Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah

[Sefardic Panther]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I have heard of several Rabbis who were secretly Kabbalists

Stop spreading lashon hara

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

[Ulli]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

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.

[Ulli]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

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).

[q_q_]

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.

[Ulli]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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".

[q_q_]

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

[Lubab]

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.

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.

[muman613]

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

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[muman613]

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

...
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.
"

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

<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!!!

[Lubab]

<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.