Megila (18a) (R. Aha also said in the name of R. Eleazar: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob El [God] Because it says, And the God of Israel called him [Jacob] El. For should you suppose that [what the text means is that] Jacob called the altar El, then it should be written, ‘And Jacob called it’. But [as it is not written so], we must translate, ‘He called Jacob El’. And who called him so? The God of Israel).
Sukkah (14a) R. Eleazar said, Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork? To teach thee that just as the pitchfork turns the corn from place to place in the barn, so the prayers of the righteous turn the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of harshness to that of mercy.
Moed Katan (16b) The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: Ruler over man shall be the righteous, even he that ruleth through the reverent fear of God. What does this mean? — Said R. Abbahu, It means this: ‘The God of Israel said, to David spake the Rock of Israel; I rule man; who rules Me? It is the righteous: for I make a decree and he may annul it’.
Drashas HaRan (03) And because this mitzvah is the beginning of the Torah it is intimated in this parshah, just as the root of reward and punishment is herein intimated. For, this mitzvah, being the beginning of the Torah, it is fitting that there be alluded to in it the rationale of the mitzvoth. And we are herein shown that in performing the Blessed One's commandment we are saved from harm — just as this mitzvah [of the Paschal lamb] was seen to have saved them from the plague in Egypt. All this to enforce the belief that the keeper of the mitzvoth is above nature and not subservient to the galaxy and its forces. This is the intent of (Moed Katan 16b): "I rule man, and who rules Me? The righteous man; for I make a decree and he annuls it." That is, I have not made him subservient to nature.
Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemos 33:7), “and whoever sought Hashem would go out to the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that the Shechinah was no longer resident within the camp of the people. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “whoever wanted to seek out Moses, etc.” The fact that the Torah does not use this syntax indicates that seeking out Moses was equated with seeking out G’d’s presence. Moses was described by the Torah as “Hashem” in this regard. We find that our patriarch Yaakov was also accorded the title “G’d” in Genesis 33,20 where the Torah wrote: ויקרא לו אל אלו-הי ישראל. I have explained all this in connection with that verse. [seeing that every judge is called אלוהים in the Torah, this is not as mind-boggling as it appears at first. It is simply an extension of the principle that the messenger is equipped with the status of the sender, a well-known principle in the Talmud. Ed.] When Rivkah experienced an unusual pregnancy, the fetuses struggling within her womb, the Torah describes her as inquiring from G’d what all this meant. The words used by the Torah are ותלך לדרוש את ה'. The meaning there is that she went to a representative of G’d to ask the meaning of her experience. There too the person whom she inquired from is described as Hashem (Genesis 25,22). There are numerous other examples of the same thing throughout the Bible. We learn from Rivkah’s experience that when the Torah wrote ויאמר ה' לה, that she did not experience a revelation or direct message from G’d, but that she received the word of G’d by means of a person designated by G’d to tell her that she would give birth to twins, etc. We find that both the Messiah and the city of Jerusalem have been accorded the title “G’d” on occasion, such as in Jeremiah 23,6 and Ezekiel 48,34. In the latter instance the word שמה must be read with the vowels קמץ twice instead of a שוא under the letter ש. In all the instances mentioned the rule is simply that the messenger adopts the name of the Sender.
Ramchal (Mesilas Yesharim 26) But for the Holy man who constantly clings to his G-d, whose soul treads freely among true thoughts in love of his Creator and fear of Him, behold, it is considered as if he is walking before G-d in the Land of the Living, while still here in this world. Such a man is himself considered as a tabernacle, a temple and an altar. This is as our sages said (Gen. Rabba 62:6): "'and G-d went up from him' (Gen.35:13) - the forefathers are the divine chariot". Likewise, they said: "the righteous are the divine chariot". For the Shechina (divine presence) dwells within them just as it dwelled in the Temple. Due to this, the food they eat is like a sacrifice offered upon the fire of the altar, for certainly it was a great elevation for those things to be offered on the altar, since they were offered before the Shechina. The elevation was to such an extent that its kind, all over the world, was blessed, as our sages stated in a Midrash. So too, the food and drink which the holy man eats elevates that food or drink as if it had actually been offered on the altar. This is similar to what our sages, of blessed memory, said: "one who brings a gift to a Torah scholar is as if he had offered first-fruits (Bikurim)" (Ketuvot 105b), and "[if a man wishes to offer a wine libation upon the altar], let him fill the throat of the Torah scholars with wine" (Yomah 71a). This does not mean that Torah scholars were craving for food and drink, G-d forbid, that one fills their throats like one stuffs a glutton. Rather, the matter is according to the intent I explained. That Torah scholars who are holy in their ways and in all their deeds are actually just like the Temple and the altar, for the Shechina (divine presence) literally dwells upon them as it did in the Temple. Thus, what is offered to them is as offered on the altar, and the filling of their throat is as the filling of the basins. In this way was all use they made of the things of this world. Since they were clinging to G-d's holiness, blessed be He, behold, it was an elevation and an enhancement for that thing which merited to be of use to a Tzadik (righteous person). Our sages already referred to the matter of the "stones at the place" which Yaakov took and put under his head: "Rabbi Yitzchak said: This tells us that all the stones gathered themselves together into one place and each one said: 'Upon me shall the righteous man rest his head'" (Chulin 91b). The general principle of the matter: Holiness consists of one's clinging so much to his G-d that for any action he does, he will not separate nor budge from G-d, blessed be He, so that the physical things he uses will attain greater elevation than that which he diminishes in his clinging and level due to his using physical things. However this refers only to one whose mind and intellect is always fixed on G-d's greatness, blessed be He, and His exalted holiness, such that it is as if he is actually among the lofty angels while still in this world. I already mentioned that a man is unable to do this on his own. He can only rouse himself in the matter and strive towards it. And this is after he has already acquired all of the previous virtuous traits we mentioned, from the beginning of Watchfulness until the Fear of Sin. Only with this will he approach the Holy and succeed. For if he lacks the previous traits, he will be like an outsider or a blemished [Kohen] of which it is stated: "an outsider (non-Kohen) shall not come near" (Bamidbar 18:4). But if after he has prepared himself with all these preparations, he persistently clings with powerful love and intense fear in pondering G-d's greatness and infinite exaltedness, he will separate himself from physical matters little by little and will direct his heart in all his actions and movements to the true inner clinging, until, a spirit from on high will pour upon him and the Creator will cause His Name to rest upon him, as He does with all of His holy ones. He will then actually be like an angel of G-d, and all his actions, even the lowly and the physical ones, will be like Temple sacrifices and services. Behold, you can see that the way to acquire this trait is through much Separation, intense study of the secrets of divine providence, the hidden matters of the creation, and knowledge of His exaltedness, blessed be He, and His praises, until one clings greatly to Him, and knows how to have intent in his thoughts, as was proper for the Kohen to have intents while slaughtering the offering, receiving its blood, and sprinkling it, until he would draw down the blessing from G-d of life and peace. Without this, it is impossible for him to reach this level, and he will remain physical and corporeal like all other human beings. That which helps to attain this trait is much solitude and Separation, so that in the absence of distractions, one's soul will be able to strengthen more and cling to its Creator. The detriments to this trait [of Holiness] are lack of true knowledge and much association with other people. For the physical meets its kind, awakens and strengthens, and the soul remains trapped in it and will not escape its prison. But when one separates himself from others, remaining in solitude, and preparing himself for the receiving of His holiness, behold, in the way he wishes to go, he will be led, and with the divine help G-d will give him, his soul will strengthen within him and defeat the corporeal, cling to His holiness, blessed be He, and be rendered whole (perfect) through Him. From there, he may ascend to a higher level, namely, Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh), then his thinking will ascend beyond the bounds of human limits. His clinging may reach such high levels that the key to revival of the dead will be given to him, as it was given to Eliyahu and Elisha. This will reveal how intensely is his clinging to G-d, blessed be He. For in His being the source of life, who bestows life to all living things, as our sages of blessed memory, said: "three keys the Holy One, blessed be He, has retained in His own hands and not entrusted into the hand of any emissary (angel): the Key of the Revival of the Dead..." (Taanit 2a). Behold, one who clings to the blessed G-d completely will be able to draw down even the flow of life itself from Him, which is, what is attributed to G-d more than anything else as I wrote. This is what the Beraitha concludes: "Holiness brings to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit brings to the Revival of the Dead".
pantheist nonsense
ReplyDeletethat is a profound scholarly comment!
ReplyDeleteIt's not worthy of serious consideration. It is rehashed Christianity.
ReplyDeletehere is a primer in Jewish beliefs:
ReplyDeletehttps://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/13-principles-of-faith
so chazal and rishonim not to mention chasidim are being casually dismissed as rehashed christianity?!
ReplyDeleteNot chazal - there are many midrashim that shouldn't be taken literally.
ReplyDeleteBachya ibn Pekuda wouldn't agree with his namesake.
Maimonides Introduction to Perek Helek 1
ReplyDeletedeals with how to learn midrash, as well as fundamentals of faith:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjKjP-ju-DxAhWIasAKHZg5AsIQFnoECAIQAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mhcny.org%2Fqt%2F1005.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3lmGIGW8Kesnb23XDDAHZw
Moed Katan is very interesting: "The God of Israel said, to David spake
ReplyDeletethe Rock of Israel; I rule man; who rules Me? It is the righteous: for I make a
decree and he may annul it’."
Historically, it did not happen - his son was sick, and David fasted and prayed, but was unable to annul it. His other sons rebelled against him, again, was unsuccessful in annulling it.
Hashem took away His promise to David of an undivided and everlasting kingdom (after Batsheba incident) , and again David was unable to annul it.
So yes, the Midrash makes a statement, but it is not taken in its pshat or literal meaning.
So if you disagree with Rambam that makes you a goy?
ReplyDeleteLouis Jacobs disagreed with the Rambam, and claimed revelation was inspirational, multiple authors, in line with "Biblical criticism". (Jacobs was an ilui at Gateshead).
ReplyDeleteSo I'm sure you think he was a great Orthodox Gadol!
Early church were jews, just that they had new theology
ReplyDeleteJ. David Bleich · 1983 · Jewish philosophy : "Maimonides ' view was succinctly paraphrased by R. Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk in the pithy Yiddish comment , “ Nebach an apikores iz ober oich an apikores ..."
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OKL4bGl-S80C&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=chaim+soloveitchik+nebach+an+apikores&source=bl&ots=LkdvE-lkDB&sig=ACfU3U3l_H3yr31I22wnXqPLM4RBsr5RWg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIraGKiOHxAhUOYcAKHX_kBvsQ6AEwEHoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=chaim%20soloveitchik%20nebach%20an%20apikores&f=false
So ?
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make Rambam the final arbiter of what is Jewish. Dr. Marc Shapiro wrote a book about this topic
The Ramban Ravad and many others disagreed with Rambam so therefore what?
ReplyDeleteTheir views did not reach the Siddur, and there is no abridged version of the ani maamins (in Orthodoxy).
ReplyDeleteTorah thought parsha דברים “So I took your tribal leaders, wise and experienced men, and appointed them heads over you, chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, and chiefs of tens, and officials for your tribes. I charged your magistrates at that time as follows Hear out your fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment; but hear out low and high alike. Fear no man לא תגורו מפני איש, for judgment is God’s. And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it..” (Deuteronomy 1:15-17)
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin 6b
“R. Joshua b. Korha says: Whence do we know that a disciple, who is present when his master judges a case and sees a point which would tell in favor of a poor man or against a rich man, should not keep silence?. From the words of the text: Ye shall not be afraid [lo taguru] of the face of any man [Fear no man לא תגורו מפני איש]. R. Hanin explains this word to mean, Ye shall not hold back your words because of anyone. Further, witnesses should know against whom they are giving evidence, before whom they are giving evidence and who will call them to account [in the event of false evidence]. For it is written: “the two parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and magistrates in authority at that time” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Judges should also know whom it is they are judging, before whom they are judging, and who will call them to account [if they pervert justice], as it is written: “A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment” (Psalms 82:1). And thus it is said, concerning Jehoshaphat, He said to the judges, “ He charged the judges: Consider what you are doing, for you judge not on behalf of man, but on behalf of the Lord and He is with when you pass judgment” (2 Chronicles 19:6). And lest the judge should say: Why have all this trouble and responsibility? It is further said: He is with you when you pass judgment. The judge is to be concerned only with what he actually sees with his own eyes.”
Beautiful. Hertz Chumash p. 739 “The judge should feel that he is God’s representative, and that every judicial decision is a religious act.”
Allow me update. While waiting patiently for SCOTUS to rule in the fall on dockets 20-8096 and 7892 I made a new motion to the NYS Court of Appeals yesterday: “I ask the NYS Court of Appeals calendar the present motion. Perhaps the Court could free up my TIAA pension which the NYS courts ordered 55% to Susan and 45% to me since early 1994? Alas, I'm out of work, retired and have large debts and no assets other than my car and motorcycle. My only income is USA and Israel social security and the 45\% TIAA pension. Thank God I'm in good health, swim every day and gym three times a week.”
My theory. Fear no man לא תגורו מפני איש includes radical progressives. Bad 50 radial progressives legislators fled Texas so Texas won’t have the required minimum of 100 to conduct business in Texas legislature. I like that Texas governor orders arrest the radical progressive legislators. Texas non-radical progressives want to outlaw drive in voting, 24 voting, massive mail-in ballots, paid-in assisting mail-in ballots etc. Biden/Harris strongly supports radical progressive efforts that enable hard to prove voting fraud. The Torah warns us not to fear the radial progressives.
Raavad disagreed on whether nebach apikorus is an apikorus. He didn't hold corporeality to be correct.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you playing games!
ReplyDeleteThis is not whether the Brisker was right but whether the Rambam is the final judge of what is Jewish.
No- you cite Raavad, presumably his gloss to Rambam's hilchot teshuva 3:7 There he says many "better and greater than him" (Rambam) held the view of corporeality based on midrashim that scramble people's minds.
ReplyDeleteHe only disagreed on whether it is heresy, not on the concept of corporeality.
Btw, Rambam has a response back at Raavad on this subject in moreh nevuchim 1. 36. It is not flattering.
We know their descendants - Nachmanides wrote a letter to the French rabbis who opposed the Rambam, and banned his books, especially the guide for the perplexed. The French rabbis claimed his incorporealism was heresy!
ReplyDeleteNachmanides was very respectful to them, but he was a supporter of Maimonides.
Raavad was French, so he knew the French environment very well.
Source?
ReplyDeleteSee nachmanides letter to the French rabbis, chavel translation.
ReplyDeletePlease cite the place where he is attacked because of incorporlism
ReplyDeleteThank you - I don't have the iggeret. If you have it on your CD rom or can provide a link, I will be happy to go through it to find that claim.
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2021/08/blog-post_10.html
ReplyDeletePlease show me where he says the main claim against Rambam involves the issue of incorporeality?
One of the claims...
ReplyDeleteואחרים שמעתי אומרים, שאתם תופשים על ספר המדע באמרו שאין למעלה צורה ותבנית[9]. ולמה רבותינו תפשתם עליו בדבר הזה, שהרי כל הגאונים בחיבוריהם. וכל חכמינו הקדמונים בפיוטיהם, בספרד ובבבל, יחשבו הנוטה מזה כהולך אחרי ההבל, וקראו הסובר חלוף נרגן מפריד אלוף, ודבר זה כתוב בתורה ושנוי בנביאים ומשולש בכתובים, ומפורש בהגדות ובמדרשים הנעימים והנאהבים, כי עילת כל העילת, יתברך על כל ברכות ותהלות, אין לתארו בגשם ותבנית, ולא ישיגוהו גבולות, ואיכה מקום וגבול יתארהו, והנה השמים ושמי השמים לא יכלכלהו. ואמנם כי קצת ההגדות הטהורות, יבקעו יאורים בצורות, ולהן סנסנים ופארות, עושים פירות ופירי פירות, וסודם כאשר יבחן, ינעם ליודעים חן. סוף דבר הכל נשמע, כי על זאת האמונה אומתינו אומנה, גם לחכמי צרפת אשר אמרתם צרופה, דעתם יפה, מצאנו שכתבו כן בחיבוריהם. וכן ראיתי בחיבור הרב החסיד רבי w:אליעזר מגרמיזא ז"ל, בספר גדול שחיבר, והגיע לידי ממנו, "שער הסוד והיחוד והאמונה", וכתוב בו בלשון הזה: "ומהו ה' אחד, אחד כל אשר בו, אין קצה לחכמתו, אין חקר לתבונתו, וליכולתו אין קצה, וליסודו אין לו התחלה ולא סוף, יוצר הכל, ויודע הכל אמת. אין לו פנים ולא אחור וגובה, כי אין קץ ותכלית לכל אשר יש בו. ואין לו גבול ולא אברים לבורא העולמים. ומה שכתוב בקראים עניינים גשמים, ולא נכתבו כי אם להבין לבני אדם. וכבר הזהירנו בתורתינו, שלא נחשוב עליו דמות וצורה, דכתיב ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה". וכתב: "תמונה בגימטריא פרצוף אדם", "ומה שכתב נעשה אדם בצלמינו כדמותינו, לא שיש לבורא דמות וצלם בריותיו, אלא בצלמינו שאנו חפיצים להתראות לנביאים, פרצוף החמוד הוא פני אדם, דמיון הנראה לנו מכובד ויקר, זהו בצלמינו כמכובד בעיניו, בצלם שמלאכי השרת נראין בו, זהו בדמותינו, על דרך היקר והכבוד שחפץ באדם, כן פירש רבינו סעדיה הגאון ז"ל. וכל הסובר על הבורא יוצר הכל שיש לו צלם ודמות ואברים, אין לו אלוה כלל. תראה המתרגם "פי ה'" – מימרא דה'; "בעיני ה'" – קדם ה', זהו לשונו ואלו דבריו. ועוד אמרו רז"ל באמת ובשבועה שאין ליוצר הכל ית"ש לא דמות ולא צורה, ובזה היו אבותינו הקדושים מאמינים. וכל מה שכתוב בשיר השירים "ראשו כתם פז, קוצותיו תלתלים" – אינו אלא משל. תראה במדרש חזית" וכו'", עד "וכל הרבנים ורבינו חננאל ורבינו נסים ורבינו נתן ידעו וכתבו שאין דמות וגשם לבורא ית"ש, וקללו המאמינים בזה, ואברהם אבינו ע"ה הבין וידע זה, על כן אני אומר באמת שהמאמין באלהותו יבין שכמו שאין אברים לנשמה שיוצאת מכסא קדשו, כך אין לבורא ב"ה גוף וצורה ודמות כלל, המאמין אשריו, ומי שלא ידון באש לא נופח, כי הבורא היות בכל וקרוב לגוף יותר מן הנשמה לגוף ואין דמיון לו ב"ה
"Nachmanides wrote a letter to the French rabbis who opposed the Rambam, and banned his books, especially the guide for the perplexed. The French rabbis claimed his incorporealism was heresy!
ReplyDeleteNachmanides was very respectful to them, but he was a supporter of Maimonides.
Raavad was French, so he knew the French environment very well."
1. Warren has asked who was Raavad claiming to be better and greater than Rambam? I'm saying he must have known the French rabbis very well.
ReplyDelete2. It is quite clear that the addressees of Nachmanide's letter opposed Rambam, his sefer mada and moreh.
3. The section I have quoted above was a response by rambaN , to those attacking his illustrious Spanish predecessor for his incorporealism. This doesn't preclude other areas of disagreement towards Maimonides.
You first need to establish to whom he wrote the letter to and what was his goal. Hint - he wasn't simply defending the Rambam's theology
ReplyDeleteHe was also defending his honor. But, he used the preface of the Guide, to justify banning public teaching of the book. Whether this was a compromise, or he had a hidden. (Nistar) motive, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAre you insisting on taking Ravad at face value? Rav Yosef Karo and others didn't. So you can't generalize from this what the French rabbis believed
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not insisting on anything - I don't know the reality of what the holy Raavad was alluding to. However, he did obviously say that such a position was not as heretical as Maimonides suggested. Interestingly, in Section 1, ch.36, Rambam apparently mocks the comment that Raavad had made on his Hilchot teshuva - according to Rav Kapach's commentary. He (Rav Kapach ztl) also pointed that out to me on the occasion that I met him to discuss a few matters.
ReplyDeleteSo if you don't really know what the Ravad was saying or meant to say why did you clsaim
ReplyDeletenobody knows exactly what these statements meant. People still comment on them.
ReplyDeleteIt follows quite logically that the Raavad knew his French rabbinical environs very well. Although he might not be referring necessarily to French Rabbis, who held that view. Is it then, just a coincidence, that the french Rabbis attacked Maimonides, some of whom attacked his incorporealism?
Is it your belief that "these people" (who were asserted to be non-heretics) could not possibly have included anti-Maimonidean French Rabbis? Trying to understand what this debate is about.
ReplyDelete