To Muman or anyone else who understands Torah.Article blasting Ha'Shems name

[mord]

I'm a member of Breitbart but i don't know enough to contradict this article    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/04/01/theologian-blasts-christian-leaders-fooled-into-endorsing-kabbalah-gnostic-version-of-noah 



Dr. Brian Mattson, a theologian with a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from the University of Aberdeen  who now serves as Senior Scholar of Public Theology for the Center for Cultural Leadership, has written a scathing review of Darren Aronofsky's "Noah" that takes special aim at the numerous Christian leaders who endorsed a film  "direct from Kabbalist and Gnostic sources" that has zero to do with the Bible.

"This was a thoroughly pagan retelling of the Noah story direct from Kabbalist and Gnostic sources," Mattson writes.   

Mattson reminds that the "subject matter" of Arnofosky's debut film, "Pi," was Kabbalah, so it makes sense that he was already familiar with it. Moreover, a number of moments in the film that at first seemed like artistic flourishes -- a glowing Adam and Eve, the serpent skin Noah wraps around his arm -- all have a basis in either Kabbalah or Gnosticism:

The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is “Sophia,” “Mother,” or “Wisdom.” The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of “The Creator” are false.

Where the numerous Christian leaders who endorsed the film really got fooled, though, was in assuming Aronofsky's "Noah" had anything to do with God of the Tanach or the Bible.  It doesn't. "Noah" is really about "The Creator," a completely different being according to Gnostics, and an evil one. If Aronosfsly's "god" seemed a little anti-human to some of us, here's why:

Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him “Hashem.” Or other names, too (Ialdabaoth, for example).

This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden.

Mattson also explains that why Russell Crowe's Noah turns into a "homicidal manic" in the second half of the film:

Many reviewers thought Noah’s change into a homicidal maniac on the ark, wanting to kill his son’s two newborn daughters, was a weird plot twist. It isn’t weird at all. In the Director’s view, Noah is worshiping a false, homicidal maniac of a god. The more faithful and “godly” Noah becomes, the more homicidal he becomes. He is becoming every bit the “image of god” that the “evil” guy who keeps talking about the “image of god,” Tubal-Cain, is.

 

But Noah fails “The Creator.” He cannot wipe out all life like his god wants him to do. “When I looked at those two girls, my heart was filled with nothing but love,” he says. Noah now has something “The Creator” doesn’t. Love. And Mercy. But where did he get it? And why now?

In the immediately preceding scene Noah killed Tubal-Cain and recovered the snakeskin relic: “Sophia,” “Wisdom,” the true light of the divine. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Unless Mattson is off base with his facts, which is doubtful based on his resume, Aronosfsky has pulled off one of the greatest bait-and-switches in history.

The director was not only able to fool the public (and maybe the studio) into buying into the idea that "Noah" was a biblical epic, he also fooled legions of Christian "thought leaders" who were apparently ignorant of Kabbalah and Gnosticism but also willing to put on blinders when it came to the obvious paganism that those of us who are not theologians picked up on.

Mattson lets them have it, too: [emphasis original]

The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…

Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces.

I believe Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us: “You are so ignorant that I can put Noah (granted, it's Russell Crowe!) up on the big screen and portray him literally as the ‘seed of the Serpent’ and you all will watch my studio’s screening and endorse it.”

He’s having quite the laugh. And shame on everyone who bought it.

In the opening of my "Noah" review, I wrote that Aronofsky "conceived" this film for "the sinister purpose of leading people to believe that Christianity and Judaism are something they are not."

At the time, I had no idea where his ideas had come from, but that the director was trying to lead people away from the God of the Tanach was blatantly and sickeningly obvious.

Indeed, "shame on everyone who bought it."

Especially those who should have known better.

 

Follow  John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC               

[Zelhar]

I don't understand why he has to blame Kabbalah in the headline and down the text provide no proof. One thing for sure is that the movie is a big deviation from the biblical story and is incompatible with Jewish view. I think turning Noah into a psychotic figure who almost annihilate his own family is disgusting. Also Noah was a prophet who warned people but they didn't listen and he believed in the one and only God not in some fake deity.

[mord]

I don't understand why he has to blame Kabbalah in the headline and down the text provide no proof. One thing for sure is that the movie is a big deviation from the biblical story and is incompatible with Jewish view. I think turning Noah into a psychotic figure who almost annihilate his own family is disgusting. Also Noah was a prophet who warned people but they didn't listen and he believed in the one and only God not in some fake deity.

I agree but Noah wasn't really such a big tzadik a Rabbi told meIt was that he was the best amongst all the evil people around

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I agree but Noah wasn't really such a big tzadik a Rabbi told meIt was that he was the best amongst all the evil people around

 Different views on this. Some say that he was the greatest "in his generation" meaning in comparison to everyone else. And if for example he would be in Avraham's generation he wouldn't be so great in comparison. Others say that he was so great precisely because he was in such an evil generation and he didn't follow their conduct which is a great accomplishment in that his challenge was greater.

   Also I recall that Noah is called a Tzaddik BeDoro. Tzaddik was used only on him and Yosef HaTzaddik.
 

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

About it being Kabbalistic. 1) I didn't watch the movie 2) I don't know the Kabbalistic views 3) I'm sure they don't know the Kabbalistic views either.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I agree but Noah wasn't really such a big tzadik a Rabbi told meIt was that he was the best amongst all the evil people around

That sounds about right.

[muman613]

Shalom,

I have not heard much about this movie, as I try to avoid any portrayal of events in the Torah (as they poison the true understanding of the events)...

I do not know why they consider this movie to be based on Kabbalah, from what I have heard about it it is very far from the narrative of the Medrashim and even the mystical sources I have heard.

I hope to be able to address these topics after Shabbat this Saturday night.

And yes, Noah was a tzadik in his generation... He was righteous but he fell far after exiting the Ark... I have heard that he was depressed and this led to his planting the vineyard to get drunk. His children took advantage of his fallen state and castrated him so that he could not have any more children.

Maybe over lunch I will explain this..

[muman613]

Ok, here Rabbi Buchwald explains the sections of Talmud which address what exactly Noah's son Ham did to deserve being cursed:

http://rabbibuchwald.njop.org/2011/10/24/noach-5772-2011/
Noah 5772-2011

“Who is Canaan and Why is He Cursed?”

by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

In this week’s parasha, parashat Noah, we learn of the harsh curse that Noah directed at his grandson, Canaan.

After the flood, Noah and his family leave the ark. Noah brings an offering to G-d, and the rebuilding of the world begins. In Genesis 9:18-29, the Bible states that Noah plants a vineyard, drinks wine and becomes drunk. Wallowing naked in his tent, Ham (who is constantly identified as the father of Canaan), sees Noah’s nakedness and tells his two brothers, Shem and Japheth, who were outside. Shem and Japheth take a garment, lay it upon their shoulders, and while walking backward, cover their father’s nakedness, all the while refusing to look at their uncovered father.

Noah awakens from his intoxicated stupor, and realizes what his “small son” (Ham) had done to him. In Genesis 9:25 Noah angrily exclaims: “Ah’roor Canaan, eh’ved ah’va’deem yee’hyeh l’eh’chav,” Cursed is Cannan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers. Noah then blesses his other two sons, saying(Genesis 9:26-27): “Blessed is the L-rd, the G-d of Shem, and let Canaan be a slave to them. May G-d extend Japheth, but he will dwell in the tents of Shem; may Canaan be a slave to them.” (For a fuller analysis, see Noah 5762-2001 and Noah 5767-2006.)

Faced with a number of very challenging questions, the commentators go to great lengths to try to explain Noah’s esoteric words and message. They are particularly perplexed by the mordant curse that Noah directs at Ham and his son Canaan. What did Ham do to deserve eternal condemnation? To justify Noah’s furious response, many commentators interpret the biblical expression (Genesis 9:22): “Va’yahr Cham ah’vee Chanaan ayt ehr’vaht ah’veev,” to mean far more than Ham seeing Noah’s nakedness. They actually regard Ham’s actions as a sexual assault, asserting that Ham either sodomized Noah or castrated him. How else explain the depths of Noah’s anger or why scripture would state that when Noah awoke from his wine, that he realized what his younger son had done to him? Had Ham merely “looked at his [Noah’s] nakedness” or mocked his drunken stupor, the intoxicated Noah would have been oblivious to what his son had done.

The commentators are also baffled by the fact that Noah does not curse Ham, but rather curses Ham’s son, Canaan, Noah’s own grandson. What benefit is there in cursing one’s grandson? And how can one blame a grandson for his father’s actions? After all, the Torah strongly affirms the principle that every person is responsible for his own actions.

At times, when faced with a host of complex questions in a biblical narrative, the commentators resort to Midrashic sources that enhance the story with facts that are absent from the original text. This is such an instance.

The Midrash Tanchuma 15 and Bereshith Rabba 36:7, record a dispute between Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nechemiah. Rabbi Judah asserts that since G-d had already blessed Noah and his sons, the Al-mighty could not allow Ham to be cursed, so Noah could only curse Canaan. Rabbi Nechemiah maintains that the curse was deservedly aimed at Canaan, because it was Canaan who originally saw Noah in his intoxicated state and informed the others. According to the Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) it was the indignity (emasculation) that Canaan, not Ham, had perpetrated upon Noah, that Ham saw. This, then, is what the Bible means when it says that Ham saw his father’s nakedness.

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 70a also suggests that Noah desperately wanted to have a young son who would attend to him in his old age. But when Ham emasculated him, Noah cursed Ham by cursing Ham’s own child, Canaan.

The doubled expression found in Genesis 9:25, “Eh’ved ah’va’deem yee’hyeh l’eh’chav,” He, Canaan, shall be a slave of slaves to his brothers, is also problematic. The curse is understood by the Netziv (R’ Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, author of Haamek Davar, 1817-1893), to mean that, from birth, Ham’s children will be so deeply steeped in the spirit of slavery, that they will never desire freedom. This will be unlike the children of Shem and Japheth, who will constantly aspire for freedom, whenever they are enslaved.

According to some etymologists, the name Canaan itself is derived from the Hebrew term, “Hach’nah’ah,” which means lowering or degrading oneself. The commentators find ample evidence of this degrading behavior. The Midrash Rabba Genesis 37:11 cites Rabbi Chia bar Abba, who suggests that Ham had illicit (bestial) relations in the ark, and that the child born from this relationship was Canaan. The Talmud in Pesachim 113b, cites five things that Canaan instructed his children: To love one another, to love theft, to love lewdness (zeema), to hate their rulers and masters, and to never speak the truth. The Talmud in Yomah 87a states that despite the fact that Canaan had some worthy offspring, Canaan is regarded as an exemplar of those wicked individuals who cause their children to suffer until eternity.

As the narrative of the Bible evolves, we learn of the many immoral and debased practices of Canaan and his descendants. The apple did not fall far from the tree.

May you be blessed.

[muman613]

http://www.noahidenations.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:wisdom-of-noah&catid=65:noah&Itemid=440
.
.
.
Man's side of the Covenant

Another of the fundamental laws of G-d's Covenant with Noah is the prohibition of sexual immorality, which was one of the prime causes of the flood. Allusions to the rectification of sexual immorality are found throughout the Parshah. In order to correct the excesses of the generation of the flood, it was necessary for Noah and his family to practice complete abstinence during the flood itself (Rashi on Genesis 6:18). This is in accordance with Rambam's teaching (Hilchos De'os, Laws of Attitudes and Personal Conduct 2:2): "If a person was at a far extreme, he has to distance himself from his previous behavior to the opposite extreme and conduct himself this way for a long time until he can return to the good path, which is the middle way."

"These are the generations of Noah."The names of Noah's three sons are repeated several times in the course of the Parshah, indicating that Noah understood that the true purpose of the sexual urge is to create new life and breed children to glorify the name of G-d.

However, Noah himself was unable to rectify the entire world, and after the flood, he himself fell -- he planted a vineyard, became drunk from the wine, and was uncovered in his tent. The theme of sexual immorality is uppermost in the story of how Ham "saw his father's nakedness". Rashi comments: "Some say he castrated him, some say he had relations with him." Ham is the archetype of the unbridled sexual heat and passion, which brings man to the depths of degradation. Sexuality has its necessary place in the life of man, but its holiness is preserved only when it is appropriately covered with a cloak of modesty and dignity. This is expressed in Shem and Yafes entering backwards into Noah's tent, averting their eyes, and covering his nakedness without looking, earning them Noah's eternal blessing.
.
.
.

[muman613]

http://www.rabbiweisz.com/divrei-torah/bereshit-2/noah-rise-and-fall/

Noach – The Rise and Fall
You Here: Home » Divrei Torah » Bereshit » Noach – The Rise and Fall
The Rise of Moses and Fall of Noah


“R. Berechia said: Moses is more special than Noah. Noah moved from the status of “a righteous man” (6, 9) to “a man of the earth” (9, 20), whereas Moshe began as an “Egyptian man” (Ex 2:19) and progressed to become “a man of G-d” (Deut 33:1)…” Bereshis Rabba 36:3

This Midrash draws upon a contrasting parallel between the characters of Moses and Noah. The key word is ‘Ish’ (person). Noah moves from ‘Ish Tzaddik’ (righteous person) to ‘Ish Adama’ `a earthly man’. Moshe moves from his ‘Ish Mitzri’ an Egyptian man’ status to ‘Ish Elokim’ – the man of G-d, reaching the human limits of G-dliness.

Noah’s life is a story of decline and fall: he was constantly diminishing in stature. Initially, he won the distinguished appellation “a righteous man” subsequently to be described as ‘Ish Adama’ –an earthly man, a nickname that accentuates his lack of spirituality and his emphasis on materialism. In contrast, the life of Moses was constantly on the rise by leaps and bounds; the daughters of Jethro who met him fleeing Pharaoh’s sword called him by the description, “an Egyptian”. At the end of his career, he is described as a “Man of G-d”.

What made Moses rise in stature and while Noah fell from his spiritual heights, to the physical “earth”? Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) explained as follows:
there are two ways to serve G-d – one way is to who isolates himself from worldly activities devoting all his energies to his own spiritual development. The other way is to distinguish himself in his work for others and to devote himself to public needs, negating his own interest for those of others.

There are people who concentrate all their energies and endeavors only on their own spiritual advancement,.  In contrast, there are persons who constantly occupy themselves with the needs of others with no thought to their own needs.

Which of the two types of people will advance spiritually? It seems obvious that anyone who constantly labors for his own spiritual welfare will reach great heights of spirituality than one who has no time for himself. However,here is a surprise: Noah was a recluse… he did not involve his contemporaries in the challenge of saving humanity (Sanhedrin).  He was busy saving himself yet he dropped in spiritual heights and fell from the status of “a righteous man” (6, 9) to the lowly status of being “a man of the earth” (9, 20).  Moses, though, who is called an “Egyptian man” after being forced into exile upon killing an Egyptian progressed to become “A man of G-d” (Deut 33:1) and achieved the zenith of spirituality known to Man.

We therefore can understand that the development of spirituality is not the result of personal retreat, but dealing with public needs. Noah, who was apathetic to the needs of his generation, began his career with the promising description -” a righteous man “-and then was reduced to the low point of being -” “a man of the earth”. Moses, the Egyptian (Ex 2:19) progressed to become “A man of G-d” (Deut 33:1)…” His way in life was caring and showing concern for all. We may assume that his preoccupation with the people enabled him to develop his inner qualities in a more effective way than by being egocentric. By virtue of assisting his Fellowman, Moses was eventually able to reach the pinnacle of serving Hashem.

Rav Meir Simcha’s explanation of the Midrash teaches an invaluable lesson. The apparent conflict between service on behalf of others and service of Hashem is not only artificial, it is inherently flawed; success in spirituality can be a consequence of service to and for others: one does not exist without the other.

[muman613]

One more lesson on Noach and back to work for me... This one deals with some Kabbalistic ideas (including conversations with HaSutton)..


Torah Attitude: Parashas Noah: Learning how to overcome our challenges

Summary

G'd instructed Noah to build an ark and to make appropriate accommodations for his family and all the animals. Satan came to Noah and offered him to go into a partnership. The shrewd "snake" convinced Eve that nothing in the Garden of Eden compares to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The Satan and the Evil Inclination downplay whatever is permissible and make us believe that only the "forbidden fruit" is the "real thing". We all have our custom-made unique evil inclination that comes to challenge us in every situation. Men have their challenges and women have theirs. G'd created the evil inclination and created the Torah as an antidote.

Noah's ark

In this week's parasha, the Torah gives a detailed description of the great flood G'd brought upon the earth. Mankind had gone corrupt and people lived a life of immorality and dishonesty. Only Noah found favour in G'd's eyes, and he and his family were saved together with representatives of each species. G'd instructed Noah to build an ark and to make appropriate accommodations for his family and all the animals. Noah even brought some delicate plants into the ark as they would not have survived the massive flood (see Rashi 9:20).

Partnership with Satan

Not long after the flood, Noah started to cultivate the land and planted some of the seedlings he had taken along in the ark. The Torah (ibid) relates that the first thing Noah planted was a vineyard. This was a major mistake and eventually brought him to get intoxicated and behave inappropriately. The obvious question is, how could Noah, who is described in the Torah (Bereishis 6:9) as a completely righteous person, fall so low that his first priority was to supply himself with grapes and to produce wine? The Midrash explains that the Satan came to Noah and offered him to go into a partnership. However, that does not seem to be an excuse. Noah had free choice and could have declined the business offer.

Shrewd snake

A similar question arises in last week's parasha (Bereishis 3:1-6) when the snake managed to entice Eve and Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Obviously, this was not a regular snake, but, as the Zohar explains, the personification of the Satan. But how did the Satan manage to bring Adam and Eve to sin? They had been created by G'd Himself and were on an extremely high spiritual level. The Or HaChaim (ibid) points out an additional difficulty. G'd had clearly instructed Adam and said to him: (ibid 2:16-17) "You may certainly eat from all the trees in the Garden, only from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from it you may not eat." So how could the Satan suggest (ibid 3:1) that G'd had prohibited them from eating from all the trees. The Or HaChaim answers that this was the shrewdness of the "snake" that the Torah refers to (ibid). He managed to convince Eve that nothing in the Garden of Eden compares to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. As long as she did not eat this fruit she had not tasted the "real thing", and it was really as if G'd had prohibited them from eating from all the fruits of the Garden.

The "real thing"

This was the tactic the Satan used to bring Adam and Eve to sin, and this was the same tactic he used to bring Noah to his downfall. Of course, there were more important issues to deal with after the flood than to produce a tasty wine. But the Satan convinced Noah that if he does not have wine to drink, he will be missing the "real thing". And, says the Or HaChaim, it is this very tactic our evil inclination constantly uses to challenge us. For, as the Talmud (Bava Basra 16a) teaches, the Satan and the Evil Inclination are one and the same. He will downplay whatever is permissible and make us believe that only the "forbidden fruit" is the "real thing".

Custom-made evil inclination

We all have our custom-made unique evil inclination that comes to challenge us in every situation. One person's evil inclination will came and say: "If you have not tasted the steak of a particular restaurant then you have not tasted a good steak." He will downplay the fact that this particular restaurant has no reliable kashruth supervision. Another person's evil inclination will push him to make a certain business deal although it will include some dishonesty. "All the money you have made", says the evil inclination, "is nothing compared to what you will be able to make on this deal."

Challenges of men and women

Men have their challenges and women have theirs. The evil inclination will challenge a man to be attracted to the "forbidden fruits" of other women that he should not watch or get involved with. On the other hand, the evil inclination often challenges women to wear garments that do not adhere to the Torah standard of modesty. They want to look attractive and "forget" the problems they thereby cause themselves and the male members of society. "This dress is just gorgeous", says the evil inclination, "and you have absolutely nothing else to wear."

Torah antidote

The Torah relates to us how the Satan, right from the first day of man on earth, has the shrewdness to challenge us and bring us down. The purpose of this is so that we shall "know our enemy" and seek ways how to avoid these pitfalls. The Talmud (ibid) teaches that G'd created the evil inclination and created the Torah as an antidote. It is up to us to utilize the lessons taught in the Torah to overcome our personal challenges and reach our potential and purpose in life.

These words were based on a talk given by Rabbi Avraham Kahn, the Rosh Yeshiva and Founder of Yeshivas Keser Torah in Toronto.

Shalom. Michael Deverett

[muman613]

Here is a Kabbalistic lesson on Noach...



http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/565869/jewish/Drunk-on-Dvine.htm
Drunk on D'vine

From the teachings of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai; translation & commentary by Moshe Miller

Noah, the man of the soil, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself with this tent. (Gen. 9:20-21)

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose [interpreted these verses respectively]:

One maintained that the grapevine was banished from the Garden of Eden.

[i.e. it was the Tree of Knowledge, according to one of the views cited (Bereishit Rabbah 15:8 and Sanhedrin 70b)] and he planted it here [in the ground - outside of the Garden of Eden].

Noah intended to rectify the vine with which Adam had transgressed….
The other one maintains that the grapevine was from the Land of Israel, and he uprooted it and planted it [outside Israel].

On the same day [that he planted it], it produced fruits which he squeezed [to make wine].

He then drank the wine and became intoxicated.

According to the opinion that the vine was banished together with Adam from the Garden of Eden, Noah intended to rectify the vine with which Adam had transgressed. However, instead of sanctifying the wine which he made from the grapes, he became drunk on it. He thus debased himself by repeating Adam's sin, as explained below. The sin of the Tree of Knowledge was that Adam drank the juice which Eve squeezed from its grapes.

According to the second opinion, Noah found the vine outside of the Garden of Eden, in the Land of Israel. He debased himself by uprooting it from its proper place, and replanting it elsewhere, in a place that was not fitting for it. According to this view, his transgression was not the same as that of Adam. (Sulam)

Rabbi Shimon said: This verse contains the secret of wisdom. When Noah wished to examine the sin that Adam had committed with the intention of avoiding it himself and learning how to rectify it and the world, he was unable to [fathom its secret]. So he squeezed grapes in order to examine [the secret of] the vineyard.

The sons of Aaron…became intoxicated with the same wine which intoxicated Noah….
The Zohar states that Eve squeezed grapes from the Tree of Knowledge and gave Adam to drink. (Zohar I, 36a, 267b) Ziv Hazohar explains that this refers to "external" or secular wisdom, i.e. wisdom other than the Torah, such as philosophy, which attempts to examine divine secrets by way of the intellect; or witchcraft, which attempts to harness the powers of impurity.

When he reached this point, he became intoxicated and exposed, and he lost his resistance [to the External Forces].

Thus the breach in the world [which Adam's sin had made] became revealed, after it had been sealed [against the entry of External Forces (Ashmoret HaBoker)].

This is similar to [what happened with] the sons of Aaron, regarding whom we have learned [that they entered into the Holy of Holies] intoxicated with wine.

Now who gave them wine to drink there? Do you really think that they were so brazen as to drink wine there?

Certainly not! Rather they became intoxicated with the same wine [which intoxicated Noah].

This refers to secular wisdom. (Ziv Hazohar )

Here [regarding Aaron's sons] it is written, "they offered strange fire before G-d." Elsewhere it is written, "Beware of a strange woman" (Mishlei 7:5) [alluding to secular wisdom].

[Zohar I, 73a; translation and commentary by Moshe Miller
First published by Fiftieth Gate Publications and Seminars]

[Zelhar]

I agree but Noah wasn't really such a big tzadik a Rabbi told meIt was that he was the best amongst all the evil people around

But in any case he wasn't a psychotic maniac who wanted to murder his own family.

[muman613]

I don't know where the impression he was a 'homicidal maniac' came from, there is no mention of it in any Kabbalistic sources I can find... Aside from cursing Ham's son Canaan he did not do anything very harsh...

More Kabbalah insight into the fall of Noach, due to the pressures of the evil inclination (HaSutton)...


http://www.bircas.org/index.php?page=noach-5

Noach

פרשת נח
In this week’s Parsha, Noah warns the people that Hashem is going to bring a flood. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (ק"ח) says that for 120 years, Noah rebuked the people of his generation, yet all this didn’t help -- the people didn’t do teshuva. And so G-d brought the flood, causing mankind, animals and plant life to perish.


It’s very hard to understand why the rebuke of Noah didn’t work. Picture it: every single day, for 120 years, Noah warned everyone passing by his football-field-sized ark, “You must change your ways! Look at yourselves! You must stop robbing, worshipping idols, cheating and doing immoral acts! You’re bringing destruction upon yourselves!” And yet, not a single listener was persuaded to change his ways. The passuk says he was a צדיק תמים – a perfectly righteous man – who “walked with G-d.” Why would anyone be reluctant to hear the words of such a holy man? Moreover, Noah was an expert in public relations. The Sforno says he excelled in all mitzvos בן אדם לחברו – between man and his neighbor. The Medrash Tanchuma relates that Noah was Avraham Avinu’s role model in all matters involving chesed: the Medrash says Avraham once met Noah’s son Shem and asked him, “Through what deeds did you merit to be saved from the flood?” Shem responded, “It’s because day and night, we were doing chesed, feeding all the animals in the ark. We didn’t have time to sleep, eat or rest. In this merit, we were saved.” Avraham said, “If this is what chesed can do, I am also going to do chesed.” Noach’s kindness was the inspiration for Avraham to open up a hotel for all mankind to eat, drink and sleep. So again, we must ask: If Noah was such a tzaddik and such a big baal chesed, why didn’t his rebuke have any effect, such that not one person was chozer b’tshuva because of him? How could this be? Consider that even the worst baal teshuvah yeshiva – so an old joke says – attracts a few students!

The Sforno sheds light on this difficulty. He answers that Noah truly did rebuke them, but it was not the type of rebuke that would cause them to change their ways. By scolding them that they were deficient in דרך ארץ – that their ways were not proper for people to act – Noah himself was giving deficient rebuke. Why is this? It’s because when you rebuke someone based on what you claim is improper behavior, that person can easily claim that his behavior is, in fact, proper and that it’s completely OK to act this way. It’s your word against his -- which is why this type of rebuke doesn’t work. Contrast this with the rebuke of Avraham Avinu. When he wanted to change people’s actions, he started by telling them, “There is a G-d, and He sees all what we do. He controls the whole world and all that happens in the world -- and He holds people accountable for their actions.” This type of tochacha takes hold, since when a person considers that there is a G-d who tells us all how to act, who expects certain behaviors from us, he is open to feeling truly ashamed of his actions and motivated to make real changes in his life.

Rav Moshe Schwab, the Mashgiach of Gateshead, provides a deeper insight into this difference between Noah and Avraham Avinu. He points out that said Noah’s outlook was based on proper manners, whereas Avraham’s was based solely on Hashem. He elaborates on this by citing the Medrash Tanchuma (Noah, 13), which says that when Noah planted the vineyard, the Satan came to him and said, “Let us be partners.” Significantly, Noah agreed. Then the Satan killed a sheep, a lion, a pig and a monkey, and he used their blood to water the vineyard. Noah asked why. The Satan responded that when a person drinks wine, at the beginning, he’s like a sheep, tame. When he drinks more, he becomes confident, like a lion. When he drinks still more, he’s like a pig, who happily wallows around in his own excretions; and finally, when he becomes completely inebriated, he’s like a monkey, who jumps around like a fool. We see that Noah was willing to become a partner with the Satan and even listen to his mussar. However, when the Satan came to Avraham Avinu during the incident of the Akeidah of Yitzchok, asking Avraham, “How can you slaughter your only son? How can you kill a pure neshama?” – Avraham retorted, “I can’t talk to you. I have to do the will of Hashem.” This, Rav Schwab notes, was the crux of the difference between Noah and Avraham: Noah was willing to hear, and to partner with, the Satan, as long as what he said made sense and did not contradict the Torah. Yet Avraham Avinu had only one thing on his mind: Hakadosh Baruch Hu – and thus he wouldn’t hear what the Satan had to say. Noah was willing to influence others using secular means, yet Avraham employed only Divine methods.

The Sefas Emes brings a chazal which says that Noah היה צריך סעד לתומכו -- “needed help to support him” -- in his service of G-d, whereas Avraham Avinu “went in his righteousness” -- all alone.  Even though both men were alive before the Torah was given at Sinai, Noah lacked spiritual strength and needed Hashem to push him, but Avraham Avinu, through his total focus on Hashem and great self-sacrifice for G-d’s sake, was zoche to know the whole Torah before it was given.  He had tremendous spiritual strength from the Torah, and this was the foundation of all his actions. He was a ben Torah, in the truest sense.


We see from this week’s Parsha how important it is to be a true ben Torah.  A real ben Torah is not only someone who puts all his strength into Torah learning at every moment, but he is also someone whose entire outlook -- everything he says, does and thinks, as well as all his mannerisms and interactions with people -- is wholly based on Torah. All his ideas in life, he gets from the Torah. Such a person is complete in his Avodah. Anything external -- whether it’s a newspaper, secular radio, or the Internet -- takes away from his being a ben Torah.

There’s a powerful Gemora (Chagigah 15b) which introduces a great Tanna named Acher, who was the Rebbe of Rebbe Meir.  Acher was a tremendous chacham and taught huge amounts of Torah to his generation.  Unfortunately, Acher, towards the end of his life, went off the derech and committed gross averas.  The Gemora asks, “What happened to him?”  The Gemora answers, “Even when he was younger, Italian songs didn’t stop from his mouth, and he read secular books.”  Even with all his Torah, these seemingly harmless outside influences caused a great Tanna to fall.  We see how careful we must be to guard anything foreign and keep ourselves totally involved in Torah.

[muman613]

Some videos which explore the Jewish understanding of Noah:





The question of Noah's righteousness?

[muman613]

[muman613]

Rabbi Richman discusses the Torah's teaching about the decline of mankind, from Adam to Noach...

[mord]

Here is a Kabbalistic lesson on Noach...



http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/565869/jewish/Drunk-on-Dvine.htm
Drunk on D'vine

From the teachings of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai; translation & commentary by Moshe Miller

Noah, the man of the soil, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself with this tent. (Gen. 9:20-21)

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose [interpreted these verses respectively]:

One maintained that the grapevine was banished from the Garden of Eden.

[i.e. it was the Tree of Knowledge, according to one of the views cited (Bereishit Rabbah 15:8 and Sanhedrin 70b)] and he planted it here [in the ground - outside of the Garden of Eden].

Noah intended to rectify the vine with which Adam had transgressed….
The other one maintains that the grapevine was from the Land of Israel, and he uprooted it and planted it [outside Israel].

On the same day [that he planted it], it produced fruits which he squeezed [to make wine].

He then drank the wine and became intoxicated.

According to the opinion that the vine was banished together with Adam from the Garden of Eden, Noah intended to rectify the vine with which Adam had transgressed. However, instead of sanctifying the wine which he made from the grapes, he became drunk on it. He thus debased himself by repeating Adam's sin, as explained below. The sin of the Tree of Knowledge was that Adam drank the juice which Eve squeezed from its grapes.

According to the second opinion, Noah found the vine outside of the Garden of Eden, in the Land of Israel. He debased himself by uprooting it from its proper place, and replanting it elsewhere, in a place that was not fitting for it. According to this view, his transgression was not the same as that of Adam. (Sulam)

Rabbi Shimon said: This verse contains the secret of wisdom. When Noah wished to examine the sin that Adam had committed with the intention of avoiding it himself and learning how to rectify it and the world, he was unable to [fathom its secret]. So he squeezed grapes in order to examine [the secret of] the vineyard.

The sons of Aaron…became intoxicated with the same wine which intoxicated Noah….
The Zohar states that Eve squeezed grapes from the Tree of Knowledge and gave Adam to drink. (Zohar I, 36a, 267b) Ziv Hazohar explains that this refers to "external" or secular wisdom, i.e. wisdom other than the Torah, such as philosophy, which attempts to examine divine secrets by way of the intellect; or witchcraft, which attempts to harness the powers of impurity.

When he reached this point, he became intoxicated and exposed, and he lost his resistance [to the External Forces].

Thus the breach in the world [which Adam's sin had made] became revealed, after it had been sealed [against the entry of External Forces (Ashmoret HaBoker)].

This is similar to [what happened with] the sons of Aaron, regarding whom we have learned [that they entered into the Holy of Holies] intoxicated with wine.

Now who gave them wine to drink there? Do you really think that they were so brazen as to drink wine there?

Certainly not! Rather they became intoxicated with the same wine [which intoxicated Noah].

This refers to secular wisdom. (Ziv Hazohar )

Here [regarding Aaron's sons] it is written, "they offered strange fire before G-d." Elsewhere it is written, "Beware of a strange woman" (Mishlei 7:5) [alluding to secular wisdom].

[Zohar I, 73a; translation and commentary by Moshe Miller
First published by Fiftieth Gate Publications and Seminars]

The tree of knowledge was a grape vine? I thought it was a pomegranate  tree

[muman613]

Mord,

The sages have had differing opinions on just what the 'fruit' of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil was...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/983693/jewish/What-Sort-of-Fruit-Tree-was-the-Tree-of-Knowledge.htm

Question:

Someone has recently told me that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge eaten by Adam and Eve was not an apple. Is this correct?

Answer:

The Talmud1 cites three opinions:

Rabbi Meir says that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine—"for nothing causes more heartbreak than wine...."

Rabbi Nehemiah maintains that it was a fig tree. The Torah tells us that after the sin, Adam and Eve "knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles."2 Rabbi Nehemiah maintains that "that which caused their downfall, was then used to rectify them."

Rabbi Judah says it was actually wheat stalks!3 He bases his contention on the fact that "a child knows not how to call out to his father and mother until he has tasted grain." As such, the Tree of Knowledge was actually grain.4

The Midrash5 quotes another opinion, that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was an etrog (citron).

Another opinion cited in the Midrash6 is that "G‑d did not disclose the identity of the tree's species, and He never will." This in order to protect the honor of a species that would otherwise be tarnished—through no fault of its own.

Rabbi Naftali Silberberg,
Chabad.org Editorial Team

While i have not heard that it was a pomegranate, this site does mention it as a possibility...
http://www.oztorah.com/2008/10/was-it-really-an-apple-ask-the-rabbi/

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is “Sophia,” “Mother,” or “Wisdom.” The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of “The Creator” are false.

lol
I'm not the biggest fan of mysticism, but I can assure you that the Kabalah does NOT claim that God is a liar chas veshalom.  Whatever he is referring to as "kabbalah" is not really kabbalah.   

Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him “Hashem.” Or other names, too (Ialdabaoth, for example).
 

I think this guy may be a Jew-hater.   Hashem is the word Jews use to refer to God so that we don't say His name in vain.  Hashem literally means "The Name" in Hebrew.  We don't have any hierarchies for Hashem - he's not anyone's son, not "low-level" or any of this insane stuff. 
What he wrote has absolutely nothing to do with kabbalah.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

But in any case he wasn't a psychotic maniac who wanted to murder his own family.

Yes, they made this part up.   It seems from the text that he did fall into problems with alcohol.  Nowhere do I see a desire to murder off his family.