Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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?

[Shlomo]

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.

[Sefardic Panther]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

. 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.

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?

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

No, not when you post sheker.

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.

[muman613]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[q_q_]

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>

[muman613]

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.

[q_q_]

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

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[Lubab]

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.

 

[Lubab]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[q_q_]

<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.