post a picture of my Grandfather, Rabbi Yamin Bouganim as soon as my husband uploads the picture for me on my computer.

                                                                                              Shalom - Dox   
P.S. G-d bless you too
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 10:57:56 PM
<snip>
Tread carefully q_q_! “bolshevik” is a very bad name to call any religious Jew especially the grand daughter of a Rabbi!
<snip>

she called me a liberal, which was obviously a joke, and I didn't take offence to it.  And I replied in the same manner, calling her a bolshevik, also a joke since there is no reason to say so. Obviously one could take offence to either of them.. but jews are meant to be intelligent. And most jews don't take offence as easily as that. Only the anti-semites claim we do - after they deny the holocaust or other ones compare jews to nazis!

Infact, the whole thing of calling people bolshevik here is ridiculous. nobody does it in real life anyway.  People would give you a blank stare or repeat "bolshevik?!!!!!!".  It's not like calling somebody a nazi.  Anyhow, the context in which I said bolshevik, made it obvious to anybody with intelligence, that it was a joke. My opinion of people is not so low, that I *assume* they wouldn't see that.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 11:01:07 PM

This name calling between Litaim and Hasidim should stop right now before we become like the sunni and shia!!! I do not look down on Litaim for rejecting mysticism, some of the best Yehudim in the Holy Land are Litaim. We both have our own way of fallowing Torah so what? We should agree to disagree!!!

What are "Litaim"  ?    What are you talking about?   

I haven't engaged in any namecalling.   It appears you refuse to face the arguments against your wild theories that you are posting here.   

I think he means lithuanians (the Haredi, non-Hassidim). The truth is that he got this wrong because many (almost all) Lithuanian Haredim accept Kabbalah.
  (Anyway i am out of this discussion beause proof for me isn't- my community accepted or rejected this or that, it's more on solid proof, soo I am not jumping to any conclusions- recently I saw the ant- Kabbalah/Zohar side, and I asked for the pro and proof- soo I emailed Rav Mizrachi Shlita and his thing was in Hebrew, and he also sent it to Judea-  Soo once again, time and evidence will tell).

there is some evidence about the RAMBAM on the pro side.. i haven't posted it here yet.  (so far on this forum the side saying he was a kabbalist have provided none)

I don't think it's possible to have much of an intelligent discussion here.  No doubt that's why even you are out of the discussion.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 22, 2009, 11:12:48 PM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Maimonides_13th_PrincipleThe_Resurrection_of_the_Dead.asp

http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/rambam.htm

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2023

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/281644/jewish/The-Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/623710/jewish/Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Tzvi Ben Roshel1 on January 22, 2009, 11:21:12 PM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Maimonides_13th_PrincipleThe_Resurrection_of_the_Dead.asp

http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/rambam.htm

http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2023

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/281644/jewish/The-Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/623710/jewish/Resurrection-of-the-Dead.htm


  I dont think this has anything to do with it. In the talmud their were Rabbis who could have ressurected the dead (infact the Rabbis mentioned by name were able to resurrect the dead).
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 11:25:28 PM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?<snip>

  I dont think this has anything to do with it. In the talmud their were Rabbis who could have ressurected the dead (infact the Rabbis mentioned by name were able to resurrect the dead).

I wouldn't call somebody that accepts miracles "a kabbalist" for that. So indeed it has nothing to do with it. 

Nobody here is such a rationalist.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 22, 2009, 11:32:18 PM
By the way Tzvi, do you have references for where in the talmud rabbis resurrected the dead?

speaking to an unreliable maimonidean, I gave him a bunch of examples.. it was a mishna talking about how magic is forbidden, and gave examples of magic rabbis had witnessed.  He rationalized it! saying it wasn't magic.. He read in that
it meant illusions. In one case, illusions performed as if they are magic, in another case, illusion performed as illusions.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on January 22, 2009, 11:48:54 PM
q_q_,

I have found only one mention of a child being brought back to life by the prophet Eliyahu.

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/eliyahu/12eliyahu.htm
Quote
Shiur #12: The Drought - part 6d:

Eliyahu revives the widow of Tzarfat's son (17:17-24) (continued)

By Rav Elchanan Samet

8. "HE STRETCHED OUT OVER THE CHILD THREE TIMES"

Chronologically, how are we to regard this action by Eliyahu,? Is it the conclusion of his first cry to G-d, which was not answered, or is it the introduction to his second cry, which was answered? In other words: at which point did Eliyahu sense that G-d was not responding to his efforts to revive the child and that he must change his direction? Was it before he stretched out over the boy or afterwards? Does Eliyahu sense the lack of response before his stretching out - in which case we must regard the stretching out itself, and not only the second prayer, as the conclusion he draws from the failure of his first prayer? Or does he sense it only afterwards - in which case his stretching out is an act that is superfluous, that does nothing to make his first prayer effective, and is entirely unnecessary for his second prayer?

In what way is the second prayer different from the first? We shall provide a detailed answer to this question in the following section. Here we shall highlight only one point, which will help us clarify our view of Eliyahu's action. At the center of Eliyahu's consciousness in his first prayer are two elements: the widow and himself. "Have You done evil also TO THE WIDOW with whom I LODGE..." The implied request in this prayer - that the dead boy be revived - will bring benefit to both parties and repair the ruptured relationship between them. (We conclude this based on all the commentaries quoted in the previous shiur: while some perceive the crux of his prayer as being aimed at repairing the injustice caused to the widow, others perceive his own interests as the more important element.) In the second prayer, in contrast, there is no consideration of anything other than "this boy" himself. There is no benefit for the mother or for Eliyahu himself, nor the relationship between them; only "restore, I pray, the soul of THIS BOY within him" - because it would be better for the child to be alive than dead.
...

http://www.ou.org/torah/frankel/haftarot/vayera61.htm

Quote

Section 2

It happened one day that Elisha happened to pass through Shunam in Eretz Yisrael.  A prominent woman, noticed him and invited him into her house to eat with herself and her husband.  Elisha listened to the woman and ate with this couple that time, and every time he passed that way.

One day, the woman said to her husband, "I know that this guest of ours is a holy man.  Let's make a special room for him, furnished with a bed, a table, a chair and a lamp."

In appreciation, Elisha asked her if there were anything he could do for her.  She declined the offer, saying, "I dwell among my People."  She meant that she had no need or desire for special treatment.

Gechazi, the servant of Elisha, had noticed that the couple was childless, and it was unlikely that the couple would be able to have children in the future, because the husband was elderly.  Elisha informed the woman, now realizing what her unexpressed desire was, that in a year, she would have a son; a promise that she initially refused to believe.

But the following year, a son was born.  As a young child, with his father in the fields, the son suddenly developed a terrible headache.  He was carried to his mother, but expired on her knees.  The woman put the lifeless body of the boy on the bed of the Prophet, and immediately set out on a journey to Elisha's residence, on Mt. Carmel.

When the Prophet saw her in the distance, he said to Gechazi to run to her and inquire what it was the woman wanted, but she would not disclose the purpose of her visit to Gechazi.  When she entered the house of the prophet, she grasped his legs and would not let go.  She said, "Did I ask you for a son?  Didn't I say, 'Don't lie to me?' "

Realizing what had happened, Elisha sent Gechazi before him with his staff, instructing him to use it to revive the boy.  Gechazi took the staff, but was unable to revive the child.

Elisha entered the house, went to his room, where he found the boy.  He lay on top of him, mouth-to-mouth, eye-to-eye, hand-to-hand, and, as it were, re-introduced the boy's soul into him, using himself as a conduit.  The boy sneezed seven times, and opened his eyes.  The mother opened the door, bowed at Elisha's feet, and took her son.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 26, 2009, 07:23:47 AM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?


What's that got to do with kabbalah?   It's not some mystical warlord with a fancy hat that will do that, but Hashem Himself will resurrect the dead.   Yes, this is a principle of our faith.

Next....
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 26, 2009, 08:43:09 AM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?


What's that got to do with kabbalah?   It's not some mystical warlord with a fancy hat that will do that, but Hashem Himself will resurrect the dead.   Yes, this is a principle of our faith.

Next....

Indeed.  I will send you a thing in PM.. because the torah section here has just become a ridiculous mess.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Tzvi Ben Roshel1 on January 26, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?


What's that got to do with kabbalah?   It's not some mystical warlord with a fancy hat that will do that, but Hashem Himself will resurrect the dead.   Yes, this is a principle of our faith.

Next....

Indeed.  I will send you a thing in PM.. because the torah section here has just become a ridiculous mess.

Im taking a class on Rambam (today was the first day), the professor (is Israeli and has a Kippa on) said that in Yemen and Bavel their were big debate over his (Rambam's) beliefs, expecially over the ressurection of the dead.
   I then said- but isn't it one of the 13 principles of the Rambam, and he said yes, but it's not soo simple (or something like that) and to read it inside.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: q_q_ on January 27, 2009, 01:38:43 AM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?


What's that got to do with kabbalah?   It's not some mystical warlord with a fancy hat that will do that, but Hashem Himself will resurrect the dead.   Yes, this is a principle of our faith.

Next....

Indeed.  I will send you a thing in PM.. because the torah section here has just become a ridiculous mess.

Im taking a class on Rambam (today was the first day), the professor (is Israeli and has a Kippa on) said that in Yemen and Bavel their were big debate over his (Rambam's) beliefs, expecially over the ressurection of the dead.
   I then said- but isn't it one of the 13 principles of the Rambam, and he said yes, but it's not soo simple (or something like that) and to read it inside.

There is a discussion there, but it's nothing to do with kabbalah..
As KahaneBT said, Hashem will do it.

But the issue  I think they are getting at is, the RAMBAM said something like not to expect a miraculous  messianic era.

I would say that perhaps the RAMBAM, when he speaks of a resurrection of the dead, means that it will appear naturally.. e.g. souls of the dead will return. Not literally dry bones rising up, i.e. the books of prophets were just being poetic.. but describing something that would happen. (just my speculation, I haven't seen everything he has written so it may well be wrong)

There's a similar thing with all disease ending.. That's a miracle right?
Well, how can it happen naturally.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes in handbook of jewish thought, (get those 2 volumes, or just vol 1)
that this can happen naturally.. by a medical or technological breakthrough.
Remember that medically, death occurs from organ failure (perhaps only organ failure.. but failure of the body).
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Sefardic Panther on January 28, 2009, 11:03:08 AM
republicandox did your Grandfather do practical Kabbalah? Could he make amulets, heal the sick or do exorcisms?
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on January 28, 2009, 11:30:07 AM
republicandox did your Grandfather do practical Kabbalah? Could he make amulets, heal the sick or do exorcisms?

My Grandfather died before I was born. I do not know all the details except for what my Mom told me about her Father.
She told me ( quote ) your Grandfather was an expert in kabbalah....she also told me that her Father told her it was dangerous.
This is as much as I know.


                                                                     Shalom - Dox
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 29, 2009, 06:32:41 PM
q_q_,

Are you thinking about Rambams 13th principle of faith which establishes Techias HaMasim {Ressurection of the Dead} as an undeniable tenet of Jewish belief?


What's that got to do with kabbalah?   It's not some mystical warlord with a fancy hat that will do that, but Hashem Himself will resurrect the dead.   Yes, this is a principle of our faith.

Next....

Indeed.  I will send you a thing in PM.. because the torah section here has just become a ridiculous mess.

Im taking a class on Rambam (today was the first day), the professor (is Israeli and has a Kippa on) said that in Yemen and Bavel their were big debate over his (Rambam's) beliefs, expecially over the ressurection of the dead.
   I then said- but isn't it one of the 13 principles of the Rambam, and he said yes, but it's not soo simple (or something like that) and to read it inside.

Yes, what you said is true.  There was in fact a controversy over his belief about the resurrection of the dead.   I've been reading it in the Rambam's letters...   But be aware that what you said here in no way vindicates the original statement by one who is apparently trying to relate this idea to kabalah.

There were also many ignorant people in Rambam's day who were obsessed with kavod and they slandered the Rambam incessantly, misconstrued his opinions, misrepresented him, and/or totally misunderstood him in order that people should be discouraged from reading him.   Much of the controversy was based on that.   And I mean really ignorant, supposed "scholars" of the day who despised him but could not refute.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kerber on February 09, 2009, 12:08:13 AM
...
It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10�.
 ...
I don't want to interfere and argue about Kabbalah(which I consider as occultism),but I'll have to comment this.
The remark of "3 gods" you can put to Vatican's theology and their apologetic only(or Hashem's Witnesses).

PS
I haven't wrote "Hashem's",but different word started with "J".
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on February 09, 2009, 01:06:57 AM
...
It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10�.
 ...
I don't want to interfere and argue about Kabbalah(which I consider as occultism),but I'll have to comment this.
The remark of "3 gods" you can put to Vatican's theology and their apologetic only(or Hashem's Witnesses).

PS
I haven't wrote "Hashem's",but different word started with "J".


Kerber, you do not understand Kabbalah... In Kabbalah we do not have 10 individual dieties. It is a hard to explain concept of many components which are all Hashem, but interface with this world in different ways. Kabbalah is not polytheism at all.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Kerber on February 09, 2009, 01:28:20 AM
...
It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10�.
 ...
I don't want to interfere and argue about Kabbalah(which I consider as occultism),but I'll have to comment this.
The remark of "3 gods" you can put to Vatican's theology and their apologetic only(or Hashem's Witnesses).

PS
I haven't wrote "Hashem's",but different word started with "J".


Kerber, you do not understand Kabbalah... In Kabbalah we do not have 10 individual dieties. It is a hard to explain concept of many components which are all Hashem, but interface with this world in different ways. Kabbalah is not polytheism at all.

I know it's not polytheism,but I can't see the need to create a mystification of G-d's words and then a hole new philosophy as a tool for an explanations or demystification.

For example,what should be demystified in Moses' Books?That's written for uneducated Jewish shepherds so they can understand simple words and simple messages from G-d.
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: muman613 on February 09, 2009, 03:14:44 AM
...
It is nothing but superstitious folly and Kabbalists are worse than christians instead of giving us 3 gods they give us 10�.
 ...
I don't want to interfere and argue about Kabbalah(which I consider as occultism),but I'll have to comment this.
The remark of "3 gods" you can put to Vatican's theology and their apologetic only(or Hashem's Witnesses).

PS
I haven't wrote "Hashem's",but different word started with "J".


Kerber, you do not understand Kabbalah... In Kabbalah we do not have 10 individual dieties. It is a hard to explain concept of many components which are all Hashem, but interface with this world in different ways. Kabbalah is not polytheism at all.

I know it's not polytheism,but I can't see the need to create a mystification of G-d's words and then a hole new philosophy as a tool for an explanations or demystification.

For example,what should be demystified in Moses' Books?That's written for uneducated Jewish shepherds so they can understand simple words and simple messages from G-d.

You must realize that the ideas of Torah existed before Moshe wrote them down and the ideas of Kabbalah are passed down from the days of Father Avraham. The written Torah is only part of the treasure we received at Sinai. The Talmud and the Midrash go into much further detail than the very terse and very deep Torah. There are several levels of meaning in Torah which are referred to as PaRDeS. This stands for Pshat {simple meaning}, Remes {Hint} , Drash {Moral/Philosophical interpretation}, and Sod {Hidden meaning, usually Kabbalah}.

This information is available from http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/163/Q2/

Quote

Brian Levitan wrote:

    Could you please give a simple explanation with examples, of the levels of textual interpretation, referred to as PARDES. ( Pshat, Remez, Drush, Sod.)

Dear Brian Levitan,

Let's take the first verse of the Torah as our example:

1. Pshat - simplest meaning, based on the text and context. Rashi explains that pshat of the verse as follows: "In the beginning of God's creation of the heaven and the earth, the earth was desolate and void." This is based on a linguistic analysis of the word "Bereshit," which does not mean "In the beginning", but "In the beginning of..."

2. Remez - "hint." The Gaon of Vilna taught that all commands of the Torah are hinted at in the first word of the Torah. For instance, Pidyon Haben - redemption of the first-born - is alluded to by an acronym of the letters of Bereshit, which spell "ben rishon acharei shloshim yom tifdeh" - the first son you shall redeem after thirty days.

3. Drush - contextual and non-contextual, moral and philosophical explanations. Rashi states that there is a philosophical idea alluded to in the word "Bereshit." The world was created for the sake of Torah which is called "reshit," and for the Jewish people who are also referred to as "reshit." Both are "firsts" in terms of their centrality in the purpose of Creation.

4. Sod - hidden or secret meaning. Mishna: "The world was created with ten statements." Gemara: "But when you count them there are only nine statements! Bereshit (In the beginning) is also a statement." The statement of "Bereshit" was the creation of time, which is a dimension of the physical world. One of the names of G-d is "Hamakom" - "The Place" - as the Midrash explains that "He is the place of the world, the world is not His place." This concept is based on the idea that the physical world would not exist if not for G-d willing it to exist at every moment. Therefore G-d is the "Place" of the world, meaning the framework of reality in which everything exists, and He provides the possibility of existence to all of Creation. The dimension of Time and the laws of nature were created during the six days of Creation. The Sforno, The Gaon of Vilna, the Maharal, and Maimonides, all basing themselves on the Talmud, state that the hidden meaning of the word "In the Beginning" - Bereshit - is the creation of what we today call "the space-time continuum."

Sources:

    * Ethics of the Fathers 5:1; Babylonian Talmud Tractate Megillah 21b
    * Gaon of Vilna in Aderet Eliyahu, Bereshit 1:1; Maharal of Prague
    * Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, Nefesh Hachaim
    * Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 2:30 (13th Century)
Title: Re: Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
Post by: Lubab on March 11, 2009, 02:57:15 AM


[/quote]
I know it's not polytheism,but I can't see the need to create a mystification of G-d's words and then a hole new philosophy as a tool for an explanations or demystification.

For example,what should be demystified in Moses' Books?That's written for uneducated Jewish shepherds so they can understand simple words and simple messages from G-d.
[/quote]

The Torah has many layers of meaning. Infinite layers, actually. That is why it can be appreciated by everyone from the most simple novice to the expert kabbalist. There is no NEED to mystify the Torah. By its very definition, the deeper level of the Torah are more difficult to grasp. A very deep concept usually cannot explained directly. It needs to be explained by way of analogy e.g. using two oranges (a simple analogy) to demonstrate a deeper concept (e.g. addition or subtraction). Kabbalah is similarly written with analogies because the concepts are quite a bit too deep to explain directly.