Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 09:45:17 PM ---
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..
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---- 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.
--- End quote ---
No, it doesn't. As I've said again and again and you have seemingly ignored. It suggests that they might have been mistaken.
But that also runs on the assumption that that could even be possible. That even rabbis "taught by angels" are also humans that can make mistakes. If you don't accept that premise as a possibility, there's a much bigger issue involved here that ought to be looked at.
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
Would the angels also have told them that the there is really a DNA molecule, that the body is composed of cells. Would they have taught them particle physics too since everyone alive then was wrong about that too? Or how bout, just limited to Judaism, fixing up every existent manuscript with differing extant versions? Those were simple problematic copying mistakes that could have all been fixed in one fell swoop for the whole Jewish people and for hundreds of years into the future when they would be used extensively and by so many learned Jews, who were instead left with uncertainties. If the angels had just told us what was the correct version. If the angels are assumed to tell a kabbalist that his view of the Zohar is mistaken, why not assume the angel would tell the kabbalist all the other mistaken or unclear views within Judaism that need clearing up and all the other mistaken assumptions in the world that the angel knows in order to tell the kabbalist? What makes it any more or less likely?
--- Quote ---KahaneBT, why do you even think it might be from Rashbi?
--- End quote ---
Quite frankly, at this point I tend to think it wasn't, for very basic reasons such as the Spanish language and the zohar's initial rejection by the gedolim of that period when it came out, but nonetheless, I have not studied it in depth or looked into this topic enough to say with confidence one way or the other. But I will certainly take issue with poor arguments in either direction. And especially when presented here as if somehow clearing up the matter. (for instance, the other "proof that the zohar is real" thread).
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 06, 2008, 10:38:12 PM ---<snip>
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!
--- End quote ---
No. Certainly a rabbi can make mistakes.. Even if he was taught by G-d!
(and this applies to your post directly above too)
Now Consider this.
If your life was devoted to the study some discipline, and you accepted these core texts of it as being ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and important only because of their truth, and you devoted your life to this discipline.
And if you claimed a heavenly teacher was guiding you in the study of this discipline.
And if you are honest. Let's say you really were taught this discipline by an angel, frequently.
Would we expect that the core text is a fraud?
Or is the idea of the core text being a fraud a ridiculous thing to suggest?
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 06, 2008, 10:52:03 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Now you are using circular logic. You brought that irrelevant, inane statement and you simply can't accept that it added nothing to the conversation and actually detracted from it. And your persistance in trying to tell me I'm wrong just perpetuates even more meaningless back and forth because you simply refuse to ever concede a mistake or logical argument and move on if it implies (by moving on) that you 'got anything wrong.' When I said "it most certainly is" above, I did not mean that it really is a legitimate challenge, I mean that YOU PRESENTED IT AS SUCH. I can't believe you really think otherwise about the quote "it most certainly is." The rest of the paragraph (which you conveniently did not quote here), explained the context of what I meant quite clearly so there should have been no confusion.
I'm sure that now you will say 'well, you should have said, "you meant it as one," rather than "it most certainly is" ' - in retrospect, yes I should have. Nonetheless the context is clear that that is not what I meant. I go on to say that what you said is IRRELEVANT. So clearly not a challenge to me at all. But you presented it as such . You tried to say that that - something the principle does not include - is somehow a moderating affect on the principle itself - ie "not so extreme"
The idea that angels come down and teach poskim halacha is ludicrous. And why do you pretend that zohar has not influenced the halachic renderings of Torah giants and/or Torah-giant kabbalists who certainly paskened to the best of their abilities on pertinent matters?
muman613:
Regardless of this argument Kabbalah, and the Zohar by extension, has become an integral part of Judaism. Today before davening Shabbat Shacharit this morning a group in my minyan was doing some learning. Of course this group is geared toward Chabad, but the majority of the minyan was Sefardic. As a matter of fact they were joking that they would change the nusach of the shul to Sefardic {I think they were joking}. What they were learning was the Lubavitch rebbes teachings on todays Parasha. I was not surprised to hear them learning about Kabbalah and how the Sefirot of Chesed, Gevurah, and Tiferet represented the three ways to battle the yetzer hara. I also was listening to several shuirim from TorahAnyTime by non-Chabad Orthodox Rabbis who, in each of their talks, brought up Kabbalah and the Zohar.
Maybe you are saying that all these Rabbis are wrong but it seems to me to be an argument which is too late. I don't think there is any danger, nothing which is idolatrous, in learning from Kabbalistic sources. I realize my saying this will have little effect on this ongoing discussion. But I would like to say that continued fueding between the Misnagdim and the Chassidim is not productive.
q_q_:
KahaneBT,
This round of arguments about logic is not getting anywhere.
Look at reply 27, it would be interesting what you think about that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version