quote:

What about respect for Minhagim? [I heard that the letters - מנהג is the same letters of the word גהנם just backwards.]

I neglected to tell the end of the story: they gave me tefillin to put on! All's well that ends well.

[Mizmor lesodah means a song for a todah, and a todah is a thanksgiving offering. Although the psalm does not tell us the laws of a thanksgiving offering, the Torah does tell us that it is accompanied by 40 loaves, 10 of which are chametz.


Wait a minute.... but the chametz-loaves were NEVER to be burned in the fire, ever. Not even when it wasn't passover. They were raised, and shown to all and the motzi was offered, but they were never burned on the altar. Only unleavened meal/flour was offered up on the altar. So why are we restricting a prayer of thanks, just because a thanksgiving OFFERING had chometz in it?
(and how did my message end up in this thread, when I was in a totally different one when I started?)

quote:

So why are we restricting a prayer of thanks, just because a thanksgiving OFFERING had chometz in it?

The korban todah was a package deal, which entailed bringing the chametz along with it.
Reciting the psalm represents the whole package deal.

For a different view on the subject:
"The Kabbalists in the Holy City recite Mizmor letodah even in Shaharit of Erev Yom Kippur, and I instituted this custom in Baghdad (Ben Ish Hai 1, Vayelech 4)."

B"H

For the benefit of the Global Yeshiva and its members, I have decided to paste here the draft of an agreement written by the Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in Yemen nearly 100 years ago, and signed by his proteges, for developing greater uniformity between members of the community at large and which was then divided between the "kabbalists" and the "traditionalists."

PACT BETWEEN BROTHERS - drafted by Rabbi Yehiya Yitzhaq Halevi, President of court at San'a, in order to check the rise of the anti-kabbalists and to arrest their sentiment. (Taken from the book, "Shenei Hameoroth")

Seeing that, on account of our great iniquities, the Law has been profaned by certain of the multitude of [this] people who lift themselves up, the least of the least of which considering themselves to be learned men, until, at length, they have lifted their heads up high and, with a brazen forehead, have raised an arm against the customs adhered to by our community, with a tongue that speaketh great things, and by the dupes of words artfully framed, [have proceeded to that great degree of infidelity] as to despise our wise men, the exponents of our laws, and the expositors and kabbalists, by saying that the books [that have come unto us] are worthy of being burnt by fire. Wherefore, for the zeal of the Lo-rd of hosts, it has suited our minds to come under an agreement in order to mend by hand that breach of our holy Law, and its honour, as also the honour of the Sages of blessed memories; that from this day forward our hand will assist in perpetuating the customs of our fathers… and there is no liberty given to any man to change [those customs], even if that custom should happen to be according to a Midrash, or according to the books of the kabbalists. And any man who should act presumptuously, to despise any Sage amongst those Sages of our holy Law, or [any] book of their books, whether it be from the exponents of our laws or from the kabbalists, or to jest about any practice even though that practice is in accordance with a Midrash or the Kabbalah, how much more if he raises his hand against all that which is mentioned above, he shall be surely punished, by excommunicating him and by ostracising him. Therefore, may the Omnipresent, blessed be He, guide us in His straight path, and bring to repentance the
sinners of His people Israel.

[signed]: The younger, Yehiya, the son of Mussa Yitzhaq

[The above document was jointly signed by thirty-six principal persons of the community, among whom were]: Aaron Hacohen; Yehiya,
son of Rabbi Shelomoh Qafih; Yehiya Yitzhaq Halevi; Yehiya Abyadh; Sa'eed 'Ozeiri; Avraham al-'Amrani; 'Amram Qorah; Suleiman Hibshoush;
Yehiya Finhas; Haroun al-Mishreqi Aravah; Yoseph Yitzhak al-Qadhi; Yoseph Waheb al-'Aqel; Sa'eed al-'Amrani; Rabbi Avraham al-Badihi;
Yehiya al-'Arussi; Hayim Saleh al-Barati; Suleiman Sha'er; Mori Salem Hacohen; Salem Jamal; Nathanel Alsheikh; Sa'eed al-Nadhaf, etc.

המקור:

להיות כי בעוונותינו הרבים חוללה התורה בהתרוממות איזה מהמון העם. קטני
קטנים המיחסים עצמם ללומדים. עד שנשאו ראשם ובמצח נחושה הרימו יד במנהגי
קהלתינו בלשון מדברת גדולות ובלעגי שפה. לבזות חכמינו הפוסקים והדרשנים
והמקובלים באומרם כי ראויים הספרים לשרפת אש. אשר על כן לקנאת ה' צבאות
עלתה הסכמתינו לגדור ביד פרצת תורתינו הקדושה וכבודה וכבוד חכמים זכרונם
לברכה. שמהיום והלאה תהי ידינו בעזרת קיום מנהגי אבותינו... ואין רשות
לשום אדם לשנות ואף על פי שיהא המנהג על פי מדרש או על פי ספרי
המקובלים. וכל איש אשר יזיד לבזות איזה חכם מחכמי תורתינו הקדושה או ספר
מספריהם בין מהפוסקים או מהמקובלים או ללעוג על שום מנהג ואף שיהיה
המנהג ההוא על פי מדרש או קבלה וכל שכן אם ירים ידו על כל הנזכר לעיל,
ענוש יענש לנדותו ולהחרימו. ובכן המקום ברוך הוא ידרכנו בדרכו הישרה.
ויחזיר פושעי עמו ישראל בתשובה.
הצעיר, יחיא בן מוסא יצחק.

Sheva,
I read the monster thread on globalyeshiva.com on mekubalim. I feel your pain going up against those rabbis. Have you read Jose Faur, espec. "Homo Mysticus: a guide to Maimonides's Guide for the Perplexed"? He goes into the nuts and bolts of the Kabalah mind-set versus the Faurian/Maimon./rationalist/post-rationalist mindset.

A little before and after page 46 in Faur's article "A Crisis of Categories:..." (see pg.256 in his bibliog. at end of "Homo Mysticus") he explains how the word qabbala was emptied of its original meaning and displaced by Kabbalah. Fascinating.

On page two of the thread and #4 on your list, you mentioned zeir anpin source in Zohar. Could you be specific where it is? I only have the Sperling/ Simon Soncino English 5 vol. edition

I liked Shore's comment on how it doesn't matter that a halakha got its origin from Kabbalah- the reasons behind a halakha aren't important. This is the only good thing I'll say on Kabala.

Thanks
LAGoff

Quote "I feel your pain going up against those rabbis. "

You and Clinton.

Quote "Have you read Jose Faur"

No way, Jose.

I wonder why people would take something as important as Nister and get all their information from people who's named Jose. You think he knows more about Torah and Kabbalah than the Gra and the many Rishonim and Achronim that our Yidishkeit are based on that Jose' is going to be the authority on Kabbalah?

As it says specifically in the Shulchon Orech and Nosei Keilim the prohibition of learning it before you master Niglah (with nobody who is ever involved in these discussions give any impression that they're anything close to that. they warned without this, and without learning from a real Mekubil, you'll make terrible mistakes in it. Aveira Goreres Avaira. First they don't listen to the Chachumim not to get themselves involved in the Limud makes them learn it from dubious sources that many of them are Apikorsim that wrote them, and then make fun of it. The Chachumim are right how you're going to misinterpreted them, or at least learn in from those that misinterpret them. Those who need a, yes you read it right, a Soncino to learn Zohar, are going to give any authoritative voice of what the Zohar means. We don't even take serious the opinions of those that cannot learn Talmud only with a Soncino, and he wants us to believe him that he understands the Zohar from Soncino. Rabona Shel Olam.

Jose Faur was almost made chief Sephardic rabbi of Israel(lost out to O. Josef). Neusner says that he is the greatest living Jewish philosopher and most seminal thinker. He teaches Talmud at Bar-Ilan U. and law at Netanya college. He left the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1980 when they approved the ordination of women rabbis.

Your no way Jose comment etc. just flaunts your prejudice(of Sephardim? "Mexicans"? people named Jose?) and certainly your ignorance of the thin golden line of Maimonidean rationalism(anti-Kabbalah) that still(barely) survives among the Sephardim.

Thanks
LAGoff

Quote "He left the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1980 when they approved the ordination of women rabbis."

So, in other words, that your whole bases is from someone from JTS. Why don't you just quote the Pope while you're at it. JTS is a fully Apikorsis place and this is what your bringing to represent your side? (I don't know who this Nuesner is either or why should his opinion count.)

Quote "Your no way Jose comment etc. just flaunts your prejudice(of Sephardim? "Mexicans"? people named Jose?) "

or Secularist who go by their English name, where as Rabbis are concerned , raises all red flags, which you have given enough reasons in this post, to be wary of this guy. There is a problem when people trust JTS "scholars" more than the Vilna Gaon.

So let me ask you straight out, who do you think have a greater grasp on Torah, The Vilna Gaon or Jose?

They are diferent traditions: Ashkenazi Kabbalistic and "Maimonidean rational".
I am not bound to follow/think in the way of Issac the blind(Hassidei Ashkenaz), Rashba, Nachmanides, Moses de leon, Luria, Vital, Gra, Luzzatto, etc.
Since the close of the Talmud- or the centralized ruling body in Judaism(the Geonim of Babylon)there is more than one "true" line.
The line I choose is the Maimonidean line which ends in Rabbi Faur. I am not bound to follow your line. You(and Gra) are not my rabbis. Sorry.

Quote "Since the close of the Talmud- or the centralized ruling body in Judaism(the Geonim of Babylon)there is more than one "true" line."

Well, if there are more than one true line, then how can you just cut off the view of the vast amount of Rishonim and Achronim that hold a certain view. The view that is held by the Shulchom Orech , Rama and most of the major commentaries and Poskim. This would be called in the Talmud as "Sugya D'Alma" and those that go against it would be "Toah B'Shikal Hadaas"

In Judaism, contrary to popular left wing belief, one cannot just pick and choose by who your going to hold by. You just can't say, well I'll keep Shabbos like the Rambam (unless your Yeminite, which is then your Kabbalah.) You need to keep it like the Hachra of the Achronim. BTW, it is fit in this case (where you decide that a JTS "rabbi" is who you'll follow), since it's the way of the "responsa" of the Conservative movement to pick and choose any Shita they may find that fits into whatever they want to convey, and say we're going to follow this. But in Orthodoxy, we cannot just pick whatever is more convenient.

Secondly, I think its intellectually dishonest to pick what Rabbis to follow based on what appeals to your Western lifestyle, since you're not in any way close to being any type of scholar to stick your head into such an argument. You are nothing to the Gra (or the many more that accept Kaballah), not even close. So, even if there maybe an actual minority view that holds differently, just have the intellectual honesty that this is beyond your grasp, and leave it as a Machlokes, without having to make disparaging remarks on the Gedolei Olom that our Torah comes from. This would be included in D'var Hashem Bazah (insulting the words of Hashem.)

Dear rabbi,
Your asking me to humbly accept Kabbalah is an impossibility for me because I find that its Platonic positings destroys the [Maimonidean] negatings that produce delight(and humility) in me.

B"H

Leonard,

With all due respect, if I might briefly comment on your few exchanges with Rav Chaim, I would only say that it would be quite easy for some to think, by your posts, that Rambam (Maimonides) himself was an anti-Kabbalist. There is nothing that attests to this. The book of the Zohar had not yet been discovered in Rambam's days. Moreover, there have been many great supporters and followers of Maimonides throughout latter years that also held the writings of the "Zohar" and the kabbalists to be divinely inspired. A name in point is the famous Yemenite Rabbi and teacher, Maharitz (Rabbi Yehiya Saleh), of blessed memory. So, I think we should be careful about grouping all so-called "Maimonideans" in the same category.

Sincerely,
David

You can like Maimonides for more than one reason. By "Maimonidean" I was reffering to his doctrine of negation. I personally can't see how anyone who has once "divested" himself in the Maimonidean manner going back and "investing" himself in the "10001" positings of Kabbalah.

B"H

Leonard,

Please excuse my ignorance. What do you mean by Maimonides' "doctrine of negation?" And what do mean by the "positing of Kabbalah?" Enlighten us!

David

What I'm asking of you is that you consider this logically.

Given: 1. The Gra is extremely more knowledgeable than you in Torah and a lot smarter than you in general

2. The Gra holds of Kabbalah and you don't.

Hence: The Gra's opinion is more accurate than yours.

Hence Kabbalah is the more accurate opinion


I can't see how you can argue with that logic.

Especially since you have never been exposed to real meaning of kabbalah, because anything that was written for the masses wasn't written by the traditional Mekubalim, so what worth are they?

If someone wants to devote their whole life to learning Torah with Kedusha V'Taharah, and then, when they mastered the whole Niglah, go and take on Nister, that's fine. But if someone doesn't want to reach the minimum requirements, but rather wants to glean as much as they can off a "Kabbalah for dummies" book, then how much credence to their claims could there be?

If you want a secular example, let say if a tenth grader decided he didn't like Einstein's theory of relativity, based on his HS physics course he's taking. Would you say that it's wise to take his own opinion, after all, it's "impossible" for him to accept it. Or do you suggest, that since he doesn't have a fraction of the knowledge or the brain of Einstein, that it would be wise to take his word for it? Why should it be different in this case?

quote:

If you want a secular example, let say if a tenth grader decided he didn't like Einstein's theory of relativity,

A secular atheist once argued with me that science can be proven, and both he and others have said that by definition principles of Faith cannot be proven.

Does this example comparison hold up?

What if there were a physics experiment perhaps involving a trip to the nearest particle accelerator which could prove to this 10th grader that there are things which can reliably demonstrate that Newtonian physics cannot explain, might it open his eyes to Relativity?

Is there any permissible "testing" of any item which would demonstrate a spiritual matter?

Perhaps there might be a way to test a rabbi's knowledge of the JTS party line, or whatever is at issue here, on matters to at least point out a few logical flaws that a follower would have to come to grips with before re-asserting its position on top of established Orthodox tradition?

I come from a different tradition. The tradition of negation. Jiddu Krishnamurti(Indian born philosopher d.1986) primed me for spiriual astringency. Maimonides(the Guide) showed me how this astringency didn't have to destroy my Judaism but could enhance it. Maimonides says that the first step for the "perplexed" is to negate any positive metaphysical schemata. Then we can enter into a "negative" mystical state.
What this means existentially is that I can't stand any metaphysical clutter between me and God. Negation destroys(i.e., "astringency") this(i.e., four worlds, 10 sefirot,etc.) so I can breath inside Judaism and not be perplexed by Kabbalistic constipation that turns me off to Judaism.
As far as Gra: since there is no centralized National Authority(i.e., Sanhedrin, Babylonian Talmudic academies) I don't have to follow any individual midrash(Zohar is a mystical midrash on the Torah), especially one gotten through a maggid(Luria). I don't believe even midrash from the Talmud era is halakhically binding- let alone post Talmudic. That's why they call it halakha and aggada. So if you mean that it is halakha to believe in Kabbalah(which is a midrash) then I ...show me that halakha that says that midrash is halakha.

p.s. would you say that Gra is from the line of Nachmanides who believed that it is necessary to believe in chiromancy, astrology, demonology, spiritism. To him these are the foundation of the faith. I don't follow him. Was Gra greater than Nachmanides?

When a new Sanhedrin is accepted by the majority of Jews as the centralized constitutive body for the "nation" of Israel, then I'll have to accept whatever ruling they give, even the absurd and unprecedented ruling that Kabbalah(a midrash) is halakha. Till then Gra or Nachmanides or Luria or de Leon(the author of the Zohar) are just individual rabbis whose midrashic teachings I may choose to follow or not.

Then there's Daas Torah. Don't get me started.

Thanks for responding.

quote:

Originally posted by Leonard Goff:
...I don't believe even midrash from the Talmud era is halakhically binding- let alone post Talmudic. That's why they call it halakha and aggada. So if you mean that it is halakha to believe in Kabbalah (which is a midrash) then I ...show me that halakha that says that midrash is halakha.

Leonard,

The Midrash might not always be halachically "binding," but we are nonetheless expected to accept these forms of exegeses as being an intrinsic part of Judaism since earliest time - and not something that just began with the "Zohar" or with the kabbalists. Proof of which is found in a statement in our Tosefta, viz., that we do not accept a proselyte to the fold unless he first accepts everything that was taught or expounded (in the form of exegesis) by the Sages, especially when those teachings were derived from one or several of the hermeneutical principals used in exegesis. (This, of course, is my paraphrase of that Tosefta.)

Secondly, why should anyone discredit the good name of Rambam by calling certain avouched "anti-kabbalists" by the name of "Maimonideans?" This, in my opinion, renders a great disservice to Rambam. What you've said about his method of "negation" might be fine, but this is not saying that Rambam did not delve into the mystical sciences (e.g. "Ma'asei Hamerkavah") at some time during his lifetime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The "Zohar," at any rate, had not yet been discovered at his time.

Sincerely,
David

I see the p'shat/d'rash interplay as the reason why Judaism is so fun. But only if p'shat/d'rash means general consensus/personal interpretation rather than objective meaning/exegesis.
I don't know of any d'rashes that say, "The rabbis say...". I believe its always, "Rabbi X says..." - hence personal interpretation- hence why Judaism is so fun, as opposed to the metaphysical absolutes of Xianitys drash/exeg. of Tanakh(the "n.t."). You think Kabbalah clutters/constipates the space/relationship between God and me? Xianity is a rock.
So I would say that I accept the process whereby Judaism(and the world) is continually "re/co- created" by midrash, but choose not to live on some of the rabbi's "creations"/planets(i.e., Luria, de Leon). That many Jews(most?) accept planet Luria/de Leon is- I may be willing to accept- part of the process of "co-creation" w/God.
Anyway, and this is the real strength of Judaism, we can all agree to do(try to do) the "10 commandments" even if we live on different planets.

p.s. why I don't do the Kabbalah thing is for the same reason that I'm not a Xian("Adam Kadmonism"?): I CAN'T STAND THE METAPHYSICAL SPACE BETWEEN ME AND GOD CLUTTERED UP.
S'vet shoin meer gornisht helfen: "Go do me something."
Thanks for responding

Dear rob,
I'm referring to someone who is not advanced enough to understand those concepts that prove the theory. He bases it on the low level concept that he has on it. This would be compared to someone forming an opinion on Kabbalah when he's not advanced enough to learn it properly. yes, i could tell him, just review Shas and Poskim around a hundred times and we'll see if your ready for Kabalah, but its obviously easier said than done (or heck, I would do it myself )