Astounding letter over 600 years old...

[rhayat1]

I found this letter in its original manuscript at the Hebrew University.  It is very old, as stated, and was written by R. Meir haMme'ili, who lived in Spain and wrote it just as the Zohar was being dispersed.  It is part of a book called "Milhemeth haShem" and, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been published.  In this letter, as you will see, we find that the authors of the Kabbalistic work "Bahir" were caught red-handed forging the signatures of various local rabbis in Spain in order to give an air of legitimacy to their recently forged work "Bahir".  The Zohar is also mentioned in passing but not by name.  The historic significance of this letter is very great and, as far as I know, this is the first time it will be translated into English.  It is somewhat long so I'll post it in several parts.

   "...to counter those who speak evil about G-d and about the hakhamim who follow the ways of the pure Torah and who fear G-d.  They are wise in their own eyes and they invent things from their hearts, and they lean toward heresy.  They imagine to bring proof for their words from the texts of the Hagadoth, which they interpret according to their errors.  G-d forbid!  G-d forbid that it was ever the intention of the sages who said (those hagadoth) to mean these things.  May G-d help us so that we may teach them a good lesson.  Amen, amen selah.
   It has been many days for Israel without the true G-d and without Torah and without a teaching cohen.  The truth has become lost and poisonous roots and bitter herbs have blossomed from the those who bless themselves in their own hearts.  For they have not found seeing prophets (?)... And verily from the kindness of G-d upon us, He gave us the written Torah and the Oral Torah, and he raised among us prophets and righteous men, pillars of the world.  When they saw Torah being forgotten  from Yisrael from great suffering and from the burden of exile and persecution, they wrote the Oral Torah and the secrets of G-d by way of their broad wisdom.  Some of them by hints and secrets and some of them as their plain meaning.  Neither great nor small was hidden from them.  And the main tenets of Torah regarding faith in G-d, that through it those who reach it will acquire the paths of life in the world that is entirely life...
   Some days have passed and suddenly fools went forth and revealed opinions, in the faith of haShem, that are not according to Halakha.  In matters of the prayers and benedictions that were instituted by the sages - things that have no source or basis, that are not of the Torah of Moshe and not of the prophets or of Scripture, and are not from the Talmud which is set in our hands from Rabina and Rav Ashe.  In short, not from either tradition or logical deduction, and not even from the external Hadadoth...that they are corrupt and incorrect.  And they cannot bring proofs or ask questions, as Hazal said "any Mishna that was not learned by the house of R. Hiyya and R. Hosh'iya has no validity and we don't use it to resolve anything in the study halls.
   And those fools have said to not give Torah, prayer or benedictions to Almighty G-d, who has no beginning or end.  Oy for their souls!  What has happened to them that they have rejected the Holy One of Yisrael?  They have fallen backward and they have distanced themselves from the Founder of the Earth... He is G-d in heaven above and on Earth below and there is none other besides Him, and He does not experience change.  (He is) a true one in complete oneness, without any partner or mixture or sephiroth.  Our blessed G-d is the cause of all causes... This is the proper faith for all of Yisrael who are believers.  Anybody who strays from this, he is a heretic and a non-believer.  Why should we continue speaking of these fools for whom all their prayers and benedictions are to false gods, they say these are created and "neesalim", that they have a beginning and an end.  For they say, in their twisted minds, that anything that is called "first" and "last" has a beginning and an end.  And it says "I am first and I am last and before me there is no other god".  Such did we find in one of their books of errors - whose name they called "Bahir".  Such did we hear, from some of our Hakhamim who quoted them.  They say to pray by day to on created god and by night to another god who is above him, but he is also created just like the first one.  And on the holy days, after the ten days of penitence, their days became confused and vexed to pray to yet another created one and others to lesser created ones beneath him on other days of the year.  They've created many divisions in their prayers, in their defective minds and they are a disgrace to all flesh.  The worms of their foolishness with not die and the fire of their folly will never be extinguished.  For they have desired many gods and have said, in their small minds, that they are all attached one to the other and that they are all one.  But these fools' ears cannot hear what their mouths speak.  For in truth, the one G-d who is worthy of believe, to to Him is worthy to pray and to serve and to bless and to thank, He is one.  If they say He is more than one, they have already denied the Torah that says "The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one".  And He said "there is no other than Him".  If they agree he is one, then why do they divide their prayers to one by day and to another by night?  Why do they divide the holidays and work days?  Why do they distinguish between the days of penitence and the rest of the year?  How are all those divisions justified?  Also, in truth, they should know that our holy G-d is one and his oneness has no beginning or end, without change, as is written "I am G-d.  I have not changed".  If so, he is one before were created or "neeslu" the sephiroth - that have a beginning and an end.  And to those sephiroth are their intentions when they say their benedictions and prayers.  Does this not prove that their heart is not right?
   
To be continued...

[muman613]

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm
Chasidim and Mitnagdim

In the 1700s, the first of the modern movements developed in Eastern Europe. This movement, known as Chasidism, was founded by Israel ben Eliezer, more commonly known as the Baal Shem Tov or the Besht. Before Chasidism, Judaism emphasized education as the way to get closer to G-d. Chasidism emphasized other, more personal experiences and mysticism as alternative routes to G-d.

Chasidism was considered a radical movement at the time it was founded. There was strong opposition from those who held to the pre-existing view of Judaism. Those who opposed Chasidism became known as mitnagdim (opponents), and disputes between the Chasidim and the mitnagdim were often brutal. Today, the Chasidim and the mitnagdim are relatively unified in their opposition to the liberal modern movements. Orthodoxy and even the liberal movements of Judaism today have been strongly influenced by Chasidic teachings.

Chasidic sects are organized around a spiritual leader called a Rebbe or a tzaddik, a person who is considered to be more enlightened than other Jews. A Chasid consults his Rebbe about all major life decisions.

Chasidism continues to be a vital movement throughout the world. The Lubavitcher Chasidim are very vocal with a high media presence (see their website, Chabad.org), but there are many other active Chasidic sects today. For a simple, plain English introduction to Chasidism written by a modern Breslover Chasid, check out this FAQ on Hasidic Culture and Customs.

I dont know to whom he refers when he says "And those fools have said to not give Torah, prayer or benedictions to Almighty G-d, who has no beginning or end. ". The Chassidim to whom it seems he is talking about have always stressed Torah study, strict observance of Tefilla and go beyond the letter of the law in Halacha.

Also regarding this authors questioning of the various minhagim of davening.... I don't share his opinion. The fact that the siddur is so well layed out and the basic prayers are said in virtually every Orthodox Ashkenaz , Sephardic, and Chassidic siddur is awesome. I currently daven in a minyan with many minhagim, including Persian, Ashkenaz, and Sephardic minhagim. All of the prayers which I read in the Artscroll siddur are the original prayers which were written by the Men of the Great Assembly.

I also find this part interesting :

  Why should we continue speaking of these fools for whom all their prayers and benedictions are to false gods, they say these are created and "neesalim", that they have a beginning and an end.  For they say, in their twisted minds, that anything that is called "first" and "last" has a beginning and an end.  And it says "I am first and I am last and before me there is no other G-d".  Such did we find in one of their books of errors - whose name they called "Bahir"

The quote "I am the first and I am the last..." comes from the Tanach, the book of Naviim called Isaiah, from Chapter 44 line 6 :

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1044.htm

6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no G-d.

Am I misunderstanding this? I have never heard any quoted Zohar which discusses anything like what is being accused here.


PS: I just realized that this letter is supposed to be written before the Bal Shem Tov... Some of my opinions therefore may be misplaced.

Sorry

PPS: I also still don't agree with the idea that anyone actually prays to the sephirot. To what is he talking about?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm
Chasidim and Mitnagdim

In the 1700s, the first of the modern movements developed in Eastern Europe. This movement, known as Chasidism, was founded by Israel ben Eliezer, more commonly known as the Baal Shem Tov or the Besht.

Muman:  What you quote here has no relevance to what rhayat posted.   His letter is from 600 years ago.  So that predates chasidism or their "mitnagdim" by at least 300 years.  It doesn't make sense to classify his letter as part of the dispute between Chassidim and Mistagdim.     Your own quote shows that Chassidism originated in the 1700's (with Baal Shem Tov).   "Over 600 years ago" would be the 1300's.

[rhayat1]

I knew the letter would cause confusion.  In the next, and last, installment I get to the part where he discovers they had forged the signatures.  Also, I was wrong about the age of the letter.  It's more like 700 years old.  As for praying to the sephiroth, I'm only quoting the man and the main point here is historical.

[rhayat1]

   But their eyes are blocked from seeing as is their intellect from understanding.  In the end, all of their words are like chaff before the wind and they sought chaotic words that have no substance, destruction of the Torah and contradicting it, words of heresy and denial.  How could any wise person consider that the truth is as their words, that it is not proper to bless or pray to the First G-d who has no beginning or end, the cause of all causes - who they call, in their language, "Ein Sof".   That whoever does so is, in their eyes "Meqases bineti'oth" and does not merit to see the wonders of redemption that awaits those who know G-d and fear Him... - How could this not be explained in the Pure Torah, that G-d gave us to live by forever?  In which it says, "You have been shown to know that the Lord is G-d.  There is no other".  If so, how would we know the thing that G-d did not speak?  Where, then, did He tell us these things?  How then could Rabenu haQqadosh, who compiled the Mishna, have neglected to explain them to us?  And Rabina and Rav Ashe, who compiled the Talmud which is set before us, that they are the main body of the oral Torah?  How could they leave all of Yisrael in error and losing out on the world to come - as "Meqasese bineti'oth"?  Oy to the eyes that thus see!  Oy to the ears that thus hear!  Oy to the generation that had this happen in its days!...  Do we have in our days, in the midst of all the false beliefs of the nations, those who deny the unity of G-d as these?  And if they say that he who blesses and prays to G-d, blessed be He, the cause of all causes, creator of all, will be cut off from the world.  (But that) he merits the world to come, and is not called "meqases beneti'oth" - but they think, in their foolishness, that this is the belief of the masses, but they are privy to secrets of G-d and are among those who fear Him.  And they wait to rise to higher level than others, in this faith of theirs.  These idiots are abandoning, even according to their own words, that which is certain and grasping that which is only a possibility.  Certainly they are destroyed with this, and their souls are destroyed and they are descending to the lowest level - opposite of their hopes and intentions, which are not correct.

   In the end, every man who has knowledge is required to distance himself from their foolishness.  And behold we have written everything before you, our rabbis who are in every city, to reveal to everybody all these things - for we feared because of the signatures that were upon them.  Also that it was told us that they forged many signatures of the Hakhamim of this land, who did not actually sign them, that many might be led astray after this, and they will pride themselves in false things and say "in the land of the people of Torah and wisdom did we find strength and might".  Lest they say "our hands are raised high."

   Heaven forbid that they err after this evil, after these heretical words - let it not be so in Yisrael.
   
   And I have heard that they have already composed a book, they called its name "Bahir", which I have mentioned earlier, and it will not see light.  That book has already arrived in our possession and we found that they attributed it to R. Nehuniya ben haQqaneh.  G-d forbid!  Such things never were and never were created and that righteous man would never have sinned so, nor would he be counted amongst criminals.  And the language of this book, and all of its concepts, prove that it came from a man who was not very literate nor educated.  It contains words of heresy and minuth in many places.

   We have also heard that they have also authored a commentary on the Song of Songs and the Book of Yesirah and Heikhaloth, and that within are written heretical things, and a commentary on Ecclesiastes and other books.  Inquire and search well and if they are in your midst, burn them from the Earth so that they will not be a stumbling block.  Search for them well, for we have burned those that were found amongst us.  And the Lord, in His mercy, will send us a redeemer and will gather the dispersed of Yehudha and Yisrael, and will remove doubts and confusion from amid His people and will return the hearts of fathers to their sons and the hearts of sons to their fathers.

   We have written all this with the approval of our master, the great rav, candle of Yisrael, our teacher R. Meshulam ben harav haGgadol Moshe (?) and the other Hakhamim of the land, some of whom privately know the matter that caused us to write.  And the wise will be careful "KaZzohar haRaqia' umasdiqe harabim kaKkokhavim la'olam wa'edh".  Amen amen selah.




That is all.  There is little doubt that his words, toward the end refer to the Zohar.  I do not believe that his choice of verse, at the end of this letter, is a coincidence.  The original is longer than what I have translated - because the author was quite long-winded in his descriptions of the pure faith of the Torah.  My translation is accurate if not professional.  If anybody wishes to see the original Hebrew, just let me know and I'll be happy to scan it in and post it.  When I wrote this book, all I had was one of the earliest home computers (very primitive by today's standards) and an early dot matrix printer and so it remains.

[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]

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?

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..

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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..

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

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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. 

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).

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

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....

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 

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.

[rhayat1]

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.

Yes, sounds like it could be him.  Thanks!  Also, I was mistaken about him being in Spain; Narbonne was actually in Provence, now Southern France.

[muman613]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions Rhayat1 but you will not convince me that you know better than the Rabbis. You may believe what you want to believe but there are men who are greater and wiser than you are who have looked at the material and decided that it is within Jewish belief. You may claim you believe you know what the ancient Israelites believed but I know what Judaism is to me, and what was taught to my family, for generations.

You can continue to squawk and think you are making a convincing argument. I have heard all kinds of heresies against the Jewish religion and the claim that Kabbalah is wicked and evil is just one of the attacks I have heard, along with the constant attacks on the Talmud. This is why I question your motives and question whether you believe the Talmud. You did not answer my question except to make a blanket statement that you believe whatever Rambam says about the Talmud.

What is your level of observance of mitzvot, if you don't mind my asking. I think you may be only coming from an intellectual angle. Where is your ahavas Yisroel? Where is your respect for the great Rabbis who are quoted each day across the four corners of the world? Why would anyone want to discredit those who have taught the Kabbalah and Chassidus which we are priveliged to have with us today?

You claim to know the true way of the Israelites? I truly doubt that. The Chumash is just the written Torah and we know that there is much Torah which was not written. We know that there was Torah kept before the Chumash was even written. There are secrets of the Torah which have not been written to this day. I do not see any reason to create division in Klal Yisroel by impugning so many great Rabbis.

Im sorry if you find my response harsh but I am very suspicious of what you are trying to accomplish. Kabbalah and Zohar do not inspire any idolatry, no avodah zarah, and no worshiping of Sefirot. Kabbalists do not worship the sun and the moon. As I have said before I am not a Kabbalist by any stretch of the imagination. All I know is what is presented in the form of Chassidic thought, as taught by the Baal Shem Tov and his followers. I also know that Sephardic Jewery also ascribes a great deal of weight to Kabbalistic teachings.

So present what you will... I hope that it makes you happy.

 

[muman613]

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.

Yes, sounds like it could be him.  Thanks!  Also, I was mistaken about him being in Spain; Narbonne was actually in Provence, now Southern France.

Sounds like you need to do some fact checking...

[muman613]

Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak, (1110-1179) Av Beit Din of Narbonne, author of Sefer HaEshkol. Student of Yehuda ben Barzilai of Barcelona. Some identify him as the kabbalist Avraham ben Yitzchak of Granada, reputedly the author of Brit Menuchah (see below).

Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak of Granada (Rimon), Late 13th early 14th Century CE. He is thought to be the author of Brit Menucha. He is one of the earliest kabbalists to quote the Zohar; his citations, however, vary from the extant copies of the Zohar. Some identify him with Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak of Narbonne; Scholem disagrees (possibly because it contradicts his thesis that the author of the Zohar is Moshe de Leon?).

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/472745/jewish/Index-of-Sages.htm