Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Astounding letter over 600 years old...

<< < (3/4) > >>

Kahane-Was-Right BT:

--- Quote from: muman613 on February 07, 2010, 04:15:24 PM ---But the Midrash discusses Reincarnation. And the Torah has several hints at it.

The Torah also contains anthromorphism {that Hashem has limbs and parts}. The Torah also discusses Middot of Hashem {as in the 13 attributes}. All the claims you make against Zohar are also claims against Torah.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/614,2194430/Are-there-any-references-to-reincarnation-in-the-Bible-or-Talmud.html
http://www.jewishmag.com/19mag/reinc/reinc.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

The concept of Gilgul is an essential concept in Chassidus and what you are saying flys in stark contrast to what many good Rabbis have been taught and are teaching. I do not agree with you and I question your motives.

I discussed this with my minyan on Shabbat and most people say that you must have alterior motives..

I suspect you do not consider Rashi or the Rambam to be Talmid Chocham either..


--- End quote ---

Muman, let's not question motives here.   Let's debate the facts.    Of course people in shul will say such things because they have become inflexible about their own beliefs.   And any time someone says something different they are attacked.   But let's go through the arguments and forget about 'motives.'   Did Rabbi Yaakov Emden have alterior motives when he pointed to a later dating of the Zohar?   No.   Let's not go down that road.

As to your statement to rhayat:  "I suspect you do not consider Rashi or the Rambam to be Talmid Chocham either.."

How do you square that with what he said above?  Namely: "As for my opinions on the Talmud, they match those of the Rambam, the Rif and other rishonim."

Clearly he considers them chachamim.  Let's not go down the ad hominem route. 


You posted some good sites, and good citations, so let's hear his rebuttal and let's get at the root of this matter.

However, you should know Muman that some great authorities, including Rav Saadiah Gaon, did hold that reincarnation was a non-Jewish belief.   So the idea's origin can't be that early, or at least can't be that indisputable as you're making it out to be.  Clearly not everyone held of it, although today it is certainly the mainstream view to accept the idea of gilgulim.   I don't believe that any idea just by virtue of it being mainstream today, is necessarily correct.   On the other hand, the people you spoke with most certainly do think that, and so they perceive anyone evaluating other ideas within the sources as having 'motives.'   But this is not necessarily so.

muman613:
KWRBT,

You are correct. I am sorry if I am coming on in a defensive way. I am a firm believer in the Chassidic way and even non-Chassidic Rabbis accept much of the Kabbalah today. I can name several Rabbis who cite Zohar and other Kabbalistic sources in their Shuirim.

Including yesterdays portion of Yitro... Did you hear that Yitro was actually a Gilgul of Cain? I have found much written on this topic.

It is also said that Pinchas was a gilgul of Elijah the prophet...

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379844/jewish/Reincarnation-and-Reconciliation.htm


--- Quote ---Reincarnation and Reconciliation
The souls of Cain and Abel return to fix "bad blood" between them.

From the teachings of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria

This portion of the Torah opens with the story of how Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came to meet the Jewish people in the desert:

Jethro, the priest of Midian, the father-in-law of Moses, heard all that G-d had done for Moses and Israel, His people, that G-d took Israel out of Egypt…. Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came together with [Moses'] sons and wife, to Moses, to the desert where he was encamped, at the mountain of G-d. And he said to Moses, "I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you, with your wife and her two sons." (Ex. 18:1, 5-6)

Let us understand: If [Jethro] was talking to [Moses] personally, how could he say [in the present], "I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you"?

Notice, however, that the initials of these words spell the word for "my brother".

The initials of the words for "I, your father-in-law Jethro" [in Hebrew, "ani chotencha Yitro"] are alef-chet-yud, which spell the word for "my brother" [in Hebrew, "achi"].

This is because Jethro was a reincarnation of Cain, while Moses was the principle of Abel. He therefore hinted to him that he was [in a sense] his brother.

Because [when] Cain [slew Abel he] repudiated the principle of justice, saying "there is no justice and no judge" (Bereishit Rabba 26:6). He now [as Jethro] said he was coming [to Abel's reincarnation, Moses] in order to rectify this. And indeed, he is responsible for innovating the institution of the judicial system, as we have explained elsewhere.

The rest of this chapter describes how Jethro, seeing how overburdened Moses was with judging all the disputes the Jewish people brought to him, suggested that - subject to G-d's approval - Moses appoint a hierarchy of courts and judges to handle the simpler cases.
--- End quote ---

Kahane-Was-Right BT:

--- Quote from: muman613 on February 07, 2010, 04:34:58 PM ---KWRBT,
and even non-Chassidic Rabbis accept much of the Kabbalah today. I can name several Rabbis who cite Zohar and other Kabbalistic sources in their Shuirim. 
--- End quote ---

Definitely true, as does my own rabbi (Talmud teacher).   Personally I find the insights he brings often very fascinating but at the same time I question some of the basis for some of the ideas, and the overall basis of the zohar, whether it has such an early source as claimed, and whether the theological points are sound etc...  Even if it's not what some kabbalists claim about it, let's say Moshe De Leon wrote it for instance, I still personally would not reject it entirely.  Maybe certain ideas, but no reason to dismiss it entirely IMO.  (My rabbi, not chassidic, does not reject it at all, but at this point I am not convinced and just do not agree with him entirely).   As to the sefirot and whether that can fit with monotheism etc, I find the ideas somewhat alarming whenever we learn about it but I honestly don't know enough to say one way or the other.   I do find that learning about these matters can be overwhelming and thus I generally try to avoid it.  Unless it comes up in shiurim, I am not sitting around studying zohar, kabbalah texts, chassidut, etc...   It can drive a person crazy because it is something very deep to grasp and without basics I find that it can throw someone way off and really a person is contemplating matters that perhaps most people (or all people!) should not even consider (ie what was before creation, etc).



--- Quote ---Including yesterdays portion of Yitro... Did you hear that Yitro was actually a Gilgul of Cain? I have found much written on this topic. 
--- End quote ---

Interesting.  There may be some enlightening parallels, but I would not take such a notion literally.   I would consider that a "gilgul" in the literary sense, but not in the literal sense that he actually was the soul of cain that came back in his body etc....  gilgul as in, this character that came before in the Bible, had a person in the history of the Jewish people with similar characteristics....


--- Quote ---It is also said that Pinchas was a gilgul of Elijah the prophet...

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379844/jewish/Reincarnation-and-Reconciliation.htm 
--- End quote ---

These types of things are all very speculative.  Nobody can really know who or what is a gilgul of whom or what, if there are such things.   Making suggestions like this, in my opinion, is simply drawing parallels between different people, but I would not seriously take such suggestions literally as they are impossible to know about in reality.

Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Rhayat:

I believe the rabbi you refer to is Rabbi Meir ben Shimon of Narbonne?   Is that the Me'ili?
I have read that Rabbi Meir ben Shimon of Narbonne included in his grand work "Milchemet Mitzvah" an epistle within, with which he specifically attacked the "Sefer Bahir" and which disputed its attribution to tannaic authorship as well as its "heresy" it contained within.    Maybe this is the letter you have posted.

rhayat1:
Whatever your personal beliefs muman613, I always enjoy a good debate so thanks for that.  As it so happens, I did quite a bit of research on the belief in gilgul and, as mentioned by Kahane-was-right, there is much evidence that ancient Jews did not hold such beliefs.  So it was until relatively recently, when the ideas of the Kabbalists gained ground.  I'm pretty sure I even wrote a treatise about gilgul - but now I can't find it.  It might turn up and then I'll share it with you.  I will say, however, that one who holds certain beliefs will find "hints" of that belief in many places.  

As for the Torah referring to G-d having limbs, this is only because the Torah speaks in the language of men - not that there actually are such limbs (even on a spiritual level).  Somebody posted a link to Moreh haNnevukhim.  You should read it to gain an orthodox insight into such references.

As for the Kabbalists view of G-d's "limbs" and "sinews" etc.  I have a theory about that.  I think that the Rambam, and his supporters, were champions of the concept of a non-physical G-d, who was absolute oneness without any divisions at all.  However, not everybody agreed with the Rambam.  In one of his letters, he makes reference to the rabbis of "a certain land" who believe that G-d is a physical entity with a body just like ours, only bigger and purer.  I wish I could cite you the exact source but I don't have it in front of me.  In any case, there are those who say that the land he was referring to was France and the rabbis were the Tosaphists.  I did see a particular Tosaphoth which seems to support this (in 'Avodha Zara, I think).  This might explain why there is so little correspondence between the Tosaphists and Rambam - who were pretty much contemporary.  There are rare references one to the other (and they are not flattering).  They might have considered each other heretics.  Over time, the views of Rambam became prevalent (he had "science" on his side) and those of the Tosaphists were driven underground.  The Kabbalists adopted the physical representation of G-d and "spiritualized" it to make it more palatable.  When I say "the Kabbalists", I don't mean all Kabbalists; there were various schools of thought amongst them.  If you have, at your disposal, the book "Shene Luhoth haBberith" by R. Avraham haLlewi Horowitz, you should read the first chapter "Beth haShem".  If you do, you'll see what I mean.

Earlier you asked why the book "Milhemeth haShem" by R. haMme'ili was not published.  I wanted to add something to what I wrote earlier.  Once the Zohar and Kabbalah were accepted as mainstream, it became very unlikely that anybody would publish such a work.  The tables had been turned and the heretics of yesterday had become the orthodox of today.  Just a thought experiment: how would such a book be received today in the Orthodox community?

I also wanted to point out that the Zohar did not just appear out of nowhere.  There were Kabbalists before that - a fringe group, to be sure.  What were their origins?  I don't claim to know but I don't buy the explanation that there was an earlier book called "Raziel haMmalakh", which disappeared and was replaced by a later, corrupted version.  This is far fetched to say the least.  Gullible people may swallow it but not I.  No.  The Raziel haMmalakh we have today is, more or less, the same one mentioned in the Zohar.  This implies that Kabbalism has its roots among the Gnostics.

If the beliefs of the Zohar were indeed "Kabbalah" (i.e. received from generation to generation), then why the deception?  Why the forgeries and lies?  Soon I'll post my own proofs that the Zohar is a forgery; they will be easy to understand and stronger than the others I've already posted.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page