what if acceptance of the Zohar is polytheistic AZ? there is no guarantee that Gedolim are infallible. Even the Sanhedrin was not infallible. The rationalists claim that the sefirot system is polytheistic. In the days of the Neviim, majority of Israel were idolaters. Hence, "heresy" agasint idolatry or syncretism is actually the true way to go.
RMT - Saadia Gaon rejected the concept of gilgul / reincarnation. Rambam mocked practices such as amulets and permutations of G-d's Name, and included Amulets in his Hilchot AZ, as was his appraisal of astrology. I once asked R' Riskin (who is Mekubal) about Astrology, which the Rambam forbids, but he Kabbalists promote. His answer was "the Zohar Kodesh is accepted". In other words, what Rambam called AZ is accepted by Kabbalah.
I don't know that R' Riskin is a Mekubal, but the ZOhar does not teach astrology, nor do any legitimate Kabbalists.
As far as Tzeruf, that is taught clearly even in the Sefer Yetzirah. Same with Amulets(which have their source in the Gemara). The Rambam calls neither A"Z(Has V'Shalom), but he clearly was not a receptor of the tradition and so did not understand them. That is unless you want to believe Avraham Abulafia.
ח איזה הוא מעונן--אלו נותני העיתים, שאומרין באצטגנינות יום פלוני רע, יום פלוני טוב, יום פלוני ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה פלונית, שנה פלונית או חודש פלוני רע לדבר פלוני.
ט אסור לעונן, אף על פי שלא עשה מעשה אלא הודיע אותן הכזבים שהסכלים מדמין שהן דברי אמת ודברי חכמה. וכל העושה מעשה מפני האצטגנינות, וכיוון מלאכתו או הליכתו באותו העת שקבעו הוברי שמיים--הרי זה לוקה, שנאמר "ולא תעוננו" (ויקרא יט,כו). וכן האוחז את העיניים, ומדמה בפני הרואים שעשה מעשה תימהון והוא לא עשה--הרי זה בכלל מעונן, ולוקה.
"...do not let occur to your mind the vain imaginings of the writers of QAMIOT or what names you may hear from them or may find in their stupid books, names that they have invented, which are not indicative of any notion whatsoever, but which they call the names and of which they think that they necessitate holiness and purity and work miracles. All these are stories that it is not seemly for a perfect man to listen to, much less to believe."
R. Tzadok, do you have any comment on the Rambam's position?
The Arizal says the same thing concerning amulets in several places, the first that comes to mind is Shaar Ruah HaKodesh 10d. He makes two rather strong statements. First that all of the kamiot that have come down to us(or at least his generation) were filled with errors. Second that using them was an actual Avoda Zarah. The Rambam actually permits their use in his Mishneh Torah, the Arizal forbids it.
So I am not sure what exactly you are looking for. As I have said before, there is nothing in the Kabbalah in general, or in the Kitvei HaAri in particular, that contradicts the halakhot of the Rambam. In some places the Arizal is actually stricter.
Hakham Ovadia Yosef, shlita, clearly paskened that those who embrace historical fact and reject the Zohar are not heretics. He says that since the Zohar was concealed for a long time, and the Darda'im raised many objections which, to their mind, showed it to contradict the Torah, one cannot rate them as heretics.
Interesting to also note that Hakham Ovadia was also quick to expunge kabbalistic practices of the Ben Ish Chai and others that he felt went against normative halakhic practice.
It is also interesting to note that R' Yaakov Emden embraced a historical view of the Zohar, as did the Chatam Sofer:
"And that which you wrote, that the rav said in the name Adoni, Mori v'Rabbi {=my teacher} zatzal, I did not hear this from his mouth. And perhaps this rav permitted for himself based on that which Chazal said {Pesachim 112a} 'If you wish to be strangled, be hanged on a large tree'. And don't condemn him for this. Behold, the sefer Mitpachat Sefarim is found in your neighborhood, from Moreinu HaRav Yaakov ben Tzvi {=the Yaavetz, Rav Yaakov Emden}, and you will find there that the prophet za"l said a great thing in this matter, which will cause astonishment in those who see it, and it is sufficient to the wise [ודי לחכימא / ודי לחכימא ברמיזא]."
(Shut Chasam Sofer 6:59)
The Dordai shita on this issue is not isolated, and seems to most definitely be a valid, if not the only valid, approach on the matter.
Rav Ovadia was not quick to expunge Kabbalistic pracitices, his primary shita in most(but not all of his works) was to return to the psak of Maran Yosef Karo(who himself was highly Kabbalistic). There are some rare exceptions to that, but that is the stam way of explainin Rav Ovadiah's Shitta.
Second Rav Ovadia wrote a commentary on the Ben Ish Hai called Halikhot Olam, in which he not only upholds the various Kabbalistic minhagim but defends them. Further he was very supportive of halakhic work Divrei Shalom by Rav Apjin, who elucidated all of the traditional customs of the Yeshivat HaMekubalim Beit El and the Rashash. He is close with Rav Yaakov Hillel, Rav Beniyahu Shmueli, Rav David Batzri and a number of other Mekubalim who he often has speak at his motzei shabbat lectures.
As far as his Teshuva saying that they are not Kofrim, he also doesn't say that they are correct either. The Ramban and the Ravaad said the same thing about folks that believed that G-d had a body. Neither intended to infer that such a belief was correct, just that since it was an honest mistake they shouldn't be counted as kofrim or ovdei zarah.
Finally using Rav Ovadia as a support for a rejection of the Zohar is absurd considering he co-wrote and co-signed a Teshuva requesting every Jew to read at least a page of the Zohar a day.
I am by no means claiming that R' Yosef is a Dor Dai.
I am saying that he has defended Dor Daim from the charge of heresy leveled against them by others, such as the Hazon Ish.
My views on the Zohar are best summarized by the Hazon Ish's cousin, the brilliant Talmudist R' Shaul Lieberman, zatzal: "Nonsense (the Zohar) is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship."
Rabbi Berel Wein quotes direct statements of Rav Emden, Chasam Sofer, Teshuva Mahava, and Rabbi Moshe Deleon's wife as stating that the Zohar isn't authentic from Shimon Bar Yochai. Are they all heretics as well? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeQmzJjGts
"Interesting to also note that Hakham Ovadia was also quick to expunge kabbalistic practices of the Ben Ish Chai and others that he felt went against normative halakhic practice. "
that probably has nothing to do with rav ovadia's (sh'itqeh l'refuah shlema) opinion on the veracity of the zohar. he simply has his rules about the rules of psak and the zohar doesn't overrule a rambam or shulhan aruch.
I'll defer to Jacob Katz and others on the extent to which the Zohar influenced the Shulchan Aruch.
The point is that the Zohar's acceptance as Torah she baal peh was never universal.
I am not saying that R' Yosef is a huge supporter of the Dordai shita, but he believes their belief to be legitimate enough to not render these people apikorsim.
I am looking right now also at the Sefer Yesod haEmunah, authored by Jacob Kassin (who famously spearheaded the ban against converts in the NYC Syrian community), where he says that Mori Qafeh (after his death, mind you) must fast 300 fasts in atonement for his "sins," since 300 is the gematria for aish (when, in fact, 301, is the gematria).
As I explained before the Sefirot of Sefer Yitzirah that Rav Saadia Gaon gave a perush are vastly different form the Kabbalistic Sefirot. The Mekubalim simply hijacked the term for their own use and then say... you see even Rav Saadia Gaon refers to them. (sic)
You keep making these broad pronouncements without offering any proof. Rav Saadia Gaon, obviously believes the Sefirot to be a Bechina of the creation, as do the Mekubalim.
If you can offer a solid proof that they hold differing views, with cited sources than please do. Otherwise, your pronouncements are rather pointless.
Rav Kafach wrote an entire sefer to prove it... learn it... I will be happy to see if there is an online version (I have the sefer in print) and provide...
Even for the Kuzari, the Sefirot are just numbers. So they have evolved into something much bigger.
Now TT, cites the Rivash which is difficult to deny. R Kapach , on the other hand, can be attacked easily, because he was the grandson of the great R Yachya Kapach, the founder of the Dordaim.
Do you have a source in the Kuzari? As far as Rav Kapach, we are talking Rav Yachya Kapach and his sefer Milchemet HaShem, which was denounced as heresy, and had a rejoinder written against it by the leading Yemenite Rabbanim that disproved his sefer point by point.
If Rav Saadia Gaon was the only Gaon to mention the sefirot you might have a somewhat valid point. I am assuming you have never read his commentary, because he clearly states that the Sephirot are more than numbers, but that is an aside point.
We have a Geonic legacy of Kabbalah. Of which Rav Saadia Gaon's commentary is only one sample.
Oh and as far as TorahTruth, his blogger account has only been active for a month, so, well, it appears that he is just a troll.
You mean the Rivash that wrote that one should not learn Kabbalah UNLESS one can learn it from a proper Kabbalist so as to not become confused? How is that different from the Ben Ish Hai(introduction to Daat U'Tevunah) or Rav Ovadia Yosef(Yehave Daat 4:47) or the Mekubalim in general?
Way to misquote the Rivash. He says that in the name of one of the philosophers, whom he does ridicule as well as those who learn from them, most especially Aristotle, so I guess that would include the Rambam. However is only problem with Kabbalah, in his own words: "ולזה אני אומר, שאין לסמוך בדברים כאלו אלא מפי חכם מקובל"
Is this what we are to expect from you? Half truths and misquotes?
Half truths? Misquotes? You left out the last 2 words of the T'shuvah that clearly show you what The Rivash's opinion was..
אני אומר, שאין לסמוך בדברים כאלו אלא מפי חכם מקובל
VADAYAN ULAY.. and only then MAYBE...
Who is the חכם מקובל that you can only MAYBE learn from? Rabbi Michael Tzadok? no. Rav Ovadiyah? no. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel? no. Not even the Ramchal or the Ari... He is talking about people of the stature of the Ramban... and even then Adayan Ulay! But the Ramban said... Adayan Ulay!
Now who is being dishonest and misquoting?
Yes, the Rivash did say this in the name of a philosopher, but clearly one he was sympathetic to... Nowhere does the Rivash say not learn it from a חכם מקובל "so as to not become confused", that is your insertion and that reasoning certainly does not jive with the rest of the T'shuva.
The same Rivash said that his Rebbi the RaN told him in private (notice that even then it was challenging to have this position but that did not phase the RaN) That the Ramban Z"L forced himself too much to believe in Kabblah.. is that the same as the Ben Is Hai? Dishonesty my friend.
Who is the חכם מקובל that you can only MAYBE learn from? Rabbi Michael Tzadok? no. Rav Ovadiyah? no. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel? no. Not even the Ramchal or the Ari...
Really? How do you know? Especially as the Mekubalim have said that there is an Aliyah dorot in Sod, and Rav Triebitz brings in some very big names that there is even an Aliyah Dorot in Nigleh?
Yes, the Rivash did say this in the name of a philosopher, but clearly one he was sympathetic to... Nowhere does the Rivash say not learn it from a חכם מקובל "so as to not become confused", that is your insertion and that reasoning certainly does not jive with the rest of the T'shuva. Try again. He brings the statement of the Philosopher(as noted he was against philosophers) and then goes on to disprove the philosophers statment. So I wouldn't call that sympathetic.
As far as the confusion bit, I did not say those were his exact words, however he starts with the idea that people are confused over the Sephirot. Brings the words of the philosopher, disproves them, and then says only learn from a Mekubal who is a Hakham(and then only maybe).
So let's deal with the part that you seem so frustrated that I left out. Then only maybe. Do you know what happened when the Chida approached the Rashash to learn Kabbalah? He was turned down. Not every person is fit to learn Kabbalah for various reasons, and sheer brilliance has nothing to do with it. For that matter, the same thing happened when Maran Yosef Karo sought to be the student of the Arizal. He would fall asleep or become distracted in the shiurim, and the Ari told him that Kabbalah was not meant for him.
So the meaning of the Rivash is indeed quite clear first one must only learn form a Mekubal who is a Hakham. Second even then, does not mean that one should learn, that depends upon the individual.
So now this is very interesting... I have no idea who Rabbi Triebitz is (google found a Rabbi Meir Triebitz connected to the Baal T'shuvah Yeshiva Mechon Shlomo, perhaps one and the same) but he is saying that people TODAY (I assume you include you and him) are greater in knowledge of Kabbalah than the Ramban, the Ari or even Rabi Shimon Bar Yocha9 (according to you who thinks he wrote the Zohar). That is very interesting indeed, if I understand you correctly. That my friend speaks volumes!
Now lets follow that line of reasoning... shouldn't it follow as well that we today can argue on their opinion as it relates to Kabbalah because, in your words "there is an Aliya Dorot in Sod". So since we understand "Sod better than they did, as we are in a latter Dor, we should be able to disagree with them... So whats the problem, L'shitascha?
No not according to him. You have this written in the Zohar, you have it written in the works of the Kabbalists, an you have it written most recently very explicitly in the Leshem, by Rav Shlomo Eliashiv, in his sefer Biurim Drush Igulim V'Yosher Anaf 5 note 7, he also brings the words of the GR"A and the Nefesh HaChaim and numerous others saying such.
The Chiddush of Rav Triebitz is that this also occurs in the study of Nigleh(which is in contradiction to the Leshem).
Now as to whether we can argue on them, that is a no. We can't. One would have to be a true Mekubal(which neither you nor I are) in order to even claim we understand them fully and accurately let alone to begin to say we have a deeper understanding of some aspect. Further to that point, even those who did claim to have a deeper understanding of some aspect(the Rashash, and Leshem for example) said it was forbidden to actually contradict them.
Oh and I never said the Rashbi actually wrote the Zohar, it is pretty clear that he didn't and I don't know of any Mekubalim that hold that he actually wrote anything other than the First Mishnah which is the Sifra D'Tzinuta and a couple of other pages of the Zohar. The rest was written by his students and students of his students, until the end of the Geonic era, as Rav Elijah Delmedigo who claimed the Zohar was 300yrs old(in his time).
So let me understand this... according to you (L'shitasicha)a "great" Mekubal today has a deeper understanding of Kabbalah than the Mekuballim of the past (presumably even amongst the Rishonim that were Mekuballim), but yet you claim we have a Mesorah on Kabbalah. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that?
How can we know something today that was not known in the past and yet at the same time received that very same thing in a transmission of Mesorah?
I must say, one needs to be a very great Mekubal to understand the "logic" in that!
the contradiction is that al. most by definition, mesora is not perfect. things get lost. therefore it is impossible that today we understand better than in those in days of yore.
unless of course one believes that there has been revelations from time to time (ari"zl, the baal shem tov, etc). those of us who think that prophecy ended way back when don't accept these stories.
Ben, thank you for being a voice of intelligent discussion. How then do you handle the Leshem here? He is not relying on prophecy whatsoever(and by the way, while prophecy ceased Ruah HaKodesh didn't though he is not relying on that either). But rather it is a progression of mesora and the world. If you don't mind read the Leshem(I know it's a bit lengthy) and let me know what you think.
So let me understand this... according to you (L'shitasicha)a "great" Mekubal today has a deeper understanding of Kabbalah than the Mekuballim of the past (presumably even amongst the Rishonim that were Mekuballim), but yet you claim we have a Mesorah on Kabbalah. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that?
How can we know something today that was not known in the past and yet at the same time received that very same thing in a transmission of Mesorah?
I must say, one needs to be a very great Mekubal to understand the "logic" in that!
=====================
sorry but that is a misunderstanding of mesorah.
See Shut HaRid regarding why it is possible to argue with earlier generations.
Bereishis Rabbah (19:6): matters which were not revealed to Moshe were revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his cheverim.
Tanchuma [Buber] (Chukas #24): Rav Acha said,"Things not revealed to Moses were revealed to Rabbi Akiva. 'His eyes behold every precious thing' (Job 28:10)-this refers to Rabbi Akiva.
רב צדוק (ספר דברי סופרים ליקוטי אמרים - ספר יהושע ד"ה ואמנם עמוד מא.) ואמנם עדיין לא יצאו לפועל כולם בעת מתן תורה וכמו שאמרו ז"ל ביבמות [ס"ב א'] שמהשך יציאת כולם לפועל בעולם הוא עד ביאת ב"ד, והיינו כי אף על פי שכבר ניתנה תורה ונתגלית כולם בעולם מכ"מ אותם חכמות גנוזות בהעלם בדברי תורה, כי תורה סתומה ניתנה רק שהיא כוללת כולם דוגמת האב שיש במוחו כל אותם טיפין שעתיד להוציא ולהזריע מהם נפשות רבות אבל מכ"מ לא הזריע עדיין אלא שהוא כוללם בהעלם, וכך התורה שבכתב היא כוללת בהעלם כל מיני חכמה שיש בחכמה של השם יתברך שרצה שתתגלה לברואים, וכמו שאמרו ז"ל בתענית (ט'.) ליכא מידי דלא רמיזי באורייתא ואמרו בבת קול צ"ב מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי כו', שכל מין חכמה דאמרי אינשי רק שהוא חכמה אמיתית ושפת אמת היא רמוזה בתורה הכל אבל הכל ברמז והעלם, רק אחר כך בהמשך הדורות היא יוצאה לאור על ידי חכמי דור ודור ודורשיו ועל ידי כל הנפשות פרטיות אשר כ"א מחדש דבר חכמה אשר אליה הוכן בפרט, וזהו הנקרא תורה שבע"פ שהוא מה שחדשו סופרים ונובעים מלבות בני ישראל ומה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, ואז"ל בפ"ק דברכות (ה'.) ובמגילה [י"ט ב']
של"ה (במדבר דברים פרשת חוקת תורה אור (ב) ד' הנעלם מכל חי, רק 'רשימו', פרה אדומה וכיוצא בה, הדק היטב הדק, נעלמה לעין כל חי זולת למשה רבינו ע"ה ולר' עקיבא. כדאיתא ברבות (במ"ר יט,ו) ויקחו אליך פרה. א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא: אמר לו הקב"ה למשה, לך אני מגלה טעם פרה אבל לאחרים חקה. דאמר רב הונא: כתיב והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון, יקפאון כתיב, דברים המכוסים מכם בעולם הזה עתידים להיות צופים לעולם הבא, כהדין סמיא דצפי, דכתיב והולכתי עורים בדרך לא ידעו. וכתיב אלה הדברים עשיתים ולא עזבתים, אעשה אין כתיב כאן אלא עשיתים, שכבר עשיתי לר' עקיבא וחביריו, דברים שלא נגלו למשה נגלו לר' עקיבא וחביריו וכל יקר ראתה עינו, עד כאן. ותמוה הלא כתיב (דברים לד,י) : לא קם כמשה. ועוד, מה שדרש באילך סותר לזה. ונראה בודאי השגת משה רבינו ע"ה ביותר, וזהו ענין כל הפרות נקראו על שם משה, והוא על דרך מה שאמרו כל הפרות מקדשין מפרתו של משה (במ"ר יט,ד) , כי עיקר המצות סוד ידיעת כונה, ולא ידע איש ערכה כמשה, על כן פרתו של משה היתה מקדשת כולם וק"ל. וכדי לבאר המדרש נבאר תיבת חק ותיבת גזירה, ושניהם יצדקו בבחינה ראשונה הנקראת רשימה, סוד הרצון שפירשתי. כבר אמרנו רוחניות המדות הם הנשמות, חלק אלוה המאיר בנפש הצדיק, בגין לאשתמודע אלקותו כדאיתא בזוהר. והנה לעצם הנשמה שתי בחינות, בחינה עליונה מתאחדת באמתתו יתברך, ובבחינה תחתונה אוחזת בצדיק. והם נרמזים בשתי תיבות אלו המוזכרים בזוהר, לאשתמודע אלקותו, אלקותו בחינה ראשונה, לאשתמודע בחינה שניה. ובחינה ראשונה נקרא חק, הוא אמתיות הנצחיית חק ולא יעבור, ובחינה לאשתמודע נקרא גזירה גזורה, ונלקח מאתו יתברך, ושניהם בחלק הרשימו הנקרא רצון. וכשאומר חקה חקקתי, תיבת חקקתי הם ניצוצי ההשגה מבחינת גזירה נתפשט לר' עקיבא ע"ה. והכל בסוד רשימו. והנה בחינת חק יותר בהעלם מבחינת גזירה. וזהו סוד נתגלה לרבי עקיבא דברים שלא נתגלה למשה רבינו ע"ה, ולא אמר יותר ממה שנתגלה למשה רבינו ע"ה, דאז היה משמע יותר מעלה, אלא הענין בבחינת הגילוי היה דבק רבי עקיבא יותר, ומשה רבינו ע"ה היה יותר דבק בבחינת הנעלם. משל למה הדבר דומה, מלאך משיג יותר מלאך ממה שמשיג את האדם, ויותר משיג את המלאך ממה שמשיג אדם, והאדם משיג אדם יותר ממה שמשיג האדם את המלאך, ויותר ממה שמשיג המלאך את האדםַ. הרי חק וגזירה למשה רבינו ע"ה ולר' עקיבא, דהיינו חקה חקקתי וגזרתי. ולישראל חק קבוע במקומו לא זז, אלא כל הבחינות בנעלם, אין להם רשות להרהר, רצה לומר משום במופלא ממך אל תדרוש כו', לא כמובן כפשטן של דברים, אין רשות להרהר אחריו למה ציוה דבר שאין לו טעם. והענין הזה על דרך מה שפירשו המפרשים, כי חק הוא לישראל, אבל משפט רוצה לומר טעם הדבר. לאלהי יעקב. בתיבת לאלהי רומז למשה רבינו ע"ה הנקרא איש אלהים, הוא בחינת אלקוחו דלעיל, ואח"כ יעקב רמוז בשם עקיבא, ו'א הנוספת אלהים. והנה משה עקיבא שוים במספר קטן י"ב, כי 'זה' משה האיש. אכן מעלת משה על רבי עקיבא במספר גדול כזה, ידוע שם של יב"ק, הוא מספר ג' שמות שנתגלה למשה, שם אהי"ה ושם יהו"ה לו נודע, וזה זכרי אדנ"י, אלו ג' שמות יב"ק. גם בשם יהו"ה עצמו שבו נבואת משה, מספר יב"ק כזה: כ"ף ו"ו. עוד מעלת משה רבינו ע"ה, הזכירו רז"ל נ' שערי בינה נמסרו למשה רבינו ע"ה (ר"ה כא,ב) , ומנ' שערי בינה נמשך שם של ע"ב מ'חסד' שבו בקע הים. וכתסיר 'א' על שם השער הנו"ן שנעלם ממשה רבינו ע"ה, ישאר גם כן כאן ע"א וזהו ע"א סנהדרין עם אהרן, ומשה רבינו ע"ה על גביהן שקול כנגד כולן, כדאיתא בפרק קמא דסנהדרין (טז,ב) , וזהו סוד ויעבר מעבר יב"ק. כי יעקב אבינו ע"ה כמשה רבינו ע"ה, אלא שזה לגאו וזה לבר כדאיתא בזוהר. וסוד ויעבור ע"ב וי"ו, ונשאר ע"א כדפירשתי, ועוד יב"ק כדפירשתי. ובאלה נתרומם משה רבינו ע"ה. אמנם רבי עקיבא שהיה ענף ממנו נרמזו בשמו, תצרף ע"א יב"ק אותיות עקיבא ודו"ק.
(2-1) ספר שערי הלשם חלק ב - סימן ז - משה רבינו ע"ה שהם באמת מחוברים ומיוחדים בהתורה וכולם כלולים בה. אך משום שכל חידוש וחידוש הנה יש לו עתו וזמנו אימתי שיתגלה ואי אפשר שיתגלה מקודם. וכמ"ש בשמו"ר פ' כ"ח סי' ו' וכנ"ל סי' ד'. ולכן הם נעלמים עתה ואינם מחוברים אליה וכלולים בה אלא ע"י קשירה דוקא. כי ע"י שאני קושר אותם ונעשו סמוכים בתורה עכ"פ הנה עי"ז נרשמים בה ונכללים בה בהעלם ויהיה אפשר לו לר' עקיבא עי"ז לחדש ולמצוא אותם רמוזים בה ויתגלו על ידו אח"כ שהם כלולים בתורה ממש. אמנם הוא כי הנה עיקר עומק ענין הקשירה היה רק לפי גודל רוממות השגת משה רבינו ע"ה בעת עלייתו למרום והסתכל באותן הכתרים במציאותם אשר למעלה למעלה. ובאשר שידע הקב"ה שעתידה התורה להתגשם ע"י חטא העגל ולהתלבש בלבוש דהעוה"ז ואין לאותן הענינים הגבוהים שהם הכתרים הנז' התלות וכלילות בהתורה עתה אלא בהכרח ודוחק והוא ענין הקשרים שקשרן הקב"ה כדי לתלות אותם בתורה עכ"פ וזהו מה שראה מרבע"ה שהקב"ה קושר כתרים לאותיות. והוא כל מציאת אור הגנוז שהוא כלול בתורה ועומד בה גם עתה לעולם ע"י אותן הקשרים וע"ד הנשמה לנשמה שהיא קשורה בהגוף. אך באשר שלא רצה הקב"ה לגלה לו מענין התגשמות והתלבשות התורה שע"י חטא העגל. בעת שעלה משה למרום לקבל את הלוחות הראשונות. ולכן הסתיר ממנו אז את התשובה הברורה הזה והלביש אותה בהתשובה הנז' שהיא באמת ג"כ רק ע"פ אותה הכוונה. כי אלולא חטא העגל היה התורה גלויה לכל מעת נתינתה כי היה מתעלה כל המציאות כולה למדרגתה שקודם החטא והיה עומדת התורה כולה גלויה באור הגנוז לעולם וכמו שכתבנו בכמה מקומות מדברינו. ועל זה היה באמת עומק כוונת משרבע"ה באמרו מי מעכב על ידיך. ור"ל ליתן את התורה כולו בכל הגילוי דאור הגנוז עצמו. כי הסתכל משרבע"ה באותן האורות דהכתרים וראה שאין להם התלות בתורה כי אין להם תפיסה והתלבשות כלל אלא שהקב"ה קושר אותם לעשותם סמוכים בתורה ולתלות אותם...
(2-1) ספר שערי הלשם חלק ב - סימן ז - משה רבינו ע"ה שאמרו דברים שלא נגלו למרבע"ה נגלו לר' עקיבא וחביריו. והשמיענו בזה שהם השיגו אותן הדברים ג"כ אשר השיג מרבע"ה אלא שהוא רק במציאותן אשר למטה. אשר שם הם מגולים יותר. ולכן היו תופסים אותן הענינים בהתגלות. משא"כ משרבע"ה אשר הוא הסתכל על אותן הדברים עצמן יותר למעלה אשר שם אין להם השתוות עם שום כלי ולבוש וגוף כלל ואין להם תפיסה בדיבור ולכן היה השגתו בהם רק בהעלם. אך עכ"פ הוא כי השגת מרבע"ה היה גדולה מכל הדורות הבאים אחריו. וכמ"ש ברע"מ פינחס רכ"ג א' בפסוק אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני דאפי' לבינה לית בר נש בעלמא דיכיל לסלקא בר ממשה כו' ע"ש. ובזהר בראשית ל"א ע"ב כי משרבע"ה מעת מתן תורה ולהלאה היה משתמש כל ימיו באור הגנוז וזהו הענין דקרני הוד ע"ש. וכן בפ' בשלח נ"ג ב' בענין נשמת מרבע"ה ע"ש בארוכה. ובפ' תצא ר"פ ע"א דמשרבע"ה הוא לכל החכמים הבאים אחריו כאור השמש המאיר בלבנה וכוכבים. שכל אורם הוא רק ממנו. ואורו הוא בבחי' אור השמש נגד כל הדורות הבאים אחריו. ואורם נגדו הוא רק בבחי' אור הלבנה וכוכבים. אך מה שאמרו דברים שלא נגלו למרבע"ה נגלו לר"ע וחביריו הנה הוא רק משום שהם השיגו אותן הדברים יותר למטה הרבה אשר שם יש אפשרית לתפוס אותם גם בהיות הנשמה בעוה"ז ולכן בא להם הדברים בהתגלות וכנז':
By the way,the Ohr HaChayim explains the Midrash that there were things given to Rabi Akiva that were not given to Moshe is only in how we find the the Torah Shbaal Peh in the the Torah Shb'ksav, but certainly Moshe knew all of the Torah in its totality M'Sinai.
By the way,the Ohr HaChayim explains the Midrash that there were things given to Rabi Akiva that were not given to Moshe is only in how we find the the Torah Shbaal Peh in the the Torah Shb'ksav, but certainly Moshe knew all of the Torah in its totality M'Sinai. =============== strange that you claim that there is only one explanation - what do you do with the other explanation that I cited?
I read the לשם. Ok. actually there is a similar idea in secular thought that ideas, scientific advancements aren't really "discovered"; rather, they are revealed. progress in any given area advances and people are able to push the envelope a bit further. it wasn't that darwin discovered the idea of evolution, but that biology had progressed to the point where coming up with that idea was obtainable. had darwin not taken the voyage, someone else would have come up with the idea (and in fact, someone else did, just like there were multiple people who revealed calculus, the telephone, etc).
however we don't say that in halacha; we say the exact opposite. were someone today to claim a greater understanding of halacha than rav yosef karo he would be laughed at at best, excommunicated at worst.
yes, i know about ruach haqodesh. unfortunately that is a buzz word which has little or no meaning and is used to justify everything from telling people for which party to vote for or which books to read to making claims of revelations that overturn the rishonim.
Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - medrashim and aggadata are a regular source for understanding hashkofa.
what is yours based on?
=======================================
I base my Hashfafa on Torah M'Sinai which Rav SR Hirsch says that Agada is not from Sinai (See Collected Writings Vol 9. But you need not look at Rav Hirsch, See the Mevo HaTalmud from Rav Shmuel HaNagid at the end of Mesechas Brachos, who says that anything in the Talmud that is not related to a Mitzva is defined as Agada. He goes on to explain that Agada is people people applying their ideas from P'sukim and therefore only accept "Ma Sheyaaleh Al HaDaas" - what is reasonable to you, "Vhashaar, Ein Somchin Alav" and the rest you do not rely upon. These are not my words, they are the words of Rav Shmuel HaNagid and can be found in any Vilna Shas!
Rav Shmuel HaNagid was not alone... it is very similar to what none other than the Ramban says in his Vikuach where he compares Agada to the sermons of the "Hegmon" and "Me shrerozeh Lmaamin Bazah Tov, Ume SHlo Retzeh Lmaamin Bazah, Lo Yazik"! Whomever chooses to believe in them, good and whoever doesn't will not be harmed".
BTW, you will find a very similar position taken by Rabainu Chananel in Chagiga 5a regarding Bebi Bar Abaya and Sheidim, Eyan Sham.
Now lets be clear, there is no question that Agada is part of our Torah HaKedosha and every word of Chazal is Kulo Kadosh. The question is, does it have the same status as the rest of Torah... clearly according ti these and most (if not all) Rishonim the answer is no. (See again Vikuach HaRamban, Shlosha Chelkai Torah etc...).
So yes, Medrashim and Agada are a regular "source" for understanding Hashkafa... but what they mean and taking them literally is quite another matter.
You have a very strange criticism that I ignored the unerstanding of the Ohr Hachaim and cited the words of a kabbalist instead. The Ohr HaChaim himself was a kabbalist! However he did make some comments that are very relevant to this discussion.
Ohr HaChaim (Devarim 12:28): The Zohar (Vayikra 123a) states that a person’s sins cause the gates of Torah understanding to be locked before him. The Arizal stated that the gate to understanding Torah is the questions which stand before a person. These questions are produced by the klipah which are the results of a person’s sins. That is why this verse says that a person should observe the Torah and understand it. In other words if you want to ascertain the truth of the Torah and to understand it then it is critical that the commandments be fully observed. Proper observance of the mitzvos is critical to be able to understand the Torah.
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 11:43): We find that our Sages (Pesachim 49b) said, That the ignorant masses are detestable and their daughters are vermin … All the Sages words were said with ruach hakodesh and are very profound and deep.
But more relevant to my point is his comment regarding the fact that his explanations sometimes contradict Chazal i.e., the mesora.
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:3): Vayikra Rabbah (22:1) states that Scripture, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada and even what a faithful student would say in the future - were all taught to Moshe on Sinai. It is clear from this medrash that permission has been granted for Torah scholars to explain and interpret in various ways and for the diligent students to provide new insights in expounding verses - to the degree that it can be justified with the verse.
Torah Truth your answer regarding the use of medrashim for understanding hashkofa is simply incoherent.
TT wrote:
So yes, Medrashim and Agada are a regular "source" for understanding Hashkafa... but what they mean and taking them literally is quite another matter. [no argument with that]
but TT also said
I'm sorry but you can't bring a proof from a Midrash.[but why not since you said that they are a source for understanding hashkfa?]
So which is it? - midrash can't be used a a proof or that they can but they are open to different interpretations which is what we also find regarding halahca?
The clear fact and understanding is that medrashim and agadata can be used as proof for hashkofa - whether you hold that they were from Sinai or not. In the same way the Talmud brings proof from various intepretations and dikyukim - even though it is apparent that the drasha is man made.
Firstly, I should thank you for providing this blog as an open exchange of authentic Torah ideas... you should be commended!
Now to your question... I say that you can't bring proof from the Midrash because I have no idea what the Midrash means or if it is actually as it says. So when you use as a "proof" that Kabbalah should be accepted today because our Mekuballim are greater than even the Ramban (As Michael Tzadok said) even when the Rivash warns us "Vadayan Ulay"... You want to prove this from a Midrash that says that Rabie Akiva was given Torah that Moshe was not... That is not a proof. Why?? Because as a Medrah/Agada I don't have the tools (nor does anyone else) to know if that is meant literally or not? I have every right to say that it is not literal and the Midrash is simply using this type of statement to express the greatness of Rabi Akiva and nothing more.
Even look in the LASHON used by the Ramban in the Vikuach... when presented with an Agada that seemed to indicate that Moshiach was already born... what does he say? Ani Maamin Biagada Zo Aval Raya He ...
He says I don;t believe this Agada! That doesn't mean it is C"V Divarim Bitalim, just means that it could be an exaggeration but here to teach an important lesson.
So yes, it is valuable and important to our Hashkafa provided you understand what it is telling you. As I read this Midrash, it is telling me how great Rabi Akiva was.
Ramban (Dispute): We have three types of books. The first is the Bible and everyone believes in it with perfect faith. The second is called Talmud and it is a commentary on the mitzvos of the Torah. The Bible has 613 commandments and there is not one which is not explained in the Talmud. We believe in it concerning the explanations of the mitzvos. There is a third type of book which is called medrash i.e., sermons. It is comparable to a preacher getting up and giving a sermon and some listening liked it and recorded it. Concerning medrash - it is fine if one wishes to believe them. However there is no loss if one doesn’t want to believe them.
רמב"ן (ספר הויכוח מלחמות ה' בכתבי רמב"ן כרך א' דף שח ס' לט): אנחנו יש לנו שלשה מינין של ספרים. האחד הוא הבב"ליה, וכולנו מאמינים בו אמונה שלמה. והשני הוא נקרא תלמוד, והוא פירוש למצות התורה, כי בתורה יש תרי"ג מצות ואין בה אחת שלא נתפרשה בתלמוד, ואנחנו מאמינים בו בפירוש המצות. עוד יש לנו ספר שלישי הנקרא מדרש, רוצה לומר שרמ"וניש. כמו שאם יעמוד ההגמון ויעשה שרמון. ואחד מן השועמין היה טוב בעיניו וכתבו. וזה הספר מי שיאמין בו טוב, ומי שלא יאמין בו לא יזיק...
where did you get your distinction of believe vs proof?
In fact the Chasam Sofer agrees with the Ramban and says
Chasam Sofer (O. H. 1:16): The Ramban has stated in his debate with the apostate that the obligation to believe agada and medrashim only applies to those found in the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud. The validity of other medrashim can be accepted or rejected.
1) So where is your distinction between statements in the Talmud which can be used as proofs or at least support and those which can't because their are different ways of understanding it.
2) please explain why hashkofa is different than halachic statements in the gemora which are disputed?
I don't have the Kisvey HaRamban in front of me but if you look before this section you will see where he says Ayni Maamin B'Agada zo...
I don't know what you mean by.. "where did you get your distinction of believe vs proof"?
Lets back up for a minute... I quoted the Rivash who said "Don't learn Kabbalah unless it is from a Chacham MeKubal"... he then ends the T'shuva with "Viadayan Ulay" only then maybe... I said who are the Chachamim that the Rivash is talking about? Not me or you or R' Hillel etc... he was talking about contemporaries of the Ramban or maybe even the Ramban... Vadayan Ulay. Michael Tzadok said that that is not true because today we are greater in Kabbalah ie: so while the Rivash may have been correct to say Vadayan Ulay regarding Ramban, that would not be the case regarding the Kabbalists today who are greater in their Kabbalah knowledge. I questioned how is this a Mesorah then etc etc etc...
You came along and quoted this Agada that says that Rabi Akiva knew things that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't know as proof that it is possible to have grater knowledge of Torah/Kabbalah that even the Rishonim (or Moshe Rabbeinu presumably). .
I said that you can't prove anything from a Midrash because for all we know this Midrash is not literal at all and is simply exaggerating as a way to say how great Rabi Akiva was... he was so great that he even knew what Moshe didn't know (exaggeration maybe). So therefore it is no proof at all...
I am unfamiliar with this Chasam Sofer but I take your word for it... clearly Rav Hirsch would disagree as all the Agados that he brings in his Tshuva are from the Talmud Bavli... the chatzi Achbor, the Gemara in Shabbos with the oven and the Bas Kol, the Gemara with Sheidim and bowing to Modim etc etc etc...
At this point I don't know what you are talking about. He says that agadata not found in the Talmud can be disbelieved - in contrast to what is in the Talmud.
Ramban says the apostate is citing an agada which states on the day the Temple was destroyed Moshiach was born. And I replied I don't believe in the validity of this agada but nonetheless it is a proof to my position. And now I will explain to you why I said that I don't believe in this agadata. We have 3 different types of books.
והביא ספר אגדה שאמר בו כי ביום שחרב בית המקדש בו ביום נולד. ואמרתי אני שאיני מאמין בזה אלא הוא ראיה לדברי. ועתה אני אפרש לכם למה אמרתי שאיני מאמין בזה. אנחנו יש לנו שלשה מינין של ספרים.
He says that agadata not found in the Talmud can be disbelieved - in contrast to what is in the Talmud. ===============
The Ramban says no such thing... you are reading into the Ramban the commentary you say to be of the Chasam Sofer that Rav Hirsch clearly disagrees with. You are jumping to a conclusion that Ramban only says this regarding Agadeta not found in Talmud... Though I see where you can read this into the Ramban's words, he says no such thing.
Putting that aside it is clearly not the position of Rav Shmuel HaNagid who certainly does not make this distinction nor does Rabbeinu Channanel.
So irrespective of the Ramban, my point is still valid that you can't prove anything from that Midrash.
I couldn't find the original text of RS"H in Lashon HaKodesh online, but I did find this translation.
Haggadah is any interpretation which appears in the Talmud concerning a matter which is not a mizvah. This is [called] aggadah, and one need only learn from it that which seems logically correct (ela mah she-ya'aleh al ha-da'at). For you must know that whatever our Sages affirmed as being a mizvah received from Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, which he in turn received from the Almighty, one may not add thereto nor remove therefrom. But that which the Sages interpreted, each one according to what occurred to him and what he saw fit in his mind, one learns what one finds acceptable from these interpretations and one need not rely upon the rest.
you keep avoiding the issue. Medrashim are proof - not necessarily absolute proof - but they are proof. If you want to dismiss it then you offer an alternative explanation. This is the same process with the derivation of halacha as is obvious from any page of the gemora.
To recap. You proclaimed that according to your definition of mesora it is impossible for later generation to know more then the earlier generation. I brought a number of proofs including the Rid who say otherwise. They brought support i.e., proofs to this view from the gemora in Menachos and medrashim concerning that R Akiva had knowledge that Moshe rabbeinu didn't.
your sole reaction to my sources is to say you don't believe the medrash that support such a position. Why because then that would mean that my assertion is correct. That is a position that is obviously inconceivable to you.
So your defense is simply denial - you have offered no source to justifiy your position and you haven't given alterantive explanation to they sources I quote.
@Torah Truth - the following summarizes my views- note Ramban is referring to halachic issues but this obvious applies in other areas as wel
Ramban (Introduction to Milchemes HaShem): For those who look at my sefer, don’t say in your heart that all my responses to the Baal HaMeor are in my eyes absolutely correct and obviously true and would therefore force everyone to acknowledge them. For everyone who studies our Talmud is well aware that concerning disputes between the commentaries that there are no absolute proofs or absolutely unanswerable questions. In fact, in this area of wisdom, things are not clear and unambiguous as we find in mathematical proofs. The main effort is to show that one position is more likely and more reasonable than the alternatives - rather than to show that one is entirely correct and the other is entirely wrong.
I say you can't use as proof something that Reshonim like Rav Shmuel Hanagid and Rabbeinu Chananel and (according to me) Ramban and Meiri say that you can't use as proof... If these Reshonim say that it is up to the individual to accept or reject based on what is Oleh Al Hadaas, based on what makes sense to them... how can you prove anything from that. It may make sense to you but it doesn't to me. Therefore by DEFINITION it is not a proof.
unless the story about rabbi akiva is the exception that prove the rule. the rule is that we can't/don't understand more than the previous generations. rabbi akiva was able to be מחדש things? OK that is rabbi akiva. he was the only one able to go in and out of pardaise. being מחדש began and ended with him. someone wants to claim that this or that gadol (and it has to be a super גדול, not just some תלמיד חכם) has rabbi akiva like abilities? let him prove it.
what do you do with Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 2:1):רמב"ם ממרים ב
ב"ד גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין, ועמד אחריהם ב"ד אחר ונראה לו טעם אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שנראה בעיניו, שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך.
=============== why do we have the ability to disagree with previous generations - even rishonim?
I cited the Rid before who in fact says we can understand more than the previous generations.
Furthermore there are views in the Rishonim that we can have new revelations and halacha determined by prophesy.
Bottom line where do you get the idea that we can't understand more than the previous generations - that the mesora is in essence a leaky pipe that i.e., that information can be lost but not gained.
What do you do with the gemora in Temura of halachos which were lost during the mourning for Moshe but they were restored by pilpul?
In general what do you do with the generation of new halachos by the 13 midos?
"Furthermore there are views in the Rishonim that we can have new revelations and halacha determined by prophesy."
two points: 1) there are plenty of rishonim who say you can't. does the SA and Rema pasken that you can? 2) even if one accepts that prophecy may have a role, the would-be prophet would still have to prove himself to actually be a prophet in front of a beit din (i assume a beit din of musmachim). when did that ever happen?
"What do you do with the gemora in Temura of halachos which were lost during the mourning for Moshe but they were restored by pilpul?
In general what do you do with the generation of new halachos by the 13 midos?"
two answers: 1) that stuff ended with the sealing of the gemara or maybe even with end of the sealing of the mishna 2) there are opinions that nothing is generated by middot. rather, those exercises are only to find sources of what we know to be the halacha already.
where do you see that "stuff" ended with the gemora or Mishna? And even if it did end - That meant that from Sinai till the sealing of the Talmud halachos were being generated that hadn't existed before and thus added to the mesora!
So what do you do with the obvious fact from the gemora that halachos are generated from the middos? The fact that it is legitimate to say that halachos were generated shows that the mesora is not static and in fact progresses and evolves.
where do you see that the rishonim read psukim and generate halachot?
i gave a different interpretation: nothing was generated, the middot are merely a way of finding the source of a halacha, not the halacha itself. i am basing this on the rambam's introduction to the mishna (iirc).
the Rambam states that is what they did Introduction to Mishna:
The Oral Laws. . . can be divided into. . 1. Explanations received from the lips of Moses and which are hinted to in the Scriptures: . . . There is absolutely no machlokess about any such halacha. Once one says, “So have I received,” all debate dissipates. 2. Laws called Halachos L’Moshe MiSinai: These, as we mentioned, have no Scriptural indications, and concerning these, no one differs. 3. Laws derived through logic: Such were subject to machlokess. . . Thus they say, “If it is a halacha we will accept it, but if it is a logical inference, we have a retort” (Yevomos 76b) .., Machlokess and analysis arose [only] over things concerning which no halacha was heard from Moshe. Some may think that the laws that were disputed were also received from Moses’ lips. They may conjecture that disagreements arose. . . [because] one of the disputants received the teaching {kabballa} correctly, whereas the other. .. forgot [what he was taught]. . . . [T]his is a very’ repugnant thing to say and these are words of senseless people who do not understand matters of basic principle, and such vords besmirch the people from whom we received the comiments. The entire conjecture is less than worthless.
The Rambam held that the majority of Doreissa laws were generated by Rabbinic drashos. That clearly is a refuation of the view that Mesora is a leaky pipe that can only lose information but can never gain it.
Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 2): It is not correct to count among the 613 mitzvos those commandments which were learned with the use of one of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. We have already explained in the Introduction to our Commentary to the Mishna that the majority of Torah laws were generated by the use of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. Furthermore that such laws are sometimes the source of dispute amongst our Sages. However those laws and explanations of the laws which were transmitted from Moshe were never disputed...
Mararetz Chajes (Maamer Divrei Neviim Divrei Kabbala 1): By means of these general rules our Sages derived from the halachos that are explicitly stated in the Torah - the many detailed derivative halachos which were not originally known. Using this understanding resolves many questions that arise in the course of Torah study. In other words by means of the hermeneutic principles received from Sinai as well as the principles and analytic approach which has been in use since the time of Moshe and Yehoshua until modern times – that which is derived by our Sages - all of these laws are objectively and truthfully found in the Torah which was given at Sinai. They are like branches which are potentially in the trunk or like fruit that is potenitally in the seed. This is also the intent of the gemora (Berachos 5a), “ ‘To teach’ is referring to the Gemora and it teaches that everything was given to Moshe at Sinai.”. Megila (19b), “It teaches that G d showed to Moshe the details of the Torah and the rulings of the rabbis and that which the rabbis would innovate in the future.” Similarly in the Yerushalmi (Peah 2 & Megila 1) , “G d showed to Moshe that which the competent student would innovate in the future.” The intent of all these sources is that everything was in fact given at Sinai. However the details eventually produced by the principles - while actually contained in that which was given – were only latent and were not known explicitly until they were derived at a later time. In contrast information coming from prophecy or ruach hakodesh or bas kol or Urim v’Tumim – all of these are irrelevant in determining what was given at Sinai because the Torah says – “It is no longer in Heaven.”
"The Rambam held that the majority of Doreissa laws were generated by Rabbinic drashos. That clearly is a refuation of the view that Mesora is a leaky pipe that can only lose information but can never gain it."
and the start of his introduction to the mishna the rambam writes that moshe received the torah, including the mitzvot and their perush. he knew it all and transmitted it. the rambam than gave an example of how the mitzvah of sukka was given with its relevant halachot.
it makes sense to you that at a level of doreitta somehow your sukka is better than yehoshua's or even moshe's because a tanna made a binyan av? that makes sense?
of course we have d'rabbanans which earlier generations never heard of. there are asmachtot. and our tefillin are straighter than earlier generations because we have better technology.
but at the level of torah law i find it inconceivable that we have something that they didn't.
but at the level of torah law i find it inconceivable that we have something that they didn't.
Do you think that any Kabbalist would say that they have something that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't as far a Kabbalah goes? Again I would refer you to the Leshem, a different place still in sefer HaBiurim, his hakdamah to Anaf Beit, where he clearly states that everything that is written in the Kitvei HaAri was known, and in fact in many ways better known, by Moshe Rabbeinu, because Moshe Rabbeinu was a Navi, and so for him it was not simply intellectual, with perhaps some added perception of truth from Ruah HaKodesh or Gilui or whatever, but rather in a very real sense he was in those upper realms, he experienced them, and saw them...
What we have today, if you take all of the Kabbalah combined, is but a shadow of those things.
To put it better, who knows the streets of NYC better, a cabby who has been driving them all of his life, and who's bread and butter relies on it, or a guy with a map but who has never stepped foot in NYC? We are the guys with the map.
" Again I would refer you to the Leshem, a different place still in sefer HaBiurim, his hakdamah to Anaf Beit, where he clearly states that everything that is written in the Kitvei HaAri was known, "
. . . which is quite different from the rabbi akiva story
The article you linked to above has some excellent advice from Rabbi David Bar-Hayim on how one should study and scrutinize nistar (secrets of the Torah).
By Rabbi David Bar-Hayim:
"My approach towards Qabala, or the Zohar, is identical to my approach to Rambam's Mor'e HaN'vukhim or R. Y'hudha HaLewi's Kuzari, or to the writings of Rav Kook or Rav Hirsch: study and consider well, and accept what seems good and correct. That which is plainly not true one should reject. That which is problematic or dubious, or possible but not necessarily so, one may choose to either accept, reject or place in one's Undecided Box. This approach to Jewish thought and philosophy is analogous to the attitude of Rav Sh'rira Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon (see Eshkol, I, p. 157 ff) towards Agadoth: that many Agadic statements are non-binding opinions not based on firm tradition, and that one is not required to accept all such statements."
Rabbi Bar Chaim is not considered a significant authority last time I checked. Did you start eating kitniyos on Pesach because of his psak?
The fact that you declare that this approach is analogous to aggadata - doesn't mean that the analogy is true. That is fact is what is being disputed here.
I say you can't use as proof something that Reshonim like Rav Shmuel Hanagid and Rabbeinu Chananel and (according to me) Ramban and Meiri say that you can't use as proof... If these Reshonim say that it is up to the individual to accept or reject based on what is Oleh Al Hadaas, based on what makes sense to them... how can you prove anything from that. It may make sense to you but it doesn't to me. Therefore by DEFINITION it is not a proof.
Vkal Lehavin! ================ you are grossly misunderstanding the Ramban and others. They nowhere say that medrashim and agadata can't be used a proof! There is a huge difference between saying that certain medrashim which don't make sense do not have to be accepted and saying that medrashim categorically can't be used as proof. What we call hashkofa is based on medrashim and agadata.
It is clear that medrashim and agadata are also used in determining halacha. For example artificial insemination is permitted based on Ben Sira!
Torah Truth - You can take a simpler approach and not get ino an argument over whether later generations can know more and whether that contradicts mesorah
The issue is not whether later generations can know or understand more than earlier generations. Obviously, new sevoros are "invented" all the time so of course it is a development and we can have new insight, but the mekuballim are saying much more - that large areas of insight were given by giliu eliyahu or ruach hakodesh to the later generations - now that is something that is counterintuitive that the later generations should be "greater" in receiving supernatural knowledge than earlier generations who did not receive it. The mekuballim claim that the later mekubalim are greater in that sense and that is troubling. As R Tzadok has said...this does not hold true for nigleh - only nistar...which is quite odd. Of course, another issue with this mesorah of kabbala is that they did not simply add or modify things as would be expected in the natural course of human thought, but totally reinvented the way we view the G-D head and His attributes.
http://www.maharitz.co.il/?CategoryID=327&ArticleID=3033
ReplyDeletewhat if acceptance of the Zohar is polytheistic AZ?
ReplyDeletethere is no guarantee that Gedolim are infallible. Even the Sanhedrin was not infallible.
The rationalists claim that the sefirot system is polytheistic.
In the days of the Neviim, majority of Israel were idolaters.
Hence, "heresy" agasint idolatry or syncretism is actually the true way to go.
Eddie,
DeleteSlifkin is a rationalist, he doesn't say that. Rav Saadia Gaon was a rationalist, and had no problem with the sefirot.
Neo-Rambamists want to say this, but it is ultimately false. As several books have proven.
RMT -
DeleteSaadia Gaon rejected the concept of gilgul / reincarnation.
Rambam mocked practices such as amulets and permutations of G-d's Name, and included Amulets in his Hilchot AZ, as was his appraisal of astrology. I once asked R' Riskin (who is Mekubal) about Astrology, which the Rambam forbids, but he Kabbalists promote. His answer was "the Zohar Kodesh is accepted". In other words, what Rambam called AZ is accepted by Kabbalah.
I don't know that R' Riskin is a Mekubal, but the ZOhar does not teach astrology, nor do any legitimate Kabbalists.
DeleteAs far as Tzeruf, that is taught clearly even in the Sefer Yetzirah. Same with Amulets(which have their source in the Gemara). The Rambam calls neither A"Z(Has V'Shalom), but he clearly was not a receptor of the tradition and so did not understand them.
That is unless you want to believe Avraham Abulafia.
ח איזה הוא מעונן--אלו נותני העיתים, שאומרין באצטגנינות יום פלוני רע, יום פלוני טוב, יום פלוני ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה פלונית, שנה פלונית או חודש פלוני רע לדבר פלוני.
Deleteט אסור לעונן, אף על פי שלא עשה מעשה אלא הודיע אותן הכזבים שהסכלים מדמין שהן דברי אמת ודברי חכמה. וכל העושה מעשה מפני האצטגנינות, וכיוון מלאכתו או הליכתו באותו העת שקבעו הוברי שמיים--הרי זה לוקה, שנאמר "ולא תעוננו" (ויקרא יט,כו). וכן האוחז את העיניים, ומדמה בפני הרואים שעשה מעשה תימהון והוא לא עשה--הרי זה בכלל מעונן, ולוקה.
@R. Tzadok - "same with Amulets":
DeleteRambam, Moreh Nevuchim I:61:
"...do not let occur to your mind the vain imaginings of the writers of QAMIOT or what names you may hear from them or may find in their stupid books, names that they have invented, which are not indicative of any notion whatsoever, but which they call the names and of which they think that they necessitate holiness and purity and work miracles. All these are stories that it is not seemly for a perfect man to listen to, much less to believe."
R. Tzadok, do you have any comment on the Rambam's position?
The Arizal says the same thing concerning amulets in several places, the first that comes to mind is Shaar Ruah HaKodesh 10d. He makes two rather strong statements. First that all of the kamiot that have come down to us(or at least his generation) were filled with errors. Second that using them was an actual Avoda Zarah. The Rambam actually permits their use in his Mishneh Torah, the Arizal forbids it.
DeleteSo I am not sure what exactly you are looking for. As I have said before, there is nothing in the Kabbalah in general, or in the Kitvei HaAri in particular, that contradicts the halakhot of the Rambam. In some places the Arizal is actually stricter.
Hakham Ovadia Yosef, shlita, clearly paskened that those who embrace historical fact and reject the Zohar are not heretics. He says that since the Zohar was concealed for a long time, and the Darda'im raised many objections which, to their mind, showed it to contradict the Torah, one cannot rate them as heretics.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to also note that Hakham Ovadia was also quick to expunge kabbalistic practices of the Ben Ish Chai and others that he felt went against normative halakhic practice.
It is also interesting to note that R' Yaakov Emden embraced a historical view of the Zohar, as did the Chatam Sofer:
"And that which you wrote, that the rav said in the name Adoni, Mori v'Rabbi {=my teacher} zatzal, I did not hear this from his mouth. And perhaps this rav permitted for himself based on that which Chazal said {Pesachim 112a} 'If you wish to be strangled, be hanged on a large tree'. And don't condemn him for this. Behold, the sefer Mitpachat Sefarim is found in your neighborhood, from Moreinu HaRav Yaakov ben Tzvi {=the Yaavetz, Rav Yaakov Emden}, and you will find there that the prophet za"l said a great thing in this matter, which will cause astonishment in those who see it, and it is sufficient to the wise [ודי לחכימא / ודי לחכימא ברמיזא]."
(Shut Chasam Sofer 6:59)
The Dordai shita on this issue is not isolated, and seems to most definitely be a valid, if not the only valid, approach on the matter.
Rav Ovadia was not quick to expunge Kabbalistic pracitices, his primary shita in most(but not all of his works) was to return to the psak of Maran Yosef Karo(who himself was highly Kabbalistic). There are some rare exceptions to that, but that is the stam way of explainin Rav Ovadiah's Shitta.
DeleteSecond Rav Ovadia wrote a commentary on the Ben Ish Hai called Halikhot Olam, in which he not only upholds the various Kabbalistic minhagim but defends them. Further he was very supportive of halakhic work Divrei Shalom by Rav Apjin, who elucidated all of the traditional customs of the Yeshivat HaMekubalim Beit El and the Rashash. He is close with Rav Yaakov Hillel, Rav Beniyahu Shmueli, Rav David Batzri and a number of other Mekubalim who he often has speak at his motzei shabbat lectures.
As far as his Teshuva saying that they are not Kofrim, he also doesn't say that they are correct either. The Ramban and the Ravaad said the same thing about folks that believed that G-d had a body. Neither intended to infer that such a belief was correct, just that since it was an honest mistake they shouldn't be counted as kofrim or ovdei zarah.
Finally using Rav Ovadia as a support for a rejection of the Zohar is absurd considering he co-wrote and co-signed a Teshuva requesting every Jew to read at least a page of the Zohar a day.
I am by no means claiming that R' Yosef is a Dor Dai.
DeleteI am saying that he has defended Dor Daim from the charge of heresy leveled against them by others, such as the Hazon Ish.
My views on the Zohar are best summarized by the Hazon Ish's cousin, the brilliant Talmudist R' Shaul Lieberman, zatzal: "Nonsense (the Zohar) is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship."
Since when does Rabbi Lieberman's opinion carry any weight in the Orthodox world?
DeleteRabbi Berel Wein quotes direct statements of Rav Emden, Chasam Sofer, Teshuva Mahava, and Rabbi Moshe Deleon's wife as stating that the Zohar isn't authentic from Shimon Bar Yochai. Are they all heretics as well? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCeQmzJjGts
ReplyDeleteThat is not an accurate summary of their views
DeleteFunny thing. The Rav that Moshe Deleon's wife told that to, Rav Yitzhak D'Min Acco, held the Zohar to be authentic.
DeleteEven funnier thing, Prof Gershom Scholem held that story to be false or unreliable!
DeleteThere's textual evidence for it Eddie, so that doesn't work.
Delete"Interesting to also note that Hakham Ovadia was also quick to expunge kabbalistic practices of the Ben Ish Chai and others that he felt went against normative halakhic practice. "
ReplyDeletethat probably has nothing to do with rav ovadia's (sh'itqeh l'refuah shlema) opinion on the veracity of the zohar. he simply has his rules about the rules of psak and the zohar doesn't overrule a rambam or shulhan aruch.
I'll defer to Jacob Katz and others on the extent to which the Zohar influenced the Shulchan Aruch.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the Zohar's acceptance as Torah she baal peh was never universal.
I am not saying that R' Yosef is a huge supporter of the Dordai shita, but he believes their belief to be legitimate enough to not render these people apikorsim.
I am looking right now also at the Sefer Yesod haEmunah, authored by Jacob Kassin (who famously spearheaded the ban against converts in the NYC Syrian community), where he says that Mori Qafeh (after his death, mind you) must fast 300 fasts in atonement for his "sins," since 300 is the gematria for aish (when, in fact, 301, is the gematria).
Try the Rivash...
ReplyDeleteHaovdai Gellilim Maminim beshilush (trinity) Vehamikubalim maminim Beasarah (Kabbalistic Sefirot).
As I explained before the Sefirot of Sefer Yitzirah that Rav Saadia Gaon gave a perush are vastly different form the Kabbalistic Sefirot. The Mekubalim simply hijacked the term for their own use and then say... you see even Rav Saadia Gaon refers to them. (sic)
Moshiach has much work to do... B'miheira Yavo!
You keep making these broad pronouncements without offering any proof. Rav Saadia Gaon, obviously believes the Sefirot to be a Bechina of the creation, as do the Mekubalim.
DeleteIf you can offer a solid proof that they hold differing views, with cited sources than please do. Otherwise, your pronouncements are rather pointless.
Rav Kafach wrote an entire sefer to prove it... learn it... I will be happy to see if there is an online version (I have the sefer in print) and provide...
DeleteAnd the leaders of his generation wrote an entire sefer ripping each of his arguments apart. Frankly he was wrong and placed in Cherem for it.
DeletePerhaps you should read the sefer correcting his errors and heresies.
Even for the Kuzari, the Sefirot are just numbers. So they have evolved into something much bigger.
DeleteNow TT, cites the Rivash which is difficult to deny. R Kapach , on the other hand, can be attacked easily, because he was the grandson of the great R Yachya Kapach, the founder of the Dordaim.
Do you have a source in the Kuzari? As far as Rav Kapach, we are talking Rav Yachya Kapach and his sefer Milchemet HaShem, which was denounced as heresy, and had a rejoinder written against it by the leading Yemenite Rabbanim that disproved his sefer point by point.
DeleteIf Rav Saadia Gaon was the only Gaon to mention the sefirot you might have a somewhat valid point. I am assuming you have never read his commentary, because he clearly states that the Sephirot are more than numbers, but that is an aside point.
We have a Geonic legacy of Kabbalah. Of which Rav Saadia Gaon's commentary is only one sample.
Oh and as far as TorahTruth, his blogger account has only been active for a month, so, well, it appears that he is just a troll.
Try the Rivash...
DeleteHaovdai Gellilim Maminim beshilush (trinity) Vehamikubalim maminim Beasarah (Kabbalistic Sefirot).
You mean the Rivash that wrote that one should not learn Kabbalah UNLESS one can learn it from a proper Kabbalist so as to not become confused? How is that different from the Ben Ish Hai(introduction to Daat U'Tevunah) or Rav Ovadia Yosef(Yehave Daat 4:47) or the Mekubalim in general?
Way to misquote the Rivash. He says that in the name of one of the philosophers, whom he does ridicule as well as those who learn from them, most especially Aristotle, so I guess that would include the Rambam. However is only problem with Kabbalah, in his own words: "ולזה אני אומר, שאין לסמוך בדברים כאלו אלא מפי חכם מקובל"
Is this what we are to expect from you? Half truths and misquotes?
Half truths? Misquotes? You left out the last 2 words of the T'shuvah that clearly show you what The Rivash's opinion was..
Deleteאני אומר, שאין לסמוך בדברים כאלו אלא מפי חכם מקובל
VADAYAN ULAY.. and only then MAYBE...
Who is the חכם מקובל that you can only MAYBE learn from? Rabbi Michael Tzadok? no. Rav Ovadiyah? no. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel? no. Not even the Ramchal or the Ari... He is talking about people of the stature of the Ramban... and even then Adayan Ulay! But the Ramban said... Adayan Ulay!
Now who is being dishonest and misquoting?
Yes, the Rivash did say this in the name of a philosopher, but clearly one he was sympathetic to... Nowhere does the Rivash say not learn it from a חכם מקובל "so as to not become confused", that is your insertion and that reasoning certainly does not jive with the rest of the T'shuva.
The same Rivash said that his Rebbi the RaN told him in private (notice that even then it was challenging to have this position but that did not phase the RaN) That the Ramban Z"L forced himself too much to believe in Kabblah.. is that the same as the Ben Is Hai? Dishonesty my friend.
Actually it was clearly one he went on to disprove. Please continue with your half-truths and lies. It works for me.
DeleteWho is the חכם מקובל that you can only MAYBE learn from? Rabbi Michael Tzadok? no. Rav Ovadiyah? no. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel? no. Not even the Ramchal or the Ari...
DeleteReally? How do you know? Especially as the Mekubalim have said that there is an Aliyah dorot in Sod, and Rav Triebitz brings in some very big names that there is even an Aliyah Dorot in Nigleh?
Yes, the Rivash did say this in the name of a philosopher, but clearly one he was sympathetic to... Nowhere does the Rivash say not learn it from a חכם מקובל "so as to not become confused", that is your insertion and that reasoning certainly does not jive with the rest of the T'shuva.
Try again. He brings the statement of the Philosopher(as noted he was against philosophers) and then goes on to disprove the philosophers statment. So I wouldn't call that sympathetic.
As far as the confusion bit, I did not say those were his exact words, however he starts with the idea that people are confused over the Sephirot. Brings the words of the philosopher, disproves them, and then says only learn from a Mekubal who is a Hakham(and then only maybe).
So let's deal with the part that you seem so frustrated that I left out. Then only maybe. Do you know what happened when the Chida approached the Rashash to learn Kabbalah? He was turned down. Not every person is fit to learn Kabbalah for various reasons, and sheer brilliance has nothing to do with it. For that matter, the same thing happened when Maran Yosef Karo sought to be the student of the Arizal. He would fall asleep or become distracted in the shiurim, and the Ari told him that Kabbalah was not meant for him.
So the meaning of the Rivash is indeed quite clear first one must only learn form a Mekubal who is a Hakham. Second even then, does not mean that one should learn, that depends upon the individual.
So now this is very interesting... I have no idea who Rabbi Triebitz is (google found a Rabbi Meir Triebitz connected to the Baal T'shuvah Yeshiva Mechon Shlomo, perhaps one and the same) but he is saying that people TODAY (I assume you include you and him) are greater in knowledge of Kabbalah than the Ramban, the Ari or even Rabi Shimon Bar Yocha9 (according to you who thinks he wrote the Zohar). That is very interesting indeed, if I understand you correctly. That my friend speaks volumes!
DeleteNow lets follow that line of reasoning... shouldn't it follow as well that we today can argue on their opinion as it relates to Kabbalah because, in your words "there is an Aliya Dorot in Sod". So since we understand "Sod
better than they did, as we are in a latter Dor, we should be able to disagree with them... So whats the problem, L'shitascha?
No not according to him. You have this written in the Zohar, you have it written in the works of the Kabbalists, an you have it written most recently very explicitly in the Leshem, by Rav Shlomo Eliashiv, in his sefer Biurim Drush Igulim V'Yosher Anaf 5 note 7, he also brings the words of the GR"A and the Nefesh HaChaim and numerous others saying such.
DeleteThe Chiddush of Rav Triebitz is that this also occurs in the study of Nigleh(which is in contradiction to the Leshem).
Now as to whether we can argue on them, that is a no. We can't. One would have to be a true Mekubal(which neither you nor I are) in order to even claim we understand them fully and accurately let alone to begin to say we have a deeper understanding of some aspect. Further to that point, even those who did claim to have a deeper understanding of some aspect(the Rashash, and Leshem for example) said it was forbidden to actually contradict them.
Oh and I never said the Rashbi actually wrote the Zohar, it is pretty clear that he didn't and I don't know of any Mekubalim that hold that he actually wrote anything other than the First Mishnah which is the Sifra D'Tzinuta and a couple of other pages of the Zohar. The rest was written by his students and students of his students, until the end of the Geonic era, as Rav Elijah Delmedigo who claimed the Zohar was 300yrs old(in his time).
So let me understand this... according to you (L'shitasicha)a "great" Mekubal today has a deeper understanding of Kabbalah than the Mekuballim of the past (presumably even amongst the Rishonim that were Mekuballim), but yet you claim we have a Mesorah on Kabbalah. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that?
DeleteHow can we know something today that was not known in the past and yet at the same time received that very same thing in a transmission of Mesorah?
I must say, one needs to be a very great Mekubal to understand the "logic" in that!
Like I said, it's not my claim. And no I don't see an inherent contradiction in that.
DeleteI rest my case..
Deletethe contradiction is that al. most by definition, mesora is not perfect. things get lost. therefore it is impossible that today we understand better than in those in days of yore.
Deleteunless of course one believes that there has been revelations from time to time (ari"zl, the baal shem tov, etc). those of us who think that prophecy ended way back when don't accept these stories.
Ben, thank you for being a voice of intelligent discussion. How then do you handle the Leshem here? He is not relying on prophecy whatsoever(and by the way, while prophecy ceased Ruah HaKodesh didn't though he is not relying on that either). But rather it is a progression of mesora and the world. If you don't mind read the Leshem(I know it's a bit lengthy) and let me know what you think.
DeleteSo let me understand this... according to you (L'shitasicha)a "great" Mekubal today has a deeper understanding of Kabbalah than the Mekuballim of the past (presumably even amongst the Rishonim that were Mekuballim), but yet you claim we have a Mesorah on Kabbalah. Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that?
DeleteHow can we know something today that was not known in the past and yet at the same time received that very same thing in a transmission of Mesorah?
I must say, one needs to be a very great Mekubal to understand the "logic" in that!
=====================
sorry but that is a misunderstanding of mesorah.
See Shut HaRid regarding why it is possible to argue with earlier generations.
Bereishis Rabbah (19:6): matters which were not revealed to Moshe were revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his cheverim.
Tanchuma [Buber] (Chukas #24): Rav Acha said,"Things not revealed to Moses were revealed to Rabbi Akiva. 'His eyes behold every precious thing' (Job 28:10)-this refers to Rabbi Akiva.
The Sheloh talks about this as does the Leshem
רב צדוק (ספר דברי סופרים ליקוטי אמרים - ספר יהושע ד"ה ואמנם עמוד מא.)
Deleteואמנם עדיין לא יצאו לפועל כולם בעת מתן תורה וכמו שאמרו ז"ל ביבמות [ס"ב א'] שמהשך יציאת כולם לפועל בעולם הוא עד ביאת ב"ד, והיינו כי אף על פי שכבר ניתנה תורה ונתגלית כולם בעולם מכ"מ אותם חכמות גנוזות בהעלם בדברי תורה, כי תורה סתומה ניתנה רק שהיא כוללת כולם דוגמת האב שיש במוחו כל אותם טיפין שעתיד להוציא ולהזריע מהם נפשות רבות אבל מכ"מ לא הזריע עדיין אלא שהוא כוללם בהעלם, וכך התורה שבכתב היא כוללת בהעלם כל מיני חכמה שיש בחכמה של השם יתברך שרצה שתתגלה לברואים, וכמו שאמרו ז"ל בתענית (ט'.) ליכא מידי דלא רמיזי באורייתא ואמרו בבת קול צ"ב מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי כו', שכל מין חכמה דאמרי אינשי רק שהוא חכמה אמיתית ושפת אמת היא רמוזה בתורה הכל אבל הכל ברמז והעלם, רק אחר כך בהמשך הדורות היא יוצאה לאור על ידי חכמי דור ודור ודורשיו ועל ידי כל הנפשות פרטיות אשר כ"א מחדש דבר חכמה אשר אליה הוכן בפרט, וזהו הנקרא תורה שבע"פ שהוא מה שחדשו סופרים ונובעים מלבות בני ישראל ומה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, ואז"ל בפ"ק דברכות (ה'.) ובמגילה [י"ט ב']
של"ה (במדבר דברים פרשת חוקת תורה אור (ב)
Deleteד' הנעלם מכל חי, רק 'רשימו', פרה אדומה וכיוצא בה, הדק היטב הדק, נעלמה לעין כל חי זולת למשה רבינו ע"ה ולר' עקיבא. כדאיתא ברבות (במ"ר יט,ו) ויקחו אליך פרה. א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא: אמר לו הקב"ה למשה, לך אני מגלה טעם פרה אבל לאחרים חקה. דאמר רב הונא: כתיב והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון, יקפאון כתיב, דברים המכוסים מכם בעולם הזה עתידים להיות צופים לעולם הבא, כהדין סמיא דצפי, דכתיב והולכתי עורים בדרך לא ידעו. וכתיב אלה הדברים עשיתים ולא עזבתים, אעשה אין כתיב כאן אלא עשיתים, שכבר עשיתי לר' עקיבא וחביריו, דברים שלא נגלו למשה נגלו לר' עקיבא וחביריו וכל יקר ראתה עינו, עד כאן.
ותמוה הלא כתיב (דברים לד,י) : לא קם כמשה. ועוד, מה שדרש באילך סותר לזה. ונראה בודאי השגת משה רבינו ע"ה ביותר, וזהו ענין כל הפרות נקראו על שם משה, והוא על דרך מה שאמרו כל הפרות מקדשין מפרתו של משה (במ"ר יט,ד) , כי עיקר המצות סוד ידיעת כונה, ולא ידע איש ערכה כמשה, על כן פרתו של משה היתה מקדשת כולם וק"ל. וכדי לבאר המדרש נבאר תיבת חק ותיבת גזירה, ושניהם יצדקו בבחינה ראשונה הנקראת רשימה, סוד הרצון שפירשתי. כבר אמרנו רוחניות המדות הם הנשמות, חלק אלוה המאיר בנפש הצדיק, בגין לאשתמודע אלקותו כדאיתא בזוהר. והנה לעצם הנשמה שתי בחינות, בחינה עליונה מתאחדת באמתתו יתברך, ובבחינה תחתונה אוחזת בצדיק. והם נרמזים בשתי תיבות אלו המוזכרים בזוהר, לאשתמודע אלקותו, אלקותו בחינה ראשונה, לאשתמודע בחינה שניה. ובחינה ראשונה נקרא חק, הוא אמתיות הנצחיית חק ולא יעבור, ובחינה לאשתמודע נקרא גזירה גזורה, ונלקח מאתו יתברך, ושניהם בחלק הרשימו הנקרא רצון. וכשאומר חקה חקקתי, תיבת חקקתי הם ניצוצי ההשגה מבחינת גזירה נתפשט לר' עקיבא ע"ה. והכל בסוד רשימו. והנה בחינת חק יותר בהעלם מבחינת גזירה. וזהו סוד נתגלה לרבי עקיבא דברים שלא נתגלה למשה רבינו ע"ה, ולא אמר יותר ממה שנתגלה למשה רבינו ע"ה, דאז היה משמע יותר מעלה, אלא הענין בבחינת הגילוי היה דבק רבי עקיבא יותר, ומשה רבינו ע"ה היה יותר דבק בבחינת הנעלם. משל למה הדבר דומה, מלאך משיג יותר מלאך ממה שמשיג את האדם, ויותר משיג את המלאך ממה שמשיג אדם, והאדם משיג אדם יותר ממה שמשיג האדם את המלאך, ויותר ממה שמשיג המלאך את האדםַ. הרי חק וגזירה למשה רבינו ע"ה ולר' עקיבא, דהיינו חקה חקקתי וגזרתי. ולישראל חק קבוע במקומו לא זז, אלא כל הבחינות בנעלם, אין להם רשות להרהר, רצה לומר משום במופלא ממך אל תדרוש כו', לא כמובן כפשטן של דברים, אין רשות להרהר אחריו למה ציוה דבר שאין לו טעם.
והענין הזה על דרך מה שפירשו המפרשים, כי חק הוא לישראל, אבל משפט רוצה לומר טעם הדבר. לאלהי יעקב. בתיבת לאלהי רומז למשה רבינו ע"ה הנקרא איש אלהים, הוא בחינת אלקוחו דלעיל, ואח"כ יעקב רמוז בשם עקיבא, ו'א הנוספת אלהים. והנה משה עקיבא שוים במספר קטן י"ב, כי 'זה' משה האיש. אכן מעלת משה על רבי עקיבא במספר גדול כזה, ידוע שם של יב"ק, הוא מספר ג' שמות שנתגלה למשה, שם אהי"ה ושם יהו"ה לו נודע, וזה זכרי אדנ"י, אלו ג' שמות יב"ק. גם בשם יהו"ה עצמו שבו נבואת משה, מספר יב"ק כזה: כ"ף ו"ו. עוד מעלת משה רבינו ע"ה, הזכירו רז"ל נ' שערי בינה נמסרו למשה רבינו ע"ה (ר"ה כא,ב) , ומנ' שערי בינה נמשך שם של ע"ב מ'חסד' שבו בקע הים. וכתסיר 'א' על שם השער הנו"ן שנעלם ממשה רבינו ע"ה, ישאר גם כן כאן ע"א וזהו ע"א סנהדרין עם אהרן, ומשה רבינו ע"ה על גביהן שקול כנגד כולן, כדאיתא בפרק קמא דסנהדרין (טז,ב) , וזהו סוד ויעבר מעבר יב"ק. כי יעקב אבינו ע"ה כמשה רבינו ע"ה, אלא שזה לגאו וזה לבר כדאיתא בזוהר. וסוד ויעבור ע"ב וי"ו, ונשאר ע"א כדפירשתי, ועוד יב"ק כדפירשתי. ובאלה נתרומם משה רבינו ע"ה. אמנם רבי עקיבא שהיה ענף ממנו נרמזו בשמו, תצרף ע"א יב"ק אותיות עקיבא ודו"ק.
(2-1) ספר שערי הלשם חלק ב - סימן ז - משה רבינו ע"ה
Deleteשהם באמת מחוברים ומיוחדים בהתורה וכולם כלולים בה. אך משום שכל חידוש וחידוש הנה יש לו עתו וזמנו אימתי שיתגלה ואי אפשר שיתגלה מקודם. וכמ"ש בשמו"ר פ' כ"ח סי' ו' וכנ"ל סי' ד'. ולכן הם נעלמים עתה ואינם מחוברים אליה וכלולים בה אלא ע"י קשירה דוקא. כי ע"י שאני קושר אותם ונעשו סמוכים בתורה עכ"פ הנה עי"ז נרשמים בה ונכללים בה בהעלם ויהיה אפשר לו לר' עקיבא עי"ז לחדש ולמצוא אותם רמוזים בה ויתגלו על ידו אח"כ שהם כלולים בתורה ממש. אמנם הוא כי הנה עיקר עומק ענין הקשירה היה רק לפי גודל רוממות השגת משה רבינו ע"ה בעת עלייתו למרום והסתכל באותן הכתרים במציאותם אשר למעלה למעלה. ובאשר שידע הקב"ה שעתידה התורה להתגשם ע"י חטא העגל ולהתלבש בלבוש דהעוה"ז ואין לאותן הענינים הגבוהים שהם הכתרים הנז' התלות וכלילות בהתורה עתה אלא בהכרח ודוחק והוא ענין הקשרים שקשרן הקב"ה כדי לתלות אותם בתורה עכ"פ וזהו מה שראה מרבע"ה שהקב"ה קושר כתרים לאותיות. והוא כל מציאת אור הגנוז שהוא כלול בתורה ועומד בה גם עתה לעולם ע"י אותן הקשרים וע"ד הנשמה לנשמה שהיא קשורה בהגוף. אך באשר שלא רצה הקב"ה לגלה לו מענין התגשמות והתלבשות התורה שע"י חטא העגל. בעת שעלה משה למרום לקבל את הלוחות הראשונות. ולכן הסתיר ממנו אז את התשובה הברורה הזה והלביש אותה בהתשובה הנז' שהיא באמת ג"כ רק ע"פ אותה הכוונה. כי אלולא חטא העגל היה התורה גלויה לכל מעת נתינתה כי היה מתעלה כל המציאות כולה למדרגתה שקודם החטא והיה עומדת התורה כולה גלויה באור הגנוז לעולם וכמו שכתבנו בכמה מקומות מדברינו. ועל זה היה באמת עומק כוונת משרבע"ה באמרו מי מעכב על ידיך. ור"ל ליתן את התורה כולו בכל הגילוי דאור הגנוז עצמו. כי הסתכל משרבע"ה באותן האורות דהכתרים וראה שאין להם התלות בתורה כי אין להם תפיסה והתלבשות כלל אלא שהקב"ה קושר אותם לעשותם סמוכים בתורה ולתלות אותם...
(2-1) ספר שערי הלשם חלק ב - סימן ז - משה רבינו ע"ה
Deleteשאמרו דברים שלא נגלו למרבע"ה נגלו לר' עקיבא וחביריו. והשמיענו בזה שהם השיגו אותן הדברים ג"כ אשר השיג מרבע"ה אלא שהוא רק במציאותן אשר למטה. אשר שם הם מגולים יותר. ולכן היו תופסים אותן הענינים בהתגלות. משא"כ משרבע"ה אשר הוא הסתכל על אותן הדברים עצמן יותר למעלה אשר שם אין להם השתוות עם שום כלי ולבוש וגוף כלל ואין להם תפיסה בדיבור ולכן היה השגתו בהם רק בהעלם. אך עכ"פ הוא כי השגת מרבע"ה היה גדולה מכל הדורות הבאים אחריו. וכמ"ש ברע"מ פינחס רכ"ג א' בפסוק אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני דאפי' לבינה לית בר נש בעלמא דיכיל לסלקא בר ממשה כו' ע"ש. ובזהר בראשית ל"א ע"ב כי משרבע"ה מעת מתן תורה ולהלאה היה משתמש כל ימיו באור הגנוז וזהו הענין דקרני הוד ע"ש. וכן בפ' בשלח נ"ג ב' בענין נשמת מרבע"ה ע"ש בארוכה. ובפ' תצא ר"פ ע"א דמשרבע"ה הוא לכל החכמים הבאים אחריו כאור השמש המאיר בלבנה וכוכבים. שכל אורם הוא רק ממנו. ואורו הוא בבחי' אור השמש נגד כל הדורות הבאים אחריו. ואורם נגדו הוא רק בבחי' אור הלבנה וכוכבים. אך מה שאמרו דברים שלא נגלו למרבע"ה נגלו לר"ע וחביריו הנה הוא רק משום שהם השיגו אותן הדברים יותר למטה הרבה אשר שם יש אפשרית לתפוס אותם גם בהיות הנשמה בעוה"ז ולכן בא להם הדברים בהתגלות וכנז':
I'm sorry but you can't bring a proof from a Midrash..
DeleteBy the way,the Ohr HaChayim explains the Midrash that there were things given to Rabi Akiva that were not given to Moshe is only in how we find the the Torah Shbaal Peh in the the Torah Shb'ksav, but certainly Moshe knew all of the Torah in its totality M'Sinai.
DeleteI'm sorry but you can't bring a proof from a Midrash..
Delete==========================
Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - medrashim and aggadata are a regular source for understanding hashkofa.
what is yours based on?
Torah TruthJanuary 15, 2013 at 11:56 PM
DeleteBy the way,the Ohr HaChayim explains the Midrash that there were things given to Rabi Akiva that were not given to Moshe is only in how we find the the Torah Shbaal Peh in the the Torah Shb'ksav, but certainly Moshe knew all of the Torah in its totality M'Sinai.
===============
strange that you claim that there is only one explanation - what do you do with the other explanation that I cited?
Rav Tzadok
DeleteI read the לשם. Ok. actually there is a similar idea in secular thought that ideas, scientific advancements aren't really "discovered"; rather, they are revealed. progress in any given area advances and people are able to push the envelope a bit further. it wasn't that darwin discovered the idea of evolution, but that biology had progressed to the point where coming up with that idea was obtainable. had darwin not taken the voyage, someone else would have come up with the idea (and in fact, someone else did, just like there were multiple people who revealed calculus, the telephone, etc).
however we don't say that in halacha; we say the exact opposite. were someone today to claim a greater understanding of halacha than rav yosef karo he would be laughed at at best, excommunicated at worst.
yes, i know about ruach haqodesh. unfortunately that is a buzz word which has little or no meaning and is used to justify everything from telling people for which party to vote for or which books to read to making claims of revelations that overturn the rishonim.
Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - medrashim and aggadata are a regular source for understanding hashkofa.
Deletewhat is yours based on?
=======================================
I base my Hashfafa on Torah M'Sinai which Rav SR Hirsch says that Agada is not from Sinai (See Collected Writings Vol 9. But you need not look at Rav Hirsch, See the Mevo HaTalmud from Rav Shmuel HaNagid at the end of Mesechas Brachos, who says that anything in the Talmud that is not related to a Mitzva is defined as Agada. He goes on to explain that Agada is people people applying their ideas from P'sukim and therefore only accept "Ma Sheyaaleh Al HaDaas" - what is reasonable to you, "Vhashaar, Ein Somchin Alav" and the rest you do not rely upon. These are not my words, they are the words of Rav Shmuel HaNagid and can be found in any Vilna Shas!
Rav Shmuel HaNagid was not alone... it is very similar to what none other than the Ramban says in his Vikuach where he compares Agada to the sermons of the "Hegmon" and "Me shrerozeh Lmaamin Bazah Tov, Ume SHlo Retzeh Lmaamin Bazah, Lo Yazik"! Whomever chooses to believe in them, good and whoever doesn't will not be harmed".
BTW, you will find a very similar position taken by Rabainu Chananel in Chagiga 5a regarding Bebi Bar Abaya and Sheidim, Eyan Sham.
Now lets be clear, there is no question that Agada is part of our Torah HaKedosha and every word of Chazal is Kulo Kadosh. The question is, does it have the same status as the rest of Torah... clearly according ti these and most (if not all) Rishonim the answer is no. (See again Vikuach HaRamban, Shlosha Chelkai Torah etc...).
So yes, Medrashim and Agada are a regular "source" for understanding Hashkafa... but what they mean and taking them literally is quite another matter.
strange that you claim that there is only one explanation - what do you do with the other explanation that I cited?
Delete============================
Strange, you didn't claim the very well known explanation of the Ohr HaChayim... what do you do with it?
Proving a Kabbalistic concept from the writings of a Kabbalist (Leshem) is not a very convincing argument.
You have a very strange criticism that I ignored the unerstanding of the Ohr Hachaim and cited the words of a kabbalist instead. The Ohr HaChaim himself was a kabbalist! However he did make some comments that are very relevant to this discussion.
DeleteOhr HaChaim (Devarim 12:28): The Zohar (Vayikra 123a) states that a person’s sins cause the gates of Torah understanding to be locked before him. The Arizal stated that the gate to understanding Torah is the questions which stand before a person. These questions are produced by the klipah which are the results of a person’s sins. That is why this verse says that a person should observe the Torah and understand it. In other words if you want to ascertain the truth of the Torah and to understand it then it is critical that the commandments be fully observed. Proper observance of the mitzvos is critical to be able to understand the Torah.
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 11:43): We find that our Sages (Pesachim 49b) said, That the ignorant masses are detestable and their daughters are vermin … All the Sages words were said with ruach hakodesh and are very profound and deep.
But more relevant to my point is his comment regarding the fact that his explanations sometimes contradict Chazal i.e., the mesora.
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:3): Vayikra Rabbah (22:1) states that Scripture, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada and even what a faithful student would say in the future - were all taught to Moshe on Sinai. It is clear from this medrash that permission has been granted for Torah scholars to explain and interpret in various ways and for the diligent students to provide new insights in expounding verses - to the degree that it can be justified with the verse.
Torah Truth your answer regarding the use of medrashim for understanding hashkofa is simply incoherent.
DeleteTT wrote:
So yes, Medrashim and Agada are a regular "source" for understanding Hashkafa... but what they mean and taking them literally is quite another matter. [no argument with that]
but TT also said
I'm sorry but you can't bring a proof from a Midrash.[but why not since you said that they are a source for understanding hashkfa?]
So which is it? - midrash can't be used a a proof or that they can but they are open to different interpretations which is what we also find regarding halahca?
The clear fact and understanding is that medrashim and agadata can be used as proof for hashkofa - whether you hold that they were from Sinai or not. In the same way the Talmud brings proof from various intepretations and dikyukim - even though it is apparent that the drasha is man made.
Firstly, I should thank you for providing this blog as an open exchange of authentic Torah ideas... you should be commended!
DeleteNow to your question... I say that you can't bring proof from the Midrash because I have no idea what the Midrash means or if it is actually as it says. So when you use as a "proof" that Kabbalah should be accepted today because our Mekuballim are greater than even the Ramban (As Michael Tzadok said) even when the Rivash warns us "Vadayan Ulay"...
You want to prove this from a Midrash that says that Rabie Akiva was given Torah that Moshe was not... That is not a proof. Why?? Because as a Medrah/Agada I don't have the tools (nor does anyone else) to know if that is meant literally or not? I have every right to say that it is not literal and the Midrash is simply using this type of statement to express the greatness of Rabi Akiva and nothing more.
Even look in the LASHON used by the Ramban in the Vikuach... when presented with an Agada that seemed to indicate that Moshiach was already born... what does he say? Ani Maamin Biagada Zo Aval Raya He ...
He says I don;t believe this Agada! That doesn't mean it is C"V Divarim Bitalim, just means that it could be an exaggeration but here to teach an important lesson.
So yes, it is valuable and important to our Hashkafa provided you understand what it is telling you. As I read this Midrash, it is telling me how great Rabi Akiva was.
Ani Maamin Biagada Zo Aval Raya He ... should say "Ayni" (I don't) and Ani (I)...
DeleteActually the Rambam says
DeleteRamban (Dispute): We have three types of books. The first is the Bible and everyone believes in it with perfect faith. The second is called Talmud and it is a commentary on the mitzvos of the Torah. The Bible has 613 commandments and there is not one which is not explained in the Talmud. We believe in it concerning the explanations of the mitzvos. There is a third type of book which is called medrash i.e., sermons. It is comparable to a preacher getting up and giving a sermon and some listening liked it and recorded it. Concerning medrash - it is fine if one wishes to believe them. However there is no loss if one doesn’t want to believe them.
רמב"ן (ספר הויכוח מלחמות ה' בכתבי רמב"ן כרך א' דף שח ס' לט): אנחנו יש לנו שלשה מינין של ספרים. האחד הוא הבב"ליה, וכולנו מאמינים בו אמונה שלמה. והשני הוא נקרא תלמוד, והוא פירוש למצות התורה, כי בתורה יש תרי"ג מצות ואין בה אחת שלא נתפרשה בתלמוד, ואנחנו מאמינים בו בפירוש המצות. עוד יש לנו ספר שלישי הנקרא מדרש, רוצה לומר שרמ"וניש. כמו שאם יעמוד ההגמון ויעשה שרמון. ואחד מן השועמין היה טוב בעיניו וכתבו. וזה הספר מי שיאמין בו טוב, ומי שלא יאמין בו לא יזיק...
where did you get your distinction of believe vs proof?
In fact the Chasam Sofer agrees with the Ramban and says
Chasam Sofer (O. H. 1:16): The Ramban has stated in his debate with the apostate that the obligation to believe agada and medrashim only applies to those found in the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud. The validity of other medrashim can be accepted or rejected.
1) So where is your distinction between statements in the Talmud which can be used as proofs or at least support and those which can't because their are different ways of understanding it.
2) please explain why hashkofa is different than halachic statements in the gemora which are disputed?
I don't have the Kisvey HaRamban in front of me but if you look before this section you will see where he says Ayni Maamin B'Agada zo...
DeleteI don't know what you mean by.. "where did you get your distinction of believe vs proof"?
Lets back up for a minute... I quoted the Rivash who said "Don't learn Kabbalah unless it is from a Chacham MeKubal"... he then ends the T'shuva with "Viadayan Ulay" only then maybe... I said who are the Chachamim that the Rivash is talking about? Not me or you or R' Hillel etc... he was talking about contemporaries of the Ramban or maybe even the Ramban... Vadayan Ulay. Michael Tzadok said that that is not true because today we are greater in Kabbalah ie: so while the Rivash may have been correct to say Vadayan Ulay regarding Ramban, that would not be the case regarding the Kabbalists today who are greater in their Kabbalah knowledge. I questioned how is this a Mesorah then etc etc etc...
You came along and quoted this Agada that says that Rabi Akiva knew things that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't know as proof that it is possible to have grater knowledge of Torah/Kabbalah that even the Rishonim (or Moshe Rabbeinu presumably). .
I said that you can't prove anything from a Midrash because for all we know this Midrash is not literal at all and is simply exaggerating as a way to say how great Rabi Akiva was... he was so great that he even knew what Moshe didn't know (exaggeration maybe). So therefore it is no proof at all...
I am unfamiliar with this Chasam Sofer but I take your word for it... clearly Rav Hirsch would disagree as all the Agados that he brings in his Tshuva are from the Talmud Bavli... the chatzi Achbor, the Gemara in Shabbos with the oven and the Bas Kol, the Gemara with Sheidim and bowing to Modim etc etc etc...
At this point I don't know what you are talking about. He says that agadata not found in the Talmud can be disbelieved - in contrast to what is in the Talmud.
DeleteRamban says the apostate is citing an agada which states on the day the Temple was destroyed Moshiach was born. And I replied I don't believe in the validity of this agada but nonetheless it is a proof to my position. And now I will explain to you why I said that I don't believe in this agadata. We have 3 different types of books.
והביא ספר אגדה שאמר בו כי ביום שחרב בית המקדש בו ביום נולד. ואמרתי אני שאיני מאמין בזה אלא הוא ראיה לדברי. ועתה אני אפרש לכם למה אמרתי שאיני מאמין בזה. אנחנו יש לנו שלשה מינין של ספרים.
He says that agadata not found in the Talmud can be disbelieved - in contrast to what is in the Talmud.
Delete===============
The Ramban says no such thing... you are reading into the Ramban the commentary you say to be of the Chasam Sofer that Rav Hirsch clearly disagrees with. You are jumping to a conclusion that Ramban only says this regarding Agadeta not found in Talmud... Though I see where you can read this into the Ramban's words, he says no such thing.
Putting that aside it is clearly not the position of Rav Shmuel HaNagid who certainly does not make this distinction nor does Rabbeinu Channanel.
So irrespective of the Ramban, my point is still valid that you can't prove anything from that Midrash.
I couldn't find the original text of RS"H in Lashon HaKodesh online, but I did find this translation.
DeleteHaggadah is any interpretation which appears in the Talmud concerning a matter which is not a mizvah. This is [called] aggadah, and one need only learn from it that which seems logically correct (ela mah she-ya'aleh al ha-da'at). For you must know that whatever our Sages affirmed as being a mizvah received from Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, which he in turn received from the Almighty, one may not add thereto nor remove therefrom. But that which the Sages interpreted, each one according to what occurred to him and what he saw fit in his mind, one learns what one finds acceptable from these interpretations and one need not rely upon the rest.
you keep avoiding the issue. Medrashim are proof - not necessarily absolute proof - but they are proof. If you want to dismiss it then you offer an alternative explanation. This is the same process with the derivation of halacha as is obvious from any page of the gemora.
DeleteTo recap. You proclaimed that according to your definition of mesora it is impossible for later generation to know more then the earlier generation. I brought a number of proofs including the Rid who say otherwise. They brought support i.e., proofs to this view from the gemora in Menachos and medrashim concerning that R Akiva had knowledge that Moshe rabbeinu didn't.
your sole reaction to my sources is to say you don't believe the medrash that support such a position. Why because then that would mean that my assertion is correct. That is a position that is obviously inconceivable to you.
So your defense is simply denial - you have offered no source to justifiy your position and you haven't given alterantive explanation to they sources I quote.
In sum you are simply stonewalling
@Torah Truth - the following summarizes my views- note Ramban is referring to halachic issues but this obvious applies in other areas as wel
DeleteRamban (Introduction to Milchemes HaShem): For those who look at my sefer, don’t say in your heart that all my responses to the Baal HaMeor are in my eyes absolutely correct and obviously true and would therefore force everyone to acknowledge them. For everyone who studies our Talmud is well aware that concerning disputes between the commentaries that there are no absolute proofs or absolutely unanswerable questions. In fact, in this area of wisdom, things are not clear and unambiguous as we find in mathematical proofs. The main effort is to show that one position is more likely and more reasonable than the alternatives - rather than to show that one is entirely correct and the other is entirely wrong.
TO sum up my position...
DeleteI say you can't use as proof something that Reshonim like Rav Shmuel Hanagid and Rabbeinu Chananel and (according to me) Ramban and Meiri say that you can't use as proof... If these Reshonim say that it is up to the individual to accept or reject based on what is Oleh Al Hadaas, based on what makes sense to them... how can you prove anything from that. It may make sense to you but it doesn't to me. Therefore by DEFINITION it is not a proof.
Vkal Lehavin!
unless the story about rabbi akiva is the exception that prove the rule. the rule is that we can't/don't understand more than the previous generations. rabbi akiva was able to be מחדש things? OK that is rabbi akiva. he was the only one able to go in and out of pardaise. being מחדש began and ended with him. someone wants to claim that this or that gadol (and it has to be a super גדול, not just some תלמיד חכם) has rabbi akiva like abilities? let him prove it.
Deletejust throwing out an idea.
what do you do with Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 2:1):רמב"ם ממרים ב
Deleteב"ד גדול שדרשו באחת מן המדות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין, ועמד אחריהם ב"ד אחר ונראה לו טעם אחר לסתור אותו הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שנראה בעיניו, שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך.
===============
why do we have the ability to disagree with previous generations - even rishonim?
I cited the Rid before who in fact says we can understand more than the previous generations.
Furthermore there are views in the Rishonim that we can have new revelations and halacha determined by prophesy.
Bottom line where do you get the idea that we can't understand more than the previous generations - that the mesora is in essence a leaky pipe that i.e., that information can be lost but not gained.
What do you do with the gemora in Temura of halachos which were lost during the mourning for Moshe but they were restored by pilpul?
In general what do you do with the generation of new halachos by the 13 midos?
"Furthermore there are views in the Rishonim that we can have new revelations and halacha determined by prophesy."
Deletetwo points:
1) there are plenty of rishonim who say you can't. does the SA and Rema pasken that you can?
2) even if one accepts that prophecy may have a role, the would-be prophet would still have to prove himself to actually be a prophet in front of a beit din (i assume a beit din of musmachim). when did that ever happen?
"What do you do with the gemora in Temura of halachos which were lost during the mourning for Moshe but they were restored by pilpul?
In general what do you do with the generation of new halachos by the 13 midos?"
two answers:
1) that stuff ended with the sealing of the gemara or maybe even with end of the sealing of the mishna
2) there are opinions that nothing is generated by middot. rather, those exercises are only to find sources of what we know to be the halacha already.
where do you see that "stuff" ended with the gemora or Mishna? And even if it did end - That meant that from Sinai till the sealing of the Talmud halachos were being generated that hadn't existed before and thus added to the mesora!
DeleteSo what do you do with the obvious fact from the gemora that halachos are generated from the middos? The fact that it is legitimate to say that halachos were generated shows that the mesora is not static and in fact progresses and evolves.
where do you see that the rishonim read psukim and generate halachot?
Deletei gave a different interpretation: nothing was generated, the middot are merely a way of finding the source of a halacha, not the halacha itself. i am basing this on the rambam's introduction to the mishna (iirc).
the Rambam states that is what they did
DeleteIntroduction to Mishna:
The Oral Laws. . . can be divided into. . 1. Explanations received from the lips of Moses and which are hinted to in the Scriptures: . . . There is absolutely no machlokess about any such halacha. Once one says, “So have I received,” all debate dissipates. 2. Laws called Halachos L’Moshe MiSinai: These, as we mentioned, have no Scriptural indications, and concerning these, no one differs. 3. Laws derived through logic: Such were subject to machlokess. . . Thus they say, “If it is a halacha we will accept it, but if it is a logical inference, we have a retort” (Yevomos 76b) .., Machlokess and analysis arose [only] over things concerning which no halacha was heard from Moshe. Some may think that the laws that were disputed were also received from Moses’ lips. They may conjecture that disagreements arose. . . [because] one of the disputants received the teaching {kabballa} correctly, whereas the other. .. forgot [what he was taught]. . . . [T]his is a very’ repugnant thing to say and these are words of senseless people who do not understand matters of basic principle, and such vords besmirch the people from whom we received the comiments. The entire conjecture is less than worthless.
The Rambam held that the majority of Doreissa laws were generated by Rabbinic drashos. That clearly is a refuation of the view that Mesora is a leaky pipe that can only lose information but can never gain it.
DeleteRambam (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 2): It is not correct to count among the 613 mitzvos those commandments which were learned with the use of one of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. We have already explained in the Introduction to our Commentary to the Mishna that the majority of Torah laws were generated by the use of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. Furthermore that such laws are sometimes the source of dispute amongst our Sages. However those laws and explanations of the laws which were transmitted from Moshe were never disputed...
Mararetz Chajes (Maamer Divrei Neviim Divrei Kabbala 1): By means of these general rules our Sages derived from the halachos that are explicitly stated in the Torah - the many detailed derivative halachos which were not originally known. Using this understanding resolves many questions that arise in the course of Torah study. In other words by means of the hermeneutic principles received from Sinai as well as the principles and analytic approach which has been in use since the time of Moshe and Yehoshua until modern times – that which is derived by our Sages - all of these laws are objectively and truthfully found in the Torah which was given at Sinai. They are like branches which are potentially in the trunk or like fruit that is potenitally in the seed. This is also the intent of the gemora (Berachos 5a), “ ‘To teach’ is referring to the Gemora and it teaches that everything was given to Moshe at Sinai.”. Megila (19b), “It teaches that G d showed to Moshe the details of the Torah and the rulings of the rabbis and that which the rabbis would innovate in the future.” Similarly in the Yerushalmi (Peah 2 & Megila 1) , “G d showed to Moshe that which the competent student would innovate in the future.” The intent of all these sources is that everything was in fact given at Sinai. However the details eventually produced by the principles - while actually contained in that which was given – were only latent and were not known explicitly until they were derived at a later time. In contrast information coming from prophecy or ruach hakodesh or bas kol or Urim v’Tumim – all of these are irrelevant in determining what was given at Sinai because the Torah says – “It is no longer in Heaven.”
"The Rambam held that the majority of Doreissa laws were generated by Rabbinic drashos. That clearly is a refuation of the view that Mesora is a leaky pipe that can only lose information but can never gain it."
Deleteand the start of his introduction to the mishna the rambam writes that moshe received the torah, including the mitzvot and their perush. he knew it all and transmitted it. the rambam than gave an example of how the mitzvah of sukka was given with its relevant halachot.
it makes sense to you that at a level of doreitta somehow your sukka is better than yehoshua's or even moshe's because a tanna made a binyan av? that makes sense?
of course we have d'rabbanans which earlier generations never heard of. there are asmachtot. and our tefillin are straighter than earlier generations because we have better technology.
but at the level of torah law i find it inconceivable that we have something that they didn't.
but at the level of torah law i find it inconceivable that we have something that they didn't.
DeleteDo you think that any Kabbalist would say that they have something that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't as far a Kabbalah goes? Again I would refer you to the Leshem, a different place still in sefer HaBiurim, his hakdamah to Anaf Beit, where he clearly states that everything that is written in the Kitvei HaAri was known, and in fact in many ways better known, by Moshe Rabbeinu, because Moshe Rabbeinu was a Navi, and so for him it was not simply intellectual, with perhaps some added perception of truth from Ruah HaKodesh or Gilui or whatever, but rather in a very real sense he was in those upper realms, he experienced them, and saw them...
What we have today, if you take all of the Kabbalah combined, is but a shadow of those things.
To put it better, who knows the streets of NYC better, a cabby who has been driving them all of his life, and who's bread and butter relies on it, or a guy with a map but who has never stepped foot in NYC? We are the guys with the map.
" Again I would refer you to the Leshem, a different place still in sefer HaBiurim, his hakdamah to Anaf Beit, where he clearly states that everything that is written in the Kitvei HaAri was known, "
Delete. . . which is quite different from the rabbi akiva story
Check this
ReplyDeletehttp://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-articles/40-philosophy/579-did-r-shimon-ben-yohai-write-the-zohar
@Hodo Hashem:
ReplyDeleteThe article you linked to above has some excellent advice from Rabbi David Bar-Hayim on how one should study and scrutinize nistar (secrets of the Torah).
By Rabbi David Bar-Hayim:
"My approach towards Qabala, or the Zohar, is identical to my approach to Rambam's Mor'e HaN'vukhim or R. Y'hudha HaLewi's Kuzari, or to the writings of Rav Kook or Rav Hirsch: study and consider well, and accept what seems good and correct. That which is plainly not true one should reject. That which is problematic or dubious, or possible but not necessarily so, one may choose to either accept, reject or place in one's Undecided Box. This approach to Jewish thought and philosophy is analogous to the attitude of Rav Sh'rira Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon (see Eshkol, I, p. 157 ff) towards Agadoth: that many Agadic statements are non-binding opinions not based on firm tradition, and that one is not required to accept all such statements."
Rabbi Bar Chaim is not considered a significant authority last time I checked. Did you start eating kitniyos on Pesach because of his psak?
DeleteThe fact that you declare that this approach is analogous to aggadata - doesn't mean that the analogy is true. That is fact is what is being disputed here.
Torah Truth wrote:
ReplyDeleteTO sum up my position...
I say you can't use as proof something that Reshonim like Rav Shmuel Hanagid and Rabbeinu Chananel and (according to me) Ramban and Meiri say that you can't use as proof... If these Reshonim say that it is up to the individual to accept or reject based on what is Oleh Al Hadaas, based on what makes sense to them... how can you prove anything from that. It may make sense to you but it doesn't to me. Therefore by DEFINITION it is not a proof.
Vkal Lehavin!
================
you are grossly misunderstanding the Ramban and others. They nowhere say that medrashim and agadata can't be used a proof! There is a huge difference between saying that certain medrashim which don't make sense do not have to be accepted and saying that medrashim categorically can't be used as proof. What we call hashkofa is based on medrashim and agadata.
It is clear that medrashim and agadata are also used in determining halacha. For example artificial insemination is permitted based on Ben Sira!
From Critic:
ReplyDeleteTorah Truth - You can take a simpler approach and not get ino an argument over whether later generations can know more and whether that contradicts mesorah
The issue is not whether later generations can know or understand more than earlier generations. Obviously, new sevoros are "invented" all the time so of course it is a development and we can have new insight, but the mekuballim are saying much more - that large areas of insight were given by giliu eliyahu or ruach hakodesh to the later generations - now that is something that is counterintuitive that the later generations should be "greater" in receiving supernatural knowledge than earlier generations who did not receive it. The mekuballim claim that the later mekubalim are greater in that sense and that is troubling. As R Tzadok has said...this does not hold true for nigleh - only nistar...which is quite odd. Of course, another issue with this mesorah of kabbala is that they did not simply add or modify things as would be expected in the natural course of human thought, but totally reinvented the way we view the G-D head and His attributes.