Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Excellent Website of Rabbi BarTzaddok - Modern Kabbalist

<< < (2/2)

muman613:
Here is Chabads explanation:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/107784/jewish/Philosopher-and-Mystic.htm

Influence of the Guide for the Perplexed

Interest in this philosophical work was not limited to Jewish scholars but it was assiduously studied by thinkers of the non-Jewish world, both Arabic and non-Arabic. Even in Rambam's lifetime, the book was transcribed into Arabic letters and used extensively by Mohammedan scholars. Not long afterwards, a Latin rendition of the Guide for the Perplexed appeared in Europe, followed by Spanish and Italian versions.

At about the middle of the nineteenth century, interest in the work by non-Jewish philosophers was revived as a result of a new translation into French by Solomon Munk. Subsequently, it was translated into almost all European languages. The work wielded great influence on the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages, and was extensively quoted by many of them, notably Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and Roger Bacon. Thus, Maimonides occupies a most prominent place in the annals of general theological philosophy.

The Guide for the Perplexed, dealing with abstruse metaphysical concepts, became one of the most commented upon philosophical classics of all time. There are more than thirty commentaries on it in Hebrew by known authors, and many more authors whose identities are unknown. It is interesting to note that some of these commentaries include explanations from the Kabbalistic perspective. This indicates that beneath the philosophical veneer of the Guide for the Perplexed lie Kabbalistic ideas, and by studying it only from the rationalistic-philosophic point of view one does not plumb the depth of its content. This is in accord with the view of those who hold that Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon was not only a Talmudist and philosopher but also a Kabbalist.

During the past 200 years, it has been revealed in Chabad-Lubavitch literature that he was also a mystic steeped in the study and traditions of Kabbalah. In fact, the source of some laws in his Code, Mishneh Torah, are found only in Kabbalistic literature.

Rambam, through this monumental work, laid the foundation for all subsequent Jewish philosophic inquiry known as Chakirah, and stimulated centuries of philosophic Jewish writing. Whether the philosophers accepted his conclusions or not, whether commenting and elaborating on his ideas or criticizing them, each one was influenced to a large degree by his approach and ideas. His writings served as the foundation upon which they continued to build. The Guide for the Perplexed has dominated Chakirah since its appearance down to the present time and exerted a profound and enduring influence on Jewish thought.

As the fame of the Guide for the Perplexed spread, the enthusiastic recognition of the work was countered by vehement opposition on the part of those opposed to the attitudes and principles of philosophy. The struggle between the protagonists of philosophic inquiry and its opponents lasted for decades after the passing of the Rambam, and, unfortunately, at some periods took the form of acrimonious protest and even personal hostility against the intents and character of the holy Rambam.

Kahane-Was-Right BT:
They call it "very complex" because they don't want to acknowledge that the Rambam is in direct contradiction to one of the texts that is fundamental and the underpinnings of all chasidut, especially their own brand, chabad chasidut.   It is really not complex at all.   Rambam never saw the zohar because it was not written yet in his lifetime.   It was written almost 100 years after Rambam passed away.   So how could Rambam be called a "kabbalist" in the sense that we use that word today?   That is what I mean by anachronism.   Today kabbalist means one who learns in depth the zohar and speculates/contemplates mystical underpinnings of both G-d's creation of the world (ie, the acts of creation themselves, which happened in the first 6 days etc - ie what G-d did with that and how - and even what came before it - the zohar and modern-day kabbalah expounds on this), and the mystical background to mitzvoth themselves and the acts of doing the mitzvoth, etc.   Rambam was a rationalist.  To anyone not in denial of basic fact, he was a rationalist and did not engage in mystical speculation.  In fact from what I understand he held that examining such ideas (How G-d created the world, divisions of spiritual worlds, etc etc) would be assur and/or pointless to contemplate.   So in what way can he be called "kabbalist" in today's sense of the word?

Based on Rambam's basic hashkafa, as he elaborates quite extensively in Moreh Nevuchim, certain ideas brought by zohar are in direct contradiction and might even be called paganism by Rambam.  The chayas.com site elaborates on this, as do the writings of Rabbi Yihyeh Gafeh, which rhayat posted.   The Teymani point of view against zohar is firmly rooted in the teachings of Rambam.  I think if someone is intellectually honest, they can admit that the Rambam and zohar are giving over different points of view about the world. 

When you say you will ask Rav Bar Tzaddok about challenges to the zohar, it is certainly worthwhile to do so, but my main qualm is not that Rabbi BarTzaddok is a kabbalist per se (the vast majority of orthodox rabbis accept the zohar's authenticity/credibility etc, so it is not a surprise and not necessarily a charge against a rabbi if he does as well), the main qualm I have is when someone tries to ascribe a "kabalistic" point of view to the Rambam, which he did not employ.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page