Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 05, 2008, 07:24:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 04, 2008, 03:13:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 04, 2008, 01:36:09 PM ---qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally? Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ? Whatever happened to the principle of Lo Beshamayim Hee? Even if angels did come to teach them, how could they accept it? For that reason and for others...
--- End quote ---
In the case of the Arizal and the RAMCHAL, certainly they and/or their direct disciples , faithful to them, wrote of it.
Here, in the case of the RAMCHAL
http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/special1.html
see he and one of his disciples write of it.
Kabbalistic teachings often have new revelations(particularly in the case of the Arizal). Teachings that cannot come through reasoning or reasonable speculation.
It is silly to think that they believed that their teachings were the product of their imaginations. They took it as serious doctrine.
It can only make sense as teaching derived from heaven.
--- End quote ---
When you say this, I hope that you realize that the Ramchal and others like him CERTAINLY QUOTED PRIOR SOURCES!
--- End quote ---
Obviously they ALSO quoted prior sources. They were rabbis and great scholars..
You asked me
"
qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally? Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?
"
So I wrote info on that.
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 04, 2008, 01:36:09 PM ---<snip> Question is, is zohar authentic kaballah or isn't it....
--- End quote ---
I've explained this already..
I think it's unclear.. I think both Yes and No are problematic.
I could say "I don't know", but I dont want to cover up the problem with the "yes" and with the "no".
Why do -you- even consider accepting any of it?
I've given my reason but I haven't seen yours.
I see the reason to accept it as that these rabbis (that one assumes are not insane or dishonest), rabbis that claim to have been taught by angels. They accepted it and studied it alot.
I assume , well, I think it most likely, that if they were taught by angels, and the Zohar was not by Rashbi, then they would have been told the zohar wasn't all right, and they would have said so, they would have corrected those issues, they wouldn't have just accepted it as they -apparently- did. (I don't think at that time, the time of the Ari or of the RAMCHAL, that it was unacceptable to say there were problems with it, or that the Ari or RAMCHAL would have been afraid of people and thus didn't say so. Rabbi Yaakov Emden was saying it, and the Arizal wasn't afraid of going against the party line, he did anyway in coming up with his unique controversial kabbalistic system which initially was not accepted at all. The RAMCHAL was hounded out for his kabbalah).
The options are, going with the evidence against the zohar, and then accepting that these rabbis (taught by angels and accepting it) are insane/dishonest.. Or
One could theorize that they knew it was part problematic, but had other very good moral painful reasons for not saying that truth..
There is no evidence for that though.
So I see 3 stances there..
- It is all from Rashbi, since those sane honest rabbis, taught by angels, accept it. This goes against the evidence before our eyes regarding the contents of the zohar having spanish words in it. (I don't think he planted them to fool us! ;-) )
- It is not from Rashbi at all, since there is no evidence for it. But then that suggests that some rabbis, for reasons mentioned, were insane or dishonest.
- Those rabbis knew of the problems with it, thought it was part good part bad, and for some reason, some good reasons, didn't say anything about it, and appeared to accept it. (There is no evidence for this though.. It's just a theory because the other 2 stances are so problematic, but there's no evidence for it at all)
All those stances are terrible!
KahaneBT, why do you even think it might be from Rashbi?
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 09:07:02 PM ---<snip>
My logic is gone? What you did say, was said specifically as a challenge to me. A challenge - Where I presented the concept (lo beshamayim he) as a challenge to the idea of angels teaching 16th century kabbalists halacha and Torah. So when you suggest that the concept, which does not address Matan Torah, that the fact that it doesn't apply to Matan Torah or the prophets is somehow a "refutation" (and I use that term lightly) or a point of contention to MY CHALLENGE, it is clear to anyone here that it is you who presented something nonsensical.
--- End quote ---
That specific part of what I said is not a refutation of you or a point of contention with you..
This is why I say your logic has indeed gone. (or rather, it isn't strong enough to always get to the depths of things, but it's better than most people)
Continue reading what I said. I was analysing the expression "Lo Bashamayim Hee". What doesn't it mean. What does it mean.
The fact that you agree with me regarding something that it doesn't mean, is very nice.
If you read on with what I said.. I said a number of things including an interesting question..
But the point that should have hit you most, was
That gemara applies the expression, regarding Halacha .
I wouldn't necessarily extend that to new mystical revelations
The Zohar can be accepted without it affecting halacha. (And due to the problematic nature of kabbalistic claims, it's better that it doesn't affect halacha!)
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 09:07:02 PM ---You didn't understand the implication of what I was saying. Let me explain. You quoted in brief a story from the gemara surrounding this statement lo beshamayim he. I suggest that the story fits into a context and requires learning the gemara and the context. Not googling a translation. Learning the gemara. You presented conclusion(s) from this piece that I suggest may need reexamining.
--- End quote ---
I always understand you.. (because you are never unclear)
I told you, I was familiar with it even before the google. Forget Google(where the full hebrew with a translation is available) if you want, forget google.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 09:54:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 09:07:02 PM ---<snip>
My logic is gone? What you did say, was said specifically as a challenge to me. A challenge - Where I presented the concept (lo beshamayim he) as a challenge to the idea of angels teaching 16th century kabbalists halacha and Torah. So when you suggest that the concept, which does not address Matan Torah, that the fact that it doesn't apply to Matan Torah or the prophets is somehow a "refutation" (and I use that term lightly) or a point of contention to MY CHALLENGE, it is clear to anyone here that it is you who presented something nonsensical.
--- End quote ---
That specific part of what I said is not a refutation of you or a point of contention with you..
--- End quote ---
It most certainly is. I said that in response to you, when you said some bubba maaseh about angels teaching Torah to the kabbalists in the 14-18th centuries. As if the claim of being taught by angels somehow makes it the TRUTH that all must submit to. This clearly contradicts the idea of lo beshamayim he. So I alluded to that idea. With that simple quote. And then you retorted with something like a 'well it doesn't apply to giving the Torah or prophets, we had those, so it can't be in every case' . That's not at all a challenge to the idea I present. Because inherent in the idea is what it is talking about as opposed to what it is not talking about. So telling me what it doesn't talk about, as a way to challenge the idea, is simply an irrelevant jumping through hoops.
You tried to say that what it does not talk about is evidence that it is "not that extreme" - as if that is some type of modification or moderation of the concept.
--- Quote ---This is why I say your logic has indeed gone. (or rather, it isn't strong enough to always get to the depths of things, but it's better than most people)
--- End quote ---
I'm amused to see that you have 'anointed' yourself as an allknowing judge on the matter of who is able to "get to the depths of things." However, personal insults (or more accurately in your case, pompous condescension and delusions of self-grandeur) do not bolster your arguments even slightly. I would advise you to refrain from such in the future as this adds nothing to the discussion aside from pointing out your own arrogance.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 09:45:17 PM ---
I see the reason to accept it as that these rabbis (that one assumes are not insane or dishonest), rabbis that claim to have been taught by angels. They accepted it and studied it alot.
I assume , well, I think it most likely, that if they were taught by angels, and the Zohar was not by Rashbi, then they would have been told the zohar wasn't all right, and they would have said so, they would have corrected those issues, they wouldn't have just accepted it as they -apparently- did.
--- End quote ---
snipped
--- Quote ---The options are, going with the evidence against the zohar, and then accepting that these rabbis (taught by angels and accepting it) are insane/dishonest.. Or
One could theorize that they knew it was part problematic, but had other very good moral painful reasons for not saying that truth..
There is no evidence for that though.
So I see 3 stances there..
- It is all from Rashbi, since those sane honest rabbis, taught by angels, accept it. This goes against the evidence before our eyes regarding the contents of the zohar having spanish words in it. (I don't think he planted them to fool us! ;-) )
--- End quote ---
The type of thinking you exhibit here is entirely problematic, dangerous, and in my mind possibly bordering on heresy. You seem to suggest that these great men, these wise rabbis, were WITHOUT FAULT AND WITHOUT MISTAKE. That because they (or their followers) claim that they were taught their Torah by angels, and because you for some reason take this claim as indisputable fact, and consider it logical to assume as a starting point and a given (namely, that they were taught by angels), that therefore they never made any errors! In anything! And all their teachings and all their words were completely flawless and perfect in every way. And so if something was incorrect, "they would have said so." And if not, then it was correct. And they knew everything. Were they themselves angels too? Or the angels just taught them? Did these kabbalists have physical bodies living on this earth? I'm pretty sure they did!
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 10:25:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 09:54:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 09:07:02 PM ---<snip>
My logic is gone? What you did say, was said specifically as a challenge to me. A challenge - Where I presented the concept (lo beshamayim he) as a challenge to the idea of angels teaching 16th century kabbalists halacha and Torah. So when you suggest that the concept, which does not address Matan Torah, that the fact that it doesn't apply to Matan Torah or the prophets is somehow a "refutation" (and I use that term lightly) or a point of contention to MY CHALLENGE, it is clear to anyone here that it is you who presented something nonsensical.
--- End quote ---
That specific part of what I said is not a refutation of you or a point of contention with you..
--- End quote ---
It most certainly is.
--- End quote ---
And if it was then it would mean that lo bashamayim hee in the gemara, means don't accept matan torah. Have I lost you? It doesn't matter.
I don't see any value on keeping on this point.. but you'd be better off dealing with the other issues we are discussing.
Were you bringing up about Lo BaShamayim Hee as a proof that it is fobidden to have any new revelations e.g. any new mystical revelations?
(it certainly looks like you are/were)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version