tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post6995683930773379285..comments2023-10-12T10:09:54.121-04:00Comments on Believing is Knowing: Must one believe that God created the World? Is it an Ikkar - Dogma?David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-25977189547432742382007-03-21T19:48:00.000-04:002007-03-21T19:48:00.000-04:00>What interests me is the word 'esek'.The word Ese...>What interests me is the word 'esek'.<BR/><BR/>The word Esek appears 4 times in ben sira (M.Z.Segal scholarly edition)<BR/><BR/>I have not read his introduction (segal's) but from the short skim it seems that he believed that at least parts were in Hebrew.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-15377581538951367492007-03-21T19:03:00.000-04:002007-03-21T19:03:00.000-04:00>The overemphasizing of Kabballah is definitely to...>The overemphasizing of Kabballah is definitely to blame for the Sabbetai Zevi debacle.<BR/><BR/>What does this even mean??<BR/><BR/>A) as I am sure you know, there was more than one factor for the Sabbatean movement (the massacres in Poland, and a generally heavily mythological approach to redemption are just a few)<BR/><BR/>B) At the height of the movement, kabbalah was almost completely absent from the public discourse. Various apocalyptic midrashim and fake news reports about messianic armies were.<BR/><BR/>C) Kabbala as envisioned by SZ, was far removed from the popular approach during that era. We have SZ's own testimony that he did not approach Lurianic Kabbalah. Nattan did study Lurianic Kabbalah but most of his doctrines trying to use its symbolic language were quite a strech and orthodox Lurianists often rejected his formulation - ESPECIALY after the apostasy.<BR/><BR/>Now, to be fair, could the Sabbatean movement have existed if there was no such thing as Kabbalah? Most probably not. However, there are many other factors which were necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions for it arising.<BR/><BR/>One thing history HAS shown, is that a lack of hashkafic balance EITHER towards mysticism or rationalism, often leads to antinomianism of one sort or another. (or should I start pointing out movement which only wanted to be meVaer the chametz in the heart?) :)chardalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360421238816857677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-1986176558243454152007-03-21T18:51:00.000-04:002007-03-21T18:51:00.000-04:00>Are you sure? :-) :P>Are you sure? :-) <BR/><BR/>:Pchardalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360421238816857677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-92092480134165617352007-03-21T17:25:00.000-04:002007-03-21T17:25:00.000-04:00> As Ben Sirah wrote: 'ein lecha esek b'nistarot'....> As Ben Sirah wrote: 'ein lecha esek b'nistarot'. <BR/><BR/>This is quoted in the Talmud,Chagigah 13a in the name of Ben Sira.<BR/>What interests me is the word 'esek'.<BR/>It's not a biblical word & I wonder whether the word was known in B.S.time,who lived in 2ndc. BCE<BR/>The quote in Chagigah would be many c. later.<BR/>I know that parts of BS was found in the Cairo Genizah(but it's not 100% sure whether it's the original Heb.or just a translation from the Greek).<BR/>Parts of BS were also found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.<BR/>I wonder whether this specific quote containing the word 'esek'is in those parts that were discovered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-51471871642394657082007-03-21T15:59:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:59:00.000-04:00The overemphasizing of Kabballah is definitely to ...The overemphasizing of Kabballah is definitely to blame for the Sabbetai Zevi debacle. There is most definitely a place in Judaism for the mystical but it was not meant to take on the commercial form that proved our undoing. As Ben Sirah wrote: 'ein lecha esek b'nistarot'.Joels W. https://www.blogger.com/profile/07902859333047138964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-30566285664637947342007-03-21T15:04:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:04:00.000-04:00>Its all part of our messorah! Are you sure? :-)>Its all part of our messorah! <BR/><BR/>Are you sure? :-)David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-47091143451594555882007-03-21T14:08:00.000-04:002007-03-21T14:08:00.000-04:00All this Kabbalah-as we woudn't have enough proble...<I>All this Kabbalah-as we woudn't have enough problems with Tanach,Talmud,etc.<BR/><BR/>It's all mumbo jumbo to me.</I><BR/><BR/>But not to others. I would recomend that every maimonedian have a seder in the Ramchal just as I would recoment every Mystical minded person to have a seder in the Moreh - I know I do. :)<BR/><BR/>Its all part of our messorah!chardalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360421238816857677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-20183023193297911292007-03-21T13:36:00.000-04:002007-03-21T13:36:00.000-04:00Nachon!Nachon!David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-85789979213718743482007-03-21T12:13:00.000-04:002007-03-21T12:13:00.000-04:00All this Kabbalah-as we woudn't have enough proble...All this Kabbalah-as we woudn't have enough problems with Tanach,Talmud,etc.<BR/>It's all mumbo jumbo to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-41998433625815378752007-03-21T01:13:00.000-04:002007-03-21T01:13:00.000-04:00"Those rationalists who want to pin the blame of t..."Those rationalists who want to pin the blame of the Sabbatean movement on Torat HaAri have to look somewhere else".<BR/><BR/>There is alot more than belief in a dual deity that doth a Sabbatean make. There is the sexual libertinism, the occultation of the Messiah (excusing Sabbetai's apostasy) which is of course has a "solid basis" in Zohar and Ari's writings- among other things. <BR/><BR/>By the way the 2 major Sabbatean "prophets" Cardozo and Natan of Gaza differed in their approach to Kabbalah. Natan attempted to root the movement in Lurianic Kabbalah while his colleague Cardozo took a different direction altogether and added new dimensions to the older Zoharic concepts.<BR/><BR/>Nechemia Chiyun (Hayyon) later took this even further, replacing the 2 Gods with a trinity.<BR/><BR/>(There have been some attempts -such as that by Prof. Nissim Yosha to rehabilitate Cardozo and reinterpret his views as being in line with traditional Kabbalistic belief but this is not borne out of Cardoso's own writings).Joels W. https://www.blogger.com/profile/07902859333047138964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-38599063666445249882007-03-21T01:07:00.000-04:002007-03-21T01:07:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joels W. https://www.blogger.com/profile/07902859333047138964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-13502470006083642292007-03-21T00:51:00.000-04:002007-03-21T00:51:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joels W. https://www.blogger.com/profile/07902859333047138964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-46532312169412687092007-03-20T22:44:00.000-04:002007-03-20T22:44:00.000-04:00>Radak's You mean Ramak, R. Moshe Cordovero.>Radak's <BR/><BR/>You mean Ramak, R. Moshe Cordovero.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-34581152066565215612007-03-20T20:51:00.001-04:002007-03-20T20:51:00.001-04:00in a slight twist- also professes belief in a dual...<I>in a slight twist- also professes belief in a dual deity but demands allegiance to the Israelite God which he called the "true God". </I><BR/><BR/>IIRC, this was not Cardozo's formulation of the Sabbatean "Sod HaElokut" but rather Sabbtai's own initial doctorine where HaKadosh Baruch Hu (God as revealed in the Torah) reveals Himself through the sefira of Tiferet. (I believe Cardozo and Hayon in his wake sent Sabbatean theology in a more trinitarian direction)<BR/><BR/>This was hardly a Sabbatean Chidush. In fact this is a doctorine found in the Zohar (and for that matter in much of the proto-Zoharic literature). What the Sabbatean Heresy consisted of was the absolute insistance that God as revealed through the sefira of tiferet is SEPERATE from Ein Sof and that Ein Sof has NO RELEVANCE to the individual at all.<BR/><BR/>What is important about this is that it illustrates how Sabbatean kabbalah deviated radically from the Kabbalah of the Ariz"l. In the Ari's system (and the Radak's as well), such a chiluk between Ein Sof and any of the sefirot is unthinkable! Those rationalists who want to pin the blame of the Sabbatean movement on Torat HaAri have to look somewhere else.chardalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360421238816857677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-73718074305799116022007-03-20T20:51:00.000-04:002007-03-20T20:51:00.000-04:00in a slight twist- also professes belief in a dual...<I>in a slight twist- also professes belief in a dual deity but demands allegiance to the Israelite God which he called the "true God". </I><BR/><BR/>IIRC, this was not Cardozo's formulation of the Sabbatean "Sod HaElokut" but rather Sabbtai's own initial doctorine where HaKadosh Baruch Hu (God as revealed in the Torah) reveals Himself through the sefira of Tiferet. (I believe Cardozo and Hayon in his wake sent Sabbatean theology in a more trinitarian direction)<BR/><BR/>This was hardly a Sabbatean Chidush. In fact this is a doctorine found in the Zohar (and for that matter in much of the proto-Zoharic literature). What the Sabbatean Heresy consisted of was the absolute insistance that God as revealed through the sefira of tiferet is SEPERATE from Ein Sof and that Ein Sof has NO RELEVANCE to the individual at all.<BR/><BR/>What is important about this is that it illustrates how Sabbatean kabbalah deviated radically from the Kabbalah of the Ariz"l. In the Ari's system (and the Radak's as well), such a chiluk between Ein Sof and any of the sefirot is unthinkable! Those rationalists who want to pin the blame of the Sabbatean movement on Torat HaAri have to look somewhere else.chardalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360421238816857677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-51722359208264756362007-03-20T19:59:00.000-04:002007-03-20T19:59:00.000-04:00Interesting you mentioned "the first cause". The a...Interesting you mentioned "the first cause". The ancient Christian Gnostics were big on that and considered it the "true God" while expressing their antipathy for the "God of Israel".<BR/><BR/>Sabbatean prophet Abraham Miguel Cardoso-in a slight twist- also professes belief in a dual deity but demands allegiance to the Israelite God which he called the "true God".Joels W. https://www.blogger.com/profile/07902859333047138964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-53214432751667722342007-03-19T19:21:00.000-04:002007-03-19T19:21:00.000-04:00Rabbi Maroof, thank you for the distiction between...Rabbi Maroof, thank you for the distiction between logical and empirical. I will use it in the future and it makes much sense. What do you expect from a Yeshiva boy? <BR/><BR/>Re Rockville, I am sure I will make it one day. I have a feeling though that you will be in my area Brooklyn first. So why dont we get together during your next trip to the big apple?David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-15973129614901667392007-03-19T15:40:00.000-04:002007-03-19T15:40:00.000-04:00BTW, David, when are you coming to visit me in Roc...BTW, David, when are you coming to visit me in Rockville? :)Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-69825942085337039972007-03-19T15:39:00.000-04:002007-03-19T15:39:00.000-04:00I think a distinction should be made between empir...I think a distinction should be made between empirically and logically provable. <BR/><BR/>The First Cause is, strictly speaking, a <I>logical</I> proof, not an empirical one. There must be at least one non-contingent entity by definition and we know from observation that it <I>cannot</I> be anything in the material world, since everything in that framework is contingent on other things.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, the creation of the universe could, at least in theory, be proven <I>empirically</I>, but will never be shown to be <I>logically necessary</I> in the way the existence of a First Cause is. Indeed, we have come pretty close to demonstrating the creation as an empirical fact, although there are still detractors who hope to find an alternative explanation (of course, even their explanation would leave us with a Platonic creation scenario, which was acceptable to both Rambam and Ralbag.)<BR/><BR/>Yitzchak, with regard to Nobel Prize winning scientists - read "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow. It speaks about how the greatest minds of the early 20th century made egregious errors in their analysis of data that were motivated by a desire to deny the big bang. <BR/><BR/>Being smart doesn't make you immune to human emotions, arrogance, etc., and scientists have no more of a clue about the ultimate meaning of things than the average guy on the street. Yet many remain as passionate about unprovable atheism as religious people are about their faith. Scientists are good at science and should stick to their field.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-29937340279021608922007-03-19T14:17:00.000-04:002007-03-19T14:17:00.000-04:00>Is it an Ikkar in Judaism? An ikkar is not necess...>Is it an Ikkar in Judaism? <BR/><BR/>An ikkar is not necessarily empirically provable. It is something that cannot be disproven and is necessary to allow for all the other aspects of Judaism to make sense. Of course God has free will by definition. The reason He does not make Ra, because Ra by definition does not exist. It is only the absence of existence.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-29121273305318601822007-03-19T14:13:00.000-04:002007-03-19T14:13:00.000-04:00Re #4 MN 3:10 is about that.Re #4 MN 3:10 is about that.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-6485601294194525912007-03-19T14:11:00.000-04:002007-03-19T14:11:00.000-04:00>By saying that God could only create in time,just...>By saying that God could only create in time,just as man could only create in time,you're anthropomorphic.<BR/>In addition,you're limiting Him.<BR/><BR/>Please read my words carefully. I said that "we believe" that God created in time. We cannot know that except through ontological interpretation based on revelation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>That excerpt always puzzled me.One would expect of the Rambam something more original!<BR/>And it somehow resonates with determinism & fatalism.<BR/>" that's how God willed it,and that's it"<BR/><BR/><BR/>I discuss this in great detail in my article in Hakirah vol 3. I think I emailed it to you a few months ago. If you don't have it you can access it online at Hakirah.org <BR/><BR/>Re your #4 question that sforno is also based on rambam. I have touched on it a little when we discussed darkness. I will expand on it in my upcoming posts and in an upcoming article I am just starting.David Guttmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-10329808686862961002007-03-19T13:43:00.000-04:002007-03-19T13:43:00.000-04:00>But if what wills is ALWAYS good,should read;But ...>But if what wills is ALWAYS good,<BR/><BR/>should read;<BR/>But if what GOD wills etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-11580460669920083392007-03-19T13:29:00.000-04:002007-03-19T13:29:00.000-04:001. >Rambam holds that there is only one thing that...1. >Rambam holds that there is only one thing that can be proven empirically in Jewish theology; the existence of God as the First Cause.<BR/><BR/>That's very debatable & we had our differences about this in the past.<BR/>I'll just add that if it's so evident &"proven empirically",it's so surprising that most scientist in the top 5-10%(Nobel winners in physics & other sciences) are either atheists or agnostics.<BR/> As is shown in all the surveys, that I have seen. <BR/><BR/>2. > What we are saying is that for us to understand the existence we observe, had we been the ones who caused it to exist; we would have had to have willed it. As will to us is time dependent, at one time we had not yet willed what we are willing now, so too we say that God willed existence other than His own at a certain time. As God is perfect by definition, He exercised His will only one time. <BR/><BR/>In this respect you're comparing God's will to mans.Just as man could only will in time,so God too in the instance of creation could only exercise his will 'in time'(did I get it right?).<BR/>But that's anthropomorphic & is against everything the rambam wrote against the impossibility of comparing anything to God.<BR/>By saying that God could only create in time,just as man could only create in time,you're anthropomorphic.<BR/>In addition,you're limiting Him.<BR/><BR/><BR/>3.>“Know that with a belief in the creation of the world in time, all the miracles become possible and the law becomes possible, and all questions that may be asked on this subject, vanish.<BR/><BR/> The Rambam doesn't answer anything.All he is saying: don't ask any questions.Things are as they are,& that's it.It's the will of God! What kind of an answer is this?!<BR/>This answer(?) has been given from time immemorial."The gods willed so",case closed.<BR/>That excerpt always puzzled me.One would expect of the Rambam something more original!<BR/>And it somehow resonates with determinism & fatalism.<BR/>" that's how God willed it,and that's it"<BR/><BR/><BR/>4.You havn't said whether God has FREE will.<BR/>Soforno on Gen.1:26 writes:<BR/>אמנם בחירות האל ית,היא לעולם לטוב ולא כן הבחירה האנושית.ועם זה הנה האלוהית על אופן נכבד מאד יותר מין הבחירה האנושית. <BR/>But if what wills is ALWAYS good,it's not really free will.<BR/>One could just as well say that a stone also has free will,it just wants always to fall to the ground.<BR/>What is your take about FREE will with regard to God. Is it an Ikkar in Judaism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com