Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Astounding letter over 600 years old...
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
Rhayat, I would actually appreciate if you scanned it in and posted it.
muman613:
My only other question is this:
Who is this person who wrote this 'letter' and why wasn't it published? And why would anyone care about what this particular Rabbi says? Maybe it wasn't published because what he said is not true? I have never found any mention of a Rabbi Meir haMme'ili.
Can you please provide some context concerning the background of this 'letter' so that we can better appreciate why he was motivated to say such things?
Also if this letter is so historic why wasn't it translated before? Much of what you have posted seems in stark contrast to things which I know.
I am also interested in whether you consider Talmud to be Holy?
rhayat1:
Here are the relevant pages from haMmafteah, that include the above letter:
For some reason, the order didn't come out right. The middle page is the first, the one on the right is the second and the one on the left the last.
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: muman613 on February 07, 2010, 02:38:12 PM ---My only other question is this:
Who is this person who wrote this 'letter' and why wasn't it published? And why would anyone care about what this particular Rabbi says? Maybe it wasn't published because what he said is not true? I have never found any mention of a Rabbi Meir haMme'ili.
Can you please provide some context concerning the background of this 'letter' so that we can better appreciate why he was motivated to say such things?
Also if this letter is so historic why wasn't it translated before? Much of what you have posted seems in stark contrast to things which I know.
I am also interested in whether you consider Talmud to be Holy?
--- End quote ---
As for the background, you'll find it in the paragraph just before the actual quote on the first page of the above scanned pages. Rav Me'ili was not just some nobody. We must bear in mind that only very very few of the Spanish authorities are known and remembered by the later generations. In fact, only a handful - despite the fact that there was a thriving Jewish community in Spain for hundreds of years. So, just because his is not a household name does not detract from his standing. Also, unless you claim that he was lying, what he wrote was agreed upon by the other authorities in Spain, as stated.
You wonder if the book was not published because "what he says is not true". Remember that this was well before the advent of printing and very few Spanish books, relatively speaking, made it to print. The inquisition certainly did not help matters either. Was he wrong? No. I don't think so. His attitudes were not uncommon and it was only through trickery and deceit that the Kabbalists were able to sneak their books into Judaism.
The Noda' beyehudhah (you've probably heard of him) also cast doubt on the authenticity of the Zohar in his responsa "Teshuva meAhavah" (part 1 siman 26).
The Zohar was "revealed" around the year 1282. The Rosh arrived in Spain in the year 1306 and remained there until his death in 1327. In all those 21 years that he lived in Spain, thousands made their way to him, and probably tens of thousands of Jews to bask in his wisdom and ask him all manner of questions. There was none as great as him or as famous in his day. If the Jews of Spain, even a few of them, had such an important volume as the Zohar - which would have caused a spiritual revolution in the world of Torah - and in their midst was the greatest Torah scholar of the generation: the Rosh, they would surely have been running to him to show him this jewel. In fact, not only did they not hurry to show him, but he remained there 21 years and nobody bothered to show him the Zohar. This should make us wonder... It would seem rather suspicious. What is the explanation?
We find several rabbinical authorities writing against the belief in reincarnation - and even citing the Zohar to support their views ("Kevodh Elohim", "ha'Aqida", and "ha'Iqarim" all do this). How could this be?
In the Zohar itself, we find it calling itself the "Zohar" at least 11 times. But Rabenu Bahye, who was wont to quote its words, never mentioned it by name even once. Instead he called it "Midrasho shel Rishbi". Why would he not refer to it by the name it calls itself?
The Agur (tefillin siman 36) wrote that he "found in the book of the Zohar" such and such a ruling and he cites three halakhoth that he found in the Zohar "which are not found among any halakhic authorities that we have". But, between these two places, he wrote "tefillin in hol haMmo'edh, are donned without a blessing. And the Rosh wrote that one should recite the blessing, and the custom is to not say the blessing and my master my father... ruled to say the blessing". And he wrote nothing else on this matter. But this is against the famous opinion of the Zohar Hadash which states that it is a grave sin to don tefillin on hol haMmo'edh. How could he have not even mentioned this?
What are those "pamphlets" that are mentioned by so many defenders of the antiquity of the Zohar (mentioned in sefer haYyuhasin) and where did they get this tradition from?
The answer to all this is the same: the authors of the Zohar, and those who distributed it, kept its existence as a secret. Except that amongst themselves they would study it and add to it. But the famous rabbis knew nothing about it except for the few who were also Kabbalists. To those rabbis, they were willing to provide only specific sections of the Zohar - in pamphlets. From those pamphlets it was difficult to discern that it was a forgery. By way of those pamphlets, the masses came to learn about the existence of the Zohar - through the books of the Kabbalist rabbis who quoted it. Each time new pamphlets were revealed to those specific rabbis, they were already conditioned to receive them joyfully "as another portion of the holy Zohar that had been found".
As for my opinions on the Talmud, they match those of the Rambam, the Rif and other rishonim.
I'm considering scanning in the entire book haMmafteah, because it addresses many questions and is full of sources. This would be time consuming though...
muman613:
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..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version