Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
What parts of Kabalah are off limits until age 40?
Natan:
interesting story
~Hanna~:
I almost bought a book on Kaballah at Border's bookstore once, it had alot of pages but looked very interesting to read.
muman613:
--- Quote from: ~Hanna~ on February 01, 2010, 10:17:28 PM ---I almost bought a book on Kaballah at Border's bookstore once, it had alot of pages but looked very interesting to read.
--- End quote ---
DO NOT!!!! I REPEAT!!!DO NOTBUY KABBALAH BOOKS AT BORDERS!!!!
One time I was foolish enough to do so.... What I ended up with was a hodgepodge of Enlightened ideas about Kabbalah mixed in with pagan worship from the nations.... It was HORRIBLE
>:(
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 31, 2010, 12:06:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Muman what you say sounds reasonable. Personally, I am not certain one way or the other without having seen the proofs, although I do know that very big people held that Moshe De Leon wrote it. And even if it is not really dated to Shimon Bar Yochai, I don't necessarily reject it out of hand (some or all). There are different ways of interpreting it and even then it is only about hashkafa, in which a person is free to take divergent opinions anyway, and in my opinion (as in the opinion of other major authorities past and present) it has no place in a halachic discussion. So if I did reject a certain idea for a given reason that I found compelling (or any person did thus) - ie a contradicting chazal, point of view in Rambam etc etc that I find more correct or suitable - it is perfectly within our rights to reject that given zohar idea which is not binding. I consider zohar to be a hashkafic text, and we do not pasken hashkafa.
Just to elaborate on positions of rabbis I am close with:
My gemara rabbi certainly accepts the zohar's authenticity/tradition - its hashkafa and mystical speculations as speaking accurately about the spiritual world and Judaism. And the revelations of the zohar by the Ari and subsequent authorities (Rashash, Vilna Gaon, Leshem, etc) he also considers weighty opinions and valid points of view. I will have to ask him if he thinks it was written by Shimon Bar Yochai or actually written later, but I am fairly certain that he would say "it doesn't make a difference." He feels the zohar and associated kaballistic works which explain it are true systems of thought with authentic sources in chazal and Judaism. And if he does feel that way, that does not change whether it was written all by Shimon Bar Yochai, or very little preserved from Shimon bar yochai and really written out by M. De leon in the 1200's Spain, or even if De Leon made it up completely.
I know that Rav Bar Hayim's position is emphatically that Moshe DeLeon wrote the Zohar in the 1200-1300's Spain, it certainly cannot be honestly attributed to the tanna Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and in Rav Bar Hayim's opinion, it is a hashkafic system of looking at the world that no rabbi is beholden to. Neither when paskening a halachic shaila nor in determining his own hashkafa in a given matter based on chazal and the Torah. So Rav Bar Hayim is more strongly rooted in the camp of Rav Yihyehh ZT"L with regard to zohar's authenticity, but at the same time, he is not interested in "combating it" or leading any kind of crusade against it (Which Rav Yihyehh was), he seems to classify it as largely irrelevant to what a Jew needs to do, how to relate to G-d and the world and the Torah, and what a rabbi has to do. He stresses focusing on more pertinent matters (things more pertinent than the divisions of the spiritual worlds into umpteen levels and the collapsing on each other, etc etc), and that hashkafa is open to different ideas within chazal, not pidgeon-holed into one overarching "system" that everyone has to agree to or follow. This position is very different from the vast majority of present-day rabbis, but I find it very reasonable.
--- End quote ---
"Rav Yihyehh" - are you referring to Mori Yihyeh alGafih?
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: rhayat1 on February 01, 2010, 11:29:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 31, 2010, 12:06:54 PM ---
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Muman what you say sounds reasonable. Personally, I am not certain one way or the other without having seen the proofs, although I do know that very big people held that Moshe De Leon wrote it. And even if it is not really dated to Shimon Bar Yochai, I don't necessarily reject it out of hand (some or all). There are different ways of interpreting it and even then it is only about hashkafa, in which a person is free to take divergent opinions anyway, and in my opinion (as in the opinion of other major authorities past and present) it has no place in a halachic discussion. So if I did reject a certain idea for a given reason that I found compelling (or any person did thus) - ie a contradicting chazal, point of view in Rambam etc etc that I find more correct or suitable - it is perfectly within our rights to reject that given zohar idea which is not binding. I consider zohar to be a hashkafic text, and we do not pasken hashkafa.
Just to elaborate on positions of rabbis I am close with:
My gemara rabbi certainly accepts the zohar's authenticity/tradition - its hashkafa and mystical speculations as speaking accurately about the spiritual world and Judaism. And the revelations of the zohar by the Ari and subsequent authorities (Rashash, Vilna Gaon, Leshem, etc) he also considers weighty opinions and valid points of view. I will have to ask him if he thinks it was written by Shimon Bar Yochai or actually written later, but I am fairly certain that he would say "it doesn't make a difference." He feels the zohar and associated kaballistic works which explain it are true systems of thought with authentic sources in chazal and Judaism. And if he does feel that way, that does not change whether it was written all by Shimon Bar Yochai, or very little preserved from Shimon bar yochai and really written out by M. De leon in the 1200's Spain, or even if De Leon made it up completely.
I know that Rav Bar Hayim's position is emphatically that Moshe DeLeon wrote the Zohar in the 1200-1300's Spain, it certainly cannot be honestly attributed to the tanna Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and in Rav Bar Hayim's opinion, it is a hashkafic system of looking at the world that no rabbi is beholden to. Neither when paskening a halachic shaila nor in determining his own hashkafa in a given matter based on chazal and the Torah. So Rav Bar Hayim is more strongly rooted in the camp of Rav Yihyehh ZT"L with regard to zohar's authenticity, but at the same time, he is not interested in "combating it" or leading any kind of crusade against it (Which Rav Yihyehh was), he seems to classify it as largely irrelevant to what a Jew needs to do, how to relate to G-d and the world and the Torah, and what a rabbi has to do. He stresses focusing on more pertinent matters (things more pertinent than the divisions of the spiritual worlds into umpteen levels and the collapsing on each other, etc etc), and that hashkafa is open to different ideas within chazal, not pidgeon-holed into one overarching "system" that everyone has to agree to or follow. This position is very different from the vast majority of present-day rabbis, but I find it very reasonable.
--- End quote ---
"Rav Yihyehh" - are you referring to Mori Yihyeh alGafih?
--- End quote ---
Yes. He is referred to as "Rav Yihyehh" in the article you posted, but yes, this does refer to Mori/ Rabbi Yihyeh Qafih or however it is spelled in English. Not to be confused with his grandson Rabbi Yosef Qafih (or as commonly known as "Kapach").
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version