tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post4177372359204188202..comments2024-03-28T21:30:33.665+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim: Invitation to discuss Zohar & KabbalaDaas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-42698009230526568512013-05-02T21:31:49.369+03:002013-05-02T21:31:49.369+03:00Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-78226762625599691512013-05-02T20:14:59.586+03:002013-05-02T20:14:59.586+03:00A while back Rav Tzaddok suggested that Aryeh Kapl...A while back Rav Tzaddok suggested that Aryeh Kaplan had a dubious past, since he served a conservative or non ortho congregation.<br />However, he was orthodox and corresponded with R Moshe Feinstein on specific issues in this situation, as noted below:<br /><br />http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/lost-rabbi-aryeh-kaplan-part-iii/<br /><br />In the 1980s and 90s he was very highly regarded in the Haredi community (and MO).<br /><br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-88824577973473279582013-01-27T22:51:33.671+02:002013-01-27T22:51:33.671+02:00If the Gra and the Rambam only said one thing abou...If the Gra and the Rambam only said one thing about all of aggadita, it would be a contradiction to say that they agree and that they disagree. However, of course they didn't.<br /><br />The Rambam can't be taken as the final word on Jewish Thought because of things he said elsewhere. The Vilna Gaon attacks his rejection of sheidim, kishuf, astrology, etc... Rav Hirsch (letter #18) considers the Rambam's emphasis of knowledge over ethics to be indicative of the latter's embracing of Greek Thought to the extent of distorting the Torah. Rav Yehudah haLevi, the Raavad, Rabbeinu Yonah, the Ramban, Rav Chasdai Crescas.... most rishonim rejected the Aristotelian approach of R' Saadia and the Rambam.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean they disagree on the theological point of the relationship between Divinity and His creation. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) included parts of Plotinus's Enneads in his translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and that's what the Rambam had in front of him. I think this is the source of those neo-Platonic elements of the Rambam's thought that show consistency with Kabbalah. Such as Yesodei haTorah 2:5, Moreh Nevuchim 3:51, and his identification of Cause and Agens (ie G-d as Maker / Borei / Yotzeir vs G-d as Emanator / Mamtzi) in MN 3:49. It is also in his explanation of prophecy. It is this element in the Rambam's thought that the Leshem draws on most heavily.<br /><br />As for checking the 10 Diberos... If the Gra places all of Kabbalah in the realm of the Rambam's notion of attributes that describe Hashem's interactions with us, it's either irrelevant, or it is just as much of a problem in the Rambam's space.Wheel Reinventornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-8654651545807532292013-01-27T20:43:37.813+02:002013-01-27T20:43:37.813+02:00I'm sorry, but it seems to me you are squeezin...I'm sorry, but it seems to me you are squeezing something out of the Rambam that isn't there, unless you can quote me a reference.<br /><br />Having a Name doesn't make H' knowable. And it doesnt mean there is another god upstairs who doesnt have a name. This is just your own misguided perception, with no basis in Rambam.<br /><br />Do you recall how Rambam opens his letter on Reincarnation? He says that if even Shema Yisrael can be misread to mean 3 -in - one, how much more so can his own words. How them do you interpret Shema Yisrael ? Does each mention of H' refer to a different level in the schema espoused in Patach Eliyahu?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Here is what Rambam says in הלכות יסודי התורה פרק א:<br /><br />א יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון. והוא ממציא כל הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו. [ב] ואם יעלה על הדעת שהוא אינו מצוי, אין דבר אחר יכול להימצאות. [ג] ואם יעלה על הדעת שאין כל הנמצאים מלבדו מצויים, הוא לבדו יהיה מצוי ולא ייבטל הוא לביטולם: שכל הנמצאים צריכין לו; והוא ברוך הוא אינו צריך להם, ולא לאחד מהם.<br /><br />ב לפיכך אין אמיתתו כאמיתת אחד מהם. [ד] הוא שהנביא אומר "וה' אלוהים אמת" (ירמיהו י,י)--הוא לבדו האמת, ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו. והוא שהתורה אומרת "אין עוד, מלבדו" (דברים ד,לה), כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו.<br /><br />ג [ה] המצוי הזה--הוא אלוה העולם, אדון כל הארץ. והוא המנהיג הגלגל בכוח שאין לו קץ ותכלית, בכוח שאין לו הפסק, שהגלגל סובב תמיד, ואי אפשר שיסוב בלא מסבב; והוא ברוך הוא המסבב אותו, בלא יד ולא גוף.<br /><br />ד [ו] וידיעת דבר זה מצות עשה, שנאמר "אנוכי ה' אלוהיך" (שמות כ,ב; דברים ה,ו). וכל המעלה על דעתו שיש שם אלוה אחר, חוץ מזה--עובר בלא תעשה, שנאמר "לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, על פניי" (שמות כ,ב; דברים ה,ו); וכפר בעיקר, שזה הוא העיקר הגדול שהכול תלוי בו.<br /><br />ה [ז] אלוה זה אחד הוא--אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים, אלא אחד, שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם: לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה, ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות; אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.<br /><br />ו אילו היו האלוהות הרבה--היו גופין וגווייות, מפני שאין הנמנין השווין במציאתן נפרדין זה מזה אלא במאורעין שיארעו הגופות והגווייות. ואילו היה היוצר גוף וגווייה--היה לו קץ ותכלית, שאי אפשר להיות גוף שאין לו קץ. וכל שיש לו קץ ותכלית, יש לכוחו קץ וסוף.<br /><br />ז ואלוהינו ברוך שמו, הואיל וכוחו אין לו קץ ואינו פוסק, שהרי הגלגל סובב תמיד, אין כוחו כוח גוף. והואיל ואינו גוף, לא יארעו מאורעות הגופות כדי שיהא נחלק ונפרד מאחר; לפיכך אי אפשר שיהיה אלא אחד. וידיעת דבר זה--מצות עשה, שנאמר "ה' אלוהינו, ה' אחד" (דברים ו,ד).Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-51664664775966378322013-01-27T20:16:08.337+02:002013-01-27T20:16:08.337+02:00@R. Tzadok - "Now as a given we typically tak...@R. Tzadok - "Now as a given we typically take the Zohar as a Mashal":<br /><br />OK, so if we are going to take that Zohar as a mashal, please explain the meaning of the "mashal". <br /><br />Why would an authentic Torah "Mashal" suggest that man was created by a deity or goddess called Imma? <br /><br />Before the Zohar, when were such "mashalim" that refer to independent deities ever employed in Torah literature?<br /><br />If you claim Imma is not Hashem, then she must be either an intermediary or an independent deity.<br /><br />Moreh Nevuchim I:36:<br />"Whoever performs idolatrous worship does not do it on the assumption that there is no deity except the idol...rather is it worshipped in respect of its being an image of a thing that is an intermediary between ourselves and G-d. Scripture makes this clear saying "Who will not fear You, O King of the Nations" (Yirmeyahu 10:7) ...We have made this clear in our great compilation (Mishneh Torah). No on one among the people of our Law disputes this." <br /><br />(See Redak on Yirmeyahu 10:7-Hashem should be feared by the Nations since He is King over their idols.)<br /><br /><br />EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-1897519592849358972013-01-27T19:12:30.739+02:002013-01-27T19:12:30.739+02:00I do not believe that you are a wanton "polyt...<i>I do not believe that you are a wanton "polytheist", since you claim Monotheism. however, you seem unable to see the logical consequences of the claim that above the Lord who commanded this Torah, there is an essence, without this or any other name. And this is because you accept with perfect faith the contents of the Zohar, as many great rabbonim have done for the last 800 years. <br /><br />But the torah clearly states that we cannot have any other deities other than H'.<br /></i><br /><br />So what do you do with the Rambam in his Yesodei HaTorah when he says G-d is ultimately unknowable to man? If you have a name, that Hashem is G-d and G-d is HaShem, not that HaShem is simply the way we perceive HaShem to the extant of our limited abilities, than you negate the Rambam's statement. <br /><br />Thus the Rambam in the Moreh(where he says explicitly we can only talk about G-d in the negative) and in his Yesodei HaTorah is also by your reasoning a Polytheist, just not a wanton one. <br /><br />It must be nice being the only Torah True Jew in the world.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-75886793917116119172013-01-27T18:30:25.153+02:002013-01-27T18:30:25.153+02:00@Wheelie, I might take your comments more seriousl...@Wheelie, I might take your comments more seriously if they did not contradict each other.<br /><br />On the one hand, you claim that the Leshem unified the Gra with the rambam, whilst on the other, you claim the Gra was in total opposition to the same rambam!<br /><br />As for ignorance, I suggest you check out the 10 commandments.Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-82104508218887692322013-01-27T18:26:46.027+02:002013-01-27T18:26:46.027+02:00Firstly, let me thank the RamaTz for addressing my...Firstly, let me thank the RamaTz for addressing my question.<br /><br />You write, rhetorically "What was the name that G-d responded to Moshe Rabbeinu when he asked? It was אהי"ה אשר אהי"ה. Not the tetragramatron, not any other name. "<br /><br />However, you ignore the following verse in Shemot 3,<br /><br />"15 And God said moreover unto Moses: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations. "<br /><br />I use the English translation to avoid typing the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. <br /><br />In v14 14, H' uses "Eheyeh", and in v15, he uses Y' the Tetragramamton. <br /><br />This powerful verse is completed with זֶה-שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם, וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר. <br /><br />Now, in Ch.20 of Shemot, there is a code which you may have overlooked. One of the Statements in that code says the following:<br /><br />2) I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. <br /><br />I do not believe that you are a wanton "polytheist", since you claim Monotheism. however, you seem unable to see the logical consequences of the claim that above the Lord who commanded this Torah, there is an essence, without this or any other name. And this is because you accept with perfect faith the contents of the Zohar, as many great rabbonim have done for the last 800 years. <br /><br />But the torah clearly states that we cannot have any other deities other than H'.<br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-14577860650478376652013-01-27T15:18:08.988+02:002013-01-27T15:18:08.988+02:00@YoelB - "What Chabad chasidut teaches, based...@YoelB - "What Chabad chasidut teaches, based on the Arizal, is that nothing in the universe could exist without Divine action or at least tolerance. ":<br /><br />This teaching, and many others did not originate with Lubavitch as some Lubavitchers seem to believe. A Jew who does not learn any Lubavitch or Chassidic seforim can still learn a complete Torah theology in other Torah sources.<br /><br />"Rambam, Principle I. To know the existence of the Creator<br />To believe in the existence of the Creator, and this Creator is perfect in all manner of existence. He is the cause of all existence. He causes them to exist and they exist only because of Him. And if you could contemplate a case, such that He was not to exist…then all things would cease to exist and there would remain nothing. And if you were to contemplate a case, such that all things would cease to exist aside from the Creator, His existence would not cease..." (http://www.mesora.org/13principles.html)<br /><br />"Rambam, the Zohar and the Ari all agree": This is a great chidush to me. In fact the Rambam's theology in Moreh Nevuchim is quite incompatible with the Tanya's teachings.<br /><br />"He grasps all and none can grasp Him…. He encompasses all worlds…and no one goes out from His domain; He fills (or permeates) all worlds..." <br />http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7993/jewish/Chapter-7.htm (Tanya, citing the Zohar)<br /><br />"...there being nothing in what exists besides God, may He be exalted, and the totality of the things He has made. For this totality includes everything comprised in what exists except only Him." (MN I:34)<br /><br />"God, may He be exalted, is not a faculty subsisting in the body of the world, but is separate from all parts of the world." (MN I:72)<br /><br />Why do certain Lubavitchers continue to fantasize that the Tanya is consistent with the Rambam and other Rishonim like Chovos HaLevavos, all the while avoiding learning the Moreh Nevuchim and Chovos HaLevavos Shaar HaYichud? <br />EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-64494624113062746632013-01-27T09:13:19.231+02:002013-01-27T09:13:19.231+02:00What Chabad chasidut teaches, based on the Arizal,...What Chabad chasidut teaches, based on the Arizal, is that nothing in the universe could exist without Divine action or at least tolerance. The Ba'al Shem Tov was fond of the Tikkunei Zohar's phrase: לית אתר פניו מיניה. <br />Not pantheism. That Platonic definition Eddie cites states "God is identical with the cosmos." The current scientific consensus is that the cosmos began at some specific moment in time. Rambam, the Zohar and the Ari all agree – and all agree that the cosmos is a creation of the uncreated Creator. Rambam prefers to finesse the details, Kabbalists grapple with them. Any Kabbalistic approach is going to say that when the Torah says "hand" or "anger" it is freighted with greater meaning than Rambam ascribes to it in the Moreh.<br />Partzufim? A mashal for that mashal: In mathematical physics such as quantum mechanics, (at least back in the chalk and chalkboard days) when the professor was discussing very long and complex equations, whole chunks or "phrases" would be expressed as a single character. Sometimes an equation might look as if it was only a line or two long, but if each of those dummy terms was fully expanded it could cover a lot of blackboard. Or paper when taking notes. <br />In order to really understand it you had to be able to comprehend each term in the equation and then the working relationships as well. Not the kind of thing most people, even very bright ones, can grasp intuitively.<br />Anyway, those chunks of equation expressed with a dummy were generally somewhat freestanding, maybe were another equation pulled in from somewhere else. Sort of like in discussing political philosophy, one would tend to say "the Declaration of Independence" rather than saying "When in the course of human events, etc." every time. Or might say "Zeir Anpin" in discussing Kabbalistic ideas. <br /><br />I agree that there is a serious problem with the Arizal's Kabbalah, though: it was given over at an extremely high level to students who were stellar Talmidei Chachamim themselves and had minds capable of holding the whole "equation" in their minds at once. My teacher once said that an easy Zohar is on the comprehensibility level of a hard Tosafot. YMMV.<br />Yoel Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-36453153512974670352013-01-27T07:08:13.165+02:002013-01-27T07:08:13.165+02:00Now, you use the term monotheistic, but you need t...<i>Now, you use the term monotheistic, but you need to define that exactly. My understanding of the term is that there is only One indivisible Deity, with no material form,</i><br />So far so good.<br /><br /><i> whose name was made known to Moses. I don't care who an authority is if they deny or contradict that.</i><br /><br />What was the name that G-d responded to Moshe Rabbeinu when he asked? It was אהי"ה אשר אהי"ה. Not the tetragramatron, not any other name. <br />וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֣י בָא֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֹותֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמֹ֔ו מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם׃<br />14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃<br /><br />Now if you are going ot insist that אהי"ה is God's one and only name, you are going to run into a problem when you read on a few chapters<br />וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו אֲנִ֥י ה'׃<br /> וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י ה' לֹ֥א נֹודַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם׃ <br /><br />So which name is it? We have three different names here. Oh and while you are at it, was it Hashem speaking to Moshe or an Angel? See Shemot 3:2.<br /><br />Even the Rishonim, long before the Zohar came upon the scene commented that these names only equate to different revelations of G-d, whether mercy or din ect. They do not define G-d in his essence. Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-21865339874271342882013-01-27T03:04:23.595+02:002013-01-27T03:04:23.595+02:00Your assumption that the Rambam had the last word ...Your assumption that the Rambam had the last word in theology was very wrong. Moreso than R' Yehudah haLevi (who preceded him)? Or R' Chasdai Crescas or Rabbeinu Yonah? You presume your conclusion with that assertion. Besides, the Leshem's entire project is showing the unity of [his understanding of] the Gra's qabbalah and ideas in the Moreh.<br /><br />Second, you should really really look up the Gra's first klal. The sephiros and partzufim are no more problematic than the Rambam's notion of attributes that describe how Hashem's actions appear to us or R' Saadia Gaon's concept of attributes of Hashem's relationship with us in contrast with those of Hashem Himself.<br /><br />Third, look up the word panentheism, in contrast to pantheism.<br /><br />Last, when judging the beliefs of the majority of the observant community, try to be less ignorant of the topic first.Wheel Reinventornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-35580624690554108852013-01-27T00:25:19.811+02:002013-01-27T00:25:19.811+02:00http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1102.htm
הלכות יסוד...http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1102.htm<br /><br />הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ב<br /><br />יג [י] הקדוש ברוך הוא מכיר אמיתו, ויודע אותה כמות שהיא. ואינו יודע בדעה שהיא חוץ ממנו כמו שאנו יודעין, שאין אנו ודעתנו אחד. אבל הבורא--הוא ודעתו וחייו אחד, מכל צד ומכל פינה: שאלמלא היה חי בחיים ויודע בדעה, היו שם אלוהות הרבה--הוא וחייו ודעתו; ואין הדבר כן, אלא אחד מכל צד ומכל פינה ובכל דרך Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-48941507644348753382013-01-27T00:11:26.177+02:002013-01-27T00:11:26.177+02:00DT,
you miss the sequence of the argument, thus l...DT,<br /><br />you miss the sequence of the argument, thus leading you to the conclusion you take.<br /><br />I have pointed out that if you have a named G-d in one place, and another un-named entity elsewhere, which you say is the real 2G-d", then you have a problem of polytheism.<br /><br />Since the RamaTz cannot argue logically, he retorts to the defence by citing authorities.<br />Now, this is disingenuous, since whenever i cite the Rambam , for example, he simply says the Rambam's view was rejected. <br /><br />"Contrary to your agenda, I am working with the idea that gedolim are the source of our knowledge of Judaism. What religion do you belong to?"<br /><br />This statement could be more acceptable if you were to include Rambam and Saadia, whose Theology is pretty much enshrined in Judaism. The Ramazt rejects every theological position put forward by the early Gedolim. <br /><br />It is clear that even such Gedolim as the Gra, The Alter rebbe, and R Chaim Volozhiner, had differing views on Unity, the Tzimtzum etc. <br /><br />It is also important to be intellectually honest about Judaism, i.e. has the "revelation" of Kaaballah changed the fundamentals of Judaism, eg 13 ikkarim of Rambam?<br /><br />The issue is not about me or my ego, or me being the truest Jew, that is nonsense. <br /><br />Now, you use the term monotheistic, but you need to define that exactly. My understanding of the term is that there is only One indivisible Deity, with no material form, whose name was made known to Moses. I don't care who an authority is if they deny or contradict that.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-1191747430405866132013-01-26T23:44:11.986+02:002013-01-26T23:44:11.986+02:00Eddie you seem to be suggesting that you are perha...Eddie you seem to be suggesting that you are perhaps the only true monotheistic Jew - a rather absurd idea. Alternatively you indicate that you seriously believe the possiblity that gedolim might belief in multiple gods.<br /><br />It might be a nice debate technique but it really is totally unacceptable here. you could have just as well said, "any gadol who believes in Jesus is finished I don't care how 'big' they might be." You have in fact failed to show that there are gedolim who consider polytheisim acceptable. Why do you feel a need for this witch hunt?<br /><br />So if you stop using "when did you stop beating your wife" techniques - we might be able to have a productive discussion.<br /><br />Contrary to your agenda, I am working with the idea that gedolim are the source of our knowledge of Judaism. What religion do you belong to? Daas Torahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-76830139576398734502013-01-26T23:18:32.115+02:002013-01-26T23:18:32.115+02:00Guys like "Eddie" also rely on what the ...Guys like "Eddie" also rely on what the same Gra taught his student R Haim. That the teacher isn't always right, and that by virtue of being a Gadol, he is not infallible. <br /><br />I may not be making friends among the Livtish world, but anyone who says there are 2 or more gods is finished. I don't care how "big" they might be.Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-14780087382064709992013-01-26T23:16:00.965+02:002013-01-26T23:16:00.965+02:00http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
&quo...http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/<br /><br />"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe."<br /><br /><br />The English word "God" is not holy in the same sense as the Torah name we refer to as the tetraGrammaton, that i will not write out here.<br /><br />you are particular to use a hyphen between G and D, but I fear you have no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />The same G-d you refer to , you claim has no name. Yet We know he does. If you claim that there is another created /emanated entity with the name, then you have classical dualism. It doesn't really matter if you put all the Gedolim you like on one scale, they cannot justify dualism.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-48723953132546035742013-01-26T21:47:41.261+02:002013-01-26T21:47:41.261+02:00When you have guys like "Eddie" who are ...When you have guys like "Eddie" who are willing to say that Gedolim such as the GR"A were closet Pagans. Or others that abuse and selectively quote texts in oder to prove their point. Rational debate has ceased. So I think I am going to step out at this point.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-54249123337376875792013-01-26T21:46:46.518+02:002013-01-26T21:46:46.518+02:00Thsi statement is a lie, defamatory, kefira, and a...<i>Thsi statement is a lie, defamatory, kefira, and a denial of the Torah. The Torah tells us that Moses asks G-d's Name, and G-d replies, and tells His holy Name. </i><br /><br />Why don't you check the Rashi there. Any name is by nature a defining and confining thing, thus limiting G-d, which is in contradiction to the Rambam's 13 principles. <br /><br />Eddie you keep using the word Pantheism, but I don't think you know what it means. Pantheism means everything from the smallest grain of sand to the largest planet is divine and worthy of worship. No Kabbalist or Chasid believes that. So it is not pantheism however much you would like to make it so.<br /><br />You say that Saadia Gaon says something, then link an actual source. Your side of this debate has already lied too much here to be taken seriously otherwise.<br /><br />Oh and I only said that Kaplan didn't write Inner Space, the rest of them... it would appear that he did, contrary to halakha, but he did. Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-4256346711206843712013-01-26T20:41:47.154+02:002013-01-26T20:41:47.154+02:00How convenient that none of Kaplan's books wer...How convenient that none of Kaplan's books were written by himself. Perhaps he didnt exist, and was just a metaphor.<br />His Handbook of Jewish thought is actually a book of pantheism, where he claims that G-d fills all of the world.<br /><br />Whilst Kaplan may have served in a Conservative shul, he was educated by Orthodox Rabbis. Yet, Baruch Spinoza was also educated by orthodox rabbis, and their pantheism was quite similar.<br /><br />I heard once from someone who was close to R' Kasher ztl, that Kasher had stated that Spinoza was right about pantheism, and wrong abut halacha. This is the difference between someone who is intellectually honest, and many whop delude themselves , and make up fancy words like "panentheism" which is still pantheistic.<br /><br />There are varying interpretations of Zohar and Cabalistic concepts, so it is difficult to nail down any particular concept, since you can always define it differently.<br /><br />I have quoted earlier the alleged Patach Eliyahu, in the Tikkunei Zohar. Here, it claims that above the Ein Sof, is the "Essence" of G-d, who has no name.<br />Thsi statement is a lie, defamatory, kefira, and a denial of the Torah. The Torah tells us that Moses asks G-d's Name, and G-d replies, and tells His holy Name. <br /><br />Saadia Gaon commented on another pantheistic work, Shiur Komah, saying it is not clear whether it is original or not, since a lot of pseudodepigraphic works have been produced.<br /><br />The RAMaTz (R' Michael Tzadok) argues that too many greats have accepted the Zohar, for it to be "wrong". Torah is not a democracy, i.e. you do not vote for what is authentic or not. If a book says that g-d has no name, the book is lying. End of story. Shavua Tov.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-19848767566292567492013-01-26T19:10:04.949+02:002013-01-26T19:10:04.949+02:00Your so-called "success" in promoting th...<i>Your so-called "success" in promoting the public teaching of Kabbalah topics is a failure because you have obviously made up your mind and you are determined to preach your new gospel of Kabbalah for all when that is not what is happening in the world around you, especially not in the Litvish yeshiva world. You make it seem that I have no clue, and that only "you" know what is going and what is best for the mainstream Litvish yeshiva world. I cannot stop your addiction nor can I stop these kind of topics being posted or on any other kind of blog or public forum. But I have made the required legitimate protests and macha'os. Feel free to go on your merry way, you obviously think that you are smarter and better-informed and have better insight than everybody else.</i><br /><br />First I am not promoting teaching Kabbalah in public. Nothing that I have written here would by any means amount to teaching Kabbalah. <br /><br />Kabbalah is throughout the Litvish world. It has been taught in the Mir Yeshivah in Brooklyn since 1970(at least that's the first students from there that I know learned Kabbalah in it's halls). It is taught in Chevrot in BMG, Ponevyzh, the Mir Yerushalayim, Hevron ect. It is just that you are clueless to what has been going on. The GR"A said plainly that if one did not know and understand Kabbalah one could not understand Pshat(halakha) so every Gadol and Posek needs to know Kabbalah. Rav Moshe Feinstein said that we resort to the Zohar to settle halakhic disputes, thus posking would need to be Baki in the Zohar.<br /><br />As far as being better informed... as far as what is going on Kabbalitically, I am obviously better informed than you. As far as everybody else, you are assuming, once again in error, that I am not running these answers before Rabbanim, so as to be sure that I am not putting anything forbidden in the public sphere. Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-55556165114238930122013-01-26T18:27:48.161+02:002013-01-26T18:27:48.161+02:00There is an 800lb gorilla in the room but it is no...There is an 800lb gorilla in the room but it is not partzufim, it is blatant dishonesty.<br /><br /><i>From the book Inner Space by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, p.101-105:</i><br />Check again, Leonard(Aryeh) Kaplan who was a conservative Rabbi until 1970, did not write Inner Space. It was written from taped lectures he gave to a group of students. The person who wrote it was also, at the time, not Orthodox. Thus neither the man giving the Shiurim nor the book that came from them were from a Kosher source.<br /><br /><i>From http://www.mesora.org/ZoharsDeviation.html :<br />"Zohar: Genesis 22<br />"When coming to the world of separation which is the world of separated things, the builder said to the master of the edifice</i><br />Admittedly a seemingly damning find. However, once again Rabbi Ben-Chaim has to resort to dishonest half quotes. This sugya, in fact the very paragraph that he lifts this from starts:<br />פתח ואמר משל <i><b>He(Rabbi Shimon) opened and said a mashal</b></i><br /><br />Now as a given we typically take the Zohar as a Mashal, and not literal. However, I can understand how someone might be confused and think that parts of the Zohar are meant to be taken literally. However, when the Zohar itself states that what it is saying is a Mashal, to then insist on a literal reading is simple dishonesty. <br /><br />Our literature from start to finish is filled with such metaphors. We have Hashem waking from a druken stupor(Tehillim 78), Putting on armor and going out to battle(Isaiah 59), HaShem laying bets with the Satan over Job(Job 1). <br />We have HaShem donning Tefillin and needing to stop Moshe Rabbeinu from praying lest he be forced to cave into Moshe's will(Gemarra Berakhot).<br />Nevermind all of the interesting things that happen in the Midrashim. <br /><br />The only way you come to finding error in the Zohar is by refusing, despite all the warnings from our Rabbanim to the contrary, to read it metaphorically and insisting on reading it literally. <br /><br />Now as far as partzufim, stop by Nahar Shalom(Shilo 6) any day Sunday-Thurs between 900-1300, and I will gladly talk to you in depth about them, however b'kitzur for what can be given over publicly, the Zohar does not, in any place, talk about partzufim. The first person to expound upon the partzufim was the Ari. So to try to project those back onto the Zohar is anachronistic and dishonest as well.<br />So please let us deal with the real gorilla in the room. Why is it that those who seek to denounce Kabbalah need to resort to dishonesty to do so. In the article above we have a half quote from the Rivash, making the Rivash sound like he is saying something that he is not. Then we have a half quote from the Zohar, obviously meant to imply that the Zohar is saying something that it is not. So if the case against Kabbalah is so ironclad why do those seeking to make it need to resort to blatant dishonesty? That is the gorilla in the room.Rabbi Michael Tzadokhttp://mekubal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-48565922411493863592013-01-25T19:50:38.355+02:002013-01-25T19:50:38.355+02:00http://ramchal.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/you-mean-i...http://ramchal.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/you-mean-its-all-a-metaphor-duh/Wheel Reinventornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-63525301205667698732013-01-25T19:47:04.344+02:002013-01-25T19:47:04.344+02:00He is also discussing halachah. He uses the word &...He is also discussing halachah. He uses the word "heresy", but he means that halachic concept of apikursus and who is an apikores. So, beyond the fact that he is showing that a concept no one actually preaches is false, he is making halachic claims about it. And there majority is very relevant.Wheel Reinventornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-29576396410124655922013-01-25T16:37:48.124+02:002013-01-25T16:37:48.124+02:00The article that you posted is only an exercpt, a...The article that you posted is only an exercpt, and why should I rely on Mani in any case? Chanad are quite knowledgeable about Kabbalah, and all Hassidim accept the Alter Rebbe.<br /><br />However, here is a translation you can accept, since it is Sephardic:<br /><br />http://www.thezoharinenglish.com/PDFs/PatachEliyahu-WebVersionReducedSize.pdf<br /><br />On P 9 of this pdf version, the Ein Sof is being prayed to, and it is within the Sefirot.<br /><br />If you claim the Essences is not the Ein Sof, we have a serious problem, in that there are more than reshuiot.<br />Ben MIkrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07122937371918515052noreply@blogger.com