i have heard this debate a million times..with no clear answer.
did the rambam have the zohar?
it doesnt seem to be an influence in his torah, maybe it is.
one thing i have an issue with is mashiach ben yosef....for example, the zohar speaks of mashiach ben yosef, as does the gemara.
the rambam on his hilchos melachim concerning mashiach, makes no mention of it...perhaps with the zohar, he would not have ignored an important chazal?
i did not intend for this to be a discussion on mashiach ben yosef...but once again, where was the rambam holding in nistar? zohar or not?

Duvid, I have never heard that the RamBam had a copy of the Zohar even the fact that he was a Kabbalist or study such matter is one of much debate. I personally believe that he study to some degree such matter which is reveal in his Mishnah Torah.

I personally do not have a full understanding of the concept of Mishach ben David and Ben Yosef, some say they are one in the same others say they are different.

if I understand the text correctly however David HaMalak father was of the tribe of Efraim, which is one of the sons of Yosef.

perhaps he wouldn't have missed it if he had the zohar we don't know. what we do know is that he had both the Yerushalmi Talmud as well as the Bavli Talmud in his poession which as you say make mention of it. so perhaps there is another reason why the RamBam doesn't mention it? That I don't know.

L'shanah Tova...

one more addition. if the two are serprate then it doesn't matter because the the main Moshiach is the descendent of David. however before then a King can rule over Israel but his dynsty at some point will without question come to an end.

Mishnah Torah Hillot Malakim 11:1, 1:8- 1:11

so if they are one in teh same no problem if they are two indivual the RamBam felt no need to really make mention of both for the earlier will be as other Kings of Israel. however Moshiach ben David as he mentions:

"The Kings of the Davidic Line will reign forever, as it stated: Your throne will be established forever'. on the other hand, if a king araises from other tribes of Israel, his dynasty will eventually come to an end, for so Yerovam was told, "I will chastise the House of David..though not forever. " --1:9

The main reason Rambam never mentions Zohar is because he lived about 150-200 years before it was published. It's the same as wondering why R" Schneur Zalman never mentioned the works by Aryeh Kaplan.

Rambam, BTW, was very highly educated and well-rounded man, familiar with Kabbalah, and Aristotle's works, and with Plato, and with the works and schools of thought prevalent in the Muslim world. He frequently says in his books that we should examine the ways of wisdom of the other nations and use whatever is kosher out of what we find useful.

this was not meant to be a discussion of mashiach...just on rambam and zohar.
also, the zohar may have been published at that time, but it was written by the rashbi about 1000 years earlier...so no, its not like aryeh kaplan sefarim.
how he would have gotten it is the question...once again, some say he had it, some say he didnt...both are plausible...but there is one answer.

This brings up one of my favorite topics, why did the Chassidic masters (with the notable exception of the Kutzker) like the Rambam. It goes way back to why the Ramban, the first rishon to endorse the kabballah, who was the Rambam's greatest defender. Both the Kabballists and the Rambam were attacked by the same talmudists who didn't see any reason to learn anything other than the talmud. Both groups were thinking outside the box although at different ends.
2. The Ravid does not bring kabbalistic ideas in his writings. However his son says he studied kabballah and taught it to him. Like many Rishonim, the Ravid felt that the Kabballah should be restricted to an elite and should not be popularized.
3. The Rambam was Aristilean. He discusses the neoplatonistic ideas which form the basis of the kabballah and rejects them. One may not assign any coporal attibutes to Hashem. That this is what he meant is sharpened by the Ravid criticism that some people don't agree with this premise.
4. As someone wrote, neo-aristilean thought is not too popular today with relgious jews, but we ain't giving up so fast.
5. The Rambam makes it perfectly clear that Midrashim are not to be taken literally. He has a dim view of people who do but says leave them alone in their ignorance. Although the Rambam is not consistent on what he considers a midrash, I would definitely say that Meshiach Ben Yoseph, so beloved by the kabballists (they put a prayer for him inside the Shemoneh Esreh) would definitely be on his list of midrashim which should not be taken literally.

Aryeh Shore

I believe it would be fair to say that besides the Kutzker Rebbe acceptance of the Rambam is varied. Specifically Rebbe Nachman m'Breslov was clear in his qualified acceptance of the Rambam. Any of the Rambam's writings of a philisophical nature were specifically prohibited by Rebbe Nachman. It is a minhag of some chasidim (Breslov and others) not to recite yigdal (after adon olam) during shachris because of this.

quote:

Originally posted by duvid pesach:
this was not meant to be a discussion of mashiach...just on rambam and zohar.
also, the zohar may have been published at that time, but it was written by the rashbi about 1000 years earlier...so no, its not like aryeh kaplan sefarim.
how he would have gotten it is the question...once again, some say he had it, some say he didnt...both are plausible...but there is one answer.

Of course he may have read it, but first, it wouldn't be quite right of him to reference a book that was not published, at a time when Kabbalah was very esoteric, and most importantly considering that, as Laurence said, Rambam disagreed with the Neoplatonic school of thought, being an Aristotelian on all issues but one: Aristotle and his followers thought that the Nature has always been around, whereas Rambam said that G-d has always been around, but Nature was created by G-d a very long time ago. And another important thing. Rambam was a rationalist, a scientist, an anti-mystic. Rambam's code of ethics flowed logically from reason, but he does agree that there are certain things that we do not quite understand yet, which fact in no way should be stopping us from attempting to understand the world.

G-d forbid that one should not learn the Rambam's writings. All Rishonim hold of the Rambam.

quote:

Originally posted by Intellect:
G-d forbid that one should not learn the Rambam's writings. All Rishonim hold of the Rambam.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT??

I said that because you said that Rav Nachman of Breslov forbade the learning of some of Rambam's works which I do not believe is true and my point is that one should learn the Rambam.

Thank you for the clarification.
I did not say that Rebbe Nachman said not to learn any Rambam.
What I did say is that he prohibited learning any philisophical writings of the Rambam. I believe it is specific in sichos haran. I will double check the source later.
The prohibition of any philisophical writings of the Rambam is included in his general prohibition of philosphy. "The service of hashem is found in simplicity". The rebbe taught that philosophy was counfounding to the mind and neshoma and therefore contrary to his concept of simplicity which brings simcha.

The Rambam's writings should be learned and if the Rebbe said that people cannot learn the Rambam, he can't do that.

There are many paths to torah, and many paths to chasidus. The Rebbe's derech was taught for people that chose to follow it. If this is not your derech then that is as it is. It is unfortunate that you chose to show disrespect to the Rebbe, his derech and the chasidim that follow them because you disagree.

First of all, there aren't many paths to Torah because if thats true, then reform and conservative are also true according to you. But we know this is false. I never said the Rebbe made that statement, i was saying IF he said it, he can't do that. Also if i was showing disrespect towards the Rebbe, then your also showing disrespect towards the Rambam because you agree somewhat to what the Rebbe said. I was not showing disrespect to the Rebbe, i said IF he said what he said.

Once again you claim to be using logic but it is rambling. The fact that there are more than one path to Torah knowledge does not mean that any idea that anybody can come up with is a valid idea. To claim the Breslover Rebbe to Haskala is blasphemy. Once again we go back to the concept that Rav Chaim put out, which you obviously do not understand; that the Breslover Rebbe and the Rambam can disagree without contradicting. And, certainly without disrespecting which appears to be you purpose on these discussions.

First of all, by saying that anyone can come up with a movement and make up ideas which are contrary to Torah, that is saying that they are all vaild and part of Torah when they are all contradictory. Also, all these movements claim "peace" between each other and how they respect each other, when they really don't. Chasidim think they are better than the rest of the Jews, reform thinks they are correct and better etc. They don't respect each other, its all a bunch of yapping away that they do claiming that they all agree and respect each other when inside their minds they think the other group is completely wrong. First of all who ever said the Rebbe was part of the haskalah movement? your putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I don't disrespect anyone and to the contrary, your disrespecting Torah by making claims and ideas which are totally not in line with the Torah, like for example when you say that people with completely conflicting ideas are not contradicting each other.

Elazar - to the extent that people respectfully disagree with each other and their disagreement is "L'shem shamayim" the dispute is certainly not contradictory - "eilu v'eilu" there are differing ways to come to the same place - try to take the longer view - when chassidism started, there were hard feelings on both sides to say the least. but a few generations later (during the time of the Tzemach Tzedek - the 3rd Rebbe) there was somewhat of a rapprochement when the chasidissm realized that the leaders of the misnagdim were tzadikim and the misnagdim realized that the heads of the chasidim were gaonim - the point is as long as we're within the derech, we're all moving to the same place even if we're in different vehicles

to say that "all Rishonim hold of the Rambam" is a generalization, and is simply not true. If you know anything about the history of that time period, many writings of the Rambam were VERY controversial, leading to things like Cherems, public burnings, and the like. Although it is true that today the Rambam is considered part of mainstream Jewish belief and is not considered an apikores, don't think the Rambam was always accepted so warmly.

And I don't see the problem with one Rabbi saying not to read the works of one Rabbi. (You see it all the time today, but that's a different debate - let's not get into that though.) MANY movements that today Orthodox Judaism has embraced - Chassidus, the Mussar movement, the idea of centralized Yeshivas - met strong opposition at the beginning. That's what makes Orthodox Judaism so great - the diversity of opinions, yet the fact that each side steadfastly holds of its opinions.

As for the difference between different streams of Orthodox and the non-Orthodox groups- it's often hard to define. Now, it's clear from both the Conservative and Reform movements that they reject critical parts of Torah hashkafa (like Torah miSinai) and are considered apikorsus. But as to Conservative in the early days when it was not so different from YU today - I really don't know. This is a question I've had, and I need to do more research on the history.

quote:

Originally posted by Elazar:
First of all, by saying that anyone can come up with a movement and make up ideas which are contrary to Torah, that is saying that they are all vaild and part of Torah when they are all contradictory.

STEVE: Elazar, no one here is suggesting that "anyone can come up with a movement and make up ideas which are contrary to Torah, ...[and] that they are all vaild and part of Torah." But neither does that mean that there is only one acceptable view, ruling, and interpretation for every question. Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai frequently disagreed; that doesn't mean that one was making up things against Torah. The Talmud is full of debates between various sages. As long as proper halachic methodology is used, and the goal of each is to ascertain the correct answer, then *both* are valid. When a final ruling does appear, it doesn't mean that one was necessarily *wrong* but just that in the future everyone should follow the same approach.
Similarly, think about commentaries on the Chumash -- Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Sforno, Kli Yakar, Ohr Hachaim, Baal Haturim, Abarbanel, Malbim, the Gra, and others often offer alternative, and sometimes apparently contradictory, interpretations; that does not mean that some of them are making things up against Judaism!
There is a huge difference between any of the authorities I mentioned above (and thousands like them), who all accept the authority of Torah and Talmud, and more recent "innovators" who deny that authority, and often don't even believe that G-d exists. To compare various paths within Orthodoxy to Reform is like comparing various New York to Chicago routes with routes from London to Rome. The former are all acceptable alternatives to get from NY to Chicago; the latter is starting in a different place and try to get to a different place.

quote:

Also, all these movements claim "peace" between each other and how they respect each other, when they really don't. Chasidim think they are better than the rest of the Jews, reform thinks they are correct and better etc. They don't respect each other, its all a bunch of yapping away that they do claiming that they all agree and respect each other when inside their minds they think the other group is completely wrong.

STEVE: I don't think your characterizations are fair. There may be inviduals who think that their particular way is best and look down on all others. There's a big difference between "so and so looks down on everyone outside his group" and "all groups believe that their way is the best way for everyone and the members of that group look down on all other Jews as inferior." I help moderate another group, whose moderators range from "Modern Orthodox" to "right wing chassidic" -- and all agree that their way is not the only acceptable way, or even the best way for everyone. People are born with, and develop, different strengths; as a result, different approaches within Orthodoxy appeal to, and are right for, different people.

quote:

First of all who ever said the Rebbe was part of the haskalah movement? your putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I don't disrespect anyone and to the contrary, your disrespecting Torah by making claims and ideas which are totally not in line with the Torah, like for example when you say that people with completely conflicting ideas are not contradicting each other.

STEVE: I didn't understand where the Haskalah comment came from either. However, we should be discussing ideas, not criticizing people, and we should also recognize that when someone much greater than we are writes something that we disagree with, that may just mean we don't understand, not "they are wrong."
To make it clearer, I'll use your lines quoted just above. I'm not trying to embarrass you, and hope that you understand that I'm using your words to make a point.
1. "I don't disrespect anyone": When you say that Rabbi Nachman couldn't have said something, or had to be wrong if he did, you're either showing disrespect to the poster (claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about) or to Rabbi Nachman. Unless you're really an expert in Rabbi Nachman's writings to know for sure that he never wrote that, or such a general expert on Judaism that you know he could never have said such a thing, I'd suggest you need to be more controlled in questioning others' posts. Asking questions leads to learning; proclaiming that you're right and other must be wrong can lead to animosity instead.
2. After saying you don't disrespect anyone, you attack another poster and accuse him of a lack of respect for Torah and saying things that are totally contradictory to Torah. Unless you know for certain that he can't possibly be right, and there's no chance that you might not be mistaken or now have learned enough to recognize that he might be right, you're showing disrespect by your public accusations towards someone who, for all you know, may be far more knowledgeable than you are. Again, questions further discussion and learning, which proclamations and personal attacks don't.
One of the most valuable midos for learning Torah (and being a good Jew generally) is humility. It's very tempting to think we know all the answers. I've found that the more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know all the answers. I may know more that I did before, but I've also learned a lot about legitimate ranges of opinion within Torah Judaism.

Kol tuv (all the best),

Steve Albert