Nahmanides and Rashi on the One Flesh of Conjugal Union: Lovemaking vs. Duty
Harvard Theological Review 102:2 (2009) 193–224
[...]
The argument that ensues in this article will demonstrate, firstly, that a prominent example of this feature of Nahmanidean exegesis pertains to the domain of interhuman relations. Here I will focus particularly on those “truths” his exegesis discloses about the spousal relationship. Secondly, Nahmanides’ view of the spousal relationship is offered as paradigmatic of his kabbalistic theology, which not only does not displace its concrete social, psychological, anthropological, and juristic realia, but actually complements them. Thirdly, the case will be made that Nahmanides’ narrative exegesis, with its overarching quest for the plain sense of the text, is not intended simply to sate his readers’ intellectual and literary curiosity but also practically shapes his normative positions. In this particular context I will explore how his exegetical construct of a primordial composite human being, its gendered bifurcation, the definitive ideal of spousal union, the subsequent relational tensions between man and woman, and their conflict and resolution into a gendered hierarchy, all dramatized by the Garden of Eden narrative, inform his normative framework for the conduct of conjugal duties. […]
Nahmanidean metaphysics envisions a dynamic interplay within the internal recesses of the Godhead consisting of an ebb and flow of energy exchanged between its female and male potencies. The perpetual struggle for a proper balance between the two infuses the narrative relationships between their earthly counterparts of man and woman with far more significance than they otherwise would have.10 Although others have noted the mystical enhancement of the sexual act in the kabbalistic tradition,11 studies of this aspect of kabbalistic thought have tended to focus on the precise identification of sefirotic allusions and symbolism. Insufficient attention has been paid to the model God poses simply as a unitary being (albeit, paradoxically, a dynamic one consisting of sefirot, or intradeical emanations) in his engagement with and governance of the world. As Gershom Scholem put it, “In its totality the individual elements of the life process of God are unfolded yet constitute a unity.”12God’s macro-relationship with both the world and Israel presents an archetype for imitatio dei in the micro-relationships between human beings and, in particular, between opposite genders. […]
The first negative divine assessment of God’s creation is of the lonely condition of the male deprived of female companionship in the second chapter in Genesis. All other creations were judged “good,” whereas this single product of the originating process is “not good”—“for it is not good for man to be alone”—prompting a corrective creative measure: “I will make for him a helpmate” (Gen 2:18). The exegetical question posed by this particular verse is what precisely is “not good” about the solitary state of man. For Rashi the phrase “not good” expresses a grave theological concern that man’s presence as the sole representative of his species on earth will miscast him as a singularity leading to his deification: “That they should not say, ‘there are two powers: God is unique among the higher beings as he has no partner, and this [man] is unique among the lower since he has no partner.’”16 […]
Nahmanides, on the other hand, sees the “not good” as an existential malaise of Adam’s resulting from his being a single composite entity of male and female.17First he accedes to the rabbinic opinion that original man was created with two faces, male and female back to back:18 “It is likely that this account is according to the one who holds they were created with two faces.” He then explains the mechanics of self-reproduction: “and they were made to have the natural means whereby the reproductive male organ would enable the female reproductive organ to give birth.” Once the anatomical features of this primal being have been determined, Nahmanides addresses God’s assessment of its value and identifies that facet which elicits God’s not good, and he explains how “I will make him a helpmate opposite him” responds to the problem. God realizes that “it is good that the mate stand opposite him so that he can see it and either separate from it or unite with it according to his will.”19 It is crucial to note that since Nahmanides establishes a possible procreative biology of the primordial androgynous being, it is not the negative prospects for propagation of the species that he views as the problem. What is problematic about this original condition is the permanent state of unity between the male and female and the lack of choice to either form or sever a relationship with another human being. The “good” of the human species is that there can be both separation and union between the sexes, each instigated by an independent exercise of will. We have here none other than a definition of man as a relational being whose “goodness” lies in his capacity to enter into and leave relationships.20 On this issue Rashi exhibits no concern for the relational facet of man, while Nahmanides is keenly sensitive to the vacuity of a life devoid of the other where relations are a static given rather than attained and maintained. It is important to note here that I do not intend to portray Nahmanides as a liberal advocate of equality between the sexes but only to emphasize his appreciation for the complexity of human relationships.■
I didn't read the above other than your opening caution, but if something is heretical, why would you post it?
ReplyDelete@David - it is obvious that you are one of the people who should not read the post.
ReplyDeleteThere are many sources that I could bring to justify making such a post, Rambam's famous statement that he will not say where he is getting his quotes from because there are people who would automatically reject them. Or Pirkei Avos - about knowing what to reply to the apikorus - which means that you need to be aware of what the apikorus says to be able to answer it. There are seforim that write the words of heretics - in order to refute them. If you study those seforim you are studying heresy. There are gedolim who were friendly with heretics, Christians and Moslems - and didn't havve a problem with having discussion about Torah topics. But I assume you are aware of these sources but reject them.
So let me answer from a different approach. I am a talmid of Rav Shlomo Friefeld. When I was a bochur in Shor Yoshuv he came to me one day and asked me for a favor.
"There is a person who wishes to donate a set of En Judaica to the yeshiva - but only on condition that it is used by bochurim also. I can't let everyone in the yeshiva read it since it is full of heresy. I know that this material won't influence you - so would you please borrow a volume and read through it so I can say that it is being used?" There were other bochurim who were also asked. We see from this that Rav Friefeld wanted to obtain a set of E Judaica. We also see that there are people who can deal with heresy and people who can't.
I wrote that post for people who can deal with heresy - not for you.
But, Dear RDE, you're violating the very principles of your rebbi Rav Shlomo Friefeld that you just cited! Rav Freifeld, as you said, was very particular to not allow the heresy to be read by all but rather only by the few who could be trusted to handle it apprpriately. You, on the other hand, are posting admitted heresy for public consumption by all!
ReplyDelete@David - you don't understand what I said. If I had simply made the post without a warning that you would have a claim. A person is not required to get a psak.
ReplyDeleteCiting Rav Miller as an example of normativve halacha is a joke. If a person wants to be strict for himself - you can not generalize from that.
These are issues which require judgment - there is no requirement for a psak. But I would advise that you ask your posek whether you should continue reading this blog. And if he says yes - ask him whether you should spend so much time asking questions which I don't think are contributing anything to the discussion.
You cited Rav Shlomo Friefeld. Rav Shlomo Friefeld didn't permit the general student body to read the EJ because of heresy.
ReplyDelete@David - he didn't prohibit it. He just didn't ask the general student body to read it.
ReplyDeleteAgain - please ask your posek whether a person with your views and sensitivies should be wasting his time attempting to convince others of the error of their ways.
Your quote of Rav Friefeld was "I can't let everyone in the yeshiva read it since it is full of heresy." "Can't let" is prohibitive. And he didn't want to make it publicly available; that is more than "just didn't ask the general student body to read it."
ReplyDelete@David - this is getting really ridiculous. After the E Judaica came it circulated around the dorimories. There was no official rules about who could read it and who could not. He didn't give it to everybody - but he didn't stop people from reading it.
ReplyDeleteYou simply don't understand. Still waiting for your rav's psak. No more hairsplitting questions until I hear what he says.
@David - please go tell your posek that he is making a big mistake regarding your activities.
ReplyDeleteMy posek disagrees with you and, rather, agrees with Rav Friefeld.
ReplyDeleteDavid - Ask your posek: At what point (after how many times having repeated the same arguments over and over, to no avail) may I stop?
ReplyDelete"Nahmanidean metaphysics envisions a dynamic interplay within the internal recesses if the Godhead...."
ReplyDeleteThis article is not "mixed" with the views of heretical scholars in some sort of bitul b'rov ta'aruvos. This is apikorsus through and through. You imply that some of it is ok and some is not. How can bring a quote in the name of the Ramban for this apikorsus. Even with a disclaimer.
@Shimon - please explain to the rest of us exactly what is wrong. I make no claim to have any knowledged of Kabbala and i gather that you are claiming Prof Diamon's understanding of kabbala is fatal flawed.
ReplyDeleteOk. In words of one syllable. We believe in yichud hashem. That means (amongst other things) that there are not two parts to the 'Godhead' that can dynamically interplay with each other.
ReplyDelete@Shimon are you claiming to be an expert in kabbala? Diamond is apparently Orthodox and he has a close association with Dr. Dov Friedberg who is Orthodox. Haven't heard either referred to as heretics.
ReplyDeleteWe do believe in yichud HaShem - but Kabbala seems to spend a lot of time talking about the components of that yichud. Here is a quote from Wikipedia . Please provide sources within kabbala that support your understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_in_Judaism
There is a divergence of opinion among the kabbalists concerning the relation of the sefirot to the En Sof. Azriel (commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah, p. 27b) and, after him, Menahem Recanati (Ṭa'ame ha-Miẓwot, passim) considered the sefirot to be totally different from the Divine Being. The "Ma'areket" group took the sefirot to be identical in their totality with the En Sof, each sefirah representing merely a certain view of the Infinite ("Ma'areket", p. 8b). The Zohar clearly implies that they are the names of the deity, and gives for each of them a corresponding name of God and of the hosts of angels mentioned in the Bible. Luria and Cordovero, without regarding them as instruments, do not identify them with the essence of the deity. They argue that the "Absolute One" is immanent in all the sefirot and reveals himself through them, but does not dwell in them; the sefirot can never include the Infinite. Each sefirah has a well-known name, but the Holy One has no definite name (Pardes Rimmonim, pp. 21–23).
You get your torah from Wikipedia. I get mine from my Rabbonim. Nothing more needs to be said really. Nothing in Kabbolo states that there are two parts of Hashem in dynamic interplay, the way that that extract states. One can of course twist and distort the words to make them acceptable, but as they are written down and quoted in your post they are apikorsus. In any event, the Ramban in other places does not follow the Ma'areket group which completely misquoted on Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteShimon please explain the following comment. Do you think it is heresy?!
ReplyDeleteרמב"ן על בראשית פרק כב פסוק יב
ודעת הפרשה ש"האלהים" הוא המנסה ומצוה בעקידה, ו"מלאך ה'" הוא המונע והמבטיח, יתברר בפסוק המלאך הגואל אותי (להלן מח טז):
Shimon you obviously didn't bother reading the quote I provided from the Ramban. I asked for citation from kaabbala - not your understanding of what your rabbonim said.
ReplyDeleteOf course I can't explain the Ramban's explanation of bechira vs yediya in this blog and how it interplays with the concept of nisayon in this blog! It's far to complex.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously suggesting the Ramban holds that there are two parts to the 'Godhead'. One of which wanted the sacrifice and the other preventing it. By bringing this extract as a proof for the statement under discussion, this is effectively what you are saying.
You didn't post my response to this.
ReplyDeleteIt does not mean that the Ramban is saying that there are two parts to the 'Godhead', the principle you appear to be defending with this Ramban. The Ramban is not saying that one part of the Godhead wanted the akeidah, the other part did not. Chas Vesholom. Do you really believe that is pshat in the Ramban!
The Ramban is alluding to his general pshat in nisoyon and freewill v bechira. Too complex to explain in this blog comment.
@Shimon - the quote regarding the Akeida is an example of dynamism which you claim is heresy.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion comes down to whether dynamism is inherently contrary to the concept of yichud haShem. From the Ramban is doesn't look like it.
As you say these are very complex issues and I don't think you can compose a litmus test based on the word dynamism. Instead of quoting yourself - an anonymous commentor - please quote some major sources saying that anything that implies dynamism is heresy. So far you haven't.
I didn't say anything about dynamism. You have casually changed the grounds of our discussion but I am too clever for that.
ReplyDeleteI said that the statement that there are two parts, internal recesses, of the Godhead in dynamic interplay is heresy. There are not two parts of the Godhead. The Godhead is a Christian concept anyway.
There is only one Hashem who does not consist of 'parts' with "internal recesses" in dynamic interplay with energy flows. That's not Judaism it is heresy. Hashem Echod.
How come Eddie and Rabbi Michael Tzaddok have nothing to say about all of this? I hope they are both well!
ReplyDeleteI asked my poseik. He said to tell Michoel to mind his own business.
ReplyDelete@Shimon I am glad to hear that you hear that you think you are too clever - to be tricked by my alleged changing the grounds of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteYou simply cited a line from Prof Diamond which you claimed was heresy - which did included the assertion of dynamism.
Aside from repeating your assertions that this is heresy - you haven't produced a single citation that such a statement is heresy to everyone or even most authorities - including kabbalists. It certainly is according to the Rambam. With his absolutist concept of unity he would probably declare Kabbala heresy.
If you have no trouble with dyanimics - that acknowledges different components or potencies within G-d. Saying that some are more inner than outer - doesn't seem a major step. If it is please produce sources.
Yes I am aware that the term Godhead comes from Christian sources - but since it is used by Jews - at least in the academic world - I don't see any reason not to use term. You don't either
Bottom line: You have set yourself as an expert on yichud haShem and declared Prof Diamond's statement as heresy. You are a nonentity concealing your identity and thus your pronouncement have no authority. Please produce sources that talking about inner or outer is heresy but not conflicting parts or potencies. Alternative reveal yourself as a recognized expert in the matter.
If you can't produce any actual sources - then this discussion with you is terminated. If anyone else has sources they would be greatly appreciated. To posul someone who has a chezkes kashrus because you don't like his theology - is not acceptable.
@Shimon - it is time to cut out your heresy hunting. Please take the trouble of reading a post from 2 years ago - Rav Tzadok on the issue of Unity of G-d. This is from his Sefer Zichronnos Mitzva 3 Unity of G-d.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/unity-of-g-d-vs-belief-in-his.html
Amongst other things he notes that while the Rambam declares someone who believes that G-d has a body is a heretic - that is not the view of the Ramban and Ravad and that the Sefer Ikkarim says it is not even a sin - but a misunderstanding.
More to the point is the following quote:
In contrast to these authorities, I believe that Chazal had a different understanding of the mitzva of Yichud. Even the Rambam (Sefer Mitzvos Positive Command #2) describes Yichud as the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven (in contrast to what he said before). We also see this different understanding in Berachos(13b): “Once a person has accepted G-d’s dominion above and below and in the four directions of the compass – nothing else is required.” We see clearly from these sources that Yichud is not meditation about the nature of G-d Himself. In other words it is not concerned with whether a person believes that G-d has subdivisions or changes – which was the understanding of the mitzva of Yichud expressed by the Chovas HaLevavos, Rambam and the others previously cited. These matters which they describe as the mitzva of Yichud really are already covered by the commandment found in Devarim (4:15). Their understanding of Yichud is not related to G-d’s dominion over the world which is part of the alternative concept of Yichud.
In truth those who have a philosophical concept of Yichud - focused on divorcing G-d of all physicality - run into another problem. They end up denying Divine Providence, the concept of reward & punishment, the ability to influence G-d by prayer and good deeds. In other words they end up with a heretical position. And even some of the most pious of the earlier eras as well as their gedolim were attracted to philosophical analysis of these issues. Consequently some of them came to reject that Providence applies all creation and they insisted that it only applied to man. Such an understanding of Providence is against Chazal as found in Yerushalmi (Shevi’is 9:1) and Bereishis Rabbah(79:6) which state that, “Even a bird will not be caught unless it is decreed in Heaven.” Ironically these great men - who thought that through their analysis would come to the true understanding of Yichud – in fact came to the opposite. That is because it is the opposite of Yichud to think that some aspect of creation can be separate from G-d and can exist without His constant Providence. Therefore even though they acknowledged that G-d created everything and that His Providence applies to things in general, nevertheless this is not genuine Yichud. That is because they believed that after creation something which interferes with the Yichud of creation with G-d.
Many classical Rishonim and Acharonim treat sections of Kabolo with deep suspicion. Charlatans from Shabbasei Tzvi to Maddona to Bresolver sects quote kabbolo to justify all sorts of weird things. Even the Zohar itself was treated with suspicion, kal vechomer the other parts.
ReplyDeleteThe Chassam Sofer is quoted as saying;
"Of the Zohar, only a minor part that would
make up a very small book of few pages, is attributable to R. Shimon ben Yohai." ("Mei Menachot", daf 43 ammud 2)
I will let you have more sources after y't bl'n.
Where is the term Godhead used by believing Jews? You go on and on about my lack of sources, but to be honest, you are hardly rich with them. You seem to write very often 'I heard from my Rebbes', 'heard b'shem the chazon ish' and similar. Hardly detailed reliable sources.
Turning to R' Tzadok Hacohen. Your post has 7 paragraphs. 6 of the 7 concern the physicality or not of Hashem which is totally irrelevant to our conversation.
The remaining one discusses the precise parameters of the twice daily mitzvo of Yichud Hashem in shema. I agree that you do not, during "Hashem Echod" have to dismiss "the dynamic interplay within the various recesses of the Godhead" as part of that mitzvah. Nothing in that paragraph about what is or isn't heresy.
But there is certainly a source, the Rekanti that your post brings. "In other words, Recanti asserts that who ever separates the aspects of G-d and treats them as distinct entities is violating the prohibition
against physicality and also the requirement to believe in G-d’s unity."
I will let you have more sources after y't bl'n. That easily outweigh some obscure kabolloh quoted by an obscure academic.
@Shimon you are ignoring he evidence. Your view does fit with the Rambam - but it does not fit the views of Kabbala. To declare someones views as heresy because it reflects a kabbalistic understanding is rather absurd. Is that your point?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the use of the term Godhead - you will find it used by observant Jews in academic articles.
I don't see that Prof Diamond's quote is an example of Rekanti's prohibition.
So please provide sources from the kabbalistic point of view which agrees with you. It is clear that Rav Tzadok does not accept your understanding.
I was very much on the same page as you a while back. But a heresy depends also on a theology or confession. So it is heretical according to Rambam, but for example, the Raavad does not call these ideas heretical, but maybe mistaken [I refer to the alleged form of G-d]..
ReplyDeleteThe point being, once can follow different authorities in halacha, and sometimes disagree with Rambam, so why not with theology too?
The Zohar and Kaballah have some very deep insights into what goes on beyond the obvious and plain meaning of things. I think even the rationalist can be enlightened by the Zohar, and this was the path of Abraham Abulafia, and the Ramchal.
I am in good company. Amongst the Rambam, the Rikanti, the Chasam Sofer, the Ramchal and others I will bring after yt bl'n those views are heresy. Are you suggesting that Shabbatei Tzvi was not a heretic because he based himself on supposedly Kabbalistic ideas? According to the Chasam Sofer and others much of the zohar is a forgery and I trust an academic's opinion of an obscure kabbalistic idea as much as I trust you with an opinion on the theory of relativity. Which esteemed talmid chochom did this chap learn his kabbolo from? And I am widely read and I have never come accross the term Godhead used by observant jews. Only Christians. That itself should set alarm bells ringing. And I am not saying he himself is a heretic by the way.
ReplyDelete@Shimon - so you are planning on invalidating mainstream kabbalistic thought?
ReplyDeleteSo at this point you are saying that you don't view Prof Diamond as a heretic but only that he expressed a heretic view?
You are acknowledging that the view he expressed is not against modern kabbalistic thought - but that you think think this view is unacceptable because it is a forgery or mistakenly based on Zohar which you view primarily as a forgery?
If this is your view - there is really nothing more to discuss since you are clearly not mainstream Orthodox with such views
@Shimon one of the basic rules of this blog is we don't question accepted Orthodox Jewish views. There is no discussion whether G-d exists or whether the Torah was given on Sinai etc etc. So again if your main point is that you don't accept mainstream views of Kabbala then that is the end of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS NOT A MAINSTREAM VIEW. The idea that we have sort of schizophrenic God with two or more internal recesses which are in constant conflict and interplay is not a mainstream view. Even if it is accurately portrayed by your academic, which I doubt, its source is an obscure part of kabolo. According to you, the Chasam Sofer, who denounced large sections of kabolo would not be allowed to post on this blog. He didn't accept large mainstream parts of Kabolo.
ReplyDeleteYou use the phrase "MODERN kabbalistic though". What is 'modern' kabbalistic thought? As far as I know kabbalistic thought was sealed hundreds of years ago. Can any academic now produce ideas of a schizophrenic god and be accepted to you over the opinion of many rishonim and acharonim on kaboloh and the zohar on its accuracy, authenticity and compatibility with the classical views on yichud hashem? To the extent that they do not express mainstream judaism but this academic does?
I have no idea what the academic himself believes, so I cannot express an opinion on him personally. I doubt you believe much of the opinions expressed in your various quotes from around the world. Just because somebody quotes something doesn't mean he or she believes it themselves.
@Shimon - you are playing games. The point is that you claimed that Prof Diamond's view was heresy. I claim that it isn't according to Modern Kabbalistic thought - i.e., in the last 200 years.
ReplyDeleteYou claim it is not mainstream - but you haven't produced any sources such as the Arizal or the Leshem that says that saying such is heresy.
Kabbalaistic thought has gone through changes pre and post Arizal Ramchal, Leshem and Chassidus
I am asking a simple and direct question - produce your sources in the last 200 years from a mainstream source that says it is heresy!
Regarding the Chasam Sofer - please produce proof that he rejected Kabbala. He had a rebbe who accepted it - not aware he rejected his views. His attitude to the Zohar is not proof what he held in regards to Kabbala. Where does he say he "denounced large sections of kabbala?"
Are you simply rejecting Prof Diamonds views or is your agenda to reject Kabbala?
I quoted a few sentences at the beginning of the article and complained that that particular thought was heretical - the one about dynamic interplay within various recesses of the Godhead. The term Godhead itself stinks of heresy and please provide any reliable observant sourse that uses it. I quoted the source of the Chasam Sofer in an earlier post. Look it up. I find it highly amusing that you write that the fundementals of your blog is belief in Hashem and torah misinai yet yourself quote a post which you freely admit contains heretical views and caution the reader same!
ReplyDelete-------- Original message --------
But the 13 Ikkarim of Maimonides are mainstream thought. Thus we have them in most siddurim, and we have a Yigdal which embodies them. So it cannot be un-orthodox to stand by a mainstream orthodox viewpoint, even if there are alternative views as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is a complicated issue. At the end of the day, the maximum we can do is to follow a Gadol, and that might be the Rambam, the Ramban, The Raavad, the Ari, the Gra , the Bal Shem Tov etc. If they have divergent views, that is a controversy between Gedolim. At my low stature, i am in no position to determine who knows best.
ReplyDelete@Eddie the understanding of the 13 Ikkarim has changed. As the Ravad notes - the Rambam says a person who believes that G-d has a body is an apikorus while the Ravad and others disagrees.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that one can not call a person an apikorus (or his views )based on the Rambam and others - if in the last 200 years it has been acceptable to say otherwise. See Prof. Marc Shapiro's book on the topic. If you want to accept fully the Rambam's view - that doesn't provide an excuse to publicly denounce others who have whom to rely on.
Rambam clearly states that hashgacha protis applies to higher level people. Starting with the Baal Shem Tov - it became increasing accetable to say HK applies to everyone and everything.
My point is there is a difference between an authentic Jewish view and THE only authentic view. Shimon wants to posul views that don't fit with the Rambam - I say you can't and he hasn't produced any sources from the last 200 years that say that what Prof Diamond has said is apikorsus.
@Eddie - very well put.
ReplyDelete@Shimon you are being less then intellectually honest. I asked where the Chasam Sofer denounced large sections of kabbala. Your response is that he did not believe that a large part of the Zohar was from the Rashbi. Not the same thing. Please read the following old post
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/zohar-was-not-originally-in-form-we.html
@Shimon - you are creating new cateogries "stinks of heresy". why not simply stick to the topic which is the absence of justification for your accusations of heresy.
ReplyDeleteThe article I cautioned against - cited people such as Scholem. I didn't go through their views to see whether in fact they were heretical - but given who they were I issued a caution. In short their views were not necessarily heretical.
Your amusement level is rather twisted. There is no necessary connection between saying that mainstream Orthodox views are not going to evaluated as to whether they are true and including an article whose basic premise is sound from the theological view point - but it cites a few people who are not frum and might be heretical.
You are proclaiming how frum you are and how sharp you are at identifying heresy - but you reject a significant part of Orthodox hashkofa (kabbala) - which according to various mainstream sources - is itself heresy.