quote:

Originally posted by Shragie Edelstein:
Does anyone know of any halacha or hashkofeh opinion regarding mekubalim? Specifically, going to one or their proposed ability to know certian things?

It is almost two years, and I do not see you received an answer to your quetion. That is because no one dares question the concept of "mekubalim", "kabala", and "their proposed ability to know things".

But you asked your question properly: Is there an halacha or hashkafa regarding these matters.
The hashkafa concerning kabbala and mekubalim is the authenticity of the Zohar, and this is more than questionable, if not totally refuted. That is a hot potatoe topic and I will develop it if there is a real demand to know the truth, but in the meantime, I will say that if one refutes the Zohar, the hashkafa that ensues is that the "mekulabim" have no basis.

Concerning the halacha, it is forbidden to consult all sorts of "seers" (Rambam, Sefer Hamitvot Negative commandments 31,32,33). These people have certain guessing talents which they refer to stars and the like, just like the "mekubalim" will say they get their knowledge from their kabbalistic charts.

The Torah teaches us there are prophets. The way of the world teaches us that some people have divination powers.
In his Shmone Prakim (Perush Hamishna Sanhedrin), the Rambam says that in the same way a sick person will consult a doctor, someone who has a sick "soul" should consult a Chacham. This is the Jewish way. It is healthy and rational. But not romantic enough for seekers of thrills...

Want me to develop, let me know...

quote:

The Torah teaches us there are prophets.

Isn't it also explained that we lost prophecy around the time of the 2nd Beis HaMikdash at the same time we lost what was an intense craving for Avodah Zora?

Are you suggesting that we have prophecy still today?

Three residual forms of prophecy I've heard we seem to have today are:

• Ruach HaKodesh
  
• Womens' Intuition
  
• Naming (such as, per Rashi, when Peleg's father named him a future event)
  

I mentionned prophecy only to make a difference between people who pretend they know the future and those who really do. I did not say we have prophets today!
The Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed describes 14 levels of prophecy, the first one seems to be what you call Ruach Hakodesh whereby aperson will be moved by his own initiative to fight for the oppressed (see there).
A woman's intuition is intuition - men can have that too! In fact, anybody who is sensitive can have in one way or another premonitions.
Naming would depend on what motivated the parents when they chose the name. Some names are new (like Peleg) and they are given after an event. Today, if you meet a guy called Tiran, you can be sure he was born during the 6 Days War!

It's worth while to read "Faith and Folly" by R' Yaakov Hillel, a renowned mekubal, who details and brings sources for all the prohibitions against consulting "kabalists". He even received a haskama from R' Kadduri. I believe it is published by Feldheim.

The Zohar forms the basis for some of the halachot in the Shulchan Aruch, thus cannot be refuted by anyone of the Jewish faith.
The Mishnah Berurah, and other poskim such as Magen Avraham, cite the Arizal--leading Kabbalist--and give halachic weight to his views.
Also the Gra held the Arizal in great respect, as is known, and only differed with him on a limited number of points. Furthermore, the Gra himself wrote a commentary on a central section of the Zohar called Sifra d'Tzniusa.

The area where we must question validity is that of the many hocus-pocus kabbalists of modern-day, who peddle false mystical skills.

quote:

Originally posted by Reb Moshe:
Kvod harabbonim: Please enlighten me on the Torah sources for the concept of a "Gadol"
Thank you,

Moshe

Try the mishna and gemora at the end of the second perek of Meseches Rosh HaShana, where it brings the famous "Yiftach B'doro k'Shmuel b'doro" etc.

I'd like to add that the Beis Yosef, which is the basis of Shulchan Aruch, quotes the Zohar 40 separate times.

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Globus:
The Zohar forms the basis for some of the halachot in the Shulchan Aruch, thus cannot be refuted by anyone of the Jewish faith....

The halachot of the Shulchan Aruch based on the Zohar are not to be found in the Mishne Torah of the Rambam. Does that mean the Rambam, or anyone following his Code, is not of the "Jewish faith"?
Furthermore, all the Kabalists agree that one does not derive halacha from the Zohar. Do you know why they say so, and inspite of saying so have introduced many minhagim based on kabala which are NOT in our Talmudic and Chazal sources?

We have to differentiate between who determines the halacha and a "political" figure called a gadol.
Acutally one usually doesn't know who was the gadol of a generation until after the generation has past. Something like the Navi is long gone before one can differentiate between the true and false prophet.

By the closing of the Talmud, a series of rules of who is the dominant opinion, e.g. The rule of Tanai aleph is dominant over another Tanai but not against a group of Tanaim. After the period of the Gaonim, when one could still write them letters, there was no immediate recognized posek hador (the one who determines the halacha for future generations). The Posek to whom most people wrote questions (not necessarily the most outstanding scholar) and the writers of the codes became the poskim for future generations. In general every geographical area had a central posek to whom they asked. With the advent of Chasidut, each group began to look to the own leaders as the central authority. The second generation of Rebbiem considered themselves individually as the only authority for their group due to their extradinary powers.
In the 1930's, the Rabbis of Agudat Yisrael, unhappy with the loss of their powers, highjacked the party with a new idea. There would be a council of Gedolim with special powers (like Chasidic Rebbes) who would determine not only the halacha but the politics. They elected themselves and automatically become gedolim.
The rest of us, until about twenty years ago, felt a talmud chacham who poskined halacha earned the title by publishing the questions people asked him and which were received well by his colleagues. One became a gadol the hard way, you earned it. Today, one becomes a gadol automatically because he is the leader of group, basically a Chassidic concept adopted by all groups.
The Rabbis of Brisk are a little different since they do not publish in their lifetime and become accepted as great poskim by oral communications widespread in the community.
Now how to tell a great Mekubal for asking for advice. There are many people in the Cheredi community extremely unhappy about people going to Mekuballim for advice and blessings. A survey of 100 people with special powers a few years ago turned up one who was real. Real Mikuballim are extremely anonymous people. Just because you give extradinarally good blessing wasn't enough to get you accepted as a gadol, but again there has been a change in the last ten years, and Rav Kaduri's funeral was widely covered in all of the Cheredi press.

Aryeh Shore

We all know that the Zohar was discovered in the times of the Rishonim, between the Rambam and the Ramban. When it was first publicized there was of course a bit of controversy about it.
But a consensus was later achieved by all gedolim that the Zohar is authentic teachings of Chazal.
Let us remember that the Rambam himself was at first the center of a major controversy, as was the author of the Mesillas Yesharim. The Jerusalem Talmud disappeared for hundreds of years, yet its authenticity is not challenged. There are other similar examples.
To question the authenticity of the Zohar at this point in time is a little like trying to argue that Shir HaShirim should not be included in the Tanach, due to the views of those Tannaim who were opposed to its inclusion.
Why hash out issues that were dealt with hundreds of years ago?

I don't think that it is constructive to carry on a discussion over the authenticity of the Zohar, since it is hard to see how such a discussion serves the purpose of strengthening observance of Torah and mitzvos.

quote:

Originally posted by sheva:
Furthermore, all the Kabalists agree that one does not derive halacha from the Zohar. Do you know why they say so, and inspite of saying so have introduced many minhagim based on kabala which are NOT in our Talmudic and Chazal sources?

Can you bring a source for this statement. The Chassidim and Sefardim definitely do not agree.
Probably you are referring to R' Chaim Volozhiner's introduction to the Vilna Gaon's pirush of Safra D'Tzniusa where he writes in the name of the Vilna Gaon that there is only one disagreement between Nigla and nistar and we always follow nigla when there appears to be a contradiction. However, if you are using this as a source to say that kabbalah cannot be a source for halacha, you are taking this quote totally out of context. He explains simply that the reason is because kabbalah is usually misunderstood while nigla is within the grasp of our understanding. Clearly kabbalah that is properly understood could be the source of a halacha

As for comparing shir hashirim and the Yerushlami, to accepting the Zohar, it is not a good comparison because a substantial number of Torah jews never accepted the Zohar as authentic source, certainly not written by Rashbi, although it may have authentic sources in it. The Yerushalmi is clearly the Yerushalmi from the language of the text, although what the text is not clear. The Gra and even the Chazon Ish, cross out whole sentences.
If in the 18th century we see sentences in the Pachad Yitzchak like "I don't care if Rashbi appeared in a dream to me and told me to do so, I would still not change the minhag of my fathers.", one can not say that everyone agreed and the opposition to the Ramchal was well founded.
Actually the Zohar is what causes Rationalists to feel uneasy with certain customs and practices, the problem is the zohar hachadash, sefer Raziel, idra zutra and idra rabah whose ideas are extremely difficult to accept as mainstream Judiasm.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Globus:
I don't think that it is constructive to carry on a discussion over the authenticity of the Zohar, since it is hard to see how such a discussion serves the purpose of strengthening observance of Torah and mitzvos.

Such a clarification is not only constructive, it is imperative, becausse if the Zohar is not an authentic Jewish compilation, it will certainly strengthen our observance of true Torah to clear our minds of the strange concepts we adopted from the Zohar.
Please explain:
1. If Shimon Bar Yochai wrote the Zohar, why does the Talmud not mentioned this compilation, as it mentions every other book that existed at the time?
2. If it is a Tannaic compilation, why is it written in an Aramaic which is notlike Tannaic, Midrashic, Talmudic (Yerushalmi or Babli) or of any of the Targums Aramaic?
3. None of the concepts of the Zohar are to be found in the sources of Chazal who transmitted for us the true doctrine as we received it at Sinai: not "Tsimsum" (which is a denial of the oneness of God - the foundation of our faith); not sephirot (which are an imaginary system just like organizing the stars in groups shaping lions and virgos is); not reincarnation (which is not one of the 13 basic principles of our faith).
4. To say Hashem is out of reach, as the Zohar does, is against everything Judaism teaches, and what's more, the Zohar advocates to pray not to God (dafka because He is out of reach), but to "Zeir Anpin" which is his son, the produce of the male sky and the female earth! Does that sound Jewish to you?
5. All the lude expressions and images found in the Zohar in connection with Nukva (female) Duchra (male), the duality of "Kudsha Berich Hu V'Schechintey", and all the demonic and frightening "impurities" the Zohar mentions (and on the basis of which we have changed the Halacha of Netilat Yadayim and Tevila) are certainly contrary to everything taught by the Holy and Pure Torah.
6. The Arizal himself (Shaar Hakavanot) teaches not to say the first phrases of the Piut "Igdal" because they express the Unity of God in terms that contradict the system presented by the Zohar and he chose to go by the Zohar rather than sticking to the faith expresssed in Idgal...
7. How come Shimon Bar Yochay says in the Zohar exactly the contrary of what he says in the Talmud and Midrashim (which are our true tradition)?
8. How come all the Mekubalim - I mean those who really studied the Zohar - make reservations and iron out the difficulties presented by the Zohar to fit them to the concepts taught by Judaism (one of which being the general and absolute agreement that the Zohar does not teach us halacha)?
9. Why will no serious Rabbi have the courage to declare publicly that the Zohar is a fake which induced us in error? Maybe it is because he is afraid to stir the mystifying concensus which has become a habit? Maybe because he knows his ignorant public will not want to beleive him?
10. Why do you repeat what other people say (however prestigious their names) and not check facts for yourselves?

The quote from the Pachad Yitzchak is well taken. Indeed, why should anyone change a Torah practice on the basis of a dream?
This of course has no bearing on written teachings of Chazal, such as Midrashim etc, a category which includes the Zohar.
It goes without saying that most people today are not equipped to deal with teachings of Kabbalah, as the Rema already wrote in Yoreh Deah, Hilchos Talmud Torah.
I would suggest we humbly recognize that some of Chazal's teachings are well beyond us, belonging to people loftier than ourselves, such as the Gra zatzal, and Rav Eliashiv's grandfather who wrote sefer haleshem-- and pay them due respect although we are not able to live that way ourselves.

Perhaps the best way to clear our minds from ideas strange and foreign to Judaism is by learning the writings of the holy Chafetz Chaim.
But he quotes from the Zohar extensively-- what shall we do?

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Globus:
Perhaps the best way to clear our minds from ideas strange and foreign to Judaism is by learning the writings of the holy Chafetz Chaim.
But he quotes from the Zohar extensively-- what shall we do?

And when those foreign ideas started creeeping into Judaism, until the Chafetz Chayim was born, what should have been the study?

Before the Chafetz Chaim, the outstanding book for clearing Jewish minds from false ideas was Nefesh HaChayim.
But that, too, is full of Zohar and Arizal!

quote:

Indeed, why should anyone change a Torah practice on the basis of a dream?

A few weeks ago I got to hear a fantastic shiur by Rabbi Reisman who broadcasts via satellite Motzei Shabbos to a few communities that are set up to receive his shiur. His topic was all about dreams.

He went through several examples of where it seems that a halachic answer was decided in part by what a rabbi recorded as coming from a dream...

Yet other cases where something was disregarded because it had no basis other than a dream.

The result of his shiur seemed to be that if something made logical sense, even if the initial thought of a matter had been inspired by a drime, then that matter, and only then, could it be used for the the halachic answer.

B"H
A great dispute arose amongst the Jews in Yemen over the authenticity of the Zohar. Most agreed that it was a holy book. Others, led by Rabbi Yehiya al-Qafih, held that it was a forgery, and that it contained blasphemy.

Even if the book was written by DeLeon, he still quoted Mishnah and the words of the Sages. Even if it was a paraphrase of a hidden work bequeathed unto us by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the Talmud (Yevamos) has ruled that the halacha is usually not like unto Rabbi Shimon when he disputes with Rabbi Yosi or with Rabbi Yehudah. In this regard, it has the same status as any Boraitta that carries the words of the great Tanna, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai - although halacha may not be like him. With all this stated, we cannot overlook the fact that the book was esteemed a holy book by many a great Rabbis of the past five-hundred years.

One of the difficulties that Rabbi Yehiya al-Qafih had with the book, "the Zohar," was its way of making (as it were) a diety out of "zeir anpeen." (Lit. "The small countenance," a term used frequently in the esoteric books know as Kabbalah. The "small countenance" was seen by the kabbalists as one of the angels in heaven. He is associated with the emotive faculties of the soul and with the concept of "finite power." The Zohar says that our prayers and our worship go unto him.) This is what Rabbi Qafih writes about the subject in his book, "Milchamos Ha-Shem," written in 1914 C.E. and re-published in 1931 C.E. :


". . .It is, likewise, well-known and highly acclaimed that in all the land of Yemen they practice saying the order of Qaddusha, at the repetition of the prayer, according to that version given by Maimonides, of blessed memory, in his Order of Prayers. For the emissary of the congregation always says the third blessing in the version that has in it [these words]: 'U'meshorethau sho'alim zeh lozeh ayeah maqom kavodo,' וּמְשָׁרְתָיו שׁוֹאֲלִים זֶה לָזֶה אַיֵּה מְקוֹם כְּבוֹדוֹ (And His servants inquire one from another, 'Where is the place of His glory?'), and whether or not it is in the morning prayer, or in the afternoon prayer, or in the Musaf prayer on the Sabbath day, or [in the prayer made on] Rosh Hodesh, or a festival day, or during the mid-festival days – they always say 'Ayeah maqom kavodo.' איה מקום כבודו (Where is the place of His glory?). Now this has been established by our Rabbis, the men of the Great Assembly who enacted the prayers and blessings, and just as our Rabbis of blessed memories have written in Sifrei and in Midrash Rabba that even the angels, [themselves], and the holy creatures inquire [by saying], 'Where is the place of His glory?' (This follows what I have written above in Section # 52 in the name of HaRokah.) But new things have come of late. It was, approximately, one-hundred years ago, or a little more, that they changed the version so that they say not, 'U'meshorethau sho'alim zeh lozeh ayeah maqom kavodo,' וּמְשָׁרְתָיו שׁוֹאֲלִים זֶה לָזֶה אַיֵּה מְקוֹם כְּבוֹדוֹ (And His servants inquire one from another, 'Where is the place of His glory?'), except only in the Musaf prayer on the Sabbath day. Moreover, they would be firm with that man who said it on the other days of the week, and they would silence him! Now their reason [for doing so] is like that which the Rabbi of 'Mishnas Chasidim' wrote in his Treatise on Rosh Chodesh, ch. 2, vs. 9, whose language is this: 'Now since the small [countenance] and his female have now no ascension (i.e., at the hour of the Musaf prayer on Rosh Hodesh] above that place of their nobility just as on the Sabbath day, therefore, no one says: 'U'meshorethau sho'alim zeh lozeh ayeah maqom kavodo,' וּמְשָׁרְתָיו שׁוֹאֲלִים זֶה לָזֶה אַיֵּה מְקוֹם כְּבוֹדוֹ (And His servants inquire one from another, 'Where is the place of His glory?'). For his servants are sensible of His place.' Unto here [we have brought down] his words. Behold, it has been explicated in the most plain terms, [even] in his own words, that the new qabbalists hold the opinion like that made by our Rabbis, the arrangers of the prayers and the authors of the Talmud, that the Most Holy One, Blessed Be He, is hidden [from sight]. He sees, yet is He invisible, insomuch that even the angels and holy creatures inquire as to the whereabouts of His glory. This is owing to His evasiveness in time, [whereby they ask] what good is it to go up above the place of His glorious presence, (that is to say, only at the hour of the Musaf prayer on the Sabbath day), when He becomes evasive and has gone up higher. So, then, when they observe the place where He was wont to dwell now standing 'empty,' [as it were], (for then His seat is vacant), at that time they ask: 'Where is the place of His glory?' Yet, on other occasions when He dwells in His place, all of His servants are cognizant of that place wherein dwells His glory, and have no need to ask about Him, just as the statement made by Yehonathan, the son of Saul, to David: 'Tomorrow is the New Moon, and you shall be absent, for thy seat shall be vacant.' (I Sam. 20:18) Now [all] these things stand in direct contradiction to the basic lesson mentioned by the earlier Rabbis, [namely], that which is stated in [the liturgical poem], 'Yigdal E-lohim Hai,' and which has also been explained in the words of Maimonides, in the first chapter of Yisodei Ha-Torah, as also in 'The Guide.' …From now on look and consider, and lay it to your heart, how that the ancient custom was changed, even to cause [men] to act stringently, as in the ways that I have brought down, and that they also not say, 'U'meshorethau sho'alim, etc. וּמְשָׁרְתָיו שׁוֹאֲלִים וכו', except in the Musaf prayer on the Sabbath day, but not on the rest of the days for the reason stated in 'Mishnath Chasidim.' All of such [things] lead to heresy, as I have explained. Now the lips of that great Rabbi, Maharshal, and Rabbi Tam, the son of Yehiya, whose speech is clear, [have both said] that he who changes and acts according to the new Qabbalah and its explanations, it leads [him] to heresy. Moreover, the generations who stood before us, during the Middle Ages, did not do well to forsake the study of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and the standing laws & orders [of our religion], only to fix most of their occupation in [that] external book which leads [men] astray- the book …! Not that they ever studied in any in-depth way, [rather] only as some chirping fowl, and they altered for us several things in the prayer books, and in the performance of [certain] commandments, [even] of the precepts of G-d and His laws, [that it might now be] in accordance with the new Qabbalah! Now they have forsaken the customs of their fathers which were established by the mouth of our Rabbis, the authors of the Talmud, and Maimonides, and Rabbeinu Sa'adia Gaon, and Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, and those who are like unto them! They have, furthermore, taken away from them, and added unto them, [writing] whatsoever came to their minds! ….Therefore, anyone wishing to cling unto the blessed G-d and to His Law, let him distance himself from the practices which have come anew in the Middle Ages. And let him cling to the customs of our ancient men by his laying it to heart, and let him look well at the Talmud and [at] the early exponents [of our laws], and [at] the old prayer books, and at the rest of the books of our ancients, and let him fix his study in the Mishnah with Maimonides' commentary, and Rabbi Ovadiah, and those who are like unto them; Also in the Talmud and [in] the exponents of Jewish law whose authority goes without dispute, and let him go in their light. Just as the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memories: 'He who wishes to be pious, let him keep the things of the fathers, and the blessings.' "

המקור

וכן ידוע הוא ומפורסם שבכל ארץ התימן נוהגין לומר סדר קדושה בחזרת התפלה בנוסח שכתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בסדר התפלה. שלעולם שליח צבור אומר ברכה שלישית בנוסח שיש בו ומשרתיו שואלים זה לזה איה מקום כבודו ובין בשחרית בין במנחה בין במוסף שבת ור"ח ויום טוב וחול המועד לעולם אומרין איה מקום כבודו והוא מיוסד מרבותינו אנשי כנה"ג (כנסת הגדולה) מתקני התפלות והברכות, וכמ"ש רז"ל (וכמו שכתבו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה) בסִפְרֵי ומדרש רבה שאפילו מלאכים וחיות הקדש שואלים איה מקום כבודו כמו שכ' (שכתבתי) לעיל סי' נ"ב בשם הרקח. וחדשים מקרוב באו לערך מאה שנה או יותר מעט שינו הנוסח שלא לומר ומשרתיו שואלים זה לזה איה מקום כבודו רק במוסף שבת בלבד ומקפידים על האומרו בשאר ימים ומְשַׁתְּקִים אותו. וטעמם כמו שכ' (שכתב) הר' משנת חסידים במסכת ר"ח פ"ג משנה ט' וז"ל (וזה לשונו) ומפני שאין לזעיר ונוקביה עלייה (במוסף ר"ח) עתה למעלה ממקום אצילותם כמו בשבת, לפיכך אין אומרים ומשרתיו שואלים זה לזה איה מקום כבודו. כי משרתיו יודעים מקומו. עכ"ל (עד כאן לשונו). הרי בהדיא מבואר בדבריו דסבירא להו לבעלי הקבלה החדשה כי מאמר רבותי' מסדרי התפלות ובעלי התלמוד שהקב"ה נעלם ורואה ואינו נראה עד שאפילו מלאכים וחיות הקדש שואלים איה מקום כבודו. הוא מצד העתקתו בזמן מה לעלות למעלה ממקום משכן כבודו דהיינו במוסף שבת דוקא שאז נעתק ועלה למעלה. ואז כשרואים מקומו המורגל להיות שוכן שם פנוי, אז יפקד מקום מושבו ואז שואלים איה מקום כבודו. אמנם בשאר זמנים שהוא שוכן במקומו כל משרתיו יודעים מקום משכן כבודו ואין צריכים לשאול עליו כמאמר יהונתן בן שאול לדוד מחר חדש ונפקדת כי יפקד מושבך. ודברים אלה סותרים העיקר שהזכירו הראשונים האמור ביגדל אלהים חי ומבואר ג"כ (גם כן) בדברי הרמב"ם בפ' א' מיסודי התורה ובמורה. . . . מעתה ראה והתבונן ושים אל לבך בשינוי המנהג הקדום אפי' להחמיר כהני גווני שהבאתי, וכן שלא לומר ומשרתיו שואלים וכו' כי אם במוסף שבת ולא בשאר ימים מטעם האמור במשנת חסידים, כולם מביאים לידי מינות כמו שבארתי. ושפתי הרב הגדול מהרש"ל ור' תם בן יחיא ברור מללו, שהַמְּשַׁנֶּה ועושה על פי הקבלה החדשה וטעמיה הוא מביא לידי מינות. ולא יפה עשו דורות שעמדו לפנינו בימי הבינים אשר עזבו למוד המשנה והתלמוד ופסקי הלכות וקבעו רוב עסקם בספר החיצון המסית, ס' ה..., ולא בעיון, רק כעוף המצפצף, ושינו עלינו כמה דברים בסידורי התפלות ועשיית המצות חוקי האלהים ותורתיו על פי הקבלה החדשה, ועזבו מנהגי אבותם המיוסדים על פי רבותינו בעלי התלמוד והרמב"ם והרס"ג ור"י הלוי וכיוצא, וגרעו מהן והוסיפו עליהן ככל העולה על רוחם . . . ולכן כל הרוצה להדבק בשם ית' (יתברך) ובתורתו ירחיק עצמו מהמנהגים שנתחדשו בימי הבינים. וידבק במנהגי קדמונינו, על ידי שיתן לב ויעיין יפה בתלמוד ופוסקים הראשונים. וסדורי תפלה העתיקים ובשאר ספרי קדמונינו, ויקבע לימודו במשנה עם פי' (פירוש) הרמב"ם ור"ע וכיוצא ובתלמוד ופוסקים המובהקים וילך לאורם, כמאמר רבותינו ז"ל האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא ליקיים מילי דאבות וברכות.


Sincerely,
David