Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Hakamim that rejected Kabbalah
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 04:55:43 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 16, 2009, 04:22:30 AM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 15, 2009, 11:50:17 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 15, 2009, 10:35:37 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 20, 2009, 06:57:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 04:55:43 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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_:
--- Quote from: lulab ---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.
--- End quote ---
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_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on January 20, 2009, 07:46:30 PM ---<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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version