Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
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...
q_q_:
--- 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. If they didn't make that claim then it would be even worse!!! It would just the imagination of the rabbi.. and it would have no basis, it wouldn't even be claiming to have a basis!
Regarding "Lo Bashamayim Hee/Hi". We can't take that in the complete absolute sense. Since we received the torah at sinai. And after that, we've had Prophets.
Some, and maybe all rabbis think it still possible for one to have Ruach HaKodesh in our times.. (even though prophecy - something rambam puts at a class above ruach hakodesh - has ended)
Maybe it just means in matters of deciding halacha.
A prophet can temporarily suspend a law. But that's not a typical case of deciding halacha
Interestingly, regarding the gemara with that phrase
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/067045.php
Talmud Bavli Baba Mesi`a 59B
It seems to suggest that the torah goes by the majourity!
"
But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.
"
in reality though, kabbalists do decide halacha based on kabbalistic reasons, and this really bothers halachic purists very deeply..
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on December 04, 2008, 01:27:18 PM ---I wish that posters would respond to what Rabbi Gafekh actually says as opposed to making side arguments however valid they may be.
--- End quote ---
well, I don't understand most of it properly. I don't know where he is referring to aor the context of his references, some of which the context probably isn't very relevant.
But if i'm critical..
there are chunks of that which look like jibberish, it's just not written clearly.
people complain that the quran is jibberish in places.. That is nothing compared to how parts of this appear to the layman!
He is really writing for an audience familiar with the Zohar, and the whole Torah. Things that I am not very familiar with!
He is also not very clear anyway.
I'm not even sure that he is writing very logically. He isn't clear enough for me to see.
For example, he writes-
"
Thus it is clear from the Zohar and its commentaries, jln ycwn in the name of Ari,
etc., that the G-d who gave permission to R. Shimon ben Yohai to interpret things
that one is forbidden to think, enumerates multiple divinities: he [who gave
permission to R. Shimon] is the G-d called Attik (Ancient One), who is not the same
as he who said to Israel: See now that I, even I, am He etc. For the G-d who said: See
now that I, even I, am He is Adam Kadmon, who is the first Cause of all the
Partzufim (Configurations of Sefiroth), and he has no one from whom to receive
permission.
"
I'm amazed that he started that paragraph with the words "Thus it is clear".
Reading it again and again, he seems to be saying that the Zohar claims that Adam did not have to ask permission from anybody, and that he is the first cause of something to do with G-d. And that this contradicts what we know to be Torah beliefs..
It's certainly an idea that cannot be derived from the Tenach or Talmud.
But the tenach and talmud do not go into detail about how we are to understand HaShem.
RAMBAM went quite far, clearly no future revelations were informing his opinion..
RAMBAM talks alot about how we cannot understand G-d. The reality is that we have what we have.
If somebody had said to him "this is the way it is , ein sof and whatever", he would have said "Nonsense". But I am not sure that it contradicts the RAMBAM.. He would have said nonsense because it has no basis. Had it been in the talmud then i'm sure the RAMBAM wouldn't have rejected the whole Torah and said it completely contradicts itself.
RAMBAM in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, says that G-d is not a body that one can say some is here, some there.. this area is to the left, this area is to the right.
But I don't see how that refutes some mystical notion in the Zohar.. about the 10 sefirot.
It may well contradict the misnaged view of tzim tzum. Which I think has G-d constricting himself and being all present in our world. (while the chassidic view I think has G-d's light constricting himself and being all present in our world)
Also, Idols in tenach anyway, are material.. Rabbi Gafeh seems to be extending them to spiritual..
There is a concept of shituf(having things in your mind alongside G-d?)
shituf isn't technically idolatry..
And kabbalists would no doubt say that it's not besides G-d!
I also have to question why the RAMBAM should have authority to make statements on the nature of the unity of G-d.
He doesn't claim to have been taught by an angel.. He doesn't say he wrote with ruach hakodesh. We can assume based on how rational he is, that it is based purely on reasoning.. But really, i've never seen the RAMBAM's reasoning on this proven purely from tenach and talmud. People just quote the RAMBAM, and it suffices because he is such a heavyweight.
I suspect that many yemenite jews.. since all they had was the RAMBAM.. just reject anything not in the RAMBAM. RAMBAM of course codified the talmud.. So they have a very purist form of judaism. But that's why they reject future additions. Because the RAMBAM didn't say it, and the only mysticism that the RAMBAM wrote of was briefly, maaseh merkava and maaseh beraishit. which are in the talmud.
I'm sure that if the RAMBAM had recieved some zohar like mysticism, from reliable sources, then he would not have said it contradicts the whole Torah!
Now, it is true, kabbalah is from private claims.. not a national claim like the written and oral torah. But rabbi Gafeh is not just arguing that the origins are questionable. He is arguing that the contents contradicts the Torah.
I think the torah is loose enough in its concept of G-d, that there is room for manoeuvre.
If G-d turned around and said I have 10 aspects or whatever.. We wouldn't say "no you don't". Obviously we can say certain things with certitude.. He is not a man - alive or dead! But the abstract mysticism of kabbalah describing what he is.. We just don't have enough information in the torah to say "that definitely cannot be".
this rabbi is the rationalist?!!!
I wish his writing style followed his purist view of judaism.
Compare his style to the clarity with which the RAMCHAL writes
his book "an eye on eternity"
http://ohr.edu/misc/eterni-2.htm#C2.3
He is philosophically logical.. (infact, rabbi dovid gottlieb is such a fan, he did a 40 part lecture series on him!)
(I know, the Arizal no doubt isn't that clear.. but I read a bit once, and I think he's clearer than that article by rabbi gafeh! It's very difficult to respond to something that is written like that. If I knew my stuff I could try. but it's written in such a way that you REALLY have to know your stuff to just know what he is trying to say, then one can worry more about the logic of it which is going to have numerous issues. There is no way something in that style is going to be firm)
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on December 04, 2008, 07:15:01 PM ---Rabbi Kafach, as well as the Teimani community in general, is a breath of fresh air. You don't have to be a pagan to be a religious Jew.
--- End quote ---
Mere name calling (calling those that accept kabballah "pagans") is below the intellectual level of this discussion. Previous posts (from over a year ago , but easy to find with a search of your name and kabbalah) have already shown that you reject kabbalah for illogical inconsistent reasons. Not for good reasons. Your arguments are there , fully expressed, and responses were given, and people can look them up there instead of rehashing them here.
Judea started this thread with Rabbi Gafeh's arguments.. and requested a response -to- Rabbi Gafeh. Not a person to sit in Rabbi Gafeh's corner hurling labels at people.
muman613:
--- Quote from: Dan Ben Noah on December 04, 2008, 07:15:01 PM ---Rabbi Kafach, as well as the Teimani community in general, is a breath of fresh air. You don't have to be a pagan to be a religious Jew.
--- End quote ---
What do you mean 'be a pagan'... Are you implying that we who follow Chassidus are pagans? You are truly off-base with this remark.
There is nothing idolatrous about Kabbalah, at least from what I understand. Those who think it is simply have not contemplated what Kabbalah is saying. I hear everyone against it says that the sefirot are a form of idolatry, which is completely untrue.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version