Sunday, January 13, 2013

Rav Hirsch equates Rambam & Mendelson - what is authentic Judaism?


While there are some of my readers who would exclude Zohar from authentic Judaism - we find that Rav S. R. H. rejected the hashkofa of the Rambam by equating it to Mendelson [see 18th letter]. The Mussar movment was also attacked as being heavily influenced by the goyim. Chassidus was also strongly attacked as being an alien movment. In contrast we see that there are movements which have  have not been accepted such as the Korach, Saducees, Christianity, Karaites and Shabsai Tzvi.

[As a side point - Rabbi Moshe Eisenman of Ner Yisroel told me that the Chazon Ish said that when printing a Hebrew edition of the 19 Letters - this equation of Rambam and Mendelson should be omitted.]

This raises the obvious question - what is the definition of authentic Judaism? Is it more that an approach that has withstood strong criticism and shown that it is a productive force for the Jewish community. Such is the thesis of R' Avraham Korman in his "Movements and Sects within Judaism"


תשע־עשרה איגרות על היהדות
מאת
הרב ד"ר שמשון רפאל הירש
(איגרת יח) כל עצמותו של ישראל מיוסדת על התורה. היא בסיסו, היא תכליתו ולשד־החיים הנוזל בעורקיו. אם הבל בריא מבחינה זו׳שוב אי־אפשר שתדבק מחלה בישראל. אך אם חדרה המחלה כאן, — לא יוכל ישראל להיות בריא ואיתן לעולם. לסיכך אין לך ליקוי של צורה בישראל, שאין מקורו בחטא מבחינת הבנת התורה, או שלמצער נתקיים ליקוי זה לאורך ימים מחמת אותו חטא. חכמינו ז״ל, שהעמיקו לראות בתוך הדברים, מצאו כבר אב־טעם לשואה הלאומית הראשונה בכך, ״שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה״ 1, כלומר, שעסקו בתורה לא מתוך כוונה לקיים אותה, היינו לא מתוך התאמתה לחיים ולמענם? פרחו החיים מתוך דעת התורה ? ואם כן, שוב לא יכלה דעת התורה לחדור לתוך החיים, להאיר את הלבבות ולחממם באמת. ואם מבקש אתה את מקורה של המחלה שבימינו, — שוב לא תמצאהו בשום מקום אחר אלא בכך. מתחילה לא נקבע מדע ישראל בכתב אלא ביסודותיו העיקרייםתורה שבכתב; ואילו קיום התורה לפרטיה, ועל הכל, הרוח, שהוא עצם החיים, צריך להתקיים רק בדיבור החיתורה־שבעל־פה. בצוק העתים והגלות עלתה הסכנה של אבדן המדע: אז חיברו את המשנה בספר, והניחו את הרוח בשביל השקלא־וטריא שבע״פ. אך מצוקת הזמנים דרשה עוד יותר, ואז העלו על הכתב את רוח המשנה, אבל רק בביטויו המעשי, בחיבור הגמרא; ואילו את רוח הגמרא הניחו בשביל הדיוק שבעל־פה. אך פגעי הזמנים דרשו עוד יותר ואז העלו את רוח התנ״ך והגמרא בכתב בחלק ה״אגדות״; אבל גם כאן הסתפקו רק ברמזים, למען תתקיים החדירה העצמית לתוך האגדות ותסייע לגלות את הרוח הנמסר מדור לדור בלימוד שבעל־פה. לתוך שתי ישיבות נמלטו ונתבצרו התורה והרוח; אבל עד־מהרה נתעוררו תשוקות ותעיות וחתרו תחת קיומן׳ עד שהחריבו אותן; הלכה התורה בגולה׳אותיות הכתב והקיום של המצוות למעשה ניצולו, — ואילו הרוח, פרט לאות, זו ששימשה לה מסווה וסמל, — אותה רוח פרחה. מתוך האותיות ומסווה הסמל עלינו לגלות את הרוח, נוסף על אותו חלק ממנה, שכבר ניצול ונמסר לידי יחידים? וכאן אמנם הגיעו לידי הצטיינות יחידים מבין חכמינו, אבל לא על כולם שרתה הרוח. בבתי־ספר של לא־יהודים נשתלמה רוח הנוער של ישראל השתלמות עצמאית, פילוסופית. היו שואבים חכמת יוון מתור בארות ערב. כמשימה העליונה ביותר קנו לעצמם השתלמות עצמאית בהכרת האמת. כיוון      שנתעורר רוחם, מיד הרגישו בכך סתירה אל היהדות שאת רוחה לא הכירו ולא ידעו: בהשקפתם על החיים מצאו סתירה אל אותה השקסת־חיים, השזאסת ראשית־כל למעשה, לפעולות, ואילו במהות ההכרה אין היא רואה אלא אמצעי לפעולה זו. והנה הקימה העת ההיא איש בעל רוח כביר׳ אשר התחנך ביהדות בלתי־מובנה ובחכמת ערב גם יחד, — והוא שצריד היה ליישב את הסתירה שגתזעותה בו עצמו, והדרד שבה ביצע את ישוב הסתירה והביע אותו. היה למורה־ דרד לכל הנבוכים העומדים באותה מלחמת־הדעות. איש נעלה זה, שלו, ורק לו, אנו חייבים תודה על הצלת היהדות המעשית עד לימינו אנו, דווקא הוא בדרכו שלו, ומתוד שמצד שני הוא רק יישב את הסתירה על־ידי פשרה׳ וכיצד ביצע זאת, — ולא פיתח את היהדות מתוך נפשו פיתוח־של־יצירה _ דווקא הוא שהוליד כל הטוב והרע כאחד. הכיוון הרוחני המיוחד שלו היה ערבי־יווני, וכד היתה גם השגתו על החיים. מן החוץ חדר לתוך היהדות והביא בידו השקפות כאלו, שמצא אותן קיימות במקום אחרובהן ביצע את הפשרה. גם לדידיה התכלית הנעלה ביותר היא השתלמות עצמית על־ידי הכרת האמת; ואילו החלק המעשי אינו אלא טפל לה. הברת ה׳׳ תכלית היא, ולא אמצעי; ומכאן העיונים על מהות דדונמצא כי היהדות כפופה ביסודה לתוצאותיה של אותה חקירה עיונית בתור עיקרי הידיעה או האמונה. המצוותאין הן יידעתו אלא גורמים מדריכיםוגורמים שיש בהם צוררלקראת ההכרה ותריס מפני טעות, — במקצת תריס רק מפני טעויות חלקיות, שאינן קיימות אלא קיום זמני בדעות האליליות. כד נעשו המשפטים וכן המצוות לכללי־חכמה! החוקים נעשו לתקנות הבריאות, שמעוררות רגשות ומשמשות מגן מפני תעתועים ארעיים: הדעות נעשו קצתן הכנות לעיונים ולתכליות אחרות; וכל אלה אינם מיוסדים על מהותם הנוכחית של הענינים, אינם נובעים מתור תביעותיהם הנצחיות, שהם תובעים ממני, מתור יעודי הנצחי שלי; כל אותם הדברים אינם מהיוים הנצחת הרעיון על־ידי הסמלועם זה אין הם מונחים ביסודה של כלליות המצוות. והוא. העורך הגדול. שערך בשיטה ובסדר את ההלכות המעשיות של התלמוד, נתן לנו בחלק האחרון של חיבורו הפילוסופי השקפות־על־המצוות, להיותן הרוח המפעם של אותן הלכות, שבחלקן הגדול שוללות הן אותן התוצאות המעשיות כטעמן של המצוות, ואינן עומדות בפני הביקורת, אינן מפיצות אור עליהןואש כן, שוב אי־אפשר להן למצוות ללוות את האדם בדרר המעשה, במדע ובחיים. אותן השקפות הן שנשארו לנחלה עד היום הזה, ביחוד בידי המבקשים בכלל את טעמי המצוותאד ההלכות הנוהגות בחיי המעשה הרי הן מחוץ לכל זיקה לאותן השקפות מן ההכרח, איפוא, שתהיינה נטולות־רוח ואפילו תהיינה בזויות בעיני האנשים. תחת להתיצב בתור היהדות ולשאול את עצמו: כיוון שהיהדות דורשת מאתנו   חובות כאלו, מה צריכה להיות השקפתה על יעודו של האדם ? רתחת לתפוס תחילה כל דרישה בכללותה, לפי התנ״ד והש״ס, ואחר־כך להעמיד לעצמו את השאלה: מה׳ איפוא, יכולה להיות מהותה, טעמה של אותה דרישה ן הרי באו יתפסו לעצמם גקודותיהשקפה אשר מחוץ ליהדות ומשכו את זו אל עצמם: יצרו להם מראש השקפות על מהותן המשוערת של המצוות, בלא לתת את הדעת על גלויה הממשי של המצוה לכל חלקיה. והתוצאה מכד מה היתד. ? הנה ר״שקפות אלו חוללו בחיים את התופעה הטבעית, שאנשים, שסבורים היו, כי בנו לעצמם את מלוא ההכרה, דימו בלבם, כי שוב אין הם נזקקים לקיום המצוות, שהרי אין בהם אלא משום הדרכה בלבד, ובמידה פחותה יותר נזקקים הם לתורתן של המצוות הללו, שנשארו בעיניהם נטולות רוח, — כיוון שכ ך נעשו האנשים, שהרבו להעמיק בהבנת היהדות, לאויביה של אותה רוח פילוסופית,׳הבאים אחריהם נעשו לאויבי הרוח בכלל, ולשונאי הפילוסופיה בפרט, — והשתמשו בכמה מאמרי חז״ל -°, שטעו בהבנתם, כדי לשלול כל השגה רוחנית בתלמוד; נוסף לכד לא הבחינו גם בין השאלה: ״מה נאמר כאן ?״ לבין השאלה: ״מפני מה נאמר זה ?״ ואפילו את חלק העדות לא הוציאו מכלל נידוי והרחקת הרוח! והרי ה״עדות״, לפי כל מהותן, אין תפקידן אלא להוליד את הרוה; כד כשם גם לאחר־מכץ על יסוד מאמר(בסנהדרין כד׳ א; בתוספות דיבור המתחיל בלולה), שהובן בטעותאסרולחלרטיןאפילו את לימוד התנ״ך טעות זו, — כאילו צפוה חכמים בנבואה והזהירו מפניה במפורש (מם׳ סופרים טו הלכה לט). ובכן, בשעה שהלחץ והרדיפות מנעו בכלל הסתכלות ערנית בעולם ובחיים, ועם זה הוצאו מן התלמוד כמעט כל פסקי ההלכה הנוגעים לחיי המעשה, אז אנוס היה הרוחוהרי הוא אמר להיות עומד ברשות עצמו לתעות מן הדרד ולמצוא לו עסק בפלפולים חריפים. רק מעטים עמדו במרוצת כל הזמן ההוא בחקירות הרוח בתחומה של היהדות הצרופה ובנו את בנין הרוח שלה מתוד עצמה. בין אלה מזהיר אורם של בעל ״הכוזרי״ ושל בן־נחמן. וקודם כל באשכנז, אשר ימי הלחץ והרדיפות דיכאו בה גם בלא זה כל התרוממות חפשית יותר של הרוח, שלט אותו מצב של יהדות בלתי־מובנהאד השקפת ו.יםוד הכללית: ה , אל יחיד־ומיוחד והתורה גילוי רצונו וקיום התורה ביראת ה׳ באהבת ה׳ ובבטחון בה׳השקפה זו נתקימה בכל מקום בעצם תקפד* — ולמען התורה הקריבו בשמחה ובמסירות נפש למופת את חייהם על כל נכסיהם  ועל כל ששונם. והנה תופיע באותו דור מקצוע־לימוד, אשר אני כלאיבקי בי איני מעיז לדון עליו, אך אם מבין אני כראוי את שסבור אני להבין, הרי הוא כלי מחזיק ברכה לעצם אותה הרוח של התנ״ך והש״ס: אלא שאחר־כר הבינו גם בו הבנה מוטעית ומצערת: דבר שהוא תנועה עולמית והתפתחות מתקדמת. הובן כמנגנון קבוע ועומד; ודבר שהוא חזיון פנימי, הובן כעולמות־דמיון חיציניים. משיצא אותו מקצוע־לימוד לאור העולם, פנו הלבבות אם אל אותה ההתפתחות החיצונית של חריפות הפלפול בתלמוד, או אל אותו לימוד המעורר גם את הרגש. ואילו השיגו אותו לימוד בעצם טהרתו, אפשר שהיה הרוח מחדיר גם לתוך היהדות המעשית׳, א ך כיוון שהובן הבנה מוטעית, — נהפכה היהדות המעשית בתור אותו לימוד לפעולה של השפעה על עולמות תיאוסופיים ודמיוניים או לאמצעי של התגוננות מפניהם. מעט־מעט הגיע לידי העש חלקו של ספר שנועד מעיקרו למלומדים בלבד, כדי לחזור על־פיו על תלמודם, חיבור שניתנו בו המסקנות האחרונות של התלמוד בדרך ברורה הלכה למעשה: בעיקרו הר* הוא תמצית׳ אם אמנם בשינוי סדר, מחיבורו השיטתי של הרמב׳׳ם. ודווקא על־ידי כד נעשה כלי נאמן כדי לקיים בידנו את היהדות המעשית בעתותי הלחץ הגדול ביותר של הגלות. אולם לרוע מזלנו לא הגיע לידי האנשים אלא כמעט חלק אחד בלבד מאותו חיבור, הכולל, רק את הפרקים על העדות והעבודה׳ עבודת ה׳ והלכות החגים? שאר המצוות מבוארות ביתר החלקים, והללו מיועדים אף הם, בהתאם למטרת החיבור׳ ללמדנים, ולא לעם. אז נוצרה מעט־מעט גם פה גש שם ההשקפה העלובה, שלפיה כל עצמותה של היהדות אינה אלא תפילות לחגיגת חגים ? — אבל את החיים לא הכירו. והנה, אם תקבץ עוד את ההשפעות השונות הללו, הרי תוכל לבאר לעצמד את תופעת היהדות לפני שמונים שנה ב ע ר ך וגם תבין את כל שבא בעקבותיהן לאחר־מכן. שהרי עתה׳ מכיוץ שעול השיעבוד מבחוץ התחיל מתרופף קצת והרוח הרגיש חירות גדולה יותר לתנועתו, הופיעה שוב אישיות נעלה ומצויינת, אישיות מכובדת מאד, שאף היא כיוונה בשם השפעתה את ההתפתחות עד היום הזה. איש זה עצמואף הוא לא שאב את התפתחות רוחו ממקור היהדות, אלא גדולתו בעיקר במקצועות הפילוסופיים של המיטאפיזיקה והאסתיטיקה, ביאר את התנ״ד בדרר פילוסופית־אםתיטית בלבד. לא בנה את היהדות בחזקת מדע מתור עצמה. אלא הגן עליה בלבד מפני בורות פוליטית וטענותיהם של נוצרים אדוקים. עם־זה היה מבחינה אישית יהודי דתי למעשה ועל־ידי כד הראה לאחיו ולעולם, כי אפשר להיות יהודי אדוק־בדתו ועם־ זה להתנוסס בכבוד רב כאפלטון אשכנזי י. תיבה זו: ״עם־זה״ היא שהכריעה.  הבאים אחריו הסתפקו בפיתוח ביאור התנ״ך בדרך פילולוגית־אסתיטית, בלימוד ה״מורה״ ועם־זה לשקוד על לימודים הומאניסטיים ולהפיץ אותם ז אד היהדות, תנ״ד וש״ס כמדע. עמדה בהזנחתה התמידה. אכן, אף השקידה בלימוד התנ״ך לא יכלה להביא אל היהדות, משום שבעצם לא טיפלו בו כבתורה לשם השגה נכונה, אלא כבשירה יפה בשביל הדמיון. והנה. מתוד שהוזנח לימוד התלמוד, מתור שלא הובנה היהדות המעשית מן ההכרח היד* שאותה ההשקפה, שקודם־לכן נפסקה במהלכה ואילו עכשיו נשתחררה לחלוטין, תביא לידי קיצוניות גמורה, לידי ביטול היהדות כולה. אם נכונה אותה השקפת ד״היים, הקובעת את יעודו הנעלה ביותר של האדם בהכרת האמתומי יאמר להטיל ספק בדבר, אם הרמב״ם הוא שקבעו! — הרי נכונות, קודם־כל, אותן ההשקפות על דרישות התורה, — ומי יכול להטיל ספק בהן, שהרי הרמב״ם, זה התלמודי הגדול, והוא גופו יהודי מעשי, יסדן; — אם נכונות הןהרי׳ איפוא, באמת אין התלמוד מרובה־הכרכים אלא פלפולים חריפים ושנונים של מה־בכד; הרי אין באמת היהדות המעשית אלא עינויים ללא כל טעם. ומי אינו כםכים ל כר! הנה, לדוגמא, איסור מלאכה בשבת׳ומי יוכל להטיל ספק בכד, מאחר ששני מאורות ושניהם שמם היה משה, הבינו כד את הדבר, והרי יום הראשון הנוצרי זה משמעותו, — אם אין ענינו אלא מנוחה מעמל ימי המעשה, שביתת הגוף, למען יוכל גם הרוח לפעול פעולתו, — מי לא יראה׳ שאין כאן אלא דקדוקי־עניות וסדיקת־שערות, כדי לבוא ולמלא מסכת שלמה ולחקור, אילו מלאכות אסורות; — ומה מוזר הדבר ש״כתיבת שתי אותיות״והרי אפשר שיש כאן משום עיסוק רוחני לחטא־מות תחשב 5 וכנגד זה באים ומקילים קצת בכמה מלאכות, שיש בהן משוס יגיעת־הגוף הגדולה ביותר, משום קלקול! ומה גם, שבאים ומטילים איסור על התרנגולות להטיל ביצים! או, נקח דוגמא מתור שטח אחר: אם ענין דקרבת קרבנות לא היה מעיקרו, אולי, אלא הקרבת קנינו של אדם, כדי להביר ולהודות, שבא אותו קנין מיד ה׳; וביחוד, אם חלקים בודדים מעבודה זו לא באו אלא כללית.  כניגוד בלבד למנהגי הקרבנות של עכו״ם, שהיו מקובלים בזמנם. — האם אין זו אוולת לחבר שלוש או ארבע מסכתות מלאות חקירות על סדר הקרבה זו, אילו חלקים יש להקריב, בידי מי ומתי ? הלא תראו, כי אין כל אלה אלא מעשי כמרים ממיתי־הרוח! לכןאבל הן צריכים היו לשאול את עצמם רק פעם אחת את השאלה: האם משה בן מימון. או משה בן מנחם הם באמת משה בן עמרם? האין אמנם בסתירה זו בין ההשקפה לבין המציאות של המצווה משום הוכחה, כי אין זו ההשקפה הנכונה׳ כי אין היא מיוסדת על מושג כלליותן של המצוות, אלא פרי דמיונם היאאםופת־חוץ? וכי אין ה״מורה״ בעצמו אומר בנידון זר* כי לשם דיונו על המצוות שם לו רק את התורה שבכתב לנקודת מוצאו? — והרי לגבי מעשה־המצוות הוא עצמו היה מבסל אותה נקודת־מוצא כבלתי־נבונהואם כן, איפוא, אין יסודה אלא בדמיון־שואהאם לא אמר הוא עצמו, כי אמנם בדיונו על המצוות התעלם מאותם היעודים החלקיים שלהן ? והרי רק אם הללו מקובצים יחד מהורם הם את המושג הכללי של המצווה, והם־ הם יסוד עיקרי של התורה (מורה נבוכים ג- כו, מא). רעיון חייב אתה למצוא בכל המצוותוקודם־כל באותן המצוות שמעידות על עצמן שבאו לשם חינוך, — וודאי שניתן לגלות את רוחן; הרי הן עצמן נקראות ״עדות״׳ ״זכרוך׳ ״אות״,— מה׳ אם ננסה לעשות כן ? אם נשיג אותן פעם כעדות- כזכרון׳ כאות ? — לכך לא הגיעו. ורבים אף לא רצו להגיע לכדכי ממערב חדרה רוח. שלעגה לכל קודש ומצאה סיפוק, אם עלה בידה להראות את המגוחר שבו: עם זו באה גם השאיפה לספק את תאוות החושים, •ו היתדשמחה על שיש בידה להיפטר במחיר זול כזה מן ההגבלות המכבידות; וכר׳ איפוא, באו והרסו, למען יהיה הכל חלק וישר    והנה היום, לאחר שכבר פגה ונתנדפה אותה רוח מבחינה אחת ן היום, לאחר  ששני דורות ניצבים זה למול זה —: הדור האחד שירש את היהדות הבלתי־  מובנה כ״מצות אנשים מלומדה״, נטולת־הרוח, ונשאה בידו כחנוט קדוש, שלא  יעורר חלילה את הרוח? — הדור האחר, קצת אש־קודש לוהטת בלבו למען  טובת היהודים, אך היהדות אינה בעיניו אלא חזיון בלא ת ח מתקופה שכבר מזמן  נסתם עליה הגולל, — דור שמבקש את הרוח ואינו מוצא אותה, — ואם כי אדיר  שאיפתו לטובה, הרי צפויה לו הסכנה שיהא עוזר ליהודים ובדרכו לעזרה וו יהא  מבתר את העצב האחרון של היהדותמחוסר ידיעה! ועתה, שעה שניגודים  אלה מתקרבים זה אל זה באלפי גונים, מוכיחים הם אמנם בכד, כי שניהם טעות  בידם׳עתה, אי דרד הישע? כלום נסתפק בשביל אותה תשועת ישראל,  שניסד על רקע זה של פירוד הדעות את בתי־הםפר שלנו, שנתקן תיקונים  בעבודת אלהים ? חסרה כאן הרוח, וחסר יםוד־החיים הפנימי, האחדולעולם  אין יוצרים את זה בצחצוח המסגרת החיצונית.    

67 comments:

  1. You left out these quotes from your summary that support Rav Hirsch's issues with Kabbalah. Letter 18 "Presently, a form of learning came into existence about which, not being initiated
    in it, I cannot venture to pass judgment, but
    which, if I comprehend rightly what I believe I understand, is an invaluable repository of the
    spirit of Tanach and Talmud, but which has unfortunately been misunderstood. What should have been eternal progressive development was considered a static mechanism, and the inner significance and concept thereof was taken as external dream-worlds ... Had it been correctly
    comprehended, practical Judaism might perhaps have been imbued with spirituality. Since it was misconstrued, however, it became thereby a magic mechanism, a means of influencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti-worlds.

    As you see, Rav Hirsch is critical of the very people who think that they are disseminating these concepts, the "Mekubalim" themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should see Dayan Gruenfeld discussion of this. It is really unclear what Hirsch knew or thought about Kabbala. He obvious was bothered by practical kabbala - but so was the Arizal. It is clear that he used kabbalistic texts as medrashim.

      Your conclusion should be "Rav Hirsch is critical of some of the people who think they disseminating these concepts..."

      This is discussed in the following article by Rav Danziger in his debate with Rav Elias.

      http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf

      Delete
    2. Stating that the Arizal had a problem with Kabbalah Maasit is a bit of an understament. He calls it straight Avoda Zerah(see Shaar Ruah HaKodesh 10c and onward for just one place).

      Delete
  2. Bad comparison, as RSRH accepts the greatness of Rambam and accepts his Mishne Torah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You missed my point - and that of Hirsch. He rejects the "Jewish thought" of the Rambam because it doesn't originate with Judaism but with the goyim. He did acknowledge the Rambam as a great talmid chachom - but not as a thinker. He also criticizes the Rambam in his teshuvos for providing the justification for rejecting halacha as being man made.

      Delete
  3. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 13, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    2 of 3:

    "The Mussar movment was also attacked as being heavily influenced by the goyim."

    RaP: And that is why to this day, the Brisker-Soloveitchik dynasty fought it, still rejects it and is contemptuous of it to this day. Ask any true Brisker and check it out! Chasidism also mocks and rejects Mussar! They claim they teach enough "ahavas yisroel" and hence do not need mussar!

    "Chassidus was also strongly attacked as being an alien movment."

    RaP: It still is! Modern day Chasidus is not what it was when it started! To the Litvaks, meaning the so-called "Misnagdim" Chasidism is still "chazer treif" and there are no marriages between pure Litvak and pure Chasidish families to this day! And in fact Litvaks rely on the cherem that the GRA (Vilna Gaon) 1720-1797 put on all Chasidim, particularly on Chabad and Breslov! (Note, it was the so-called "Chasidim" who were the REAL misanagdim, since they came to literally oppose the existing Torah establishment and still do). The ONLY thing that saved them was that there came later rebbes who stopped the craziness of the early Chasidim (the frenzied dancing and singing and rapture, the hoopla and shouting, the drunken reveling on Shabbos) and focused them onto learning Torah as in the days of old, getting more into the Shulchan Oruch. This was particularly true of Gur Chasidism where Torah learning was stressed, and latter-day Satmar. But Chabad and Breslov have still stuck to their old ways. Lubavitch as a result of the 6th and 7th rebbes breaking away to return to frenzied "false messianism" from the improvements that the 3rd, 4th and 5th rebbes introduced. Many hold, both Litvaks and even other Chasidim, that Chabad is seriously in a schism with the rest of Torah Jewry. This can be discussed with Chabad emissaries, but both Modern Orthodox Jewry and Yeshivish Jewry has rejected latter-day Chabad's wild false messianism, see Rav Elazar Shach's critique of Chabad messianism and Rabbi Dr. (Professor) David Berger's critique The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 13, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    3 of 3:

    "In contrast we see that there are movements which have have not been accepted such as the"

    RaP: Each of these in their time lasted a relatively long time in history and still do, even though they lost connections to Torah Jewry.

    "Korach,"

    RaP: Korach represents ANY form of "machlokes" -- as stated in Pirkei Avot 5:20 -- he is the Torah's epitomy and paradigm of not accepting Torah authority and the will of Hashem. Korach's is not "gone" he is embodied and alive each time there is "machlokes shelo leshem shomayim"!

    "Saducees,"

    RaP: They did not accept the Torah SheBe'al Peh as Divine. They are not gone! They have a modern reincarnation represented by Reform and liberal Judaism that do not accept the full or even partial authority of the Torah's Oral Law. Many generations of Jews followed them and still do in our days r"l.

    "Christianity,"

    RaP: For its first three centuries it was a purely Jewish cult. They required full adherence to the Torah and the Mitzvos and full conversion to Judaism before accepting geirim. It was only at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE where all the official requirements to become a Jew in order to accept Jessus were finally officially dropped, when basically Pauline Christianity became official, and where Jesus was turned into a "god" which he never claimed to be! They then concocted the Gospels to match the later fantasy and lies and not what actually happened. It is what Jews for J and most Hebrew Christians still preach, but by now many are not born to Jewish mothers although at present hundreds of thousands of born Jews have become Christians, r"l.

    "Karaites"

    RaP: They rejected the Oral Law and Talmud but were VERY strict about accepting the Written Torah-Tanach and teachings they had from that, and existed for a long time. Saadia Gaon had a hard time refuting them and holding them at bay. They died out over time but they were still connected to Jewry albeit not as Jews in good standing. For a long time they had famous scholars and a strong mesora. They are still not regarded as "goyim" to this day.

    "and Shabsai Tzvi."

    RaP: Ah yes, the most complicated of all. He was actually a practitioner and scholar of the ARI's Kabbala and knew it very well, too well actually. He won over almost the entire Jewish world of his day to believe he was the "moshiach" in wave of unbelievable millenialism ("acharis hayamim mania"). Until a few rabbis had enough of him and created an elaborate scheme to trip him up that succeeded, they convinced the Turkish Sultan that Shabtai Tzvi (1626 -1676) wanted to dethrone him since Shbati Tzvi wanted to be "king of the world" and not just of the Jews! Given the choice of death or forced conversion to Islam he chose the latter, crashing the Jewish world around him. But scholars agree that the subsequent meteoric rise of modern Reform in Western Europe and overwhelming success of Chasidism in Eastern Europe are all directly products of Shabtai Tzvi's philosophies and remaining hidden followers who built Reform Judaism in the West and Chasidic Judaism in the East. Both Reform and Chasidism are still very much with us as strong forces today, believe it or not scholars regard them both as "denominations" of legitimate expressions of "rabbinic Judaism"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is incorrect to claim the Sadducees are like Reform. Reform deny the Torah Sh Bikhtav. The Sadducees held by it fundamentally, and conducted the Temple worship for several centuries.

      Even the word of Torah Sh'b'al Peh is not without its "heretics". In the Talmud and MIshna there are stories of Tannaim who were called heretics. Akavya Ben Mehalelel was one who had a Mesora, but was killed for not abandoning his mesora. He preferred ot be called a fool than to be considered evil in the eys of Hashem even for one moment.

      Delete
    2. RaP,

      Scholars do NOT agree that the ShZ affair led to the rise of Chassidus. That was Gershom Scholem's thesis but it has since been disproven by Moshe Idel and others.

      Delete
    3. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

      "James said...Scholars do NOT agree that the ShZ affair led to the rise of Chassidus."

      If so, why then did the GRA (the Vilna Gaon) refuse to meet with the Baal HaTanya, totally rejected and fought the new Chasidic movement and for good measure put them in a Cherem that still continues to this day?

      Delete
    4. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM

      "Eddie said...It is incorrect to claim the Sadducees are like Reform. Reform deny the Torah Sh Bikhtav. The Sadducees held by it fundamentally, and conducted the Temple worship for several centuries."

      The Sadducees too became utterly corrupted and Hellenized and faked their way through the Temple worship, holding Temple services as a corrupt "kohen monopoly" much like a mafia creates monopolies without belief in anything meaningful, just using it to rake in fortunes of wealth for personal gain (from the donations that Jews gave to the Bais HaMikdosh and its upkeep, a sample of the vastness that was left was looted by Rome.) They were eventually regarded as complete heretics (essentially they were agnostics), with the label "tzeduki" becoming one of the worst pejoratives in the normative Talmudic lexicon. A person suspected of being a "tzeduki" (Sadducee) was immediately labeled and regarded as totally unsuitable ("posul", "treif", "kofer" what have you) in all ways by the followers, i.e. the Perushium (Pharisees) of the rabbis who were part of the era of the Zuggos and the Tannaim.

      Delete
    5. It is possible for all to be corrupted. The arguments you use sound more like something JC and the new testament used. The Hashmonaim were not really followers of the Oral Law as we knwo it, they were precursors to the Sadducee sect. they had the right level of purity to defeat the Greek Syriacs, and rededicate the Temple. What happened at this stage was that they decided to take on Malchut as well, which was opposed by the Perushim - who were the precursors of the Rabbanim.
      Sadducee and Pharisee at some point would sit in the same Sanhedrin - something that could not occur with refrom or xtians. Plus, I have seen in a Mishna that there was some areas where they were in agreement with sadducees , ie in D'oraita matters, they were by and large in agreemnt with Sadducees. Again, the Reform do not accept Oraita as being Divine.

      Delete
    6. RaP,

      The GRA's refusal to meet the Baal HaTanya is not proof that Chassidus was a response to ShZ. One can disagree with Chassidus and not claim that it is Sabbatean.

      Even if he did think it was Sabbatean, that does not equal all scholars.

      It was Gershom Scholem who first theorized that Chassidus was a response to ShZ. Most modern scholars disagree with that assessment.

      I would not say that ALL scholars agree it was not a cause but it is certainly FALSE to assert that all scholars agree that Chassidus was a response to Shz.

      Delete
    7. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 15, 2013 at 2:09 AM

      Eddie, so are you saying that Tzedukim are really "tzadikim" as well? When in the Gemora they are treated and classed with the greatest contempt?

      Delete
  5. RaP: Not just "some readers" but there has always been a strong stream of the RATIONALIST Torah thinkers and rabbis who rejected and still reject the Zohar, because of the Zohar's shady origins as a text and because they reject a "mystical" approach to Judaism which was normative for most of the history of Judaism. The mysticism of the Zohar (as espoused by the ARI who brought forth the Zohar and made it a "known" sefer) is something connected to "Torasa shel moshiach" a different kind of Torah, that was rejected by the purist rationalist lomdishe pilpulist "Talmudists" -- while they may have known "sisrei Torah" they did not know and often rejected Kabbala. Thus the Chazon Ish was NOT a "kabbalist" and did not need to be one, he could even reject it if he so chose and that was the norm among Taalmidei Chachomim for millenia.

    Can you list an unbroken chain of these rationalist Rabbis who reject the Zohar, from it's publication until today?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 14, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    "Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...Can you list an unbroken chain of these rationalist Rabbis who reject the Zohar, from it's publication until today?"

    Can you name any major yeshiva, or Talmud scholars, that has ever included the study of Zohar in its curriculum? If not, why?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue with the Zohar is as follows- those who greatly hold by it stress issues of authorship over content. We can say that there is a good deal of beauty in it, but to emphasize the unhistorical and clearly unsubstantiated claim that it was authored by Rashbi is where the mekubalim get caught up in details while losing focus on the big picture, in my opinion.

    As far as Moshe Mendelsohn, there is zero evidence that the man was anything other than an observant, traditional Jew. He was obviously a scholar and talmid chacham, who influenced German Neo-Orthodoxy, along with figures such as the Shir Rapoport. To write this stream of hashkafa out of history is indicative of the broader revisionism that goes on among some circles in our community.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "[As a side point - Rabbi Moshe Eisenman of Ner Yisroel told me that the Chazon Ish said that when printing a Hebrew edition of the 19 Letters - this equation of Rambam and Mendelson should be omitted.]"

    R Elias quotes that in his edition of the 19 letters.

    As to R Hirsch and Kabbalah, didn't he live 50 years after the R Yackov Emden- R Eybeshutz Controversy? He must have had some opinion of the goings on there, no?

    Daniel Sayani-
    "As far as Moshe Mendelsohn, there is zero evidence that the man was anything other than an observant, traditional Jew"

    Depends how you define observant traditional. R Elias quotes him saying Spinoza could've stayed Frum if he had hung onto shmiras ha'mitzvos (and kept his pantheistism, denial of free will etc...) And Marc Shapiro- not exactly an exclusionist- pegs him as one of the few practicng Jews who rejected any idea of mandatory Jewish beliefs. Along with Yeshayahu Leibovich.

    Shir Rapoport was the SIL of the Ketzos and ultimately supported RSRH fight against Frankel http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%208%20Landerer.pdf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By virtue of the fact that all of Mendelsohn's children Shmaded themselves there was clearly something wrong.. and it is why the Chsam Sofer (I believe) said ubsifri Ramad (Reb Moshe Dessau ie: Mendelsohn) Lo Sitain Yad. Rav Hirsh pointed out the reason as what he called Mendelsohn's philosophy of "Un Duch".. you could be a Frum Jew and a Shomer Mitzvos in your home "Un Dcuh" be a cultured, enlightened man. That was his ultimate undoing.

      As for Rapport, though he was a son-in-law of the Ketzos, he was also attracted to the Wissenschaft des Judentums of Frankel and a defender of Frankel's Darkei Hamishna against Rav Hirsch. How you can say he was a supporter of Rav Hirsch is beyond imagination.

      Delete
    2. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 15, 2013 at 2:06 AM

      "Torah Truth said...By virtue of the fact that all of Mendelsohn's children Shmaded themselves there was clearly something wrong."

      You cannot bring a proof from the children. Each person has bechira (freedom of choice). Every gadol in recent history has had people in his family who left the fold. So while Mendelsohn himself remained an observant Jew and kept the mitzvos, his children went "off the derech", something that happened to the all the descendants of the European Jews, rabbis and non-rabbis included. Only the tiniest minority of Jews eventually remained frum as the forces of assimilation, via the Haskala and other "isms" swept away everything in their way, only "yechidei segula" merited to remain frum. This was the norm until World War Two. After that (1945) there have been changes, for a number of reasons, but until the Holocaust the pattern was for basically almost all Jews to either lessen or move away from or totally abandon Torah observance. That is why yeshivas and bais yaakovs and even the chasidic movement were innovated to fight that tidal wave - or tsunami - of assimilation.

      Delete
    3. You are correct... but I didn't say it was a proof, it was however an "indication" a "Reyusah" that something was wrong.

      Delete
  9. Yes. Porat Yosef. The GR"A, Chaim Volozhin and the Volozhin Yeshiva.

    Every Sephardi Yeshiva has. And more than a few Ashkenazi ones.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @RAP, "Christianity ... for its first three centuries it was a purely Jewish cult. They required full adherence to the Torah and the Mitzvos and full conversion to Judaism before accepting geirim."

    I have studied Christianity from a Jewish perspective for several years, and no scholar of early Christianity would agree with your characterization. While there may have been congregations of Jewish, observant Jesus-believers existing into the mid-second and possibly third centuries CE, by the second half of the first century conversion to Judaism and Jewish observance were not required of Gentile Christians, and by at least mid-second century a majority of Christians were Gentiles.

    In the New Testament, the letter of the Jewish-Christian missionary Paul (Shaul) to the Galatians (ca. 54 CE), and ch. 15 of Acts of the Apostles (ca. 110), describe a controversy between Paul and the Jerusalem congregation of (Jewish) Jesus-believers concerning whether Gentiles who became Jesus-believers needed to convert to Judaism. It was decided that only a "Noachide" observance would be required of them: abstention from sexual immorality, idolatry, and consumption of blood or meat from strangled animals.

    Scholars today date the Gospels between 70-120 CE, i.e., no earlier than 40 years after Jesus' death. How much of the Gospels is history, how much legend, and how much outright fiction is certainly debatable. But the Gospels and the letters of Paul (who himself never met Jesus) are the only evidence we have of what Jesus claimed to be, or what his immediate followers thought he was.

    Nicene Christianity was based on the Gospels, not the other way around. Evidence for all four Gospels exists from the second century, and no scholar would claim they were written as late as the fourth century. By the fourth century the Gospels as we have them were considered canonical and authoritative, and despite ambiguities and inconsistencies they were understood to assert in some form the divinity of Jesus. It was not a fourth-century Roman innovation.

    Around the end of the first century CE, Christianity ceased to be a Jewish movement, not so much because of its strange beliefs about Jesus, but because it accepted Gentile converts that were not recognized, and did not seek to be recognized, as converts to Judaism. In the crisis of faith and "leadership vacuum" following the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70, Christianity cast itself as a universalistic, successor “Judaism,” in which Jesus-believers, by then mostly Gentiles, supposedly replaced the Jewish People as the “Israel” of God's Covenant and promises. Unlike, e.g., the Sadducees, Karaites and Sabbateans, which maintained the essential genetic continuity of the Jewish people, Christianity represented an ethnic rupture as much as a religious one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 15, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      "Kevin in Chicago said...I have studied Christianity from a Jewish perspective for several years, and no scholar of early Christianity would agree with your characterization."

      RaP: Just for the sake of clarity are you a Jewish scholar or are you a Christian gentile? A lot of what you say here really amounts to an apologetic for Supersessionism.

      "While there may have been congregations of Jewish, observant Jesus-believers existing into the mid-second and possibly third centuries CE, by the second half of the first century conversion to Judaism and Jewish observance were not required of Gentile Christians, and by at least mid-second century a majority of Christians were Gentiles."

      RaP: Up until the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Nazarines were a widespread Jewish sect. They did not call themselves "Christians" -- but rather Jews who had accepted Jesus as the long-promised Jewish "mashiach" -- instead they were regarded by the rest of Jewry as following a false messiah. But nevertheless the movement was dominated by Jesus-accepting Jews until their control over the movement was wrested from them irrevocably at the Council of Nicaea.

      The Gospels do not amount to a heap of beans as far as accurate history goes. As far as classical Judaism, and logic are concerned the four Gospels are a self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo of fanciful and wishful projections, basically lies and deceptions with anti-semitism thrown in for good measure by a group of "anonymous authors" out to build a "new" religion and a "new" testament by displacing the old as well as displacing the Jewish people as God's chosen people -- something that Jesus himself never did or wanted because he lived as part of the era of the rabbis of the Mishnah and as one of their critics, but at no point did Jesus, or his supposed disciples-Apostles who were all Jews, formally reject the teaching of the Torah. That came later, Paul was a big factor he himself was also an observant Jew, but he never met Jesus himself but there was no a "official act" unlike the Council of Nicaea that brought together a group of people who purged the movement of its Jewish moorings once and for all. From that point on gentiles ran the new movement that became known as "Christianity" something that Jesus himself did not create or advocate since he required anyone who wished to associate themselves with him to be Torah observant first and that goes for converts, and it's not clear how many gentiles joined Jesus' movement in his lifetime, if any. It was a for centuries and internal Jewish schism that then went viral...from the Jewish point of view that is.

      Delete
    2. RAP, I am not a Christian, and nothing I wrote can be reasonably understood as an argument for supercessionism. I asserted that from the mid-second century CE, if not earlier, Christianity should be considered a Gentile religion, rather than a form or sect of Judaism, because by then most Christian believers were Gentiles whose communities did not require Gentile-born members to become Jews, i.e., undergo conversion recognized by non-Christian Jewish communities, or keep the mitzvot.

      In other words, notwithstanding the marginal persistence of ethnically Jewish, Torah-observant Christians (who probably accepted Gentile Christians as fellow-Christians, if not as members of their own communities), the transformation took place long before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. For what is known concerning early Jewish-Christians, I refer you to "Jewish Believers in Jesus" (2007), O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds.

      I agree that Jesus and his original followers were Jews who did not intend to found a new religion, and that Jesus had no known Gentile disciples in his lifetime. But it is something else entirely to claim that up until the time of Nicaea, almost three centuries after Jesus' death, Christianity was dominated by Jews who required Jewish conversion of Gentile converts to Christianity. Since this would be inconsistent with Acts and the letters of Paul, both of which were considered authoritative by the mid-second century, as well as everything else I have read, I question whether you know what you are talking about unless you can cite some credible scholarship in support.

      Delete
    3. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM

      "Kevin in Chicago said...I agree that Jesus and his original followers were Jews who did not intend to found a new religion, and that Jesus had no known Gentile disciples in his lifetime."

      RaP: Thank you for affirming this key point that is not well know nor publicized enough among Christians who think of him as some half naked guy from their neighborhood church who got nailed and then cursed out the Jews. On the contaray Jesus himself was a proud Jew, albeit one regarded as a renegade and possibly even excommunicated for his views, but there is no record of him renouncing Judaism or the Torah. His disciples were all Jews and they then started spread a belief that he was a possible messiah, not the first time that happened and certainly not the last!

      "But it is something else entirely to claim that up until the time of Nicaea, almost three centuries after Jesus' death, Christianity was dominated by Jews who required Jewish conversion of Gentile converts to Christianity."

      RaP: Nicaea is taken as the definitive historical and theological "breaking point" between Judaism and Christianity. It is when Judaism as the "mother faith" is finally dumped together with it's so-called "old testament" meaning the Torah, and instead a whole new set of official belifs is set in place that makes Jesus into a "divinity" whihc he never claimed to be and introduces the so-called "new testament" based on the gospels that were written after Jesus' death, once and for all. All residual Jewish influence and hold on the new Christian movement is now removed once and for all. Much like, by way of historical analogy, Stalin's purge of the old Menshevik, Trotskyist, and Bolshevik leaders, almost all of whom were Jews by birth, finally put in place what Stalin wanted Communism to be, a "goyisha" movement, whereas before that it had been a "yiddisha" movement even though it had attercted many gentile followers.

      Delete
    4. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM

      "Since this would be inconsistent with Acts and the letters of Paul, both of which were considered authoritative by the mid-second century, as well as everything else I have read, I question whether you know what you are talking about unless you can cite some credible scholarship in support."

      RaP: First you prove my most important point then you go on to say I don't know what I am talking about, you can't have it both ways! According to Rabbi Berel Wein's history books on the Jews, Paul was actually an observant Jew sent as an agent by the rabbis who were concerned that the Nazarine movement and the popularity of Jesus was taking too many Jews away from normative Judaism as well as attracting too many gentiles to Judaism. Paul's job was to lead people away from becoming Jews and away from Judaism, and he succeeded. There was a similar "Rabbi Cohen" who was sent by the rabbis as an agent to deceive Shabtai Tzvi that he was a "true believer" who then spilled the beans of what he had overheard to the Turkish Sultan which then led to Shabtai Tzvi's arrest and subsequent demise.

      It's well known by historians, it is mentioned in Jopsephus, that approximately one in ten Roman citizens at the time of the Second Temple's destruction was actually a Jew! Even after the destruction the appeal of the type of life of Judaism caused many pagan Romans especially the elite people and the cultured Roman women to seek conversion to Judaism. Rabbi Akiva himself eventually married one such Roman matron woman as well. The Romans saw this as a threat.

      Not just Rome and Judea were in conflict but Judaism and the Roman paganism and Judaism was winning for a long time!!! The Roman powers that be co-opted it by latching on to parts of a new religion that took some notions from Judaism but demanded little by way of observance. They put the center of it in Rome far away from Jerusalem which they plowed with lyme and dung! This way they stopped the spread and popularity of Judaism among their own gentile masses and created a new religion they could control, viz ROMAN Catholicism.

      You see, Rome was a wise COMMERCIAL empire and Jews were a big part of running it. By the way, the Talmud reports that Nero converted to Judaism, so did Onkelus nephew of Vespasian and cousin of Titus, and many others, all the soldiers that were sent by Vespasian to bring back Onkelus converted to Judaism! they were not "traitors".

      In those days, in the free market of the Roman Empire, as long as one did not preach insurrection, were respectful of Rome and its rulers, and one paid one's taxes there was freedom of religion, and Judaism was very popular and found many converts because proselytizing had still not become forbidden, either by the rabbis or by the gentile rulers. The rabbis only stopped it when they saw that the Christians punished people who converted and proselytized gentiles to Judaism.

      I am NOT making ANY of this stuff up!

      Delete
  11. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...Yes. Porat Yosef. The GR"A, Chaim Volozhin and the Volozhin Yeshiva. Every Sephardi Yeshiva has. And more than a few Ashkenazi ones."

    Sefardi yeshivot and Porat Yosef succumbed to mystics as they moved away from scholastic heritage of the Rishonim. They mumble and recite Zohar as they would Tehilim, a very sad state of affairs as far as scholarship goes.

    The GRA kept it very private. Rav Chaim Volozhiner wrote Nefesh HaChaim to refute Tanya. Not sure where you get that Zohar was studied in the Volozhin yeshiva, since it was the proto-type of all subsequent Litvish yeshivas, and none of them even have a Zohar on their shelves let alone allow talmidim to study it. In a Litvish yeshiva if a talmid is found studying Zohar or evince being influenced by it, he will be thrown out. Bottom line, the Zohar is a controversial esoteric book best left for rare individuals. It's origins as a text and as a part of a kabbalistic mesorah have been debated from the time it appeared in the Middle Ages and was subsequently popularized by the ARI whose Kabbalah is not taught either. After the ARI, unfortunately Shabtai Tzvi gave the study of Zohar and mysticism a horrid name justifying the bans among Torah Jewry against open study of such things.

    The RAMCHAL wanted to introduce a "yeshiva for mekubalim" and faced enormous sanctions and criticism for that. His derech was not accepted by the mainstream to this day. Only Mesilat Yesharim as a path to mussar has been accepted, all his other writings (those that weren't burned by the rabbis of his time that is) are not part of any normative Litvish yeshiva curriculum.

    Not sure why you are into this stuff and trying to teach it publicly when it goes against the mesora of not talking about Kabbala openly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not sure why you are into this stuff and trying to teach it publicly when it goes against the mesora of not talking about Kabbala openly.
    I'm not.

    The RAMCHAL wanted to introduce a "yeshiva for mekubalim" and faced enormous sanctions and criticism for that.
    No. He faced criticism and sanctions for his Messianic aspirations, not for his Kabbalah.

    The GRA kept it very private.
    Not according to all the Graniks I know.

    Rav Chaim Volozhiner wrote Nefesh HaChaim to refute Tanya. Proof? A lot of big Rabbis will refute you on that one.

    It's origins as a text and as a part of a kabbalistic mesorah have been debated from the time it appeared in the Middle Ages and was subsequently popularized by the ARI whose Kabbalah is not taught either.
    Since when? Even if we go back to pre-state Kabbalistic Yeshivot just in Jerusalem, you have Beit El(where nearly every Sephardic chief Rabbi for Israel has learned). Rehovot HaNahar. Shaarei Shamayim(where S.Z. Auerbach came up and where he served as president). Nahar Shalom. HaChaim V'HaShalom... You have entire Yeshivot dedicated primarily to the study of the Kabbalah of the Ari. Aside from that you have Gedolim like Rav Aharon Kotler, who based his decisions in large part on the Ari, as did the Mishneh Berurah, the Magen Avraham ect...

    In a Litvish yeshiva if a talmid is found studying Zohar or evince being influenced by it, he will be thrown out.
    Proof please.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 15, 2013 at 2:14 PM

    "Rabbi Michael Tzadok said... Not sure why you are into this stuff and trying to teach it publicly when it goes against the mesora of not talking about Kabbala openly.

    I'm not."

    RaP: You are, what else would you call it when you post it on this blog?

    "The RAMCHAL wanted to introduce a "yeshiva for mekubalim" and faced enormous sanctions and criticism for that.

    No. He faced criticism and sanctions for his Messianic aspirations, not for his Kabbalah."

    RaP: Both, one goes with the other. Most of writings were embargoed and burned and he was banished from Europe.

    "The GRA kept it very private.

    Not according to all the Graniks I know."

    RaP: Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know! The GRA never left his kloiz and had various talmidim. That was then this is now. In his day they did not preach anything.

    "Rav Chaim Volozhiner wrote Nefesh HaChaim to refute Tanya.

    Proof? A lot of big Rabbis will refute you on that one."

    RaP: One can always find rabbis to refute anything. Even in Litvish yeshivas they don't learn Nefesh Hachaim.

    "It's origins as a text and as a part of a kabbalistic mesorah have been debated from the time it appeared in the Middle Ages and was subsequently popularized by the ARI whose Kabbalah is not taught either.

    Since when? Even if we go back to pre-state Kabbalistic Yeshivot just in Jerusalem, you have Beit El(where nearly every Sephardic chief Rabbi for Israel has learned). Rehovot HaNahar. Shaarei Shamayim(where S.Z. Auerbach came up and where he served as president). Nahar Shalom. HaChaim V'HaShalom... You have entire Yeshivot dedicated primarily to the study of the Kabbalah of the Ari. Aside from that you have Gedolim like Rav Aharon Kotler, who based his decisions in large part on the Ari, as did the Mishneh Berurah, the Magen Avraham ect..."

    RaP: The yeshivas you mention are not mainstream Litvish yeshivas. Sefardim are on their own planet! People can do what they want, and they do. So now you know how Rav Aron Kotler functioned? He consulted the writings of the ARI every day? Nice. And the Mishna Berura? And the Magen Avraham, used the ARI as source texts, when the ARI did not write anything himself, and when the writings of Chaim Vital's Etz Chaim, are not universally accepted, nor is the Zohar, as texts for Halachah of all things. Goodness. I think you live in a different kind of Yiddishkeit, much as Chabadniks and Breslovers live in their own interpretations of Yiddishkeit heavily influence by their own Chasidus.

    "In a Litvish yeshiva if a talmid is found studying Zohar or evince being influenced by it, he will be thrown out.

    Proof please."

    RaP: Easy! Try it, do a survey. Go into Ponevezh, or Chevron, or Mir or Brisk, or Lakewood, Chaim Berlin, and try making a regular seder in Zohar, or just ask for copies of Zohar in the Bais Medrash, see how far you get and the reactions.

    You know, Shabtai Tzvi was also a great mekubal and he won a wide following, how do you account for what happened to him as an example of the dangers of learning Kabbalah? By the way, you have still not addressed the question of the GRA's excommunication of the Chasidim and his ongoing cherem against them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Aside from that you have Gedolim like Rav Aharon Kotler, who based his decisions in large part on the Ari, as did the Mishneh Berurah, the Magen Avraham ect...

    I have no idea what you are talking about... as someone that learned for many years in BMG while Rav Shneuer was Rash Yeshiva I can tell you that you are categorically wrong. In fact the Yeshiva recently published a Sefer on the Mihangai HaYeshiva and not a single one is based on Ari.

    As for the M"B I fdon;t know how you can say that he based "a large part" on Ari... a large part? Have you ever learned Mishna Brurah?

    ReplyDelete
  15. RaP: You are, what else would you call it when you post it on this blog?
    Really I'm not. This isn't Kabbalah as such. We are not delving into the inner meanings of the texts. That is when we are teaching Kabbalah in public. This is just very very poshut explanation.

    RaP: Easy! Try it, do a survey. Go into Ponevezh, or Chevron, or Mir or Brisk, or Lakewood, Chaim Berlin, and try making a regular seder in Zohar, or just ask for copies of Zohar in the Bais Medrash, see how far you get and the reactions.
    Ponevezh- Rav Moshe Shatz teaches Kabbalah from the Kitvei HaAri there. It is also where Rav Yaakov Hillel first learned Kabbalah.
    Chevron- Rav David HaKohen gives daily shiurim in Zohar and Eitz Chaim there.
    Mir- Sar Shalom Shmueli has a daily seder in Zohar and Otzrot Chaim there.
    Brisk- I don't know
    Lakewood- Rav Ephraim Goldstein teaches Daat Elokim, Eitz Chaim, and Shaar HaKavvanot there to different levels of students.
    Chaim Berlin- Don't know.

    As far as the Zohar or the Eitz Chaim not being universally accepted I suggest you look at the various Teshuvot by Gedolim linked here that say that it is, most are Litvakim in general they have placed a Cherem on anyone who says that they are not accepted:
    http://www.maharitz.co.il/?CategoryID=369&ArticleID=3165

    ReplyDelete
  16. Recipients,
    You say that the Cherem of the Gro on Chabad continues to this day. That is very unlikely, for a variety of reasons. One, Reb Yisroel Salanter was such a close friend of the Chabad rebbe that they went together to the summer health places. There is a famous story about that because one had to take off his yarmulka there because royalty came also. The Chabad Rebbe told Reb Yisroel that he wore a toupee, and Reb Yisroel said he had no money and did not wear a toupee.
    Reb Chaim Brisker was also a very close friend of a Chabad rebbe, and I believe that the two of them came to the first meeting of the Agudah but not the second one. This state of affairs continued until the freeyerdikeh Rebbe, who came from Russia to Poland and told his Chassidim not to support Yeshivas because the bochurim shaved, and in Chabad this is a terrible thing. Then Reb Baruch Ber wanted to put the rebbe in Cherem but Reb Chaim Ozer told him not to. Now, if Chabad was already in Cherem was was a new Cherem needed?
    I also have a person insight, because my son married into a family Schlesinger a Rosh Yeshiva in Jerusalem that is descended from Rivlin, the family of the Gro, and a Chabadtsker, Rabbi Orenstein, a talmid of Reb Yehoshua Leib Diskin. The Chofetz Chaim was once asked if the Cherem of the Gro is still extant, and he replied that it was not. The proof was when the Rivlin family of the Gro married with Orenstein, a Chabadsker, the mesader Kiddushim was the rebbe of Orenstein, Reb Yehoshua Leib Diskin. Thus, there obviously was no Cherem. Furthermore, there is a tradition in that family and also in many Chassidic groups, that often when a Tsadik attacks another Tsadik, it is to save him from the attack of the Satan. There is a letter between Reb Chaim Ozer and the Chofetz Chaim that discusses this and certain words are removed, it being thought by the family that the words removed were the Gro and the Baal HaTanyo. Before he died, the Rebbe of the Baal HaTanyo told him he would have great struggles, but that his rebbe would be with him. Once he fainted from the fights. The worst struggles were with other Chassidim, not the Gro, although this is not generally known. At one time the senior Chassidim came to the Baal HaTanyo and demanded the he curse the misnadim, but he refused. For this, they said something terrible in his own Beis HaMedrash, but he, out of respect for them because they were old and the senior Hassidic rebbes in the world, accompanied them to their coaches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rav Shach is reported to have said that the Gra's Cherem is no longer in place except for Chabad and Breslov.

      Delete
    2. I sincerely doubt he said such a thing. He probably said that the original cherem was not for all chassidim but only for Chabad and Breslov.

      Rav Shach did teach in a Chabad school - which I doubt he would have done if he thought Chabad was in cherem

      Delete
    3. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      "Torah Truth said...Rav Shach is reported to have said that the Gra's Cherem is no longer in place except for Chabad and Breslov."

      This is ALSO said in the name of Rav Elyashiv z"l as well!

      Delete
    4. I strongly doubt that Rav Eliashiv said that. I personally asked him regarding some Breslover views and he said that he would have to study them carefully before he would conclude they were problematic. This was in regards to the need to give tzedaka to them. If he thought they were in Cherem he could have just said so!

      Delete
  17. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    "Rabbi Michael Tzadok said...Ponevezh- Rav Moshe Shatz teaches Kabbalah from the Kitvei HaAri there. It is also where Rav Yaakov Hillel first learned Kabbalah.
    Chevron- Rav David HaKohen gives daily shiurim in Zohar and Eitz Chaim there.
    Mir- Sar Shalom Shmueli has a daily seder in Zohar and Otzrot Chaim there.
    Lakewood- Rav Ephraim Goldstein teaches Daat Elokim, Eitz Chaim, and Shaar HaKavvanot there to different levels of students."

    My basic response is: Throw out the bums! Because if nothing else, your responses are shedding light and revealing alarming developments!!! Sounds like you seem to think that yeshivas should be bastions of voodoo and shtusim and havalim as well! The Israeli government must support this? Rich American gevirim must support this? We need to produce the thieves like the sons of the Baba Sali who are multi-millionaires from this? Throw away the Gemoras and open up the Tanyas like the Lubavitchers do! Forget the Rishonim just get to the Nistarim! Thrown away your bread and butter and switch to wine, beer and drugs. LSD and CRACK for the masses now -- that's how you make your "popular Kabbalah" for the masses sound! When the right thing to do is to throw out these "mystics" -- lock them out, or even lock them up -- and make sure they don't come back. People are donating money for this? For what? What comes of it? Better poskim? Better maggidei shiur? Better melamdim? Better balebatim? Better rabbonim? You obviously belong to this by now not so secret society because no one has heard of these shiurim, neither rebbeim nor talmidim who attend there talk about it, nor do these yeshivas advertize these activities, the Yated and HaModiah don't talk about it when they advertize fund-raising melave malkas for these yeshivas: Come to Lakewood" where you too can become a mekubal? Give millions to the Mir so that hungry mekubalim can count the wings of angels? Give to the Chevron building fund so that they can house more loony-tune studies. Ponevezh must house it's aspirant kabbalists, so please build them a new dorm to house the junior mystics club. Sounds a lot like the goings on of the "Kabbalah Centre" people -- more like a circus and not the Litvish yeshivas that anyone knows when they send their sons and husbands there. Looks like the Shabtai Tzvi trend is right back with us the way you make it sound! No one spends thousands of dollars and sends a son to be a talmid in a Litvish yeshiva to join these esoteric groups that you mention here. It should be stopped by anyone who can stop them and should stop them! Is there any way or anyone who can look into this and find out if this is normal and should be allowed or it is a disease that must be stopped because it interferes with real Torah learning? Is the aim to produce loopy space cadets or serious bnai Torah who are Talmidei Chachomim and not a collection of nebechs who are self-hypnotized ditz-heads lost in space?

    This is a time to cry that you can even come here, be allowed to spread your loopiness and make it seem oh so normal!!! One more thing to cry about this coming Tisha Be'av!

    ReplyDelete
  18. RaP Have you ever met a modern mekubal such as Rav Yaakov Hillel? Did you ever meet Rav Weintraub? Rav Hutner sure would laugh at your comment and so would Rav Solveitchik. In fact I can't imagine a single significant rosh yeshiva or rav who would respond in this hyterical fashion.

    Does that mean that you are changing sides now that you have discovered that kabbala has penetrated the yeshiva world?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    1 of 3:

    "Daas Torah said...RaP Have you ever met a modern mekubal such as Rav Yaakov Hillel?"

    RaP: What's a "modern mekubal" is that different to an "old-fashioned" or "out of date" mekubal? While Rav Hille is a fine man and good talmid chochem and he knows how to raise lots of money too, but ANY person who goes around with a title of "mekubal" plastered all over him in media PR style is suspect and should be avoided, or at least taken with a large lump of salt!

    "Did you ever meet Rav Weintraub? Rav Hutner sure would laugh at your comment and so would Rav Solveitchik."

    RaP: Rav Hutner never about himself that he was a "mekubal" and would have thrown out anyone who would have gone around publicizing that about him when it is common knowledge that he (Rav Hutner) knew Kabbalah. Not sure if Rav Hutner or anyone ever gave a haskoma to Rabbi Weintraub, nor of what the singer Shlomo Carlebach made of himself in the end? I don't think Rav Hillel knows much about Rav Hutner or Rav JB Soloveitchik and how Rav Hutner would guide him. But Rav Hillel is a Sefardi so he lives under a different constellation. Most of TODAY's Sefardim are notalways rational people, they like voodoo and mumbo jumbo it makes them happy just like eating chumus and techina and a shot of arak makes them happy, what can you do, they are different? Since when does anyone use Rav JB Soloveitchik of all people to give "hechsherim" on so-called "mekubalim" (I assume you mean Rabbi Dr. JB Soloveitchik) who himself had a Rebbe in his youth who taught him Tanya, but at no time did Rav JB Soloveitchik call himself a "mekubal" nor did Rav Hutner or Rav Soloveitchik endorse the public learning or promotion of Kabbala the way Reb Michael Tzadok mentions here. In the case of Rav Hutner, on the contrary he fought his whole life to STOP explicit involvement with Kabbalah. That is why he worked so hard on opposing Chabad and the way it taught Tanya to the masses and he was strong on popularizing the MAHARAL, whom he said expressed "nistar beloshon nigleh" and Rav Hutner repeated over, and over and over again "EIN LANU EISEK BENISTAROS" ("we have no [right to be] involved with [study] of [the] hidden [meaning Kabbalah]" that he then went on to put into practice into his Pachad Yitzchok writings, in ten volumes you will find NO mention of Kabbalah or mekubbalim. It is just out of the question!

    "In fact I can't imagine a single significant rosh yeshiva or rav who would respond in this hyterical fashion."

    RaP: Oh yeah? They now openly allow their Litvish yeshivas to teach Kabbalah berabim?? Next joke please!! Maybe they should make it a topic at the next Aguda Convention for a panel discussion or devote the next Chinuch Atzmai and Torah UmeSorah gatherings to the "proper spread of Kabbala" they can then invite all these speakers to give workshops and have special presentations by Chabad and Breslov emissaries, and Reb Michael Tzadok who do it all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    2 of 3:

    "Does that mean that you are changing sides now that you have discovered that kabbala has penetrated the yeshiva world?"

    RaP: Let me answer your question with an even better question: Drugs, sex, immorality, dishonesty and abuse has also penetrated the yeshiva world, after all you post and comment about it all the time, does that mean you now accept that way of life as being "normal" too?

    And a final question for you, PLEASE ANSWER WHAT I HAVE INDICATED IN BOLD TEXT, OR ASK RAV SHTERNBUCH'S VIEW ON THIS, how do you understand what the RAMBAM teaches, actually paskens the way the Halacha is practiced about whether teaching such things is allowed, in משנה תורה - ספר המדע - הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ד that:

    יז [י] כל הדברים האלו שדיברנו בעניין זה, כמר מדלי הם; ודברים עמוקים הם, אבל אינם כעומק עניין פרק ראשון ושני. וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי, הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית.


    וכך ציוו חכמים הראשונים, שאין דורשין גם בדברים האלו ברבים, אלא לאדם אחד בלבד מודיעים דברים אלו ומלמדין אותו.


    יח [יא] ומה בין עניין מעשה מרכבה לעניין מעשה בראשית--שעניין מעשה מרכבה

    אפילו לאחד אין דורשין בו, אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו, נותנין לו ראשי הפרקים; ועניין מעשה בראשית, מלמדין אותו ליחיד, אף על פי שאינו מבין אותו מדעתו, ומודיעין אותו כל שיכול לידע מדברים אלו. ולמה אין מלמדין אותו ברבים, לפי שאין כל אדם יש לו דעת רחבה להשיג פירוש וביאור כל הדברים על בוריין.

    ...
    כ [יג] וענייני ארבעה פרקים אלו שבחמש מצוות האלו--הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותן פרדס, כמו שאמרו ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס: ואף על פי שגדולי ישראל היו וחכמים גדולים היו, לא כולם היה בהן כוח לידע ולהשיג כל הדברים על בוריין.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    3 of 3:


    כא ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב


    PLEASE, please, please, do explain to us how the violators you are justifying do not run afoul of these explicit rulings of the RAMBAM that are the accepted norm in the normal oilem HaTorah? I am absolutely positive and sure Rav Hutner and Rav JB Soloveitchik would ask you and them the same question!!!

    And a final question for you, PLEASE ANSWER WHAT I HAVE INDICATED IN BOLD TEXT, OR ASK RAV SHTERNBUCH'S VIEW ON THIS, how do you understand what the RAMBAM teaches, actually paskens the way the Halacha is practiced about whether teaching such things is allowed, in משנה תורה - ספר המדע - הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ד that:

    יז [י] כל הדברים האלו שדיברנו בעניין זה, כמר מדלי הם; ודברים עמוקים הם, אבל אינם כעומק עניין פרק ראשון ושני. וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי, הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית.


    וכך ציוו חכמים הראשונים, שאין דורשין גם בדברים האלו ברבים, אלא לאדם אחד בלבד מודיעים דברים אלו ומלמדין אותו.


    יח [יא] ומה בין עניין מעשה מרכבה לעניין מעשה בראשית--שעניין מעשה מרכבה

    אפילו לאחד אין דורשין בו, אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו, נותנין לו ראשי הפרקים; ועניין מעשה בראשית, מלמדין אותו ליחיד, אף על פי שאינו מבין אותו מדעתו, ומודיעין אותו כל שיכול לידע מדברים אלו. ולמה אין מלמדין אותו ברבים, לפי שאין כל אדם יש לו דעת רחבה להשיג פירוש וביאור כל הדברים על בוריין.

    ...
    כ [יג] וענייני ארבעה פרקים אלו שבחמש מצוות האלו--הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותן פרדס, כמו שאמרו ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס: ואף על פי שגדולי ישראל היו וחכמים גדולים היו, לא כולם היה בהן כוח לידע ולהשיג כל הדברים על בוריין.

    כא ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב


    PLEASE, please, please, do explain to us how the violators you are justifying do not run afoul of these explicit rulings of the RAMBAM that are the accepted norm in the normal oilem HaTorah? I am absolutely positive and sure Rav Hutner and Rav JB Soloveitchik would ask you and them the same question!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Rambam himself violated his prohibition. How do you explain that? It is obvious that there are different levels just as there is a prohibition of teaching Torah to goyim - but it is permitted to teach Torah to goyim!

    רב יעקב קמנצקי (אמת ליעקב בראשית א:א ע' ט"ו): והנראה בזה, דהנה לכאורה יש לתמוה על כל הענינים שכתב הרמב"ם בארבעת הפרקים הראשונים של הלכות יסודי התורה, הא כתב הרמב"ם בסוף הלכות אלו [פ"ד הלי"ג] וז"ל: ועניני ארבעה פרקים אלו הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותו פרדס וכו', ובחגיגה [דף י"א ע"ב] איתא אין דורשין במעשה בראשית כו', ולא במרכבה ביחיד אא"כ היה חכם ומבין בדעתו כו', וא"כ בודאי לא נכתבו עיניינים אלו אלא נמסרו בעל פה מפה לאון, וא"כ איך כתבן ברמב"ם בחיבורו ופירסמם לכל, ובפרט שהרמב"ם עצמו [בפ"ד הל"י] הביא הדין הה שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים ובו', וא"כ מודע כתבן בספרו?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rap you asked the question regarding teaching kabbala publicly in my blog when this is prohibited by the Rambam. Let me make your question stronger - why did the Rambam teach about Maaseh Bereishis and Maasheh Markva i.e., Kabbala in the first 4 chapters of Mishna Torah?

    The Rambam himself violated his prohibition. How do you explain that? It is obvious that there are different levels just as there is a prohibition of teaching Torah to goyim - but it is permitted to teach Torah to goyim!

    רב יעקב קמנצקי (אמת ליעקב בראשית א:א ע' ט"ו): והנראה בזה, דהנה לכאורה יש לתמוה על כל הענינים שכתב הרמב"ם בארבעת הפרקים הראשונים של הלכות יסודי התורה, הא כתב הרמב"ם בסוף הלכות אלו [פ"ד הלי"ג] וז"ל: ועניני ארבעה פרקים אלו הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותו פרדס וכו', ובחגיגה [דף י"א ע"ב] איתא אין דורשין במעשה בראשית כו', ולא במרכבה ביחיד אא"כ היה חכם ומבין בדעתו כו', וא"כ בודאי לא נכתבו עיניינים אלו אלא נמסרו בעל פה מפה לאון, וא"כ איך כתבן ברמב"ם בחיבורו ופירסמם לכל, ובפרט שהרמב"ם עצמו [בפ"ד הל"י] הביא הדין הה שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים ובו', וא"כ מודע כתבן בספרו?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    One of Two:

    "Daas TorahJanuar said...The Rambam himself violated his prohibition. How do you explain that?"

    RaP: Now you are saying that the RAMBAM was "schizophrenic" and a "hypocrite" ch'v and did not mean what he states. By way of analogy, everyone knows that the word "cancer" means very bad and often fatal bad illness with few cures and some even know what the word "carcinogens" mean, BUT virtually no one besides a relative handful of specialized ONCOLOGISTS really know and could understand what cancer really means and is -- and they don't teach ONCOLOGY berabim because they are NOT stupid or reckless -- they know their limits and that it would be wrong, period. Usually the most brilliant doctors get involved with SUCCESS in curing cancer, otherwise they are not recognized. In NY just one hospital is the most famous for fighting this illness, Sloan Kettering, all the hospitals don't try to play copy-cat, they would look like idiots (unlike those yeshivas where they think they can offer kabbalah like installing a soda machine). Not just that, few such oncologists know everything about all cancers, they know their own limited fields. Some fight it with surgery. Other with chemotherapy, others with radiation, all radically different ways to treat, but that does not mean that the US government is being stupid or hypocritical or people are being "fooled" if there are warnings on foods and products that they may cause cancer or that Reader's Digest shouldn't write simple points to explain dos and don'ts. So this is what the RAMBAM is doing, it is barest of "roshei perakim" summaries because almost nobody has a clue as to what those subjects and truly are really are, he just warns to stay away from them and advised to "eat healthy" by sticking to the Gemora of Abayei and Rava! To say the RAMBAM must not mention it, is like saying hashem should not have mentioned about the Creation, Gan Eden, Adam and Chava and the Nochosh because they contain the biggest of ALL the Torah's secrets mamash. No one criticizes the Torah and Hashem for that so no one can criticize the RAMBAM for saying not much more, just combining the briefest of Oral sources as well

    Then with all due respect Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky z"l he is not a position to shlog op the foundational RAMBAM. The purpose of the RAMBAM's Mishneh Torah, as you well know, is literally to "re-give" or regurgitate the Torah in an organized fashion -- hence "MEMOSHE AD MOSHE LO KAM KEMOSHE" -- mamash -- something NOT attributed to Reb Yaakov Kamenetzky or to any gadol, it's not just a cute expression, it actually means that from the RAMBAM their is a new "nesinas haTorah" for the purpose of presenting EVERYTHING that is in it. The core intention being that no other sefer would be needed, especially not the Gemoras, because now the RAMBAM had extracted was is needed to live from! You may as well as what the gave the RAMABM the "right" to re-write the Torah by COMBINING both the Oral and Written Torah, and even weave in chiddushim (just ask any Brisker)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    Two of Two:

    "It is obvious that there are different levels just as there is a prohibition of teaching Torah to goyim - but it is permitted to teach Torah to goyim!"

    RaP: No it is NOT allowed to teach all Torah to goyim. So you make bad analogy that actually disproves you and serve as a warning to those who undertake to do what they should NOT be doing!! At the most only the Torah relating to the Sheva Mitzvos Bnai Noach, that has both a narrow and broad range. But you can't teach a goy about things like Chometz and Kares because the goy does not have a neshama (goyim only have a nefesh at most, bit NO neshama) so to teach them about Halachos that involve kares is assur. In fact a goy that learns Torah that is meant for the Jews is cahayav misa because he has entered into a zone that is forbidden to him and is punished accordingly.

    Are you now using the RAMBAM to "deny" the RAMBAM and to "justify" what the RAMBAM explicitly warns NOT to do and that cannot be done?! The RAMBAM warns that of the four who entered PARDES, one died, one went crazy and one became a heretic, only Rebbe Akiva came out shalem because he did not STARE, meaning even he approached with caution. Seems to me that we are in for seeing a lot people dying, going crazy and becoming heretics (the majority) and hardly any coming out like Rebbe Akiva and even he had to die in the end on the torture rack of the "lovely" Roman goyim who tried to learn Torah to justify killing him (remember the story of the asara harugei malchus...the Roman wanted it to be an "atonement" "al pi Torah" for the ten brothers who kidnapped Yosef like a krumme goyisha kop -- what goes around comes around and so it was...)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rap instead of singing and dancing around the issue - why don't you address what I said. This is not the only place where there the Rambam appears to contradict himself. So please address the issue rather than falsely claiming that I am saying the Rambam is schizophrenic chav vshalom!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    "Daas TorahJanuary said...Rap you asked the question regarding teaching kabbala publicly in my blog when this is prohibited by the Rambam. Let me make your question stronger - why did the Rambam teach about Maaseh Bereishis and Maasheh Markva i.e., Kabbala in the first 4 chapters of Mishna Torah?"

    To repeat myself, you may as well ask the question against the Torah and Hashem Himself, that why, if he gave us so many wonderful episodes in Parshas Breishis where there are no actual mitzvos, there aren't even Jews there because it's way before Matan Torah, yet it's reputedly the deepest, profoundest most mystical and esoteric part of the Torah, nothing is deeper, so why don't we study that more in depth, or as equally or even together with the rest of the Torah such as those parshiyos that contain the majority of the actual TARYAG MITZVOS which is what the Torah wants the Bnai Yisrael to practice? Let's not learn Gemora and Halcah, let's just learn Midrash, Zohar, Tanya, ARI, and what have instead! let's sing and dance and drink a lechaim, like hail marys five times a day as if we were facing Mecca like blind men bowing to the unknown to feel oh so "empowered" -- do you hear the steps of zombie worship and voodoo coming in? This is the slippery slope of Shabtai Tzvi, the Frankists, Yemenite false messiahs from the times of the RAMBAM who fought them tooth and nail to today's Amon Yitzhak who is a false messiah in all but name, and of the Chabad loonies who believe the last rebbe is the "living" moshiach, all with good intentions of learning mystical texts, even with some Talmud thrown in...

    Maybe we should all become like meditative mekubalim like the ARI was for most of his short life in Egypt, sitting in a straw hut by the shore of the Nile talking to no one, just in touch via meditating with angels and his maggid min hashamayim and in contact with Eliyahu HaNavi. Only for the last two years did the ARI move to EY and then gather some talmidim and teach them some things that most could not grasp, only Rav Chaim Vital was supposedly the only one who could take it all in and spent the rest of his life writing it up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    Continued:

    Maybe we should all do that, sit in huts near our nearest rivers, as were Adam and Chava in Gan Eden, because after all that is THE MOST important part of the Torah, it contains all the secrets of PRDS anyone will ever need. After all this is what the BESHT and the early Chasidim did, they were mystics in forests, wondering about the thick woods in communion with the birds, the trees, the winds and hearing the voice of the Divine in nature. Let's all become Charedi pantheists and believers in magic, as if the realm of Harry Potter and Science fiction was now the "new reality" for Torah life to best with one-upmanship to show we have "better" Kabbalah Centres, better "modern" Kabbalists and Rebbes in "Courts" with good shiny dentures who know to smile for cameras and flatter big donors, who know who to live feudal like lords in exchange for kema'ais, magical incantations based on voodoo as long as they get fat donations an even grants from the Israeli government and fat cat dumb soul-deprived Americans looking for spooky quick solutions.

    Let's venture into a domain that will soon have literal avoda zora back in fashion, as people appeal to their imaginations and come to holy men and women for blessings instead of using the great brains that God gave everyone. Yeah, let's turn the yeshivas into dens of this idiocy. Let's make it compulsory to teach Chasidus to EVERYONE just as Chabad and Breslov make it the daily fare of their curricula, and you can see the results running around like crazies on the streets with no real improvement in the moral and ethical lives of these intoxicated zombies who may as well be on hallucinogenics.

    Say hello to this brave new world you want.... but it will stick in your throat like clawing and cloying sweetness and choke off any chances of any real healthy diet and breathing entering a healthy system. Just as the the "black" economy drives out the good, so does this kabballah claptrap drive out normalcy and instead opens the door for insanity to flow in like a polluted stream growing stronger every day with its toxicity...arba nichnasim lepardes...

    ReplyDelete
  29. RaP wrote: "It is obvious that there are different levels just as there is a prohibition of teaching Torah to goyim - but it is permitted to teach Torah to goyim!"

    RaP: No it is NOT allowed to teach all Torah to goyim. So you make bad analogy that actually disproves you and serve as a warning to those who undertake to do what they should NOT be doing!! At the most only the Torah relating to the Sheva Mitzvos Bnai Noach, that has both a narrow and broad range. But you can't teach a goy about things like Chometz and Kares because the goy does not have a neshama (goyim only have a nefesh at most, bit NO neshama) so to teach them about Halachos that involve kares is assur. In fact a goy that learns Torah that is meant for the Jews is cahayav misa because he has entered into a zone that is forbidden to him and is punished accordingly.
    ====================
    RaP you are doing a great imitation of Clarence Darrow - but this is not a court room. The clear point and the standard way of dealing with apparent contradictions is to state the parameters applicable in each case. Teaching Torah to goyim is explained in a number of ways. See Rabbi Bleich's summary of the variou views in Contemporary Halachic Issues

    ReplyDelete
  30. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM

    "RaP you are doing a great imitation of Clarence Darrow - but this is not a court room."

    RaP: This a blog and as such it can be anything! And until now I had never heard of "Clarence Darrow" (no one can know everything!) and I am not sure how you heard of him since he died in 1938 before you were born, but now I have, Wikipedia says Clarence Darrow he was a good lawyer. But honest, I am neither a lawyer nor trained to be one. I was sticking to the subject of if it's allowed to teach Kabbalah berabim and, sticking to that subject, I cited as a STRONG SUPPORT (there is none better to my knowledge) from the RAMBAM relating that two of the cores of Kabbalah itself, מעשה בראשית is ONLY taught to ONE select talmid at a time, while the even greater subject of מעשה מרכבה is not even directly "taught" to even one talmid but "hinted at" by the teacher to the disciple because of its subtleness and incomprehensibility who either gets it on his own but it is NOT made explicit at any time even to that one special learned individual!

    Thus, here the RAMBAM explicitly states how this subject is to be taught. And to drive home his message-pesak, the RAMBAM sums it up by admitting that even though these are a greater subject pertaining to PRDS:
    הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ד

    כ [יג] וענייני ארבעה פרקים אלו שבחמש מצוות האלו--הם שחכמים הראשונים קוראין אותן פרדס, כמו שאמרו ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס: ואף על פי שגדולי ישראל היו וחכמים גדולים היו, לא כולם היה בהן כוח לידע ולהשיג כל הדברים על בוריין

    Thus, says the RAMBAM, that even four of the greatest GEDOLIM of the times of the Mishna yet delved into this field, three out of the four were damaged beyond control and suffered great harm for that. Now you come along with a kashya and you quoted from Rav Yaakov Kamenetzki, who does NOT mention anything about "teaching goyim" but who asks a decent question as to why the RAMBAM puts into writing what had always been an ORAL tradition that was never put into writing. And the answer to that is simple, in my opinion, I cannot offer you another one at this time, it is that the RAMBAM was combining Oral and Written sources and weaving them into one corpus that was the Mishneh Torah, so I don't even see Rav Yaakov's point, unless he is trying to teach some backhanded mussar as was his custom to warn against these esoteric subjects altogether (unlike you and Reb Michael Tzadok who is posting them proudly, and NOT like Rav Yaakov would wish or says as in the very quote you bring -- you are shlogging yourself op) because I cannot imagine that Rav Yaakov would ever consent to teaching Kabbalah in a yeshiva, in fact he had bitter machlokes with the derech of his compatriot rosh yeshiva Rav Gedalya Schor z"l at Yeshiva Torah Voda'as who did teach various Chasidisha zachen, unlike Rav Yaakov who was a Slabodker talmid to the nth degree, emphasizing mussar, middos tovos, hasmada and poshut peshat in Gemora for which he was famous and which made him very unappealing and unpopular among the Talmidim and he was eventually ousted unlike Rav Schorr, where to this day Torah Voda'as has more of a Chasidish contingent from Boro Park living side by side with Litvkas from Flatbush, something unique. But the Chasidim and Litvaks do not mix!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 17, 2013 at 4:50 PM

    Further:

    "The clear point and the standard way of dealing with apparent contradictions is to state the parameters applicable in each case. Teaching Torah to goyim is explained in a number of ways. See Rabbi Bleich's summary of the variou views in Contemporary Halachic Issues"

    RaP: Ok, so this has nothing to do with the quote from Rav Yaakov as I explained above. This is you bringing a curve ball that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Because goyim and yidden are two different species of beings. Goyim are NOT expected to learn Torah the way Jews are or know the entire Torah the way Jews are, while ALL Jews, IN THEORY are supposed to learn and know the entire Torah.

    But the RAMBAM actually also puts that in perspective for all of us, just as Rav Freifeld did for you as you cited in another post, you may have lots of questions but you have to be patients and especially to be ready to hear all the answers. thus Jews may want and need to know about PRDS and what Ma'asei Breshis and Ma'asei Merkava are all about, BUT the RAMBAM is saying hold your horses, and DO NOT go to those Kabballah shiurim, don't become like all those curious George monkeys that resulted in "curiosity killed the cat" as it tripped over high voltage cables and gets fried, it is far better to stick to a safer course of learning the Sugyas in Gemora oF Abeyei and Rava, as the RAMBAM says, this is what is best for ALL JEWS, the subject of goyim, or horses or monkeys or gorillas, is totally irrelevant here -- as is the question of whether one should or should not teach Jewish women Torah, it is not the point right now regarding the permissibility of teaching Kabbalah in the open:

    הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ב

    יא] דברים אלו שאמרנו בעניין זה בשני פרקים אלו, כמו טיפה מן הים הן ממה שצריך לבאר בעניין זה. וביאור כל העיקרים שבשני פרקים אלו--הוא הנקרא מעשה מרכבה

    יז [יב] ציוו חכמים הראשונים שלא לדרוש בדברים אלו אלא לאיש אחד בלבד, והוא שיהיה חכם ומבין מדעתו. ואחר כך מוסרין לו ראשי הפרקים, ומודיעין אותו שמץ מן הדבר; והוא מבין מדעתו, ויודע סוף הדבר ועומקו

    יח ודברים אלו דברים עמוקים הם עד למאוד, ואין כל דעת ודעת ראויה לסובלן. ועליהן אמר שלמה בחכמתו דרך משל, "כבשים ללבושך" (משלי כז,כו); כך אמרו חכמים בפירוש משל זה, דברים שהן כבשונו של עולם יהיו ללבושך, כלומר לך לבדך, ואל תדרוש אותן ברבים. ועליהם אמר "יהיו לך, לבדך; ואין לזרים, איתך" (משלי ה,יז). ועליהן אמר "דבש וחלב תחת לשונך" (שיר השירים ד,יא); כך פירשו חכמים הראשונים, דברים שהן כדבש וחלב, יהיו תחת לשונך

    הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ד

    כא ואני אומר שאין ראוי להיטייל בפרדס, אלא מי שנתמלא כרסו לחם ובשר; ולחם ובשר זה, הוא לידע ביאור האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן משאר המצוות. ואף על פי שדברים אלו, דבר קטן קראו אותם חכמים, שהרי אמרו חכמים דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, ודבר קטן הוויה דאביי ורבא; אף על פי כן, ראויין הן להקדימן: שהן מיישבין דעתו של אדם תחילה, ועוד שהן הטובה הגדולה שהשפיע הקדוש ברוך הוא ליישוב העולם הזה, כדי לנחול חיי העולם הבא. ואפשר שיידעם הכול--גדול וקטן, איש ואישה, בעל לב רחב ובעל לב קצר


    We either heed or ignore this RAMBAM at our own peril!

    ReplyDelete
  32. RaP: Ok, so this has nothing to do with the quote from Rav Yaakov as I explained above. This is you bringing a curve ball that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Because goyim and yidden are two different species of beings. Goyim are NOT expected to learn Torah the way Jews are or know the entire Torah the way Jews are, while ALL Jews, IN THEORY are supposed to learn and know the entire Torah.
    ================
    sorry RaP - the solution to understanding the contradiction in Goyim learning Torah when they are not supposed is conceptually identical to a Jew learning/teaching kabbalah when he isn't supposed to. Don't know why you have gotten so concrete and don't seem to be able to understand that conceptually the solution is the same in both places!

    ReplyDelete
  33. מהרש"א חידושי אגדות מסכת חגיגה דף יג עמוד א

    אין מוסרין ד"ת לעובדי כוכבים כו'. לא קאמר אין מלמדין תורה לעובדי כוכבים דהא ודאי בז' מצות דידהו מלמדין אותן ובשאר מצות התורה עובד כוכבים הלומד אותה חייב בנפשו אלא דהכא נלמד מענינו דאין מוסרין לעובדי כוכבים היינו טעם וסוד המצות ואפי' בז' מצות שלהם אין מוסרין להם סודן וטעמן וע"ז מייתי ליה מקרא דכתיב מגיד דבריו ליעקב וגם טעם חקים ומשפטים גו' דהיינו חקים ומשפטים של דת האלהים ולא כן עשה לכל גוי דגם משפטים ודת הנימוסית שלהם שחייבים לקיים שהדינין הוא א' מז' מצות שנצטוו בני נח מ"מ בל ידעום טעמם וסוד הענינים ובזה יתיישב קושית התוס' בשם ר"א:

    ReplyDelete
  34. RaP:

    I'm not sure what you mean by "berabim". If you mean that these shiurim are open to anyone and everyone in the respective Yeshivot, then no, they are most definitely not done berabim.

    As far as "putting away their Gemarras" again I don't know what you are talking about. Who said anything about ceasing a full course of Shas and Poskim? Unless one is enrolled specifically in a Kabbalistic Yeshiva, such aditional sedarim are only offered to those who already learn a full two sedarim in Shas and Poskim.

    I'm not sure where you are coming up with some of this stuff. First you said that these things wouldn't be permitted in these Yeshivot. Then when you find out that they are, suddenly you know how they are doing them, and that it is detrimental to their Torah learning.

    Perhaps it would be better if you ask clarifying questions instead of just launching into attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

    "sorry RaP - the solution to understanding the contradiction in Goyim learning Torah when they are not supposed is conceptually identical to a Jew learning/teaching kabbalah when he isn't supposed to."

    RaP: Okay, so at least we have established a few things here, and I assume you agree with me about that: (1) I have refuted, and explained what you brought down from Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky. (2) The RAMBAM makes his position very clear. (3) The RAMBAM clearly supports my entire line of reasoning and argumentation, and it is opposed to what you and Reb Michael Tzadok are advocating.

    "Don't know why you have gotten so concrete and don't seem to be able to understand that conceptually the solution is the same in both places!"

    RaP: Go ahead, you have the question so provide the answer, I don't have the problem, you do so please enlighten me with your teretz, I would love to learn from you and see how this comes out to be a sweeping "heter" -- better yet, make it that it was always some kind of "norm" -- to teach Kabbala berabim to the rabbim! You say that the RAMBAM Is contradicting himself and "somehow" want to use that to legitimate the open dissemination of Kabbalah, which is disingenuous since every time anyone wants to propose anything all they have to do is point out that there is a "difficulty" with the RAMBAM, that there are either opposing views or internal contradictions, and that somehow "therefore" the controversial new approach or radical actions are now "allowed"! This way you can use any machlokes and chilukei dei'os as a means to ignore what the source says, and just do as you wish. Sorry but that is not approach either. If it was, there would be no final resolution to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

    In any case here's what the RAMBAM says about a gentile who wants to learn Torah or keep Shabbos:

    הלכות מלכים ומלחמות פרק י

    יא [ט] גוי שעסק בתורה, חייב מיתה; לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצוות שלהן בלבד. וכן גוי ששבת--אפילו ביום מימות החול--אם עשה אותו לעצמו כמו שבת, חייב מיתה; ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו

    יב כללו של דבר: אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת, ולעשות מצוות לעצמן מדעתן, אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצוות, או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע. ואם עסק בתורה, או שבת, או חידש דבר--מכין אותו ועונשין אותו, ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה; אבל אינו נהרג

    The gentile is only allowed to delve in what is applicable to him, namely the Seven Noahide Laws, even in all their details, and nothing more, and if the gentile does violate by getting into keeping Shabbos and overstepping by learning what is outside of what he needs to know for the Seva Mitzvos, he deserves capital punishment and must get it, just as a Jew "should not" learn things connected to PRDS in the sense of the "4 who entered PRDS", and while the RAMBAM does not state a death "punishment" for learning PRDS however he strongly points out the fate of the four who entered PRDS that for 3 out of the 4 they had a terrible and tragaic ending, and based on that he is strongly cautioning that Ma'asei Bereishis and Ma'asei Merkava and what pertains to PRDS should NOT be taught to groups. Thus the RAMBAM two sets of prohibitions are consistent. You keep on referring to the great contradictions, but please, since I am not as enlightened as you, please explain and show how you or anyone resolves them that allows Goyim to learn kol HaTorah kula, all Jews to become mekubalim?? I would appreciate it.

    You know, you could equally write and put up yummy posts about the changing roles of women and how Jewish women should now be regarded as equal to me especially in the real m of learning and teaching Torah, which is analogous to the realm of gentiles learning Torah and to ordinary Jews learning Kabbala. So that all Jewish women are now free to learn Gemora and even become roshei yeshiva -- as many women have higher IQ's than the average yeshiva bochur -- even though they are "da'atan kalos", they have "bina yeseira" and "chochmas noshim" and "isha yir'as Hashem" which is a setira so let's say that "bina yeseira" and "chochmas noshim" and "isha yir'as Hashem" trump "da'atan kalos" and pushes away "kemelamda tiflus" and hey presto women may learn and teach Gemora like many say and do -- Rav JB Solovietchik of YU said it was 100% okay bazman hazeh since women study everything else and the world has changed! ...there are more examples of this kind of weird thinking, but enough for now...

    ReplyDelete
  37. RaP I am just astounded at your analysis and pronouncements. I don't agree with most of what you have said and your "solution" to the issue of the contradiction in the Rambam that Rav Yaakov mentioned totally lacks any indication of having looked into the issues - including the commentaries of the Rambam.

    Don't know any yeshiva avreich or bachur who would take such a cavalier and flippant attitude to these matters. So even if you don't want to study kabbala - but you should at least display some familiarity with the lomdus here!

    The issue is understanding the material not shooting down the questions. There are many discussion of these issues which provide a much richer picture than your shrill black and white one does.

    I value your many contributions to this blog in the last few years - but I would appreciate it if you took these questions more seriously and devoted some time understanding them before responding.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The need for a closer analysis of the Rambam and the issue of Kabbala is alluded to in the following

    Chasam Sofer (Chullin 33a): Look at the Rambam(Hilchos Melachim 10:9-10) in which he appears to distinguish between non-Jews who are idolaters and those who are Bnai Noach who have accepted on themselves not be idolaters. Bnai Noach are allowed to keep Shabbos and to fullfill whatever other mitzvos they wish. Therefore we can accept their sacrifices and teach them Torah and accept tzedaka from them. Consequently there is no difficulty presented by the gemora which says that a non Jew who keeps Shabbos - since a non Jew who is not an idolater is in fact allowed to keep Shabbos. This also resolves the gemora’s question as to why it is not considered part of the Seven Mitzvos. I think that the Rambam is relying on Nedarim (31a) for his psak which seems to indicate that these halachos are not in fact prohibited for non Jews. Thus the halacha follows this view expressed in Nedarim rather than the view expressed in Sanhedrin because Nedarim was composed later than the other tractates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 20, 2013 at 11:12 PM

      "Daas Torah said...The need for a closer analysis of the Rambam and the issue of Kabbala is alluded to in the following"

      RaP: The Chasam Sofer is NOT the last word on the RAMBAM. First of all the way you are presenting here it makes it sound like the road is open to learn Kabbalah like the road is open for goyim to learn Torah, when it is NOT! As for understanding the RAMBAM it is possible to understand him in various ways. Not just here, but as anyone who has attended any yeshiva shiur knows, the RAMBAM, like the Torah itself, can be stretched like gold into the finest of hair's breadth for "diyukim" (subtle "implications/conclusion") or taken as as "poshut peshat" without embellishments.

      "Chasam Sofer (Chullin 33a): Look at the Rambam(Hilchos Melachim 10:9-10) in which he appears to distinguish between non-Jews who are idolaters and those who are Bnai Noach who have accepted on themselves not be idolaters."

      RaP: This is not just in the Chasam Sofer, it is a well-known mehalech in analyzing this subject, to differentiate between "Bnai Noach" and "Ovdei Avoda Zora". But it is not so simple, see the lengthy source cited here:
      OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF: CHAGIGAH 13 prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf:

      "1) TEACHING TORAH TO NOCHRIM [Torah: Nochrim]

      (a) Gemara

      1. (R. Ami): We do not teach Divrei Torah to Nochrim - "Lo Osah Chen l'Chol Goy u'Mishpatim Bal Yeda'um".

      2. Bava Kama 38a (Rav Yosef): "...Ro'ah va'Yater Goyim" - Hash-m saw that they were not keeping their seven Mitzvos, and released them from their Mitzvos.

      3. Objection: Do they gain from their sins?!

      4. Answer (Mar brei d'Ravina): No - it means, even if they fulfil their Mitzvos, they are not rewarded for them.

      5. Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): "(The Mitzvos) that a man will do and live in them" - it doesn't say that Yisraelim will do, rather that a man will do!

      6. This teaches that a Nochri who engages in Torah is (rewarded) like a Kohen Gadol.

      7. Answer: They are not rewarded like one who is commanded, rather like one who is not commanded.

      8. (Beraisa): Romi sent two officers to learn the Torah; Chachamim taught them. They acknowledged the truth of every point, except for one.

      9. The officers: How can it be that a Yisrael's ox that gores a Nochri's ox is exempt, but a Nochri's ox (even a Tam) that gores a Yisrael's ox pays full damage?

      i. If one is liable only for "Shor Re'ehu (of his fellowman)", a Nochri should be exempt when his ox gored a Yisrael's ox;

      ii. If we do not expound "Shor Re'ehu" like this, a Yisrael should be liable when his ox gored a Nochri's ox!"

      Delete
    2. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 20, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF: CHAGIGAH 13 prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf:

      10. Sanhedrin 59a (R. Yochanan): A Nochri who learns Torah is Chayav Misah. "Torah...Morashah Kehilas Yakov", it is an inheritance for Yisrael, not for Nochrim.

      11. Question: Why isn't this included among his seven Mitzvos?

      12. Answer #1: It is included in theft;

      13. Answer #2: According to the opinion that expounds as if said Me'orasah (Torah is Mekudeshes to Yisrael), it is included in Arayos.

      14. Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): A Nochri who engages in Torah is like a Kohen Gadol. "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam va'Chai" includes Nochrim.

      15. Answer: He is rewarded for learning his seven Mitzvos (but liable for anything else).

      16. We never find something permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri.

      17. Shmos Rabah (30): Akilas told Andriyanus (Kaiser) that he wanted to convert to learn Torah. He explained that an Arel cannot learn - "Lo Osah Chen l'Chol Goy..."

      18. A Nochri was walking outside a Beis ha'Keneses and heard about the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol. He requested to be converted on condition to be appointed Kohen Gadol; Hillel did so, and told him to learn about kingship (Kehunah).

      19. The Nochri learned "Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", and realized that he cannot be Kohen Gadol.

      (b) Rishonim

      1. Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 8:10): Moshe bequeathed the Torah and Mitzvos only to Yisrael - "Morashah Kehilas Yakov". It is also for anyone of another Umah who wants to convert.

      2. Rambam (10:9): A Nochri who learns Torah is Chayav Misah. He may learn only his seven Mitzvos. If he learned Torah, kept Shabbos or made new Mitzvos, we hit and punish him and tell him that he is Chayav Misah, but we do not kill him.


      i. Kesef Mishneh: Since it is not listed among his seven Mitzvos, he is not killed (b'Yedei Adam) for this. It seems that it is only an Asmachta to say that it is theft or Bi'as Na'arah Me'urasah.

      ii. Chasam Sofer (Chulin 33a DH v'Ayen): The Rambam distinguishes between a Nochri and a Ben No'ach who accepted not to serve idolatry. The latter may keep any Mitzvos he wants; we may teach him Torah.

      iii. Note: The Rambam (10:10) says that we do not stop a Ben No'ach who wants to keep other Mitzvos. In Perush ha'Mishnayos (Terumos 3:9) he says that if a Nochri did any Mitzvah he gets a little reward.

      3. Question: The Gemara says that we never find something permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri. A Nochri may not learn Torah or keep Shabbos!

      4. Answer #1 (Tosfos Sanhedrin 59a DH Leika): We do not discuss things that are Mitzvos for Yisrael.

      5. Answer #2 (Lechem Mishneh Melachim 10:9): Mid'Oraisa these are permitted to Nochrim. The Isur and Chiyuv Misah are mid'Rabanan.

      6. Answer #3 (Lechem Mishneh 9:13): The Rambam holds that it is an argument whether or not we find things permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri. The Halachah is, we find such things."

      Delete
    3. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 20, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF: CHAGIGAH 13 prepared by Rabbi Pesach Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf:

      "7. Teshuvas Rambam (149 (Blau), brought in Likutim in Frankel Rambam): When Yisraelim are in control, we do not allow a Ben No'ach to learn Torah until he converts. One may teach Mitzvos to Notzrim to draw them to our creed. One may not teach Yishmaelim, for they think that our Torah is not from Shomayim, and when it opposes what they fabricated, they will explain it according to their dogma. This can lead simpleminded Yisraelim to err. The Arelim (Notzrim) believe in our written Torah, just they explain it wrong. It is possible that they will retract.

      8. Question: Why do we need a source to forbid teaching Torah to Nochrim? A Nochri is forbidden to learn, so one who teaches him transgresses "V'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol"! We cannot say that this applies to their seven Mitzvos, for it is a Mitzvah to teach them their Mitzvos!

      9. Answer (Tosfos Chagigah 13a DH Ein): If there is someone else they could learn from, e.g. another Nochri, Lifnei Iver does not apply.

      10. Question: Why did Chachamim teach Torah to Nochrim? This is forbidden!

      11. Answer (Tosfos Bava Kama 38a DH Kar'u): The ruling authority forced them to teach them. We need not be Moser Nefesh to avoid teaching Nochrim. Alternatively, the Nochrim expressed desire to convert, like it says in Sifri (v'Zos ha'Berachah 344, which describes the episode slightly differently).

      i. Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 4:9): We learn from the episode and Tosfos that one may not teach Torah to Nochrim for the sake of Shalom with the Malchus, and surely not for the sake of pay. We see that people who do so cause heresy. The Torah commanded not to write Torah she'Ba'al Peh to avoid this problem. We also learn that one may not falsify Torah, even if there is danger. One must be Moser Nefesh to avoid this. Chachamim knew that telling them that a Nochri is liable but a Yisrael is exempt could spark harsh decrees. Nevertheless, it was forbidden to falsify this; falsifying Torah is like denying it. The 70 who translated the Torah for Ptolemy changed several matters; this was through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh (all made exactly the same changes). Also, they changed only the wording, not the meaning.

      ii. Maharsha (Shabbos 31a DH Omar Lei Mikra): We do not accept converts who seek wealth. Surely, the same applies to one who seeks to wear Bigdei Kohen Gadol! We must say that Hillel did not convert him until the Nochri learned that he cannot be Kohen Gadol. Even though one may not teach Torah to Nochrim, since he wanted to convert it is permitted.

      iii. Rebuttal (R. Akiva Eiger Teshuvah 41): Tosfos (Yevamos 24b DH Lo and 109b DH Ra'ah) explains that Hillel converted him because he knew that he would eventually convert Lishmah. Presumably, Tosfos did not explain like the Maharsha because one may not teach to one who seeks to convert!

      iv. Note: All agree that we may teach some things to one who comes to convert!
      We inform him of some light Mitzvos, some severe Mitzvos... we tell him that after converting he will be Chayav Kares for eating Chelev and stoned for Chilul Shabbos (Yevamos 47a). R. Akiva Eiger means that one may not teach more than is necessary for conversion.

      v. Mishneh Halachos (2:42 DH Od Hevi and DH Od Yesh): We can say that Hillel relied on hi Chachmah that the Nochrim he taught would eventually convert. There are two opinions in the Yerushalmi about whether or not Antoninus converted. According to the opinion that he did not, why was Rebbi allowed to teach him?

      (c) Poskim

      1. Gra (YD 246:22): If a woman learns Torah, she gets reward. She is no worse than a Nochri!

      2. Shiyurei Berachah (on 246:6): It is a great sin even to teach a Nochri Aleph-Beis. Some say that R. Ami said that we are not Moser Divrei Torah to Nochrim to teach that we may not sell to them Sifrei Kodesh. This is not a Diyuk, but the law is true."

      Delete
    4. Pleasse listen to the following and see the attached source material. The critical issue is mesira of Torah. Rav Tzadok also says by kabbala the issue is mesira not merely publishing material.


      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/teaching-torah-to-gentiles-rav-aharon.html

      Delete

  39. Rambam is distinguished being a goy and ben noach. Simiarly when dealing with kabbala there are a number of issues that are relevant to mediate between the apparent blanket issur and the fact that l'maaseh it is not a blanket issur.


    רמב"ם מלכים י
    הלכה ט
    עכו"ם שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה, לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד, וכן עכו"ם ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול, אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה, ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו, כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן, אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות, או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע, ואם עסק בתורה, או שבת, או חדש דבר, מכין אותו ועונשין אותו, ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג.

    הלכה י
    בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר, אין מונעין אותו לעשותה כהלכתה, ואם הביא עולה מקבלין ממנו, נתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו, ויראה לי שנותנין אותה לעניי ישראל, הואיל והוא ניזון מישראל ומצוה עליהם להחיותו, אבל העכו"ם שנתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו ונותנין אותה לעניי עכו"ם.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

    Rabbi Michael said...RaP: I'm not sure what you mean by "berabim"."

    RaP: Like when you spout the stuff on this blog to the universe...that is surely "berabim"!!!

    "If you mean that these shiurim are open to anyone and everyone in the respective Yeshivot, then no, they are most definitely not done berabim."

    RaP: That is a problem within a bigger problem (and I am not sure which is the bigger problem, teaching Kabbalah to goyim (and that is what you are doing when you post in online, it is being read and studied by EVERYONE) to teaching it in traditional Litvish yeshivas, both are wrong by any normal standard.

    "As far as "putting away their Gemarras" again I don't know what you are talking about."

    RaP: Obviously you don't because if you did you would not be holding top your mistaken position. To place study of Kabbalistic texts side by side with study of Talmudic texts, is like placing side by side study of law with study of music, they just don't mes, and the study of music will AUTOMATICALLY draw disrupt the study of the law and draw and distract the law students. try it as an experiment and you will. In Chasidish yeshivas there is not AS great interest in Gemora learning and PROFICIENCY as their is in learning Chasidus because Chasidus is like eating yummy chocolate and learning Gemora is like eating a piece of try bread and chicken. Try an experiment with your kids, offer them desert and sweet drinks and a meat and potatoes at the same time, see what they lunge for. It is human nature to go for the Kool-Aid!

    "Who said anything about ceasing a full course of Shas and Poskim?"

    RaP: It's what gonna happen automatically if you inundate any institution of Torah learning with Kabbalistic studies, it will draw away the students from the conventional learning. Even in kiruv shiurim to secular Jews, any program that offers "Kabbalah" classes is guaranteed to draw crowds, while offering more basic stuff about Parshas HaShavua or Pirkei Avos or Mishnah will draw very few attendees, it's just the nature of the human beast (soul?)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 20, 2013 at 11:43 PM

    To R Michael Tzadok, continued:

    "Unless one is enrolled specifically in a Kabbalistic Yeshiva, such aditional sedarim are only offered to those who already learn a full two sedarim in Shas and Poskim."

    RaP: So far you drew no distinctions, and it has been only after I have asked questions and pointed out problems and made the pretyy much conventional objections, that you now come back with all these so-called "differences" like "here it's 'treif', but their it's 'kosher', whole in another place it's 'parev'" when I say quite simply, teaching and learning Kaballah as an ORGANIZED endeavor, whether as shiurim to the public, or as classes in yeshivas or as offered in places just for that, is outright WRONG in the LITVISH YESHIVA VELT in terms of the Mesorah and the Halacha and you know it!

    "I'm not sure where you are coming up with some of this stuff."

    RaP: The Litvish yeshiva world.

    "First you said that these things wouldn't be permitted in these Yeshivot."

    RaP: They are NOT! They should be investigated by a committe of Gedolim who should write up a teshuva either permitting or outlawing it in the dalod amos of the bais hamedrash, mainly the DALOD AMOS OF HALACHA (and NOT "Kabbalah") and then offenders should be dealt with accordingly.

    "Then when you find out that they are,"

    RaP: They are the exceptions that prove the rule. Kabbalh is not taught to 99.999% of the student body in Litvish yeshivas. That there may be some exceptions, only proves the rule.

    "suddenly you know how they are doing them, and that it is detrimental to their Torah learning."

    RaP: Teaching of Kabbalah is wrong! Period. That should be part of your basic chinuch but evidently it is not. You seem to have taken on the role of a PR salesman for a cause, as if one were trying to sell the BESHT and Chasidus to the Misnagdim or the positions of the GRA to the Chasidim, neither camp will buy any of it, so why try to pretend you can get away with it here?

    "Perhaps it would be better if you ask clarifying questions instead of just launching into attacks."

    RaP: And perhaps it would be better for everyone reading your comments that you represent a radical break with the traditional way of teaching and publicizing Torah and make it sound so "normal" when it is not and will get you into trouble, much as the RAMBAM warned against learning PRDS, that arba nichnesu lepardes...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Teaching of Kabbalah is wrong! Period.

    Huh? Since when? The GR"A, the Nefesh HaChaim, on down to Rav Shach, Rav S.Z. Auerbach... the Gedolim have ruled on this issue and have found quite different than what you are claiming is the norm.

    Really you are going to bring a Rambam... that's all the support that you have. A Rambam.

    You write a three lengthy responses and the only actual source you have for anything you spout is a single Rambam. What about the GR"A, the father of the modern Litvak movement, that said one cannot understand halakha if he does not understand Kabbalah? Or the Nefesh HaChaim... or... or...
    Last I checked, in succession, you had Rav S.Z. Auerbach ZTz"L(who not only was the president of a Kabbalistic Yeshiva, but also taught Kabbalah in his own Yeshiva), Rav Shach ZTz"L, and Rav Eliashiv ZTz"L, all three were fine with Kabbalah being taught in Yeshivot. Who are you to come along and say these three Litvak Poskei HaDor were wrong and you alone are right? You know better than the GR"A?

    Additional Kabbalah studies have become so common in Litvak Yeshivot that the JPost did an article on it. You think these Roshei Yeshivot(who make up those Gedolim you mention) don't know what is going on in their own Yeshivot?

    As far as teaching Kabbalah online. I'm sorry you think that, but the only reason you do is because you are ignorant of Kabbalah in general. All that I did was discuss whether there was a machloket in Hashkafa between the Arizal and the GR"A. Rav Triebitz seems to think that there is, I disagree, and so we analyzed, from a hashkafic point of view the relevant texts. That is not teaching Kabbalah. It is far less revealing than what several other Rabbis have put out with Haskamot by the Gedolei HaDor.

    It appears that you really don't know what the opinion of the Gedolim is on this, and you are just trying to make it up as you go.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.