The Cat Is Out of the Bag - The Dangers of Unbridled Speculation.

Haaretz brought to my attention the sad decline in the Meshichist stream in Chabad, their slow move towards Sabbateanism and who knows what else. The dangers of unbridled and popular mysticism are quite glaring. The timing on Parshat Shemini is incredible falling in line with the episode (sin) of Nadav and Avihu who according to Midrash were participants in

י  וַיִּרְאוּ, אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר, וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם, לָטֹהַר.	10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.
יא  וְאֶל-אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ; וַיֶּחֱזוּ, אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאכְלוּ, וַיִּשְׁתּוּ.  {ס}	11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink

Note the last two words above - Also see MN 1:5 

But "the nobles of the Children of Israel" were impetuous, and allowed their thoughts to go unrestrained: what they perceived was but imperfect. Therefore it is said of them, "And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet," etc. (Exod. xxiv. 10); and not merely, "and they saw the God of Israel"; the purpose of the whole passage is to criticize their act of seeing and not to describe it. They are blamed for the nature of their perception, which was to a certain extent corporeal--a result which necessarily followed, from the fact that they ventured too far before being perfectly prepared. They deserved to perish, but at the intercession of Moses this fate was averted by God for the time. They were afterwards burnt at Taberah, except Nadab and Abihu, who were burnt in the Tabernacle of the congregation, according to what is stated by authentic tradition. (Midr. Rabba ad locum.)

If such was the case with them, how much more is it incumbent on us who are inferior, and on those who are below us, to persevere in perfecting our knowledge of the elements, and in rightly understanding the preliminaries which purify the mind from the defilement of error: then we may enter the holy and divine camp in order to gaze: as the Bible says, "And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them" (Exod. xix. 22). Solomon, also, has cautioned all who endeavour to attain this high degree of knowledge in the following figurative terms, "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God" (Eccles. iv. 17).

?Need one say more

Reb Zadok on Attribution -

Several years ago I read an article which referred to an interesting approach by Reb Zadok Hacohen of Lublin  regarding attribution. At the time I was lazy to look it up and promptly forgot where I had seen the quote and of course could not find in the writings of Reb Zadok.  This Shabbat I read an article by Professor Moshe Halamish and lo and behold there is the quote again. This time I went to the source and looked it up. It is quite interesting so I decided to translate it and post it. It is in Sefer Hazichronot page 68a in a discussion regarding the different trends in kabbalah. Reb Zadok explains that Kabbalistic insights cannot be developed solely through rational processes. Reb Zadok then continues to explain how these metaphysical insights are acquired intuitively and through deep contemplation by certain perfected individuals.

“For this apprehension is an emanation from above to prophets through prophetic processes and to sages through Ruach Hakodesh, each apprehending according to the status of his knowledge, apprehension and personal perfection.  Moshe rabbeinu in his vision of the burning bush first and his later vision when God passed all His goodness in front of him, was shown God’s true unity. However, unlike Yechezkel he did not see the chariots, the Chayot and the Ofanim; he had other visualizations according to his status…. These different visualizations varied according to each sage amongst them Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai [the protagonist of the Zohar] whose visualizations varied at different times. So too in the Sefer Habahir attributed to rabbi Nechunya ben Hakana, and Sefer Hatemunah, attributed to rabbi Ishmael the High priest, other visualizations are found where they speak in a completely different vein. So too  the kabbalah of the Geonim that we find in the Pardes and other holy books,  a selection of which is reprinted in a small sefer named “Selection of Kabbalah from Geonim” (Warsaw edition), a reader may notice that it is a  totally different approach to kabbalah then what is found in Sefer Hazohar and its companions.  That is so because it is based on the vision that was experienced by one of the Geonim, the head of their school …. There is also is printed a sefer Mayan Hachochma that is attributed to Moshe rabbeinu which is also quoted in Pardes, Pelach Harimon, in the introduction to Sefer Emek Hamelech and others. It appears to me that it is accepted by the earlier sages that it is a holy book and it seems to me that it was written in the days of the later Geonim or close to that time by one holy person who through his Ruach Hakodesh was able to apprehend what Moshe rabbeinu did receive from Sinai (!) for a Chacham is greater than a prophet as Ramban in Baba Batra 12a writes see there as quoted in Ayin Yaakov.  The beginning of that sefer is already found in sefer Haiyun by Rav Chamai Gaon parts of which is printed in the above mentioned Selection. It is also mentioned in sefer Hakana etc… It seems to me that Sefer Haiyun was in front of the author of sefer Mayan Hachochma and he followed along the same path a little though we find many additional novel things that he apprehended during his own contemplation. For those who visualize the Chariot do it via Ruach Hakodesh  gained through knowledge and rational thought, which is however supplemented by superhuman apprehension emanating from above through Ruach Hakodesh as explained by Ramban…     ”

Reb Zadok is referring to Ramban who explains the Gemara that Nevuah no longer exists, as limiting it to prophetic visions however Ruach Hakodesh that accompanies knowledge of great sages still continues to exist. Reb Zadok explains that to be a supplemental insight that emanates from HKBH and that is Ruach Hakodesh.  I have attached a scan of the pertinent page in the original Sefer Hazichronot.

This is a fascinating concept developed by a Chassidic Rebbe who was also a great scholar and thinker and who had a very keenly developed critical sense. He discerns the different schools of Kabbalistic thought. The amazing thing is that he understands that Kabbalah is a personal experience rather than something that is transmitted. There seems to be a basic philosophical thinking that goes back to antiquity but is reinterpreted by each visionary according to his personal state of mind and thinking. That tradition of personal intuition and insight seems to go back to the prophets all the way to Moshe rabbeinu.  A sefer attributed to an earlier sage may be written by someone else at a later date and attributed to the earlier person if it supposedly was based on his thinking.  Is that what happened to the Zohar? Was it Rav Moshe de Leon’s insights according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai? Reb Zadok does not say so but can we infer so from his way of thinking?   

  

True Knowledge - וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם,

S. on his superb Blog, pointed to an article by Rav Herzog eulogizing the great R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. In the article, Rav Herzog refers to a comment RMS makes on Rambam Hilchot Melachim that during the Messianic era people will be able to discern where science ends and religion begins. Since to me this is a very important point that I always make about Rambam’s approach as opposed to the Mekubalim, I would like to elaborate a little.
Rambam in Hilchot Melachim Umilchamotehem 12:8 writes:
　

ולא יהיה עסק כל העולם, אלא לדעת את ה' בלבד ולפיכך יהיו חכמים גדולים, ויודעים דברים הסתומים העמוקים; וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כוח האדם, שנאמר "כי מלאה הארץ, דעה את ה', כמים, לים מכסים

… [During messianic times] the whole world will be focused on one thing only: to get to know God. There will therefore be great sages who know those deep hidden matters and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible…

RMS picks up on this statement in his Ohr Sameach and explains,

אור שמח הלכות מלכים פרק יב
וכתב עוד רבינו וישיגו דעת בוראם כפי כח האדם, שנאמר כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים, וכוון בזה, שבעת אשר ההשגות שבכח המורכב מחומר ונפש להשיג אינן מבוררין, אז עלול לצאת גם לחקור אף במה שנמנע מהשגת האנושי להשיג, אבל בהשיגו מה שבכח האדם להשיג על אמיתתו בלא שבושים וספיקות אז יבין מה שאינו יכול להשיג, ולא יתפרץ מגבולו לחקור במה דמופלא ממין האנושי, וכמו שאמרו (חגיגה י"ד ע"ב) בד' שנכנסו לפרדס, שמפני שצפייתו היתה בהטעה לכן יצא מגבול ההשגה לבקש מה שא"א להשיג רק בהתפרד הנפש מהחומר, וזה שאמר הכתוב ומלאה הארץ דעה, שהדעת יהיה על בוריו, בלא שום סכסוך וספק, ויהיה כמים לים מכסים, שממלאים את הים ואינם מתפרצים חוץ לגבולם, שע"ז הפליגו בכתובים ובמדרשים שאינם יוצאים מגבולם, וחוק שם לים ויסך אותו בדלתים (איוב ל"ח, ח'), כן יהיה מעלת האדם אז, שלא יתפרצו מגבולם, לסיבת ידיעתם מה שבכח האדם באמת, וזה ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כו', ודוק:

Rambam writes further; and they will apprehend the mind of their Creator, as far as humanly possible. Rambam is teaching that while the intellectual capacity of someone composed of matter and form [lit: soul] to apprehend are not well developed [lit: defined], he is liable to attempt to apprehend things that are beyond human comprehension. But once a person understands the true human limitations without error and doubt, he then realizes what cannot be apprehended and he will not step outside the limits and attempt to apprehend things that a human cannot grasp. That is the meaning of the Gemara in Hagigah (14b) “Four entered the vineyard… [Ben Azai peeked and died…]. [Death means that] he looked [apprehended] erroneously, going beyond the capacity of human comprehension seeking such matters that one can only apprehend once the soul separates from the body. [IOW, the death of Ben Azai alludes to the type of apprehension he was seeking, which was beyond human capacity]. That is how Rambam interprets the verse, “and the earth will be filled with knowledge of God”, namely [knowledge of]the mind [of human beings] will be perfected, without any doubts or disagreements, just like water that cover the seas, it fills the sea without going beyond its borders… So too will be the perfected man at that time, who because of their knowing all that a human being can truly apprehend, will not overstep their boundaries. That is the meaning “the land will be filled with knowledge of God…”

Real knowledge is to understand human limitation. We humans, whose only experience is the physical world we inhabit, cannot hope to know anything but the physical. Any knowledge beyond that belongs to the realm of metaphysics and religion. It can only be known through conjecture or revelation. Conjecture is the product of a fertile imagination and has nothing to do with reality or truth. Revelation is limited to what we have in our authentic sources and texts being that oral transmissions in those areas were lost to us. We are much better off admitting that we do not know how the metaphysical works rather than using imaginary concepts that eventually will be debunked and shown to be no more than the fruits of an overactive imagination. True knowledge is knowing one's limitations.

Prophets and Angels - Ishim and Keruvim.

Before addressing the other differences between Moshe and all the prophets, Rambam makes a very interesting statement that is worth analyzing as it opens a window into his thinking and confirms some of the things I discussed so far. I remind the reader that the Hebrew is the traditional translation found in the Mishnayot while I translate from Rav Kafih’s edition which explains the slight but at times crucial differences.

רצוני היה לבאר זה העניין הנפלא, ולפתוח המנעול ממקראות התורה, ולפרש טעם

פה אל פה וכל הפסוק בזולתו מעניינו, לולא שראיתי שאלה העניינים יצטרכו

לראיות רבות מאוד, והיינו צריכים להצעות רבות והקדמות ומשלים, ושנבאר

בתחילה מציאות המלאכים ושינוי מעלותיהן מן הבורא השם יתברך, ושנבאר הנפש

וכל כוחותיה, ויתרחב העיגול עד שנדבר בצורות שזכרו הנביאים שראוי לבורא

ולמלאכים. ויכנס בזה שיעור קומה ועניינו, ולא יספיק בעניין זה לבדו,

ואפילו יהיה מקוצר בתכלית הקיצור, מאה דפים. ולפיכך אניח אותו למקומו: אם

בספר הדרשות שייעדתי לחברו, או בספר הנבואה שאני מתעסק בו, או בספר שאחבר אותו בפירושי אלו היסודות

I wanted to explain this wonderful subject, clarifying obscure texts in the Torah, explaining the meaning of Peh El Peh – Mouth to Mouth –this text and other similar ones. However, I am aware that these are very delicate subjects and require preparatory remarks, introductions and allegories. I would have to explain first the existence of angels and how their status differs relative to the Creator, the human soul and its various forces and the subject will broaden dealing with the discussion of Forms that the prophets mention in relation to God and His angels. [In the version above, which is Rambam’s original draft of his Pirush, written in his youth there is the following – “the subject of Shiur Komah will also enter into the discussion”. Rambam erased it completely in his later editions of the Pirush – see my discussion below.] This will still not suffice and even if I were to summarize it would require one hundred folios. I will therefore leave the discussion for the books that I plan to write on Aggadot or the one on prophecy that I promised.

I would like to focus on “the existence of angels and how their status differs relative to the Creator”. In the second chapter of Hil Yesodei Hatorah Rambam writes –

כל מה שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו, נחלק לשלושה חלקים

ומהם ברואים צורה בלא גולם כלל--והם המלאכים, שהמלאכים אינם גוף וגווייה, אלא צורות נפרדות זו מזו…

ומה הוא זה שהנביאים אומרים שראו המלאך אש ובעל כנפיים--הכול במראה הנבואה ודרך חידה, לומר שאינו גוף ואינו כבד כגופות הכבדים

ובמה ייפרדו הצורות זו מזו, והרי אינן גופין--לפי שאינן שווין במציאתן…

אלא כל אחד מהן למטה ממעלתו של חברו והוא מצוי מכוחו זה למעלה מזה; והכול

נמצאים מכוחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא וטובו

זה שאמרנו למטה ממעלתו, אינה מעלת מקום כמו אדם שיושב למעלה מחברו; אלא…

כמו שאומרין בשני חכמים שאחד גדול מחברו בחכמה, שהוא למעלה ממעלתו של זה,

וכמו שאומרין בעילה, שהיא למעלה מן העלול

Everything created by HKBH is divided into three categories… some are created as Form without any Matter at all and those are the angels. For angels have no body but are only Forms that are differentiated from each other. What then does it mean when the prophets say they saw a winged angel made of fire? This is a prophetic vision in the form of a riddle, teaching that they have no body and have no weight unlike heavy Matter… [In other words, winged is an allegory for weightlessness and fire for lack of body]. Being immaterial, how are these Forms differentiated from each other? Their existence is differentiated. Each one is below the status of the other and exists as a result of the other, one above the other. However, all exist as a result of HKBH and His goodness… When we said “below the status of the other”, we did not mean location wise as when we say a person sits above his friend, but rather as when we talk about two wise men, one being wiser than the other. We then say that one has a higher status then the other. Or as when we say that the cause is above the effect.

When we say “existence”, we mean something that we can touch, feel or locate physically. Even those who believe in a “spiritual” world, see it as tangible entities that permeate and exist within the physical reality. They are just another component of our reality. But if we think about it, everything that exists is the result of an idea, a concept. That idea or concept can be visualized as an intangible out there that is the cause of material existence. That idea that underlies everything can only be conceptualized by our minds. It has no body or location; it is just there. We “know” that there is such a thing and we can only define things that result from it but we do not “know” it. We can look at this “idea” as the cause, in a chain of cause and effect, which brings about material existence, our reality. These “ideas” are answers to a plethora of questions that we pose when we try to understand how things are in reality, why, how, when, and ultimately who or what causes all this contingent existence. As the questions get further away from the tangible object they try to explain, they become more abstract and difficult to answer. This is how I understand angels and what Rambam means when he says, “As when we talk about two wise men, one being wiser than the other. We then say that one has a higher status then the other. Or as when we say that the cause is above the effect”. Angels are sequences of “ideas” underlying material existence in a chain of cause and effect, and as they are further removed from materialism, they are wiser, and require greater abstract thinking. As they are all contingent “and exist as a result of the other”, they have to be “below” the only non-contingent entity thus “all exist as a result of HKBH and His goodness”.

In the next Halacha Rambam enumerates a sequence of ten different levels of angels, all are names that are mentioned by the prophets in Tanach when they describe their visions. The two “lowest” levels are וכרובים, ואישים where אישים are the ones that talk to prophets[1] while כרובים are the source of Moshe’s prophecy[2].

כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם

לְגַן-עֵדֶן אֶת-הַכְּרֻבִים, וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת,

לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים

24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

The imagery in this verse now takes on a different form and can be understood as a reference to man’s need to overcome his physicality and cross the whirling sword to reach the ַכְּרֻבִים. Rambam in the introduction to MN describes the prophecy of Moshe as opposed to that of others as follows –

We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning, still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some, the lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light, and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic excellence attained by (Moses) the greatest of prophets… By others only once during the whole night is a flash of lightning perceived. … There are some to whom the flashes of lightning appear with varying intervals. Others are in the condition of men, whose darkness is illumined not by lightning, but by some kind of crystal or similar stone, or other substances that possess the property of shining during the night. To them even this small amount of light is not continuous, but now it shines and now it vanishes, as if it were "the flame of the rotating sword."

This brings us to the next quality that separates Moshe from other prophets - his ability to always be in the presence of God.

Note:

Earlier I noted that the Hebrew version of the Pirush Hamishna found in the Mishnayot contained a few words about Shiur Komah – a mystical treatise of questionable origin. Here is the statement in question: ויכנס בזה שיעור קומה ועניינו

“The subject of Shiur Komah will also enter into the discussion”. Rav Kafih in a note on this segment says that Rambam erased this statement later in life. Rambam kept the original draft of his Pirush Hamishna next to him all his life, making changes as his thinking developed. Usually he would cross off some words and write the new version below or next to the original without deleing it. In this case, he completely erased this statement. In a Responsa (Blau edition 117) Rambam was asked his opinion on the authenticity and reliability of this treatise. He writes:

שו"ת הרמב"ם סימן קיז

לא חשבתי מעולם, שהוא מחיבורי החכמים ז"ל, וחלילה להם, שזה יהיה מהם. ואין הוא אלא חבור אחד הדרשנין היונים ותו לא. וסוף דבר, למחוק זה הספר ולכרות זכר ענינו (הוא) מצוה רבה. ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו וכו' +שמות כ"ג, י"ג+ והרי מי שיש לו קומה, הוא אלהים אחרים בלא ספק. וכתב משה.

I never thought that it was written by the sages and it would be unthinkable that they could have authored it. It is a book written by one of the Greek preachers and nothing more. Finally, it would be a great Mitzvah to destroy this book and to eradicate its subject from memory. [It says] “And the name of foreign gods you should not mention” – a god that has bodily measurements is a foreign god without doubt. And Moshe wrote. [This is Rambam’s customary signature.]

---

[1]

ומעלה עשירית, היא מעלת הצורה שנקראת אישים, והם המלאכים שמדברים עם

הנביאים ונראים להם במראה הנבואה; לפיכך נקראו אישים, שמעלתם קרובה ממעלת

דעת האדם.

[2]

וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, לְדַבֵּר

אִתּוֹ,

וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת

אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת, מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים; וַיְדַבֵּר,

אֵלָיו. {פ}

89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the Voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him. (Bamidbar 7:89)

Acknowledging the Limitations of Man's Knowledge and Chag Sameach. (Subjects Unrelated ).

This will probably be my last post before I close shop for Pessach.

Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah (2:2), before he engages in the discussions of Ma’aseh Breishit and Ma’aseh Merkavah, legislates[1] as follows:

והיאך היא הדרך לאהבתו, ויראתו: בשעה שיתבונן האדם במעשיו וברואיו

הנפלאים הגדולים, ויראה מהם חכמתו שאין לה ערך ולא קץ--מיד הוא אוהב ומשבח

ומפאר ומתאווה תאווה גדולה לידע השם הגדול, כמו שאמר דויד "צמאה נפשי

, לאלוהים--לאל חי"

ב וכשמחשב בדברים האלו עצמן, מיד הוא נרתע לאחוריו, ויירא

ויפחד ויידע שהוא בריה קטנה שפלה אפלה, עומד בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים

דעות, כמו שאמר דויד "כי אראה שמיך . . . מה אנוש, כי תזכרנו"

What is the path to loving Him and fearing Him? When a person contemplates His deeds and the wonderful and great things that He created, thus apprehending His infinite and incomparable wisdom, immediately he loves, praises, aggrandizes and feels a great urge to know the Great Name. That is what David said, “my soul thirsts towards God – the living God.”

But when he thinks about the particular things themselves, he is immediately impelled backwards, he fears and trembles knowing that he is a small, lowly and dark creature, who stands with a lightweight mind in front of the most perfect of minds. That is what David meant when he said, “When I behold Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast established; what is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou think of him?” (Tehilim 8:4-5).

Note Rambam’s language carefully. Contemplating the sweep of God’s works and creation one is overwhelmed with awe. When one thinks about the particular workings themselves, one realizes one’s limitations; the macro is awe-inspiring, the micro is humbling. The micro of nature is humbling – trying to understand the laws of nature can be a humbling experience. Rambam acknowledges man’s limitations and before getting into the physics and metaphysics of our existence, he warns us that we must be aware that we cannot understand it all. There are areas we just have to humbly step back and acknowledge our limitations. Rambam is warning us that we are not to step over into areas we cannot know. I believe he is referring to the attempts of the Kabbalists to explain the Sefirot, the emanations and the transition from the transcendental to the physical. We may contemplate the mystery of that transition but not try to decipher the workings and details. Whatever we apprehend in that area is the fruit of our imagination and untrue.

Similarly, after presenting the summary of physics and metaphysics Rambam concludes –

בזמן שאדם מתבונן בדברים אלו, ומכיר כל הברואים ממלאך וגלגל ואדם וכיוצא

בו, ויראה חכמתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא בכל היצורים וכל הברואים--מוסיף אהבה

למקום, ותצמא נפשו ויכמה בשרו לאהוב המקום ברוך הוא; ויירא ויפחד משפלותו

ודלותו וקלותו, כשיערוך עצמו לאחד מהגופות הקדושים הגדולים, וכל שכן לאחד

מהצורות הטהורות הנפרדות מן הגלמים, שלא נתחברו בגולם כלל. וימצא עצמו,

שהוא ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה, ריק וחסר

Again, we are presented with a mixture of awe and humility. That dialectic, that tension between self-awareness of man’s great ability and also a realistic understanding of the limitations we are saddled with, keeps us thirsting for knowledge of Truth and an understanding of our existence. (I was too lazy to translate that last quote.)

I leave you with this thought and wish you all a Chag Sameach – Thank you for reading, learning and teaching me with your insightful comments.

---

[1] I use the word legislate every time I quote Rambam in MT. I believe that everything he wrote in the “Chibur” was legislation.

Astrology and Talismans as Percursors of Idolatry - Both are Deceptions

Rambam wrote the Pirush Hamishna, his first major published work, while he was in his twenties. He tells us at the end of Seder Taharot that he started it at 23, finishing it in Egypt at 30. Although some scholars, based on certain rulings in Mishne Torah see a softening of his position on idolatry, as he grew older, it is clear that the basic underlying thinking never changed. I hope to eventually address those seeming changes of heart. As we will see his explanation of idolatry and its nefarious consequences is consistent from the Pirush Hamishna through the letter to the sages of Marseilles I already quoted in another post, which he wrote in his last years (Rambam died at 69).

As the following quote from his Pirush on Avodah Zara 4:7 is lengthy, I will break up the translation into thematic segments with comments as I go along. Depending on the length, this may spread over several posts. (Note: I copied the Hebrew translation available online and compared it with the Rav Kafieh edition. Wherever I thought it was important I used the latter in the translation. That should explain any discrepancy between the translation and the original.)

Introduction:

ממה שראוי שתדעהו, שהפילוסופים השלמים אינם

מאמינים בטליסמאות, אלא צוחקים מהם ומאלה החושבים שיש להן השפעה. וביאור

זה יארך, ואמנם אמרתי זאת ליודעי שרוב בני האדם ואולי כולם מרומים בהם

תרמית גדולה מאד, ובהרבה דברים מסוגם, ויחשבום דברים אמיתיים, ואינם כך.

עד שהטובים החסידים מאנשי תורתנו חושבים שהם דברים אמיתיים אלא שהם אסורים

בגלל התורה בלבד, ולא ידעו שהם דברים בטלים כוזבים שהזהירה מהם התורה כמו

שהזהירה מהשקר.

You need to know that the perfected philosophers [as opposed to the imperfect ones] do not believe in talismans. They laugh at them and at the people who believe that they have an influence [on the physical]. To explain this will be lengthy. I say this because I know that most people, indeed possibly all, are deceived by this great deception, and by many other similar things, considering them to be true. They are not. [The deception is so great] that even the best of the Chassidim [faithful] among our men [scholars] of Torah, think that they are true but forbidden because the Torah forbids them. They do not realize that they are nonsensical false things that the Torah warned against, just as it warned us against [believing in] falsehoods.

Rambam speaks plainly. He admits that what he is about to say goes against the opinion of the best of his learned and religious compatriots. Not only is he referring to his contemporaries but I understand that he is also addressing the Rabbis in the Talmud and even Mishna who seem to have believed in talismans and “other similar things”. He also stakes out his position that talismans and “other similar things” are false and do not work. They are a deception perpetrated by intentional deceivers who are so successful that everybody is susceptible. They are forbidden, not only because the Torah forbade their use, but also because they are a deception, just as lies and falsehoods would be forbidden even had the Torah not said so. I emphasize this because I believe it is one of the most important ideas that underlie Rambam’s understanding of idolatry, as we will see.

The Great Deception and why it is False:

והם דברים שזכו לפרסום רב אצל האומות, ושורש זה, הצאבה,

והם העמים אשר יצא אברהם אבינו מכללם וחלק על דעותיהם הנפסדות במה שאצר ה'

בליבו מן החכמה, והיו מגדלים את הכוכבים ומייחסים להם פעולות שאינן להם,

והם אשר יסדו את גזירת הכוכבים והכישוף והלחשים והורדת הרוחניות ושיחות

הכוכבים והשדים והקסם והניחוש לכל ריבוי מיניהם, ודרישת המתים, והרבה מאלה

הענינים אשר שלפה התורה האמיתית חרבה עליהם וכרתה אותם, והם שורש עבודה

זרה וענפה. וזה, שהכזב הראשון הוא גזירת הכוכבים, אשר מוכח במופת בחכמה

הטבעית ביטול הקדמותיה הראשונות, באומרם כוכב פלוני מזלו רע ופלוני מזלו

טוב, וחלק פלוני מן הגלגל מתאים לכוכב פלוני, ומתנגד לכוכב פלוני, עם היות

הגלגל כולו גוף אחד שחלקיו דומים, אין ניגוד בהם ולא הרכבה. ואלו שתי

ההקדמות הן עמוד גזירת הכוכבים, אשר אם יתאמת ביטולן, כמו שכבר התאמת,

יתבטלו פרטיה עד האחרון שבהם. אחר כך הורכב כזב שני על זה הכזב הראשון,

והן הטליסמאות, ואמרו שאם יהיה כוכב פלוני שמזלו טוב במקום פלוני המתאים

לו, תיעשה צורה בתואר כך והיא תביא תועלת כך, ואם היה כוכב פלוני שמזלו רע

במקום פלוני המתנגד לו, תיעשה צורה בתואר כך והיא תרחיק נזק כך, והתפשט זה

הענין כפי התפשטות גזירת הכוכבים ומה שמיוחס להם מן הפרטים. אחר כך הורכב

כזב שלישי על זה השני, והיא עבודה זרה, ונאמר שזאת הצורה אשר תיעשה במזל

כך ועל מצבה פלונית אם יוקטר לה באופן פלוני ויתפללו אליה במילים כך

וישתחוו לה, וכך וכך, הרי היא תפסיק נזק כוכב פלוני ותביא תועלת פלוני

These ideas gained great traction among the nations and at their root were the Sabeans, the peoples Avraham Avinu distanced himself from and, using the wisdom God gave him, disputed their ideas. They honored the stars attributing to them actions that were not theirs. They are the ones that established the laws [that apply to the use of the powers] of, the stars, magic, incantations, the bringing down of spirits, talking with the stars, the Sheidim, ghosts, prestidigitations of all types, consultation with the dead and many of such similar matters that the True Torah[1] unsheathed its sword and destroyed them. They are at the root of idolatry and its offshoots. The first deception was [the establishment of] astrology, which we can disprove its basic premises empirically and scientifically. For they [the astrologers] say that this specific star augurs good while the other augurs bad. They also say that a certain part of a sphere is compatible with a certain star and incompatible with another although they [the spheres] are one body without parts or compositions. These two propositions are the basis for astrology and if disproved – and they have been – all their details to the last, will fall apart.

A second deception was grafted on the first one – the Talismans. They said that if a certain star which augurs good finds itself in a compatible place [on the sphere] and if one makes a certain form in this and this way, it will be beneficial. If a certain star that augurs bad finds itself in a place that is incompatible with it, a different form will protect against it. These details broadened and spread as did astrology.

And now a third deception was grafted on the first two and that is idolatry. It was said that a form made during a specific sign on this specific altar and then certain kinds of incense are burned accompanied by specific words, genuflecting at such and such, it will stop the harm brought by a star [also] bringing a specific benefit.

Rambam explains why idolatry is a lie and false. Its underlying premise is that the spheres and stars have “spiritual” powers to influence happenings on earth. As he explained in MT that the whole thing started innocently as a natural consequence of the observation that there is a physical connection between the movement of the stars and what occurs on earth. Seasons, weather and tides depend on the sun and the moon. They conceptualized that they must be intermediaries between God and us and doing His bidding and therefore deserved respect. It was not long before powers other than physical were ascribed to them. They were no longer forces of nature that acted according to certain preset laws but now had a mind of their own. Thus, astrology came to be seen as a science. We have to understand that with the Aristotelian universe of the medieval era, it was much easier to accept these ideas than it is with our view of the universe. They, including Rambam, believed that the stars were sentient beings to an extent. Their movement was caused by a striving for the perfect motion, the circular. That limited sentience did not extend to independence of action. It was seen by Rambam and other “perfected philosophers” as a focused and single-minded sentience. However, it was not a great leap to take the extra step and give them independence albeit under the ultimate supervision of God. Almost all Rambam’s contemporaries fell for it even after Rambam’s admonition as witnessed by his letter to the sages of Marseilles and their subsequent writings. However, once that step is taken, a pantheon of greater and lesser gods is not far away.

What I find interesting is that Rambam sees talismans as an intermediate step between the original well-intentioned respects afforded to God’s tools and full-blown idolatry where they become powerful independent forces. It puts a certain light on understanding why the Torah is so strict forbidding anything that is a precursor or has any connection with idolatry more than any other prohibition. But I think the biggest point Rambam is making that idolatry and the premise it rests on is false and untrue. That in itself is reason enough for the focus of religion to be the eradication of idolatry. Deception and lies are so dangerous and bring about such destruction that an open and constant war against it must be waged.

Next post we will see the destruction the falsehood of idolatry brings about.

---

[1] Or in context: the Torah of truths

Where does Physics Stop and Metaphysics Begin? Rambam and Ramban.

There is very little difference between Rambam and Ramban, the two great representatives of the two schools of Judaism, the rational and the mystical, when it comes to defining the goals and objectives of humanity. They both agree that the goal of Torah is to bring about a perfect civilization that knows God[1]. Rambam’s position is discussed in my earlier posts. We read similar ideas in Ramban in Torat Hashem Temimah (Kitvei Ramban Chavel Edition (Heb.) Vol. 1 page 142-143) and in many of his other writings. The difference between these two greats is how one answers the question of where science stops and metaphysics starts. The implications of the answer to this question underlie the great chasm that developed between the Rambam’s rationalism and the Ramban’s Kabbalah.

Rambam maintained a clear delineation between the physical and the spiritual. Spirituality to him had no place in science. If he did not understand something about the physical world, he assumed it was some mechanism that he had not yet understood. He thought that there are things that humans will never understand through systematic research, only through inspiration or intuition, but ultimately the explanation will be physical. Rambam addresses this in several places in his writing, (I know offhand of three but I am sure there are more), and to me the most telling, especially to a contemporary Jew, is the following one in his introduction to Pirush Hamishna. In a discussion about the purpose of the different components of our world, he makes the following statement -

, ויש שתכליתו עמוקה ונסתרת עד שלא תוודע כלל זולתי אם נודעה בחזון

או בידיעת הנסתרות, אבל בחקירה מדעית אין הדבר אפשרי, לפי שאין ביכולת

האדם לחקור ולדעת מדוע המציא הטבע מן הנמלים בכנפים ומהם בלי כנפים, וכן

מדוע המציא תולע מרבה רגלים, ואחר פחות רגלים ממנו, ומה תכלית התולעת הזו

והנמלה הזו

…some things’ purpose is so deep and hidden that it cannot be known except through a vision or intuition [my paraphrase/explanation - the method used in finding hidden things (see Rabbis Kafieh and Sheilat notes in their respective editions)]. Understanding the purpose of those things through scientific inquiry is impossible. For it is impossible for man to inquire and know why nature has produced ants with and without wings, why it produced a critter with many legs and another with less, and what the purpose of this critter or ant is.

The example he brings is an anachronism for a contemporary reader. Darwin has explained this phenomenon quite conclusively. Rambam however contents himself with stating that there must be a physical reason and explanation that is unknown to him. To him Darwin, who explained it, would be either intuitive or a visionary, which is not so far from the truth. There is no possible “spiritual” explanation to natural phenomena because there is no interaction between the conceptual (to us), non-physical existence and the physical world we live in.

Ramban on the other hand explained scientific mysteries by ascribing them to spiritual entities that emanate from the stars and spheres. Where Rambam saw only unknown physical phenomena, what we now know is gravity, magnetism etc… Ramban saw transitional semi-physical entities that carried out the wishes of the astral powers. In his world, there was no clear delineation between the physical and the metaphysical. There is a category of semi transcendence populated by a multitude of entities such as Sheidim, Ruchot (spirits) and Neshamot (souls) which are found in Tanach and the Gemara. Where Rambam saw allegories and metaphors, Ramban saw science and reality. For a thorough discussion of the contrast between these two thinkers in this area see R. Buchman’s article in Hakirah Vol. 2 http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf .

Ramban could therefore accept many Chazal and verses in the Torah literally. An angel was not just a “form” but also a physical entity albeit ethereal. The soul is similarly a physical entity that God “blows” into man just as the Passuk says. When the rabbis say that there are a finite number of souls stored in the “Guf” created at the same time as the world, he sees that as literal (Kitvei Haramban page 159). That being the case souls must be recycled and a whole body of theories regarding Gilgulim comes into existence. Ramban has support for these ideas from old Midrashim, the Heichalot, and literal reading of more accepted sources. This approach leads to a completely different understanding of Olam Haba, Techyat Hametim and generally has a much more eschatological view of death and its aftermath.

There is no question that some earlier thinkers including some Amoraim and probably Tannaim, held similar positions and Ramban has a rich tradition to rely on. Rambam knew the same sources and either ignored them or when forced to confront them, either interpreted them allegorically or rejected them. Rambam accepted that the Rabbis had no clear tradition when it came to these issues and based their understanding on how they saw their world. He therefore did not have a problem accepting that there are different schools of thought that contradict each other and when looking at a text one has to see to which group the author belonged. When forming our own opinion on which group to follow we have to evaluate which one fits with our reality and follow the Truth as we see it.

Rambam held that there is a limit to what humans can apprehend. Knowing that limit and not going beyond it is a sine qua non of knowledge and perfection.

“A boundary is undoubtedly set to the human mind which it cannot pass. There are things (beyond that boundary) which are acknowledged to be inaccessible to human understanding, and man does not show any desire to comprehend them, being aware that such knowledge is impossible, and that there are no means of overcoming the difficulty. (MN 1:31)

“If, on the other hand, you attempt to exceed the limit of your intellectual power, or at once to reject things as impossible which have never been proved to be impossible, or which are in fact possible, though their possibility be very remote, then you will be like Elisha Acher. You will not only fail to become perfect, but you will become exceedingly imperfect. Ideas founded on mere imagination will prevail over you. You will incline toward defects, and toward base and degraded habits, on account of the confusion which troubles the mind, and of the dimness of its light, just as weakness of sight causes invalids to see many kinds of unreal images, especially when they have looked for a long time at dazzling or at very minute objects.” (MN1:32)

Contrary to popular belief, Rambam was the more conservative of the two. He set limits to how far we may speculate beyond the physical. Ramban with his world of mysticism was much more daring. It was not that Ramban did not accept the limits to human knowledge but rather, though there was no direct evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting it. One has to wonder how much his perspective would have changed when confronted with the empirically proven scientific explanations for the once mysterious phenomena. Would he still maintain that magic and astrology work but may not be used because Jews have to rely on God? Or would he accept Rambam’s position that they are forbidden because they do not work and are false? How would this have affected his understanding of the supernal world?

It is important to understand that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. If one accepts Rambam, one has to follow his position to its rational conclusion. Clearly, what to Ramban was science to Rambam was superstition and forbidden. It brought the transcendental into the physical where it does not belong. I find it an affront to my intelligence when I read some who seemingly seamlessly integrate the two approaches. It is insulting to both of these great truth seekers. The approach would have to be with both to try to update their ideas based on our current knowledge. As I quoted in an earlier post, Rav Kook already implied that this would be a much easier task with Rambam’s rational outlook than with Ramban’s mystical one. As I discuss idolatry, we will have to keep in mind the different ways Rambam and Ramban looked at the world. We will see that even in what seems a Halachik issue, the underlying philosophical thinking affects practical rulings.

---

[1] They seem to differ in their respective understanding of Vehalachta Biderachav. That is a subject for a separate analysis.

Yaakov's Ladder - Ramban Deciphers the Metaphor.

Ramban when interpreting the metaphor of Yaakov’s ladder dream writes as follows - (my paraphrase/translation with comments in brackets)

והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלוהים
עולים ויורדים בו

הראהו בחלום הנבואה כי כל הנעשה בארץ נעשה על ידי המלאכים
והכל בגזרת עליון עליהם
, כי מלאכי אלוהים
אשר שלח ה' להתהלך בארץ לא יעשו
קטנה או גדולה עד שובם להתיצב על אדון כל הארץ לאמר לפניו התהלכנו
בארץ והנה יושבת
בשלוה או מלאה חרב ודם, והוא יצווה עליהם לשוב לרדת בארץ ולעשות דברו:והראהו כי הוא יתברך נצב על הסלם

He was shown in the prophetic dream that all that is done on earth is done by the angels, all a decree from on high. For God’s angels, who are sent by Him to walk the earth will not do anything, from the smallest to the biggest, until they return to stand in front of the Lord of the whole earth and report to Him. [They tell Him] whether she [the earth] is peaceful or full of swords and blood, and he will order them to return to earth and do His bidding. He also showed him [Yaakov] that He is on top of the ladder.

(For those who have not used Chavel’s original Hebrew edition of Ramban, I highly recommend it. Ramban is a master at using verses from Tanach as the basis for his sentences and ideas. Chavel refers each citation to its original source. Here the poetic language is based on Iyov 1 and 2).

Ramban has a different view of nature. As he explains many times in his writings, we are fooled when we think that because nature is repetitive, there are natural laws that govern everything. Ramban did not accept that there are natural laws at all. His understanding of how things operate is that everything is governed by stars. God gave over to the stars the power to decide how things work. Every occurrence we see, whether when we lift our finger or when a leaf falls, every occurrence is caused by the external influence of a star. There is in general a predictive quality to how things will go, but that is only because the forces generated by the stars have set things in motion and they, the stars, have decided not to interfere or change. Should they arbitrarily decide to interfere those things will not happen. The “souls” of the stars, the “thinking” element in them, are the angels and are represented in this dream as climbing to report to God. (See Ramban Devarim 18:9- ועשה עוד על הכוכבים והמזלות מנהיגים מלאכים ושרים שהם נפש להם)

The point is that the stars themselves, though generally left to their own machinations, do so only because God allows it. Should He decide to change the rules, He will. (For an in-depth discussion of Ramban’s position on this and the underlying thinking, see this article http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf by R. Asher Benzion Buchman in Hakirah vol. 2). This understanding of how the world operates, though foreign and viewed as magical and absurd by contemporary intelligent people, was however the view of Ramban’s contemporaries in Catholic Europe, forced on them by their lack of understanding of the physical sciences. The point of the dream was to tell Yaakov that although in the natural order of things, God leaves it to the stars (angels), a person can remove himself from their control and be placed under God’s direct oversight and protection.

ומבטיחו ליעקב בהבטחה גדולה
להודיע שהוא לא יהיה ביד המלאכים אבל יהיה חלק ה' ויהיה עמו תמיד
כמו שאמר והנה אנכי עמך ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך
כי מעלתו גדולה משאר הצדיקים שנאמר בהם
תהלים צא יא) כי מלאכיו יצווה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך: )

He offered Yaakov a great promise telling him that he will not depend on the angels. He will belong to HKBH who will be with him always. As He told him, [the following verse] I am with you and I will protect you wherever you go. For his [Yaakov’s] status is greater than all the Tzadikkim [righteous] about whom it is said He will send His angels to protect you in all your ways.

Although even the righteous remain under the direction of the angels, the thinking part of the stars who report to God and can be ordered not to harm him, special great Tzadikkim who cleave to HKBH bypass this array of intermediaries and fall under God’s direct oversight. In other words, Ramban argues that Divine Providence is also only available to the very righteous. There is no Hashgacha Pratit on every individual human being. Ramban is consistent as he also tells us in Breishit 18:19 –

ירמוז, כי ידיעת השם שהיא השגחתו בעולם השפל, היא לשמור הכללים

[The verse saying that God “knows” Avraham] indicates that God’s knowledge, which is identical with his Hashgacha [providence – oversight] on the lower world, is only to protect the generalities [groups and the whole].

וגם בני האדם מונחים בו למקרים עד בא עת פקודתם

Even people are left in it [the world] to chance until their time [of death] comes.

אבל בחסידיו ישום אליו לבו לדעת אותו בפרט, להיות שמירתו דבקה בו תמיד, לא תפרד
הידיעה והזכירה ממנו כלל

But to His devotees, He makes it a point [literally puts His heart on them] to know each in detail, so that His protection is with each at all times, [His] knowledge and remembrance of them is never separated from them.

This idea of Ramban is repeated in many of his theological writings and is an interesting study of how the early Spanish Kabbalah understood the world’s workings and God’s place in it.

Although he agrees with Rambam that Divine Providence is dependent on the state of perfection of the individual, the mechanism of Divine Providence is completely different in Ramban’s world. We saw that to Rambam, Divine Providence is a natural consequence that results from the insight and knowledge acquired by the prophet when he understands the natural functioning of the universe from God’s perspective. Ramban’s world does not have a self-functioning natural order. It either is a directed system controlled indirectly by God via the stars or, in the case of the very righteous, controlled directly by God. The protection the righteous gets is not a result of his decision and action but rather, if the decision and action are made with the proper intention, God makes sure that no evil befalls him. Ramban can therefore see nature as a continuous miracle unnoticeable when things happen repetitively as predicted and noticeable when they deviate from the norm. Both, the normal and the abnormal are actively controlled by non-physical forces. The spiritual world is very much a reality. Magic is deeply entwined in the makeup of the universe. It is man’s goal to bypass this array of magical forces by submitting himself to God’s will. That is done through the Mitzvot, through offerings (Korbanot) and prayers, through meditative attachment to God.

So what is Ramban’s understanding of the Mitzvah to go in God’s ways? It cannot mean emulating Him and partaking in nature. Nature after all is not consistent. It is always dependent on God’s direct or indirect direction.

I will address this in my next post.

Note:

The purpose of this discussion is to clarify to myself and to my readers the basic positions of these two great thinkers. The current mainstream Jewish Hashkafah on Divine Providence is not compatible with Rambam’s thought. Rambam has influenced our Hashkafah greatly in many areas such as the incorporeality of God and in general, his 13 Ikkarim have been accepted though with many modifications and misinterpretations. Rambam is not accepted in the area of Providence. As Ramban’s approach is the one that has evolved (note that I use the word evolved rather than basis for) into the current thinking, it is important to understand it. In writing this post, I have clarified to myself several little points in Ramban’s thinking that I had misunderstood until now. I hope my readers will benefit too.

Metaphysics, Actions and Providence - a fascinating brew.

My wife’s cousin’s husband, Yitzchak Halperin, gave me as a present the book by Professor Aviezer Ravitzky (Lerefuah Shleima) Iyunim Maimoni’im. It is a collection of published and new articles by Professor Ravitzky dealing with Rambam and his school of thought. The first chapter is an article which I had read a while back and was published in Da’at followed by the second chapter which is a new article that complements and expands on the first one. The articles contrast Rambam’s understanding of the perfect utopian man and the understanding of some of his followers, the Maimonidean school in Provence led by The Tibbon family, R. Samuel (1150-1230) his son R. Moshe and his son in law R. Yaakov Anatoly (1194-1256).

In recent posts I suggested that setting long term goals based on partaking in how God runs the world is the meaning of Hashgacha. Rambam understands that Moshe and the patriarchs are the paradigm of such a person and therefore all their action were considered as serving God even their mundane day to day actions. It is the act itself that is seen as the ultimate service of God. Thus philosophy without action is seen as a potential and a stepping stone rather than a goal.

Professor Ravitzky reads the Rambam slightly differently. He understands Rambam as saying that they, the patriarchs and Moshe, were able to develop a type of split persona where while dealing with the mundane day to day they were at the same time engaged in metaphysical contemplation. He does not understand that acting towards a goal in the physical now is in itself service of God. Apparently R. Samuel Ibn Tibon understood Rambam that way too, and went on to disagree with this approach. He believed that philosophy and metaphysical contemplation is the ultimate goal of man and should not be contaminated by any other actions. The fact that Moshe dealt with the day to day issues of Klal Israel took him away from fulfilling his potential as utopian man.

I believe that Rambam cautions us about the limits of the human mind over and over in his writings exactly for this specific reason. Pure philosophy and metaphysics without any practical applications lends itself to flights of imagination. A philosopher who lives in seclusion and constant contemplation without acting and partaking in the physical world is not what the Torah wanted according to Rambam. It is therefore unthinkable that acting in fulfilling a divine goal should be considered a lesser level of dedication to God and a concession, necessitating a split persona of contemplating while acting.

The text of Rambam we are discussing is in MN 3:51:

“When we have acquired a true knowledge of God, and rejoice in that knowledge in such a manner, that whilst speaking with others, or attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God; when we are with our heart constantly near God, even whilst our body is in the society of men; when we are in that state which the Song on the relation between God and man poetically describes in the following words: "I sleep, but my heart is awake: it is the voice of my beloved that knocks" (Song v. 2):--then we have attained not only the height of ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our Teacher, of whom Scripture relates: "And Moses alone shall come near before the Lord" (ibid. xxxiv. 28); "But as for thee, stand thou here by me" (Deut. V. 28)… When we therefore find them also, engaged in ruling others, in increasing their property, and endeavoring to obtain possession of wealth and honor, we see in this fact a proof that when they were occupied in these things, only their bodily limbs were at work, whilst their heart and mind never moved away from the name of God.”

So far it would seem Rambam is exactly as R. S. Tibon read him. Especially the text from Shir Hashirim that he refers to, “Ani Yesheina Velibi Eir”, which seems to indicate that while he is asleep, acting in the real world and not being in touch with God, his mind is awake namely thinking of God. However if one thinks a little further why is this seen as sleeping? Either one is connected to God or not. If while I am acting physically my brain is still connected isn’t that being awake? I believe Rambam was bothered by this question and therefore clarified:

“It also seems to me that these four reached that high degree of perfection in their relation to God, and enjoyed the continual presence of Divine Providence, even in their endeavors to increase their property, feeding the flock, toiling in the field, or managing the house, only because in all these things their end and aim was to approach God as much as possible. It was the chief aim of their whole life to create a people that should know and worship God. "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him" (Gen. 18:19). The object of all their labors was to publish the Unity of God in the world and to induce people to love Him; and it was on this account that they succeeded in reaching that high degree; for even those [worldly] affairs were for them a perfect worship of God”.

Rambam is saying that the fact they were doing things with the goal of creating a people that is aware of God turned their mundane acts into worship. I don’t see any metaphysical speculation here at all. It is the goal and aim of the action that makes it in itself a service of God and fits within the understanding of what is God’s providence.

There has been a constant debate within Judaism about the meaning of Rambam’s ideas on this subject. Closer to our times Chassidim developed the idea that while dealing in worldly matters one should remain attached to HKBH contemplating Him with part of the mind. The irony is that the mystical movement took the rationalist Rambam’s idea as they saw it (as per Tibon) and adapted it as their own. Many Kabalistic ideas have their source in Rambam’s rationalist approach which are then taken and transformed, but that is for other posts.

The Evolution of a Custom - Halacha, Aggada and Kabbalah - a revealing brew.

Recently I worked through an interesting custom that has become so mainstream that most of us do it automatically without thinking, twice daily. What intrigued me about it is that it entered Halacha even though it contravenes Halachik rulings.

Whenever we say Shema in shul with a minyan, the Mitpalelim wait for the Hazan to repeat aloud the last two words – Hashem Elokeichem – adding the word Emet, which is the first in the next paragraph. The most blatant issue is that it contravenes the prohibition of repeating words in Shema as ruled in Rambam Hil. Kryat Shema 2:11

קרא פסוק וחזר וקראו פעם שנייה, הרי זה מגונה; קרא מילה אחת וכפלה, כגון שקרא שמע שמע, משתקין אותו.

It is frowned upon someone repeating a verse. However if someone repeats a word, for example repeating Shema, Shema, he is silenced.

Although Rashi in the Gemara rules the opposite, one is silenced for repeating sentences while repeating words is only frowned upon, repetition in Shema is definitely not a priori acceptable.

The source for this interesting custom goes back to the Geonim and early Rishonim. The Ra’avyah R. Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi (d. 1225) quotes a Yerushalmi that the Shema has 245 words. The Rabbis added El Melech Ne’eman to make it 248 which equals the number of limbs of a person. The idea being that the Mitzvah of reading the Shema protects a person’s limbs. This Yerushalmi is not mentioned by anyone else nor does it exists in our current editions. (That is not surprising as there are other such cases where early Rishonim quote Yerushalmi that we have no record of. It was the basis for the famous Yerushalmi on Kodoshim forgery issue). The idea of adding EMN is that the acrostic thereof is Amen, אמןan appropriate response at the end of the Blessing before Shema. (I do not want to digress and discuss the issue of whether one responds Amen to this Bracha). Apparently this custom of adding EMN took hold in Germany - where Ra’avyah lived - and eventually in Spain too as we see from the Ramban’s (1194 – c.1270) query (see Chidushei Haramban on Berachot at the beginning) made to the Ramah – R. Meir ben Todros Halevi Abulafia (c.1170 Burgos, Spain - 1244) on the subject. Ramban himself has an interesting take on the basis for this custom. He suggests that in the earlier times, when it was more common for people who did not know the liturgy to be part of the congregation, the custom was for the Hazan to read the Berachot aloud. The Shema itself each one read for himself as the Halacha requires. They therefore answered Amen on the Bracha of the Hazan saying EMN. That evolved into the minhag of everyone saying it. Thus it is a minhag based on Amei Ha’aretz.

The Tur, R. Yaakov ben Asher, (1270-ca 1340) in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 61 reports the Ramah’s answer who considers the minhag erroneous. First one may not answer Amen on one’s own Bracha (except under certain conditions but this Bracha is excluded specifically see Rambam Hil Berachot 1:16). Second one mentions the name of Hashem in vain (El) and finally one is creating a hefsek, a separation between the Bracha and the Mitzvah. It would be acceptable to say Amen after the Bracha of the Hazan, but not when one says the Bracha himself. (Apparently this answer led to Ramban’s suggestion above.) The way the Tur reports this Ramah it is clear that he agrees with him and the Minhag is considered erroneous. However apparently it prevailed as we will see.

The Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo (born 1488, Spain-died March 24, 1575, Safed, Palestine) reports that at his time it was already a custom that the Hazan repeated the words Hashem Elokeichem Emet at the end of Shema. He explains that as the EMN idea was found to be incorrect and it was felt that the need to have 248 words in Shema was important, it was decided to replace EMN with the HEE repetition. He quotes a Zohar as the basis, to which I will return later.

This Minhag was not a straight evolution but rather a process. There is a report that in the time of the Geonim the Hazan said aloud from להיות לכם לאלהים onwards to remind people not to stop at the end of Shema but continue straight to Emet Veyatziv. At first, when the 248 words idea came into being, having finished the Shema ahead of the Hazan, the people would listen to the Hazan and that was seen as sufficient to count the Hazan’s words as if they had repeated those words to complement the number. As time went on different new methods were developed until the current minhag became mainstream. R. Moshe de Leon (born c. 1240, León-died 1305, Arevalo) offers two suggestions for the Hazan’s repetition – Ani Hashem Elokeichem and Hashem Elokeichem Emet.

Now let us revert to the Beit Yosef. He quotes the Tikkunei Zohar who clearly says that the earlier Rabbis had a custom to say EMN but had a problem with it and instituted the new approach of HEE. He further quotes a lengthy discussion from Zohar. There were apparently two versions in Zohar, the two suggestions of R. Moshe de Leon, and BY quotes his Rebbis who opted definitely for HEE.

Apparently in Minhag Ashkenaz EMN remained (see Remah who kept it only for someone who says Shema by himself) and in Frankfurt HEE was not repeated just the word Emet was announced loudly by the Rav. Rav Kafih in his three volume letters, printed a responsa by R. Moshe Tzarum, the last Rav of Sana’a, the capital and largest city in Yemen, who also argues that HEE is a new Minhag introduced by the Mekubalim, and that the normative Minhag Teiman is to not say EMN nor HEE.

What fascinates me in this story is the coincidence of the two versions of R. Moshe de Leon finding their way into the Zohar. He also seems to be the earliest to suggest this idea. Ramban the great Kabbalist had no tradition for the HEE minhag, rejected the EMN one and did not find the need to have 248 words in Shema. Apparently as the Kabbalah evolved these new ideas took hold and were so strong that they prevailed against all Halachik objections. Making sure that a person limbs are protected is apparently an irresistible imperative.

It is also fascinating how much history and complications a simple Minhag has. I have only summarized and reported what was pertinent for my observation. For a comprehensive discussion of all the different versions of this Minhag see Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz by Rav Hamburger Vol. 2 where it takes up over half of that volume.

Is Kabbalah just a variation on the Christian belief in the Trinity?

This will be my last post in this series about Kabbalah as I want to revert to positive talk and present Rambam’s rational approach to creation. I expect that process to take a while.

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Sheshet (Ribash) (1326-1408) (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=244&letter=I for details about him) was a pupil of Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven (RaN) and was considered the greatest Halachik authority of his days. He ended his long career as the Chief Rabbi of Algiers and environments. For a comprehensive discussion of his and his younger colleague Rabbi Shimon Ben Zemach Duran (Rashbatz) activities see Sinai Volume 134 page 92 onward. Being a pupil of RaN, who was a philosopher and from the school of the great Spanish Mekubal, Ramban, and also being a colleague of R. Hasdai Crescas author of Ohr Hashem, a philosophical work that tries to argue against Rambam thought and supports the more mystical approaches, Ribash was well aware and knew of the Kabbalah and its ways quite well. A reader of my blog brought Teshuvah 157 in the Shut Haribash to my attention. I had seen it a long time ago, in fact we went over it during one of our Shabbat learning groups but it slipped my mind as I was writing the earlier two Blogs. I will translate some pertinent segments.

“… I also told you that my teacher Rabbi Peretz Hacohen never spoke nor appreciated those Sefirot. I also heard from him that R. Shimshon of Chinon, who was the greatest Rabbi of his generation, (I remember him though I never saw him with my own eyes), used to say: “I pray according to the mind of this child.” (In other words – my prayer is uncomplicated). He meant to contradict the Mekubalim who at one time pray to one Sefira and at another to another, depending on the subject of the prayer… All this is very strange to someone who is not a Mekubal; it makes one think that this is a belief in “Shenyot” (a term that refers to God as being composed of more than one essence). I once heard a philosophically minded person denigrating the Mekubalim saying: The idolaters (Christians) believe in the Trinity (three essences) and the Mekubalim in Ten essences.”

He then goes on to tell about a friend of his, a great Talmudist, philosopher and Mekubal who explained that the prayer is to God. However just like when one petitions the king, depending on the issue that one needs help for, one avails oneself of different intermediaries so too at prayer. Different Sefirot represent different types of intermediaries as needed for the specific petition. Ribash grants that explanation a very curt “Tov Me’od” and proceeds to say:

“But who needs all this? Isn’t it better to pray simply to God with the proper intentions and He will know how to satisfy the petition… that is what R. Shimshon from Chinon meant in my earlier quote. I also told you what my Rebbi Rabeinu Nissim told me that Ramban went out too much on a limb believing in that Kabbalah. That is why I do not stake a position myself in that Chochma (wisdom) being I did not receive it from a learned Mekubal.”

He then proceeds to list a number of books he has read in Kabbalah and philosophy with short opinions about each one. He then discusses a book written by a Mekubal (I am not sure if he refers to R. Yitzchak de Latif or someone else) of which he is quite critical commenting:

“ This is not at all the opinion of the Mekubalim and I think that he invented this on his own and from his own intellect without receiving it from anyone, as he mentions in the fifth chapter of his book. Who can bother to figure out the new ideas that he made up and that he is so secretive about that he conceals them. I therefore decided let them be his and no one else’s. (He is annoyed that the author has the audacity to present individually developed ideas in an esoteric and difficult to decipher language. He sees it as arrogance.)… I therefore say that one should not rely on anything unless taught by a reliable Mekubal, and even then who knows?”

Ribash criticizes the whole idea of praying with Sefirot in mind. He also questions the validity of inspired metaphysical ideas. He considers Kabbalah questionably authentic, only if transmitted by a reliable Mekubal ostensibly it then having a chance of being an ancient and authentic Mesora. Even in that case only does Ribash accept Kabbalah as authentic with great reservation. We are talking about a person who shows an extensive knowledge of the Kabbalah of his day. I wonder what he would have thought of the Arizal’s Kabbalah which was developed completely from personal inspiration, as described by his pupils R. Chaim Vital et al. as quoted in my earlier post.

I think this Teshuvah talks for itself and I rest my case.

If you email me I will be glad to send you the original Teshuvah in a Pdf. (I do not know how to place it on the post).

Kabbalah and Plato

Rambam quotes a Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer several times in the Moreh with wonderment and dedicates the whole Chapter 26 in the second part of the Moreh in trying to explain it. (See also in 2:30 where he refers to it in passing).

“IN the famous chapters known as the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, I find R. Eliezer the Great saying something more extraordinary than I have ever seen in the utterances of any believer in the Law of Moses. I mean the following passage:" Whence were the heavens created? He took part of the light of His garment, stretched it like a cloth, and thus the heavens were extending continually, as it is said: He covereth Himself with light as with a garment, He stretcheth the heavens like a curtain" (Ps. civ. 2)." Whence was the earth created? He took of the snow under the throne of glory, and threw it; according to the words: He saith to the snow, Be thou earth" (job xxxvii. 6). These are the words given there; and I, in my surprise, ask, What was the belief of this sage ? Did he think that nothing can be produced from nothing, and that a substance must have existed of which the things were formed? And did he for this reason ask whence were the heavens and the earth created? What has he gained by the answer? We might ask him, whence was the light of His garment created? Or the snow under the throne of His glory? Or the throne of glory itself? If the terms" the light of His garment" and" the throne of glory" mean something eternal, they must be rejected; the words would imply an admission of the Eternity of the Universe, though only in the form taught by Plato… In short, it is a passage that greatly confuses the notions of all intelligent and religious persons. I am unable to explain it sufficiently. I quoted it in order that you may not be misled by it.”

What we are discussing is Creation. There are three basic schools of thought as to creation according to Rambam. Aristotles believed the universe as we know it existed eternally parallel with God. Plato believed that God created the universe at some point in time from a substance that existed eternally parallel with God. The Torah according to Rambam teaches that, God created everything from total nothingness, in time. (I will discuss this at length as I go along.)

Rambam cannot accept R.Eliezer’s statement because it seems to imply that he held like Plato and not according to Torah. He tries to kvetch a pshat into it but does not really accept it because four chapters on, in 2:30, he refers back to R. Eliezer as Platonic. He therefore dismisses R. Eliezer as he did in this quote and there again:

“The above saying is, in my opinion, certainly of the same character as that of R. Eliezer," Whence were the heavens created," etc., (chap. xxvi.). In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances of any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously, but was created: for it depends on the motion of the sphere and the sphere has been created.”

Now let us see how the Mekubalim read R.Eliezer. In Kitvei Haramban R. Chavel has a Pirush on Shir Hashirim that had been attributed to Ramban but Chavel shows that it is from Rabbi Azriel a Chaver of Ramban. On Shir Hashirim 3:9 he quotes R.Eliezer and comments; (my translation)-

“This is according to the opinion of Plato who says that it is an impossibility for the Creator to create something from nothingness, because there is a matter that exists [eternally] which is metaphorically, like the raw material for an artist or like iron to the smith to create whatever he wishes, so too the Creator blessed be He, creates from a matter heaven and earth and sometimes He will create other things. (I am not sure what he means with the latter). Do not wonder and argue that this sets limits to the Creator’s omnipotence by saying that He cannot create something from nothingness. It is the same as Him not being able to create incongruous things, for example a rectangle whose side is the same length as the diagonal, and to gather two opposites at the same time.”

He goes on to show that Shlomo Hamelech had the same opinion. There is nothing wrong with this opinion and as Rambam says it can accommodate the whole religion, but that is not what he believes nor what the Torah teaches. (I am simplifying to stay on subject). Rambam goes to great length to dissuade us from this opinion and shows that Shlomo Hamelech was not Platonic.

Ramban in Chumash is very cagey and the Ritva in his Sefer Hazikaron comments on it and is baffled (see Ramban on Breishit 1:1 – 1:8 (where he addresses R. Eliezer creating more confusion). Clearly Mekubalim were not as convinced as Rambam that God created everything from nothingness in time – in time being the key word. This position led to the development of the later theories of Tzimtzum and Tehiru which were the key to Arizal’s Kabbalah.

The point I am trying to make is that although the accepted opinion in the Orthodox community is that Kabbalah is Kodesh Kadashim and anyone that doubts it is suspect, it is a great distortion of the truth. If anything Kabbalah stands on wobbly legs and the burden of proof is on it to show that it is legitimate. The argument that so many great people believed it as authentic has no value, just as the numbers of his opponents did not dissuade Elijah at Har Hacarmel. There are very many theories of why this has been accepted by so many great Jewish thinkers. One of those is the article by rabbi Buchman in Hakirah which is a must read - U-madua lo Yeresem -
http://hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Buchman.pdf .