Rambam as Ramchal's rebbe in Kabbalah

AR: Tatz discusses entirely different things – or is this also in Ramchal, maybe just with different answers? Can I think of the category they fit into, and thereby facilitate thinking of other niche categories?

Topic: The chain of mesorah (kaboloh): Breishis (creation Eden), chumash.neviim, pirkei ovos (3 dvorim haolam omed) etc, P ben Yair, Rambam, Ramchal etc

AR: Rambam’s order of material follows breishis and eden, first is ma’aseh breishis = rambam spheres etc, hilchos yesodei hatorah; then GanEden account = ethical (good/evil) = eg hilchos deos.

The basic idea is that cosmogony and ethics are interelated. And this also forms the basis of Ramchal.

Moral self-development. Ramchal ties it to cosmogony, world to come etc, but it is also self-interest because it is the path to greatest ability to partake of the joy of God’s splendour etc. Pirkei ovos ties it to mesorah?

Confucianism ties it to society and family and good family and social order, but also to ‘heaven’ and ‘the way’ and what is right an proper and not shameful;. And it denigrates Buddhist idea of anything other than this life, and masking self - interest in this way by calling it karma etc.

Breishis sets up a cosmogony and free will moral responsibility etc but it is all this-worldly. That’s why Ramchal and others quote gemoro re the world to come, prozdor etc.

God says in chumash that he tells Avraham re Sdom ‘in order that Avraham will teach his children rightousness etc’. So this is a combination of father-son, nation, social justice, God etc. Also to Kayin re ‘lapetach chatos rovets’ etc. Then against ‘chomos’ before flood. This and other places in chumash is God’s systematization of human duty, self-growth etc.

Avraham avinu(AA) says ‘hashofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh mishpat?’ which is a very interesting twist of God telling us via MosheRabenu(MR) of a human (AA) having such an absolute sense of morality that he holds God accountable to it. And that is what God intended re what AAshould teach his children!

MR in Dvarim says “Ma Hashem elokecha doresh …” etc, this is a first systematization by a human.

I think Rambam in commentary to Pirkei Avos quotes Dovid HaMelech as the source for the same type of ideas which Ramchal writes about in MYesharim (so this is a literary source for Ramchal).

Iyov, Koheles, Misheli are Biblical systematizations of ethics and self-development, and philosophy/cosmogony (God tells Iyov he can’t understand justice).

Pirkei Avos is a later systematization or at least a compendium.

Rambam in Hilchos Ysodei HaTorah ties cosmogony to social duties, mitzvoth etc,.

Pirkei Avos is deep in the sense that it does what the first two stories in chumash do, and what rambam and ramchal do - tying mystical concepts of theof universe to ethical development. PA starts with Moshe Kibel Torah MiSinai etc, this is mystical, M"R didn’t eat drink etc for 40 days, he was in a mystical state and received teachings to be transmitted, but the teachings in PA are mostly ethical self-development. "Mesarahu": mesorah is the active, giving, whereas 'kabbalah' is passive, receiving; this 'mesorah' includes what is today referred to as ‘the kabbalah’ in addition to the regular ‘oral torah’ as in the gemoro etc. (of course the gmoro also contains sod).

And the Path described or prescribed by "Kabbalah" is through what Rambam calls hilchos de’os, and via that what Ramchal explains.

Rambam writes on Pirkei Avos, and talks of the chain of tradition, he specifies, enumerates the links, and places emphasis on Achiya HaShiloni. Ra’avad disagrees with something about Achiya, but this just serves to places emphasis on him (A HaS), and on the whole transmission of tradition. So maybe Rambam is talking of ‘kabboloh’ here.

[Read more about Achiyah HaShiloni, and about Pilgash of Ur lawgiver? Before Hammurabi the Babylonian.]

Who was the mekubel who travelled from Bovel in times of geonim (850) to Italy and transmitted his learning there. Read about him, Who did he teach so early in Europe?

See Rashi which mentions Kabbala.

Mavo to the yad talks of what is torah sheb’al peh etc. Mitzva is oral tradition, an explication of Torah (yet then he list the mitzvos as commandments?).

Hilchos De’os, second perek of the Yad, is moral character development. So first chapter is a cosmogony etc, second is moral development, and only then are the mitzvos. But there are also principles, 13 of them (see the end of maseches Makos), the idea of principles goes all the way back……Dovid HaMelech etc also.

The chain to Ramchal is perhaps: God, AvrohomAvinu, MR, neviim, Dovid haMelech, Shlomo haMelech, etc, R Pinchas ben Yair and others, Pirkei Avos….

What did the geonim etc write as part of this chain, and between them and Rambam, and maybe the mechaber?

Was Ramchal the first to tie it all together in the way that he did?

Interesting how the mechaber kept mysticism out of the shulchan oruch, like Rambam kept philosophy out of Yad. Actually of course, neither one really did so hermetically….note that the mechaber writes of philosophy/cosmogony in the Kesef mishneh perush in the beginning of Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah.

………...…………..……….

Rambam was the great systematizer, organizing the subject matter of gemara, the bottom line of halacha in it, according to clear scheme, but he starts with metaphysics (sefer hamadah). His work is rational, but infused with ideas of mysticism but of the rational type, using mind to find truths and thus cleave to God, maaseh breishis and maaseh merkavah,

Ramchal talks of those who study science and philosophy but have ignored the idea that character development etc leads to connection to God. Rambam seems to be in the middle in that sense, Rambam says one should study phil/science, but to do so in order to have a greater belief in/connection to God). So really everything is done in order to increase relationship with God, there is no real ‘secular’ knowledge.

Why mesillas yesharim as title – what is yashar, why mesillah (he also write ‘derech hashem’ which is a phrase in chumash; how is derech different than mesilalh?

Ramchal: Via keeping the mitzvos and character development one becomes davek in God, and this then is the way to leverage up from this world to the next. Nefesh hachayim can be seen in a similar light, that by learning torah one is dovek bashem.

[Eliana said that by grappling with the text and davening to hashem for insight, one attains a deeper understanding of the meaning. I told her that this is interesting adaptation of the message of MYesharim to the text itself: Ramchal says all olam hazeh is struggle, obstacles, but the struggle is the means to the growth that leads to dvekus bashem, and so applying this to the text itself one obtains what she said.

And applying Nefesh Hacahyim idea of torah study as dvekus, to study of any torah text.]

...................

What is the origin of the idea that “we are created to achieve oneg” etc, ie for our pleasure? God says in chumash many times ‘vesamachata’, for chagim and also “when you come to the land and vesamachta bekol hatov” but it is always in the context of the mishkan/beis hamikdosh etc. And mar’eh kohen/YK was the greatest simcha?

Yodeah shor evus baalav…..konehu…

Moshe Rabenu presents the obligation to follow God’s commands not bec of cosmogony, but because of the relationship fashioned through delivery from slavery in Egypt, taking care of us in the desert, and there is a bond, ‘lechtech acharai bamidbar’, a fondness, and God says he want our love and also that he loved the forefathers (and us). So it is different than saying ‘obey me because I created the universe’.

….…….

Olam ha’bah as cause-effect rather than ‘reward/punishment’, and the purpose is relationship, which is its own reward: MYesharim: first perek: the few paragraphs after the first set up idea of mitzvos as the way to acquire in this world the path to the pleasure of the next. But that could by itself be interpreted as meaning that fulfilling mitzvos, which would make a person a tzadik, gives rise to reward of pleasure in olam habah. So the pleasure is given perhaps via great tasting food, wine etc, and it is a present, in reward for good behavior. But the first paragraph shows the context – that the goal is not being a tzadik but a chosid. So the next paragraphs make the further connection, that one must achieve dvekus ba’shem, and that will leverage one from this world to the next, where the extent of effort and overcoming of obstacles correlates there to the amount of connection to God which is the greatest pleasure. So (like Rambam) really everything in this world is done in order to increase relationship with God, and it is the relationship which is its own reward.

On second page MY jumps to shlemus etc (Rambam uses this term, sholem), where does this come in? Need to read the introduction to set things up.

………..

Make a chart of the key terms. What is chasidut, what is the literary context that Ramchal depends on for his reader to be thinking of for this term?

He seems to include it in other terms or v.v. , a little confusing.

Find all the applicable psukim in chumash, and see if some are excluded, if the ones he uses are the most likely a priori.

What is in Nach on this topic?

Compare to Sumerian and other codes of morality. Confucianism (authority, society, wisdom, grandfather-father-son) is later [but it is built on traditions earlier than Confucious the person?]. Make the point that the chumash clearly shows that many non-J’s were inspired, had nevua, revelation etc, there is no reason to deny the possibility that Confucious and Buddha and others were divinely inspired. And Rambam says this basically even of Aristotle (but not quite; eg; Aristo had the potential, but it depends on H’ to actualize the communicaiton).

[See Luzatto re Platonic ideas and re Solon lawgiver etc. Use for attitude to prophets of the non-Jews having divine guidance:The Philosopher-King in Medieval and Renaissance Jewish Political Thought By Abraham Melamed]

………….

Sefer Tomer Devorah: speaks of effect of human action on universe, we can redeem it. Ramchal speak so this in first perek.( Look at Derech Hashem and Daas Tevunos to get an idea of the progression etc.)

…

‘Etzel ha’adam’: why need this? Etzel = atzilus? Like mentions yesod…?

…..

Ramchal: categorize the difference between his Kabbalistic-based ideas and nonK ideas, eg like Rambam’s etc, Sadya Gaon emunot vedeot etc. [see Aryeh Kaplan intro to Derech Hashem]

……

Look up the earliest printed use of the word ‘sphirot’, and what they refered to. Relate this to Rambam’s use of it, to galgalim etc. [I remember that I had thought of a great relationship of a name or a word from chumash? and its root, but I don’t remember which!]

..

AR: what are the truly essential aspects of 'kabbalah' appearing in Mesillat Yesharim, or underlying it, which are absent in any form in Rambam's writings.

………..

Article:

Rambam and Kabblah

Ramchal: “If you look more deeply into the matter, you will see that the world was created for man's use.” [AR: Is this meant to counter Rambam in the Moreh who ridicules some aspect of this idea? Or perhaps one can say he is agreeing, but in the deeper sense of what type of ‘use’ is meant.]

………………………………..

M Yesharim:

“For all the affairs of the world, whether for the good or for the bad, are trials to a man”:

AR: note the ‘for good’: he now explains: Poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other, as Solomon said (Proverbs 30:9), "Lest I become satiated and deny, saying, `Who is God?' or lest I become impoverished and steal..." Serenity on the one hand and suffering on the other; so that the battle rages against him to the fore and to the rear. If he is valorous, and victorious on all sides, he will be the "Whole Man," who will succeed in uniting himself with his Creator, and he will leave the corridor to enter into the Palace, to glow in the light of life. [AR: this sounds like it can be achieved in this life, just that the achieving of it leads to the soul departing for the world to come where it is truly united. So this is the missing last chapter of the book? That he dies in order to truly be eternally alive?]

AR: Our essence is the breath of God as told in Breishis. So we become a “Whole Man," only when we unite with God. And Ranchal says God our Creator since he is stressing that we were ‘created’ ‘bara’, we are at essence God’s spirit, create in the God;s image.

AR: “ to glow in the light of life”, ie eternal life rather than transient, olam habah, and this is perhaps the meaning of the last stage ‘tchiyat hametim;, that we die in the physical world only to achieve true life, in olam habah...

To the extent that he has subdued his evil inclination and his desires, and withdrawn from those factors which draw him further from the good, and exerted himself to become united with it, to that extent will he attain it and rejoice in it. [AR: Not reward and punishment but cause effect of appropriate preparation. Like moshol of tzadikim and reshoim at round table]

AR: overall/background: The wise people of all cultures have recognized that pleasures of this world, power, wealth, fame, sex, even knowledge, do not lead I themselves to the goal that is sought – happiness or contentment and usually not even to sustained pleasure. Except perhaps for very very few, one in a million. For all the rest, what leads to the desired result is some human relationships, connection to community, and to God. Inner growth of self, compassion and chesed for others.

But maybe we are here to suffer? To serve Earthly masters? Maybe we do not deserve happiness and shouldn’t even seek it? No, he says. We were created to attain joy and pleasure, but it is that which is found in union with God, in the world to come. But the way to attain that is in this world, and only via this world, only via meeting life’s challenges (and following the mitzvoth).

So the bottom line is that we want joy and we are attracted by our instincts and by societal pressures instead to pleasures, and to the wrong joy/pleasures and sources of joy. We do indeed deserve joy, were created in fact to attain joy, but it is to be found by overcoming the instincts, not to be led by them, and the joy is in the world to come not in this one. And it is the joy of being connected to one’s essence, source, the soul, Hashem.

….

Sfiros:

I am interested in what is there for example in Mesilat Yesharim whose essence relies on "kabbalah" or Zohar or sfirot, essential ideas that are impossible without that, and therefore cannot be found in Rambam even in a deep search [or can they? Maybe discussions of (three) ketarim etc? Or any time he mentions ten].

AR: we have fingers, they stick out, so we use them to count. We have ten, so 10 seems special, but actually one can do the same in any base (computers use binary and 16 , hexadecimal). Most people do not realize this and think there is intrinsically something special in the number ten. But unless the universe was specially designed to have ten fingers emerge, there is nothing special cosmologically about the number ten. Is there any hint anywhere in mesorah that indeed it was designed this way? Maybe the 10 sfiros is not meant literally in this sense, that there is a specific number? Or maybe it tells us why the universe was designed to produce people who would naturally be led to the number 10?

Experiment: If one were to start from scratch, to think of the basic elements of the cosmos from a spiritual sense, how many basic aspects would one come up with, and which would they be? How would they be different from the sfiros, and what does this tell us? Of course there are various types of ‘basic’, like yin/yang, 4 elements, 10 sfiros, etc. So one would need to try to think of all the different ways one could understand ‘fundamental’, list them, and then try to inter-relate them. And then see how this relates to kabbolloh, ramban, kisvei ha’ari, zohar, etc.

Difference between ramban and ramchal re 'kedusha'...I only glanced at it...http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/10870#44a

Re my writing a book about all this: beware lahagos sfarim harbeh…Humorous but long:see paragraph "ra'ata etzba'o" in: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/sifrut/yitsirot/sabato-1.htm

AR: Approaches to the right life: (not mutually-exclusive), and books which outline that Path

· Ethical Attitude: live life normally, have a job, a family, hobbies, but in everything (all the normal activities), ethical, model citizen etc. (ie nothing inner, and life is as usual) Book: Chofetz Chayim

· Shira on subway suggested: Proactively-ethical be a mentch, looks-around mitzvah-boy to do what needs to be done

· Idealistic (ethical actions): very involved in volunteer work after work and on weekends, kiruv, donate blood, lots of charity etc; choose a career that enables greatest contribution; more extreme: make aliya, work the land etc; or forego normality to go to live in some poor area and work hard. (nothing inner, life is visibly unusual): Book?

· Religious actions (piety)(devotional): life of study and prayer; Monastic or asceticism; extreme focus on all the mitzvos, makpid, medakdek, chumros (ie nothing inner, life is visibly religious): Book: Shulchan Aruch

· Spiritual: inner spiritual development, defeat ego to attain humility towards God, develop a love and awe and even some fear of God; mystical experiences of union with God etc. (all inner, outer life may seem the usual from the outside, but maybe no social action like volunteering etc; holy shoe-maker): Mesillas Yesharim,

· Psychological: inner psychological development, defeat ego-based behavior, become aware of psychological flaws and try to correct them, see good traits in others and internalize them (also: ethical development in behavior towards other people, society).(inner, can be an atheist; outer life seems usual): Psychological version of Buddhist teachings, Mars/Venus etc.

· Spiritual/Psychological: religious development via psychological growth: Book: ??

· State of mind: Be always serious/in awe of God, be always joyful/love of God, be always doing/mitzvot

Place this and other books into the above context: R Tatz, “Living Inspired”/R Moshe Shapiro: Recognizing the metaphysical patterns and motifs underlying historical events, personal life challenges.

……………

Existence as a Good in of itself: "וירא ה' את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד" http://www.hidush.co.il/hidush.asp?id=1441

בריאת העולם, ארץ ישראל והכרת הטוב

נכתב על ידי אבי רבינוביץ ב-20/10/2010

"בראשית ברא אלקים" (א, א)

רש"י כותב, שסיפור מעשה בראשית נכלל בתורה כדי שהעולם ידע שה' ברא את העולם, וממילא הוא יכול לתת כל ארץ למי שיחפוץ, והוא נתן את ארץ ישראל לעם ישראל, ולכן הגויים אינם יכולים לטעון כלפי עם ישראל "ליסטים אתם".

הסבר נוסף הוא, שסיפור מעשה בראשית נכלל בתורה כהקדמה למצוות, כדי להסביר לאנושות מדוע עליהם לקיים את שבע מצוות בני נח, ומדוע חייבים ישראל לקיים תרי"ג מצוות: מפני שכך ציווה ה', שהוא בורא העולם.

עוד אומר המדרש (בראשית רבה, פרשה א, ד) שהעולם נברא בזכות חלה, מעשרות וביכורים, ששלשתם נקראו "ראשית", וזה המובן של "בראשית ברא..." - "בשביל ראשית". ובדרך זו פירש רש"י כאן, "בשביל ישראל שנקראו ראשית.

יש קשר בין שלושת הדברים הללו: זכותו של עם ישראל לארץ ישראל, קיום מצוות עקב היות ה' בורא עולם, ושהעולם נברא עבור עם ישראל, ביכורים וחלה. הקשר הוא סביב המושג של הכרת הטוב.

לפי הרמח"ל, בספרו דרך ה', פרק א, העולם נברא כדי להרבות את הטוב, והקיום בעצמו הוא טוב, כמו שכתוב "וירא ה' את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד" (א, לא); "לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֹת יְהוָה וְאֶת חֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לטובלך" (דברים י, יג). אם כן, קיום העולם כתיקונו דורש מהאנושות שיכיר בטוב הזה. איך הוא מראה את הכרת הטוב? ע"י קיום המצוות. "אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי" - בלי המצוות שהן הכרת הטוב אין העולם יכול להתקיים.

ביכורים וחלה הם הכרת הטוב לה' ש"משביע לכל חי רצון".

גם הקשר בין עם ישראל וארץ ישראל מבוסס על הכרת הטוב: עם ישראל גלה מארץ ישראל כעונש על שלא שמר את מצוות שמיטה, כאמור בפרקי אבות (פ"ה מ"ט), שהיא הכרת הטוב בעד האדמה. אנו ניגאל ונשוב לארץ ישראל בזכות שמירת שבת ("אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים" - שבת קיח ע"ב), שהיא הכרת הטוב על בריאת העולם. [גם הגלות מגן עדן היתה משום שאדם האשים את חוה באכילתו מעץ הדעת, וכפר בטובתו של ה' שנתן לו אותה כעזר כנגדו (רש"י ג, יב)]. גם עיכוב ישראל במדבר ארבעים שנה היה עונש על חטא המרגלים, שלא הכירו בטובה של ארץ ישראל, "ארץ זבת חלב ודבש". אם כן, זכותו של עם ישראל לארץ ישראל מותנית בהכרתו בטוב ה'. ורק בארץ ישראל אפשר לקיים את כל תרי"ג המצוות, שהן הכרת הטוב לה'.

אם ישראל מקיים את המצוות, שמבטאות הכרת הטוב על בריאת העולם ועל ארץ ישראל, ומביא ביכורים ומפריש חלה - זכותו על ארץ ישראל ברורה, והוא לא יצא לגלות, ואומות העולם לא יוכלו להגיד "לסטים אתם" ולהגלות אותנו.

(ראה גם ספר "ירום משה", לר' משה וובר)

…….

Rambam on Existence as good in of itself: Ramchal has a similar idea

III:10: p265: darkness is the absense of light and therefore is non-existent, it is simply the absense of an existent. Similarly evil is the absense of good things like life etc. God “created” evil (“boreh ra”) not in the sense of an actual creation but rather in the sense of bor’e = yesh me’ayin, i.e. evil is a non-existent. God produces only existence, and existence is good.

III:11: the evil that people wreak is due to ignorance = absense of wisdom = non-existence.

III:12: Al-Razi wrote a treatise showing that there is more evil than good in the universe. However Rambam points out that humanity is only a small part of the universe, there are angels and stars, minerals, plants etc.

This seems as though R agrees that there is more evil happening to humanity than good - but no, he says that actually the good is far more, indeed all the evil is of man’s own making, we do it of our own free will and then ascribe it to God.

P270-1: people desire all types of unneccesary goods, and then suffer when they do not have them and then say God is limited in power, the universe is evil.

In actuality all have what they need (do not pay attention to exceptions) “it is an act of great and perfect goodness that God gave us existence”

…

Cosmology & Kaballah:https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/science-and-religion/theretroactiveuniverse/fullbook_the_retroactive-universe

After the initial stage, the emergence of the universe involved the increasing differentiation associated with the actualization of the potential inherent in the initial creation. According to Rambam, the universe was created because existence is good, and this process of differentiation was designed to bring about the existence of all that was implied by the initially existent creations - a maximal existence, and therefore a maximal good.

The creation account deals with the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine that is necessary to allow the existence of the universe, and to allow it to differentiate to achieve its maximal inherent potential for existence. In the Eden account one has the fragmentation and withdrawal of the divine will to allow the emergence of free will in man, and the fragmentation of man into man and woman.

Both the creation and Eden accounts deal therefore with tzimtzum and shvirat hakelim, causality violation and broken symmetry, with the shattering of unity to allow differentiation and complexity, and with the withdrawal of the divine to allow the existence of the physical universe and of free will.

In sum: From the singularity that is Gd, there emanated a physical universe^[119]. Beginning in a violent symmetry-shattering explosion, the universe emerged, and took physical shape. However, all the physical universe is in reality a shell - a frozen fossil of the shattered initial unity. A shattering which was made possible only via the self-willed withdrawal of the divine unity - a unity and symmetry which had to be shattered in order to allow the existence of life, and of free will in man; this perhaps is reflected in the physical universe by the requirement postulated by quantum metaphysics (see discussion elsewhere) that a free-willed being be present within the universe in order for it to emerge into physical reality.

This connection between free will and existence again underlines both the motivation of presenting the Eden account in Genesis, and the thematic connection between the creation and Eden accounts.

……

Quantum-Kabbalistic Biblical Philosophy: see various relevant articles on https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/home

Including:

https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/biblical-studies/designing-a-free-and-fair-cosmos-according-to-the-biblical-genesis

https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/biblical-studies/is-life-fair-the-problem-of-evil-and-genesis

https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/avi-rabinowitz/biblical-studies/designing-the-cosmos-tzimtzum-shvirat-hakelim-and-free-will-in-genesis

. ………..................

The 4 worlds: http://www.hidush.co.il/hidush.asp?id=1289

הקבלה בין לשונות הבריאה בבריאת אדם לבין מאפייניו השונים

"ברא אלקים" (א, א)

בסיפור מעשה בראשית מוזכרות כמה פעמיםלשונות 'ברא' ו'עשה', ובמעשה גן עדן מוזכרת לשון'יצירה' (בהקשר של יצירת האדם). אם כן, בריאת העולם מתוארת בשלוש לשונות: בריאה, עשייה ויצירה.

לפי הקבלה, יש ארבע עולמות: כל הבריאהמתחילה בעולם האצילות (ראה מלבים על פסוק א, תורה אור אות ב). מעולם האצילות נולד הרעיון-הרצון לברוא את העולם, והבריאה ממשיכה דרךהעולמות האחרים לפי הסדר הזה: עולם האצילות, עולם הבריאה, עולם היצירה, עולם העשייה.

מעניין הוא שאצל האדם שהוא 'עולם קטן' מופיעות כל שלוש הלשונות: "ויברא אלקים את האדם" (א, כז);"וייצר ה' אלקים את האדם" (ב, יז); "נעשה אדם בצלמנו" (א, כו), וכן "אעשה לו עזר כנגדו" (ב, יח), וכן "וינחם ה' אלקים כי עשה את האדם... כי נחמתי כי עשיתים" (ו, ו-ז).

רק לשון "אצילות" חסרה. אפשר למצוא לו רמז, כלהלן:

המלה "אצילות" באה מלשון "ויאצל", שנאמר אצל משה שהאציל מרוחו לזקנים (במדבר יא, כה).השורש "אצל" קשורה למלה 'צל', שהרי הצל נאצל מהעצם, והעולם הזה הוא כ'צל' לעולם האצילות.

אם כך, אפשר שגם זה גם משמעות הביטוי 'צלם אלקים'. כלומר, 'ויאמר אלקים נעשה אדם בצלמנו' (א, כו) משמעותו שהאדם ייעשה על ידי ה'צלם'. מעולם האצילות ­ ה'צלם' (צלם אלקים) ­ יצא הרעיון, הרצוןלברוא, והבריאה עצמה התחילה בעולם הבריאה: "ויברא אלקים את האדם בצלמו, בצלם אלקים בראאותו" (א, כז).

"בצלמו" ­ על ידי מידת ה' שנקראת 'צלם'. מעולם ה'צל', האצילות ירד הרעיון לברוא לעולם הבריאה.

מעניין שיש התאמה בין השימוש בלשונות בריאה, יצירה ועשייה לבין השימוש בשם ה'.

בפרקים העוסקים בבריאת האדם, יש שלושה חלקים שאפשר לסווגם לפי שימוש בשני שמות ה': אלקים, וה' אלקים. מ"בראשית" עד "אשר ברא אלקים לעשות" מופיע רק השם 'אלקים'. בספור גן עדן מוזכר רקהשם 'ה' אלקים', עד "אז הוחל לקרוא בשם ה'" (ד, כו), ואחרי זה מ"אלה תולדות שמים וארץ" (ה, א) עדהולדת נח, שוב מוזכר רק השם 'אלקים [מהולדת נח "ויקרא את שמו נח" (ה, כט) עד "ונח מצא חן בעיניה'" (ו, ח) מופיע רק שם ה', אבל בקטע זה לא מדובר ישירות על עצם בריאת האדם, ויש רק התייחסותלבריאתו: 'וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם... כי נחמתי כי עשיתים' (ו, ו-ז)].

הלשון 'ברא' מופיעה רק כשמופיע השם 'אלקים', ומופיע בשני הקטעים שבו מופיע 'אלקים': 'ויברא אלקיםאת האדם' (א, כז), וכן "ביום ברא אלקים אדם" (ה, א).

הלשון 'יצר' מופיעה רק בקטע שמופיע בו השם 'ה' אלקים': 'ויצר ה' אלקים את האדם' (ב, ז).

לעומת זאת לשון 'עשייה' מופיעה בצמוד לשני הסוגים של שם ה'.

…

http://www.hidush.co.il/hidush.asp?id=1289 "בצלם אלקים ברא אותו" (א, כז)

האדם הוא יצור גשמי וגם רוחני. מחד גיסא, הוא נברא בצלם אלקים ובדמותו, ומאידך גיסא, נאמר: "עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב". יש קשר בין המאפיינים השונים של מהות האדם לבין הלשונות השונות שמתארות את יצירת האדם.

1) מהפסוק "ויברא אלקים את האדם בצלמו בצלם אלקים ברא אותו", יוצא שצלם האלקים שבאדם קשור ל'בריאה'.

2) מהפסוק "וייצר ה' אלקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה" (ב, ז) יוצא שהחלק של האדם שהוא 'עפר' קשור ל'יצירה'. כמו כן, בפסוק על יצר הרע נאמר: "וכל יצר מחשבות ליבו רק רע כל היום... כי עשה את האדם בארץ" (ו, ה-ו) - מפני שהיצר בא מהיצירה שהיא מעפר. זאת משום שהאדמה פעלה נגד רצון ה', ובמקום להוציא "עץ פרי עושה פרי", היא הוציאה "עץ עושה פרי" (בראשית רבה פרשה ה, ט), וממילא, כשה' ברא את האדם מן האדמה, הוא קיבל את הכוח לפעול נגד רצון ה', היינו יצר הרע.

3) מהפסוק "ביום ברוא אלקים אדם, בדמות אלקים עשה אותו" (ה, א), יוצא ש'דמות האלקים' שבאדם קשור ללשון 'עשייה' (לשון עשייה נזכרת גם ברעיון לברוא אדם: "נעשה אדם", וכן ברעיון ליצור אישה: "אעשה לו עזר כנגדו" - ב, יח).

בזה אפשר להבין את הפסוק "ויולד בדמותו כצלמו" (ה, ג): כשאדם מוליד, הילד אינו 'בצלמו' אלא 'כצלמו', אבל הילד הוא 'בדמותו', מפני שיש לאדם כוח העשייה (כמו שכתוב "אשר ברא אלקים לעשות" [ב, ג] - מה שברא ה' צריך עדיין עשייה של האדם), ולכן יכול לעשות "דמות", אבל לא כח הבריאה, ולכן אינו יכול לברוא "צלם"

…

http://www.hidush.co.il/hidush.asp?id=1281

מקבילות בין מעשה בראשית למעשה מרכבהמקבילות בין מעשה בראשית למעשה מרכבה

המשנה במסכת חגיגה (יא ע"ב) אומרת: "אין דורשין בעריות בשלושה, ולא במעשה בראשית בשניים, ולא במרכבה ביחיד". כפי שעולה מסוגיית הגמרא שם, מעשה בראשית, היינו בראשית פרקים א-ג, ומעשה מרכבה, היינו יחזקאל פרק א, כוללים את הסודות הגדולים ביותר של התורה, ולכן צריך להקפיד לא לפרסם אותם. לפי הרמב"ם, בפירושו למשנה שם, מעשה בראשית מתייחס לטבע, ואילו מעשה מרכבה מתייחס לחכמה הנסתרת; הראשון הוא חכמת התחתונים, והשני הוא חכמת העליונים. אמרו חז"ל:"כל מה שברא הקב"ה למעלן בראש למטן" (שמות רבה, לג, ד), וכן נאמר במדרש "שוחר טוב" על משלי (פרשה כ): "אמר רבי ישמעאל שכל מה שברא הקב"ה בעולמו קבעו בכסא הכבוד, ברא אדם, אריה, שורונשר וקבען בכסא הכבוד". ומכאן שיש קשר בין התחתונים לבין העליונים. לפיכך צריך להיות קשר בין מעשה בראשית למעשה מרכבה.

ואכן יש מקבילות רבות בין הפסוקים בשני המקומות, כדלהלן:

………….

Relevant web-sources:

This file has 4 sources:

1. Brief note re Chabad approach: p1

2. Mark Elber: p1-4

3. Ariel Bar Tzadok: p4-11

4. Compendium of approaches, long article: p11-20

The Rebbe's Advice #572 - RAMBAM LEARNED KABBALA

Posted Tuesday, Mar 1 2011 6:49pm in Chabad News, Rebbe's Advice

In memory of Rabbi Gavriel & Rebbetzin Rivkah Holtzberg HYD - Shluchim to Mumbai, India

At the end of your letter you write that the Rambam did not learn Kabbala; this is based on the opinions of kabbalists. The Arizal in Sha’ar HaGilgulim introduction 36, Rabbi Shlomo Elkavitz in his explanation to “Song of Songs,” and the Chida in Shem HaGedolim, the section on the Rambam.

I was always puzzled by a statement I heard from my holy father-in-law, who said he heard this from his ancestors, going back to the Baal Shem Tov. The statement being that the Rambam was a great kabbalist, and the reason he never showed it, even just in alluding to it, was because of fear not to reveal Kabbalah ideas to the public, even if just in a hint full way. How do we reconcile this statement with the previous mentioned references that the Rambam was not a kabbalist at all?

Possibly, the answer is that the Rambam came to the study of Kabbalah only towards the end of his life. See Migdal Oz, Laws of Torah study, chapters 1 and 2; Maharm Elshakar, Responsa #117; Avodas HaKodesh volume 2 chapter 13, etc.

Igros Kodesh volume 22, p. 129

………………..

2. Maimonides and Esotericismby Mark Elber

Maimonides is universally accepted as the most important and influential Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages and probably of all time. For many he is the major figure of the Middle Ages in Judaism. He was the greatest Talmudic authority of his era in addition to being the premier philosopher. Maimonides achieved all this while making a living as a physician (ultimately becoming the physician to the sultan of Cairo, Egypt).

Maimonides evoked much controversy during his life. Some of his books, in fact, were burned. One of his two major works was the Mishnah Torah, which was an encyclopedic codification of Jewish Law that some people feared would replace the study of the Talmud. His other principle work was his philosophical magnum opus, the Guide of the Perplexed.

The Two Levels of the Guide

The Guide was a highly controversial book too, despite the fact that it had a strong esoteric level that was not easily accessible. There were two basic levels on which the text was written. One level was for the consumption of the general public, and the second, esoteric level, was written for a select few.

Maintaining the secrecy of certain doctrines of his was very important to Maimonides. Even though he did reveal some teachings in person, the students to whom he revealed them had to pledge to keep them secret. In fact, you can read in their writings testimony to this precondition.

Maimonides apparently believed that the deeper truths—that is, the esoteric truths—could not be understood by the masses and that if they were exposed to those ideas it would be bad for them. In other words, Maimonides felt that there were beliefs that were necessary for the successful functioning of society, and then there were the deeper truths that only the highly educated, philosophically inclined could grasp. Maimonides’ belief parallels the Kabbalist's conviction, discussed in Chapter 1, that Kabbalistic ideas could be dangerous to the masses and therefore should only be taught to those ready to learn its secrets.

Encoded Teachings

The two levels on which the Guide is written are not obvious unless one reads it very carefully. The ideas that Maimonides does not want to reveal to the general public are spread throughout the chapters of the book. He doesn't write about these ideas systematically as he does with topics that are not part of his esoteric teachings. Someone who wants to figure out what he truly thinks about these issues has to piece together his ideas from all different sections of the large volume.

In addition, there are contradictions in the presentation of these ideas. The basic issues around which Maimonides’ esotericism revolves are the question of the creation of the universe, Ma'aseh Merkavah (the Chariot of Ezekiel's vision), and the nature and eternality of the human soul. These are questions that Kabbalists also addressed with great interest.

European Jews and the Guide

As news spread that Maimonides had written this book in Arabic, European Jews in France and Northern Spain, who didn't speak the language, wanted a translation. The text was translated into Hebrew during Maimonides’ lifetime. Two translations were undertaken simultaneously, one by Shmuel (Samuel) Ibn Tibbon, the other by Yehuda al-Kharizi. Ibn Tibbon's translation, done in southern France, ended up being the more popular of the two. It is a much more literal translation, but not nearly as well written.

Ibn Tibbon was in regular correspondence with Maimonides (who was already living in Egypt when he wrote the Guide), trying to clarify parts of the book that he didn't understand. In one letter that exists, Ibn Tibbon mentions contradictions in the book on topics that the Rambam (the acronym by which Maimonides is universally called in Hebrew) had dealt with in different sections. Some of these contradictions Ibn Tibbon was able to reconcile, but those concerning divine providence and the immortality of the soul he could not. He hoped Maimonides would provide solutions to these enigmas, but though Maimonides continued to correspond with him, he never clarified those elusive elements.

Maimonides said, “Anticipate charity by preventing poverty; assist the reduced fellow man, either by a considerable gift or a sum of money or by teaching him a trade or by putting him in the way of business so that he may earn an honest livelihood and not be forced to the dreadful alternative of holding out his hand for charity.”

Commentaries to the Guide

A body of commentaries on the Guideeventually came into being. There were those who strongly opposed the book, others who were deeply in favor, and those who fell somewhere in between. Nachmanides was one who fell somewhere in between. Nachmanides, as a Talmudic giant, had a great appreciation of Maimonides’ knowledge of Torah and Talmud, but as a Kabbalist, he disagreed strongly with Maimonides’ apparent philosophical positions.

Among the commentators on the book there were those who saw it as part of a long line of esoteric works beginning with the Bible and continuing through rabbinic literature. These commentators felt that the Guide, as with the Bible and rabbinic works, could not be understood without a grasp of certain esoteric methods of composition. They saw Maimonides’ contradictions in the text as intentionally placed there, much like the biblical inclusion of two Creation stories of Adam and Eve that seem to contradict each other.

These believers in the esoteric level of the Bible thought that this biblical feature is there to conceal the great mysteries in the Bible. Maimonides was likewise using what they considered the traditional esoteric literary devices of allusions and concealment of the deeper ideas that were not intended for the masses. These commentators also believed that Maimonides’ concealments and contradictions corresponded to the very ones found in the Bible. The contradictions (s'tirot) in the Guide were there to conceal the secrets(s'tarim); both words have the same apparent root.

Maimonides had tried to reconcile the Torah with philosophy and science as he knew it in his day. The philosophy was highly influenced by Aristotle, whom Maimonides studied through Arabic translations. Interestingly enough, Maimonides’ son, Abraham ben Moshe ben Maimon, who was a great defender of his father in the controversy that surrounded him, became an important Jewish mystic in Egypt with much in common with Sufism (Muslim mysticism). Nothing in his mystical teachings seems to indicate any knowledge of Kabbalah

…

3. Copyright © 1993 - 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

Maimonides Was He a Closet Kabbalist?

According to many sources, not only was the RaMBaM

a secret Kabbalist, he was also a receiver of the Holy Zohar

prior to it being publicly known.

By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok

Copyright © 1995, 2002 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, the great Maimonides, of whom it is said, “from Moses to

Moses there never arose one like Moses.” RaMBaM’s code of Jewish Law, the Mishneh

Torah was the first of its kind to codify the tremendous corpus of the Talmud into a

subject by subject format. It is the Mishneh Torah that set the standard for all later

Jewish legal codes. In fact, while many areas of Jewish law have evolved since the days

of Maimonides, the Mishneh Torah is still in many cases the final definitive word on what

Jewish law is. Therefore, RaMBaM’s place in Jewish history is special. He is

considered by many to be the greatest Torah luminary since Talmudic times.

It is true that RaMBaM’s legal works are highly revered. Yet, this was not always the

case with his philosophical works. After RaMBaM completed his Mishneh Torah, he set

out to write a comprehensive overview of correct Jewish philosophy as he previously did

for Jewish law. His work, entitled Moreh Nebukhim-The Guide to the Perplexed, caused

such controversy and resentment that in some circles the work was openly

excommunicated. Though the majority of the days Rabbinate supported RaMBaM, there

was that very vocal and not so small minority that vehemently opposed RaMBaM’s

method of uniting certain aspects of Greek thought along with Torah elucidation.

The question that must be asked is why would RaMBaM avail himself of the gentile

Greek philosophies? Why would he not stay safely within the confines of Torah

Judaism? Most answer this question by stating that RaMBaM was a rationalist and that

he appreciated nothing greater than those achievements that could come using the

human mind. The Guide to the Perplexed is considered a masterpiece of Aristotelian Copyright © 1993 - 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

2

philosophical thought. My question is: I wonder if RaMBaM really meant his book to be

understood in that way? The master Kabbalist, Rabbi Abraham Abulafia says no.

According to Abulafia, RaMBaM’s usage of Greek philosophy served a different purpose.

It enabled RaMBaM to reveal certain secrets of the Torah, using Greek philosophy as a

veil of concealment. I will discuss more about Abulafia later in this article.

When I first considered writing this essay, I contemplated what it is that I truly wished to

say. I asked myself, do I really want to disprove RaMBaM as being a rationalist. Being

that it is so clear that he was, I do not think any rewriting of history can be done. I also

did not want to relate the well-known belief that RaMBaM, in his later years, renounced

rationalism, and became a Kabbalist. I agree with Yitzhak Shilat’s assessment that this

opinion is offensive to both the RaMBaM and to the Kabbalah. (Igrot HaRaMBaM, Vol. 2,

page 696, Yeshivat Birkat Moshe, Ma’aleh Adumim).

I want to make the point, that not only was RaMBaM a rationalist, he was also a mystic,

one who achieved a high level of metaphysical understanding. I want to show in this

essay that RaMBaM, the alleged rationalist master, was also a master of the secret

tradition of the Kabbalah.

I started my research for this essay not expecting to find much if any corroborative

evidence that could prove or even suggest that RaMBaM was a Kabbalist. To my

surprise, I was wrong. There is a wealth of literature available referencing RaMBaM’s

Kabbalistic side. There are even a number of Kabbalistic texts, suspiciously unknown to

even most Kabbalists that were purportedly written by RaMBaM himself! (Many of which

are today available in English translation).

I believe that most of these texts can be conclusively proven not to have been written by

RaMBaM. Yet, this is not the case with all of them. The great Kabbalist and Halakhist,

Rabbi Haim David Azulai (the Hida) writes in his work, Shem HaGedolim (Hey, 77) that

RaMBaM authored Sefer HaNimtzah, a book which references the Sefer Yetzirah!

I started to write this essay with the idea that I was doing pioneer work to prove that

RaMBaM was really a secret Kabbalist. I quickly came to realize that this was in no way

a new topic, much has been said on it already. To try and prove that RaMBaM was a

secret Kabbalist therefore became superfluous. Instead, I have decided to share here

the information others have written alongside some of my own observations on how the

head of the so-called rationalist school of Judaism was indeed a “closet” Kabbalist.

Recently, Dr. Fred Rosner of New York has been very prolific in translating a number of

works attributed to Maimonides. Amongst these collections are some of the Kabbalistic

works that Maimonides allegedly had authored. Two of Dr. Rosner’s works on Copyright © 1993 - 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

3

Maimonides, which I highly recommend as excellent reading, are “The Existence and

Unity of G-d” and “Six Treatises Attributed to Maimonides” (both are published by Jason

Aronson Inc. N.J.)

Dr. Rosner, however, is of the opinion that RaMBaM did not study Kabbalah at all.

Accordingly, he believes all those pieces dealing with Kabbalah most certainly could not

have been written by Maimonides himself. In his comments on those texts, Rosner

endeavors to prove that Rambam was not their author. In my opinion, Dr. Rosner’s

arguments are not convincing.

It appears that I am not the only one to think so. Rabbi Moshe Greenes who wrote the

foreword to Dr. Rosner’s “Six Treatises” is also of the opinion that RaMBaM was a

Kabbalist. In a few pages, Rabbi Greenes has presented some very convincing

arguments to show RaMBaM’s Kabbalistic background. Here are some of Rabbi

Greenes comments:

“There is, however, one significant premise on which I must disagree with the authorities

Dr. Rosner cites. They seem to accept as a self-evident truth that Maimonides did not

study Kabbalah, nor was he even familiar with that branch of Torah learning. This view

is based mainly on the fact that nowhere in his works do we find any reference to that

Torah discipline.

A closer study of the subject, however, reveals quite the opposite to be true . . .

Maimonides was indeed steeped in Kabbalah… the seeming absence of references to

Kabbalah in his writings is very much in keeping with accepted practice of that period

and is also consonant with his personal literary style.

…many Rishonim (early Torah scholars)… state unequivocally that Maimonides was a

master of the Kabbalah. To list a few briefly: Sefer HaChinuch 545, Sefer HaZikaron,

and RaMBaN in his Perush of Torah (see Koran P’nei Moshe, Devarim 22:6,7).

In addition, the nineteenth-century Rabbi Gershon Henoch of Radzin (known as the Ba’al

HaTcheilet), published a thoroughly convincing study which demonstrates that the

Ta’amei HaMitzvot (Rationales of the Torah Commandments) of the Guide to the

Perplexed are actually Kabbalistic teachings couched in rationalistic terms.

Maimonides was apparently an adherent of the position that Kabbalah was, in fact, a

“hidden” and “secret” branch of Torah, and its study must not be conveyed by any other

means than “from the mouth of the master to the ear of an understanding recipient.” It is

no wonder, then, that Maimonides avoided any reference to Kabbalah in his writings.”

(Rabbi Moshe Greenes, Foreword to Six Treatises Attributed to Maimonides, Fred Rosner M.D. Jason

Aronson Inc. N.J., Publisher)

Rabbi Greenes raises a very correct point when he says, “the seeming absence of

references to Kabbalah in his (RaMBaM’s) writings is very much in keeping with

accepted practice.” This “accepted practice” was the edict of secrecy that was to

surround Kabbalistic knowledge for a 1,000-year period ending in the year 1490.

Reference to this is made in Sefer Even HaShoham, Halakhot of Kabbalah, Pituhei

Hotam, 103: “The edict from above not to publicly study the wisdom of truth (Kabbalah)

was only for a certain time, until the year 5250 (1490). From then onward … the best

way to observe this mitzvah is in public, before great, and small. For by merit of the

(study of Kabbalah) will King Mashiah come.” In light of this, it would only be fitting that

the great codifier of Halakha would himself observe the Halakha, and keep the secret

Torah a secret.

For those who study RaMBaM’s Mishneh Torah, the most frustrating aspect of study is to

discover how Maimonides came to the conclusions that he did, for unlike other legal

codifiers, RaMBaM never documented his sources. He does not say from where this or

that legal decision was derived. This is the “personal literary style” (of RaMBaM) that

Rabbi Greenes referred to above. Therefore, even when RaMBaM is referring to the

Kabbalah, he does not say that what he is teaching is Kabbalah. I personally know this

for a fact.

Many of the teachings that RaMBaM has included in the opening four chapters of Hilkhot

Yesodei Torah (The Laws of the Foundations of Judaism), which deal with the secrets of

Ma’aseh Bereshit (the working of creation) and Ma’aseh Merkava (the contemplation of

the Divine chariot) are Kabbalistic in nature. Moreover, in my opinion, RaMBaM’s

explanation of these topics is some of the best and most profound Kabbalistic teachings

available. I have taught Hilkhot Yesodei Torah many times over the years. I never

cease to be amazed at just how much Kabbalah this so-called rationalist Maimonides

actually knew.

Judging by what RaMBaM wrote and how he wrote it, I am convinced that he must have

had access to the secret Zoharic traditions. Yet, RaMBaM died in 1204, and the Zohar

was not revealed until 1290. How could it be that RaMBaM had access to it? To this

question too, there is an answer.

In the Hasidic text entitled, “Nativ Mitzvotekha” by Rabbi Yitzhak, the Komarno Rebbe,

(Nativ HaTorah, Shvil 1), the author brings down a condensed summary of the history of

the original Zohar, as taught by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai. According to the Komarno

Rebbe, the Zohar was passed down generation after generation from the Tanaim of

Israel to the Amoraim of Bavel. Eventually, with the decline of the office of the Gaon in

Baghdad, the holy Zohar made its way out of Babylon, and ended up in the west where it

became known and its popularity grew.

The Komarno Rebbe writes, “It appears from the works of the RaMBaM, in a number of

laws [that he has written] as well as on other topics, that he certainly knew it [the Zohar].”

One of my Hasidic peers in Kabbalah has informed me that the RaMBaM, in certain

places uses terminology whose source of origins are to be found in the Zohar.

Another interesting text regarding Maimonides and Kabbalah is David Bakan’s

“Maimonides on Prophecy” (Jason Aronson Inc. N.J.). This book is Professor Bakan’s

commentary on selected sections of RaMBaM’s “Guide to the Perplexed,” specifically

those sections dealing with the topic of Ma’aseh Merkava and the prophetic experience.

Nowhere more than in the “Guide to the Perplexed” does RaMBaM reveal his Kabbalistic

knowledge. Regarding Bakan’s work, Prof. Norbert Samuelson of Temple University has

written, “Bakan has successfully demonstrated that … no sharp line can be drawn (either

historically or conceptually) between Jewish philosophy and Jewish mysticism…both

reach similar conclusions.”

No one was more aware of RaMBaM’s philosophical-mystical connection than the

famous master of the prophetic Kabbalah, Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, Unknown to most,

Abraham Abulafia’s system of Kabbalistic meditation was incorporated into all the later

Kabbalistic systems, though very rarely giving Abulafia credit by name.

There are full sections of Abulafia’s works quoted in the “Pardes Rimonim” of Rabbi

Moshe Cordevero. Rabbi Haim Vital’s censored fourth section of “Sha’arei Kedusha,”

which deals exclusively with holy names and meditative techniques, was taken directly

out of Abulafia’s book, “Hayei Olam HaBa.” Rabbi Vital even quotes Abulafia by name

and book. Even the later systems of the Hasidei Beit El, the Kabbalistic yeshiva of Rabbi

Shalom Sharabi based many of their meditative techniques on Abulafia’s works. In

short, Abulafia might not have been greatly famous, but his works bears the mark of

absolute authenticity in the world of Kabbalah.

Abraham Abulafia taught that there are only two great books of Kabbalistic study (he

said this prior to the revelation of the Zohar). The two great books are the “Sefer

Yetzirah” of Avraham Avinu, and the “Guide to the Perplexed of Maimonides.”

Professor Moshe Idel in his work on Abulafia entitled, “Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah”

writes, “According to Abulafia, Maimonides’ Guide (1,71) has reconstructed the lost

secrets of the Torah, the “Sitrei Torah”. Since biblical stories are viewed as allegories of

spiritual progression of the human soul, the Torah, according to Abulafia, is aimed a

directing man to attain the prophetic experience. By decoding Maimonides, then,

Abulafia has revealed the true Jewish path of the ultimate felicity [happiness] – a path

relevant to everyone, everywhere.” (Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, Moshe Idel, Page 17, State

University of NY) Copyright © 1993 - 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

6

A Kabbalist of the stature of Abraham Abulafia, a man who successfully achieved the

mantle of prophecy, whose teachings to this day are the greatest guarded treasures in a

Kabbalist’s treasure chest would not be so totally off mark regarding Maimonides. Even

from a critical point of view, we must acknowledge that if Abulafia says there is more

than meets the eye in the “Guide to the Perplexed,” some how and in some way, he

must be right.

David Bakan, quoting Gershom Sholem’s “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism” (page 126)

writes, “the affinity of… mystic[s] with the great rationalist [is] astounding.”

The two places in the Mishneh Torah where, in my opinion, RaMBaM’s Kabbalistic

knowledge is most revealed are the Hilkhot Yesodei Torah (Foundations of the Torah)

and the Hilkhot De’ot (Laws of Personality Development). Yesodei Torah, as I

mentioned earlier, opens with a discussion of Ma’aseh Bereshit and Ma’aseh Merkava.

Herein Rambam reveals things that only a Kabbalist would know.

The question that we must ask is, being that the Mishneh Torah is a book codifying

Jewish Law, and thus deals exclusively with physical reality, why then does Maimonides

begin this book of Law with discussions of abstract metaphysical realities? The answer

to this question is very important.

RaMBaM begins the Yesodei Torah with these words, “The foundation of all foundations

and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being…” (Yesodei Torah 1:1).

RaMBaM is writing a book of Law, and we are required by law to KNOW certain things

about G-d and spiritual reality. Apparently, RaMBaM expects all of us to experience

metaphysical reality. After all, the Biblical use of the word “to know” means that one has

an intimate knowledge, i.e. an experience (as Adam “knew” his wife Eve). Simply

believing in these things is not enough; we are required to KNOW them.

The knowledge of metaphysical reality can only be achieved by certain methods of

abstract contemplative thought. For only physical reality is perceivable through the

physical senses. In order for us to fulfill our obligations of knowing metaphysical reality,

we must experience it through our metaphysical senses. However, what are our

metaphysical senses and how are they to be cultivated? RaMBaM answers this in

Chapter Two of Yesodei Torah.

After explaining in Chapter One of the Yesodei Torah what is known about G-d, or better

to say, what we do not know about G-d, RaMBaM opens Chapter Two with the

commandment that we are to love G-d. Again, we must ask, how does the Torah come

and command us to feel a certain way. By nature, human beings are not always masters

of their emotions. Emotions cannot be just turned on and off. How can we be

commanded to love G-d, which is an expression of emotion?

RaMBaM says, “When a person meditates (Hitbonenut) [on] His wondrous and great

deeds … he will immediately love, praise and glorify [Him].” RaMBaM continues and

says, “I will explain important principles regarding the deeds of the Master of the worlds

to provide a foothold for the person of understanding … In this manner, you will

recognize He who spoke and [thus] brought the world into being.” (Yesodei Torah 2:2)

Rabbi Eliyahu Touger explains this section of Yesodei Torah in these words: “we can

understand why the RaMBaM explains “important principles regarding the deeds of the

Master of the worlds” … The Mishneh Torah is a book of law and does not include

philosophical and metaphysical principles unless they are Halakhot, directives for

practical behavior. Hence, the statement that it is necessary to contemplate G-d's

greatness to achieve love would appear sufficient. Nevertheless, the Rambam

continues, elaborating on Ma'aseh Merkava and Ma’aseh Bereshit (the subject matter of

the next three chapters) because the knowledge of G-d attained through the study of

these Halakhot constitutes the fulfillment of the mitzvah of loving G-d.” (Likutei Sichot,

Va’etchanan, 5748).

How then is one to know G-d as required by law as outlined in Chapter One? How is

one to love G-d as required by law as outlined by Chapter Two? The answer to both

questions is the same: Hitbonenut: Meditation! One is to contemplate G-d. Who but a

Kabbalist knows how to do this? Who but a Kabbalist could teach this to others?

Hidden within all of RaMBaM’s teachings are Kabbalistic truths. Avraham Abulafia knew

this, he saw through the façade of Maimonides. Like the Torah given to us by Moshe

from Sinai, which came complete with both a revealed aspect and a concealed aspect,

so too the Torah of Moshe ben Maimon Maimonides has with it both pshat (surface) and

sod (secret depths).

With all this apparent proof of RaMBaM’s knowledge of Kabbalah, we would expect that

all Kabbalists would agree that RaMBaM was indeed one of the secret initiates.

However, we find that this might not be the case. Regarding the RaMBaM, the greatest

of the Kabbalists, the Ari’zal writes in Sefer HaGilgulim (Chapter 64) the following:

“[With regards to the] RaMBaM and the RaMBaN (Nachmanides), the [spiritual] source

of both of them [i.e., their souls] is from the [metaphorical] two peyot (sidelocks) of ZA

(Zeir Anpin, the Small Face, Tiferet). As is known, each peah (sidelock) has within it the

Name El Shadai, which numerically is equal to the name Moshe (both equal 345).

Therefore, both of them (RaMBaM and RaMBaN) are named Moshe. Now, the RaMBaN

was from the right side lock, the side of grace, therefore did he merit in his later years to

[learn] the wisdom of truth [the Kabbalah]. However, the RaMBaM was from the left side

lock which is complete severity, therefore he was not able to achieve this wisdom.”

It appears that the Ari’zal is saying that RaMBaM did not know of the Kabbalah. Yet,

after all we have just learned how can this be? Is it possible that the Ari’zal (G-d forbid)

was wrong, or perhaps everyone else, including Abulafia is wrong in understanding

RaMBaM? The answer to this is that both are correct, the Ari’zal, and Abulafia and the

rest. However, to understand the explanation of this takes us into deep levels of

Kabbalistic teachings.

RaMBaM, the Ari’zal reveals to us, emanated from a high spiritual source. However,

RaMBaM’s source was from the “left side,” the metaphor that represents severity and

limitation. However, the RaMBaM is certainly not the only soul to emanate from this

“side.” Indeed, countless millions of souls emanate from the “left side,” each in

accordance to its grade in the spiritual worlds. These souls are equally able to ascend in

holiness and receive Divine revelation, as are their “brother and sister” souls that

emanate from the metaphorical “right side.” The only difference is in the manner or

technique used in meditative practice.

The form of meditation used by RaMBaM is called Hitbonenut. It is a form of meditation

using the intellectual faculty of the left lobe of the brain, the one that controls rational

thinking. Being that RaMBaM emanates from the “left side,” it is appropriate for him to

use the “left brain” for his meditative practices.

When the Ari’zal said the RaMBaM “was not able to achieve this wisdom,” he did not say

that RaMBaM had never seen or knew of anything Kabbalistic. Rather the Ari’zal was

saying that RaMBaM’s level of understanding was of the ‘left side” and that there was

another dimension of learning that RaMBaM did not touch. Maybe Rabbi Abulafia would

have agreed with this, especially since Abulafia viewed himself as picking up the

teachings where RaMBaM left off. This implies that RaMBaM’s Kabbalistic work was not

complete, and that he (Abulafia) would be the one to complete it. In light of the edict

forbidding public Kabbalah study in force during the RaMBaM’s lifetime, and its

nullification during Abulafia’s lifetime, this very well might be the case.

An interesting point that confirms the fact that RaMBaM knew the Kabbalah but not to its

depths is found in the works of the Komarno Rebbe. The Rebbe writes in his “Megilat

Setarim” that in a vision it was revealed to him that the soul of his late father emanated

from the same source as did RaMBaM’s soul. Just as with RaMBaM, the father of the

Komarno Rebbe did not have the greatest depth of understanding of the Kabbalah,

although he was a very well learned Kabbalist. In conclusion, we can firmly state the

case that RaMBaM knew the teachings of the Kabbalah. Even the language of the

Ari’zal can be understood in this light. Copyright © 1993 - 2003 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.

9

The Ari’zal hinted to us something very deep, not only about RaMBaM, but also about

our present epoch where the Jewish people are living in exile. Today, in exile, all Jews

are under the dominion of the forces of severity. It is our collective job to perform the

Kabbalistic ritual of “Mituk HaDinim” (sweetening of judgment).

The definition of exile is that we are all under the dominion of the forces of judgment and

severity. Being that this is the case, like RaMBaM before us, we too should take

advantage of “left brain” spirituality. This means that we should cultivate our intellectual

faculties and integrate them with our artistic intuitive “right brains.” By uniting intellect

with intuition, we merge left with right and right with left. This is a technique of meditation

that I refer to as “Sekhel Tenudah” (oscillating consciousness). The details of this can be

found in my commentary to Chapter one of Sefer Yetzirah (specifically the fourth

Mishna).

The RaMBaM lived during a time when the Kabbalah was meant to be kept secret.

Therefore, he could not openly reveal the sources for his material. He nevertheless

taught people the “left brain” path that unites intellect with that which is higher than it, i.e.,

spirit. Rational intellectualism is what was predominant in RaMBaM’s day. Philosophy

was in. Mysticism was out. Therefore, with great wisdom and care, RaMBaM concealed

the teachings of mysticism in the garments of philosophy. This explains why he made

such great use of the works of the Greeks. He used them to cloak the hidden teachings

of Torah. A master like Abulafia was able to penetrate this veil and reveal the truth, but

he could have only done this when the time was right.

"Hilkhot Yesodei Torah" (the Laws of the Foundations of Torah) and the "Guide to the

Perplexed" conceal within them some of the greatest torah secrets. They are accessible

to anyone wishing to make use of his intellect to contemplate their deep and secret

implications. This path of Hitbonenut contemplative meditation is an excellent technique

to be used by the vast majority of people today. It enables us to “sweeten the

judgments” of intellectual limitation and to broaden our horizons to perceive the greater,

encompassing spiritual world surrounding us.

It was RaMBaM that revealed to us how to perform true contemplative meditation

(Hitbonenut). Only a Kabbalist could have done this: RaMBaM the Kabbalist!

……

4. LONG ARTICLE

The famous Safed kabbalist Moses Cordovero (1522-70) writes: ‘All that has been written by those who pursue the knowledge of God through human reasoning in the matter of the divine nature is totally correct in negating from His being the attributes and actions.’ [10] In his Pardes Rimonim, [11] Cordovero accepts Maimonides’ statement [12] that in God Knower, Knowledge and the Known is all One. Cordovero is followed in this by the most systematic hasidic thinker, Shneur Zalman of Liady (1747-1813), founder of the Habad trend in Hasidism. [13] Shneur Zalman’s grandson, Menahem Mendel of Lubavitch (1789-1866), in his Derekh Mitzvotekha, [14] has a lengthy treatment of Maimonides’ negative attributes, stressing its affinity with the kabbalah.

On the debit side, a number of Maimonides’ statements were anathema to the kabbalists. A major source of offence, for them as for the anti-Maimonists, was Maimonides’ identification of the rabbinic ma’aseh bereshit (work of creation) and ma’aseh merkavah (work of the heavenly chariot) with Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. [15] This was, for the kabbalists, to reduce the ‘mysteries of the Torah’, its inner soul, to exercises in Greek science and philosophy. In the attack by Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov (c.1380-1441) on Maimonides’ views, this kabbalist scornfully remarks: ‘Heaven forbid that we should understand it in this way. If that were so then these mysteries are available to all, to the pure and the impure, to the believer and the heretic, to the Canaanite, Hittite, Amonite and Moabite.’ [16]

Maimonides’ mighty attempt to give reasons for the precepts of the Torah [17] was held to be futile by the kabbalists. For them, the mitzvot had an effect on the worlds on high, each detail corresponding to this or that spiritual entity, instead of which Maimonides supplies reasons which make the mitzvot into a means to social, ethical (or even religious) ends but which, by implication, have no intrinsic value. As Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov puts it:

‘And when the rabbi [Maimonides] comes to provide reasons for the commandments, the truth be told, no one will discover any mitzvah to be carried out for its own purpose. Either it is for the purpose of nullifying nonsensical opinions, as are [for Maimonides] all the laws regarding idolatry and its worship, the sacrificial system, the Temple, its vessels and those who minister there, and to affirm God’s unity; or for the purpose of controlling the appetites, as are the forbidden foods and sexual relationships and other mitzvot, or it is for the purpose of improving the character, as are charity, tithing, the poor man’s gifts, the laws of damages and of monetary claims; or for the purpose of remembering the creation of the world or the unity of God.’ [18]

The kabbalist Isaac of Acre (13th-14th cent.), in his Me’irat Einayim [19], admires Maimonides’ attempt at refining the God idea and Maimonides’ mystical fervour, but finds the sage’s attitude towards the reasons for the mitzvot unworthy of him.

‘Although the words of the Guide for the Perplexed refine the mind and direct the intellect aright, bringing those who understand his ideas correctly to a comprehension of the Creator, to love Him with a perfect, untainted love, with a whole heart and a soul filled with desire, as Scripture says: “Know thou the God of thy father, and serve Him with a whole heart and with a willing mind” (I Chron. 28: 9), yet in connection with the reasons for the mitzvot he said nothing at all adequate but as one who tries to push away an adversary with a straw.’

The kabbalists also shared in the opposition by the traditionalists to Maimonides’ eschatological view; his identification of the World to Come with the immortality of the soul; [20] his belief that it is only the ‘acquired soul’, the soul gained through metaphysical speculation, that is immortal [21], and his apparent rejection of the doctrine of hell, equating it with annihilation of the sinful soul, not with torment. [22]

With Maimonides’ view of angels [23] as entirely disembodied spirits who could never appear in human form, the kabbalists, with their rich angelology, based on the rabbinic literature, could hardly be in sympathy. Nahmanides (1195-1270), great talmudist, kabbalist and admirer of Maimonides, is horrified at the suggestion that all the biblical references to angels appearing as human refers to appearance in a dream, so that Jacob did not really wrestle with the angel, Sarah and Abraham were not actually visited by angels; it was all a dream, as was the episode of Balaam and the ass. [24]

Maimonides also angered the kabbalists in his silence on the whole doctrine of the sefirot, so central to the kabbalistic scheme, of which he appeared to be ignorant. On Maimonides’ philosophical understanding of Moses seeking God’s back but not His face [25] (Exodus 33: 20) Abraham ibn David remarks: ‘Face and Back is a great mystery, which it is improper to reveal to everyone. Perhaps the author of this statement did not know it.’ [26]

Few of the kabbalists saw fit to denigrate Maimonides in the manner of Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov. Moses Alashkar (1466-1552) appends to his responsa collection [27] a lengthy attack on Shem Tov and a defence of Maimonides, though, in the process, he makes Maimonides more conventional than he really is and goes so far as to make him a convert to the kabbalah, as we shall see. Shem Tov’s sons and grandson did not share his rejection of Maimonides. On the contrary, they were followers of many of Maimonides’ views. It is one of the ironies of the whole debate that Shem Tov’s grandson, also called Shem Tov, compiled one of the standard commentaries to Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. [28] Yet we learn from the Magid Mesharim of Joseph Caro (1488-1575) that, in the sixteenth century, some kabbalists had a very unflattering view of Maimonides.

The Magid Mesharim is the mystical diary kept by Caro, like Maimonides a great lawyer and mystic, in which his Magid, a visitant from the upper worlds, communicated messages to him. The very revealing communication referring to Maimonides reads:

‘When you die the Rambam of blessed memory will come out to meet you because you solved the difficulties in his Code of Laws. He belongs among the saints, not, as those sages say, that he was reincarnated as a worm. For let it be that it was so decreed, because of words of his he spoke improperly, yet his Torah learning protected him and also his good deeds of which he was a master. He was never reincarnated as a worm. He was obliged to suffer reincarnation [in some other form] but when he departed that life he was admitted into the realm of the saints.’ [29]

Nahman of Bratzlav (1772-1811), hasidic leader and opponent of the Haskalah movement, centuries later, is the most outspoken mystic of all against Maimonides’ philosophical views as being incompatible with mystic faith. [30] Whoever studies Maimonides’ Guide, says Rabbi Nahman, destroys the holy image of God, and as for the reasons Maimonides gives for such precepts as the sacrificial cult and incense, [31] they are all nonsense. Horodesky was told by a Bratzlaver Hasid of the bold statement by Nahman: ‘There are many thinkers whom the world treats as great men, especially the Rambam. But in the future world they will know that he was an unbeliever and a heretic!’ [32]

Among the majority of the kabbalists, admiration for Maimonides gained the upper hand and the inevitable happened: Maimonides was himself turned into a kabbalist, albeit a secret one. The first mention of this is in the commentary to Maimonides’ code, Migdal Oz, by Shem Tov ibn Gaon (13th-14th cent.).

Ibn Gaon composed the work some time after he had emigrated from his native Spain to Palestine in 1312. He is commenting on the passage, mentioned above, where Abraham ibn David supposes that Maimonides was not an initiate into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. [33] Maimonides’ explanation, says Ibn Gaon, of Face and Back does, indeed, pursue the philosophical approach but that does not mean he was unaware of the kabbalah, as Ibn David suggests. Ibn Gaon continues:

‘In my opinion Maimonides, of blessed memory, did come to know the kabbalah towards the end of his life. For I hereby testify that I saw in Spain my birthplace a very old begrimed parchment scroll in which was written: “I, Moshe ben R. Maimon, reflected on the subject of the end of days, after I had descended into the halls of the Chariot.” What he says here is very close to the ideas of the kabbalists to which our great teacher, Nahmanides, of blessed memory, alludes at the beginning of his Commentary on the Torah.’ [34]

The legend of Maimonides’ conversion to the kabbalah received further elaboration after the expulsion from Spain. Evidently, the collapse of Spanish Jewry and its philosophical tendencies encouraged the kabbalists to win Maimonides over to their ranks. Me’ir ibn Gabbai (1486-after 1540) wrote his classical work on the kabbalah, Avodat Hakodesh, in the years 1523-31. Here he writes:

‘Who was greater in philosophical expertise than the Rambam, of blessed memory? Yet once he had found the pearl he threw away the pebbles. One of the true sages [i.e. a kabbalist], who explained the mysteries of the Ramban, [35] writes as follows in his commentary to Beshalach. “This man, Rabbi Jacob, went to Egypt to transmit the kabbalah to the Rambam, of blessed memory. So overjoyed was he [Maimonides] that he praised it [the kabbalah] to his disciples. However, he did not have this privilege until the latter days of his life, when he had composed all the works of his we have today.” The sage, Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, of blessed memory, in his work Nahalat Avot, writes as follows, at the end of chapter ‘Akavia’, [36]: “I, too, have heard that the great rabbi, Maimonides, wrote, ‘Towards the end of my life a certain person came to me saying to me tasty words. Were it not for the fact that this was towards the end of my life, when my works had been published throughout the world, I would have retracted many of the things I had recorded therein.’ And there is no doubt that it was the kabbalah about which he had heard towards the end of his days.” He [Abravanel] only heard it as a report. But I have actually seen a work in which it is stated in his [Maimonides’] name: “Towards the end of my life a certain venerable sage came to me and he illumined my eyes in the kabbalistic science. Were it not for the fact that my works have been published, I would have retracted many of the things I have written therein.”’ [37]

This alleged secret document is referred to in Moses Alashkar’s defence of Maimonides referred to above. In his reply to Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov’s denial that Maimonides knew the kabbalah, Alashkar writes:

‘First of all, I must record the words of the Rabbi [Maimonides], of blessed memory, which he wrote to his beloved disciple, in a secret document regarding the profound mysteries of the true kabbalah . . . “For most of my days I was perplexed [38] about the investigation of existing things to know their true meaning, according to the methods of the philosophers and by means of logical postulates. But it now seems that these methods are at fault, at least. For that which was obvious to them [the philosophers] had not been proven by any disproof of the contrary. [39] . . . But the practitioners of the kabbalah, by methods assured against error, are able to comprehend all matters capable of comprehension quite easily. It was by these methods that the prophets proceeded, comprehending all they did, knowing the future and carrying out strange acts of a supernatural order. I also took to myself some few of these methods for the investigation of the nature of things and all my doubts were stilled.”’ [40]

And so the legend grew. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (1591-1655), in his work in defence of the kabbalah, Matzref Lehokhmah, a reply to the rejection of the kabbalah by his kinsman, Elijah ben Moses Delmedigo, Behinat Hadat [41] repeats the legend, [42] quoting all the above sources, which, for him, appear conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the report that Maimonides became a kabbalist in his old age and retracted his former opinions. None of these writers appear to be aware that in the process they are accusing Maimonides of subterfuge, of refusing to retract his opinions except in a secret document!

On the other hand, the famous kabbalist Hayim Vital (1542-1620) appears to have rejected the legend, if he knew of it in the first place. In a mystical vein Vital remarks [43] that both Maimonides and Nahmanides were named Moses because their souls were derived from ‘corners of the head of the Lesser Countenance’. [44] But Nahmanides’ soul came from the right side and hence he was privileged to know the kabbalah, whereas Maimonides’ soul came from the left side and he was denied knowledge of the kabbalah. The Hida, Hayim Joseph David Azulai (1724-1806), in his biographical note on Maimonides, [45] quotes this saying of Vital and notes that it contradicts the legend. Hida is obliged to say either that the legend is false or that all Maimonides attained in his old age was how to use the divine names for magical purposes, not the knowledge of the kabbalistic mysteries.

The kabbalist Joseph Ergas (1685-1730) is similarly circumspect. In reply to the accusation that the kabbalah cannot be an authentic tradition since it was unknown to Maimonides, Ergas [46] suggests a number of possibilities. First, no single person can know everything. Even a Maimonides may have been ignorant of the kabbalah without this fact causing us to cast aspersions on the science. Secondly, Maimonides may well have known the kabbalah but in his honesty, as he saw it, he may have rejected the science as he undoubtedly did with regards to such things as belief in demons and magic. [47] Finally, Ergas falls back on the authenticity of the secret document quoted by Alashkar and states that he, himself, has a copy of this very document in his possession. The mystery has deepened.

In the hasidic movement the same ambivalent attitude towards Maimonides’ philosophical (though not, of course, his halakhic) views prevailed. In one area in particular, that of divine providence, Maimonides’ views were in direct conflict with those of Hasidism. Hasidic immanentism or panentheism [48] refused to allow, as Maimonides held, that God’s providence extends only in general to the species other than the human. [49] Hasidism depended for its whole system on the belief that there is individual divine providence for all things in creation.

Strangely enough Ergas in his Shomer Emunim [50] follows Maimonides on general versus particular providence. Isaac Stern, the editor of the Shomer Emunim, lists a number of hasidic masters who took issue with Maimonides and Ergas on this issue. [51] For them every blade of grass lies where it does and in that particular way by a direct divine fiat. [52] Typical is the attitude of Rabbi Hayim Halberstam of Zans (1791-1876), an admirer of Maimonides. (The Hasidim report that the Zanser would study the Guide of the Perplexed after Kol Nidrei on Yom Kippur and would pray to God that he might be as God-fearing as Maimonides. [53]) Halberstam writes in affirmation of the doctrine of particular providence: ‘Even though the Rambam, of blessed memory, has a different opinion in this matter, the truth is, as the rabbis of blessed memory say, [54] that not even a bird is caught in a snare without direct providence from on high, as is well known.’ [55]

Hasidism, then, went its own way without being bothered too much as to whether or not its doctrines were compatible with those of Maimonides. A few of the hasidic masters shared Nahman of Bratzlav’s hostility to Maimonides’ thought. The majority respected Maimonides as a great teacher but refused to study his philosophical ideas. Typical of the compromise position is the story told to Heschel about Menahem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859). [56] The Seer of Lublin advised the Kotzker to study Maimonides’ Code but to skip the opening chapters, which contain his philosophical views. The Kotzker, however, did not skip these passages but he read them in a cursory fashion without any deep study.

A fairly reliable report [57] tells of the hasidic master Abraham Jacob of Sadegora (1819-83) repeating a defence of Maimonides by his father Israel of Ruzhyn (1797-1850). The Ruzhyner asked his Hasidim, why do people speak ill of Maimonides? Why should they not, exclaimed a rabbi present, since he dares to suggest that Aristotle knew more about mundane matters than the prophet Ezekiel? The Ruzhyner replied: Aristotle was so dazzled by the splendours of the world—the king’s palace—that he devoted all his talents to its investigation, whereas Ezekiel was too much dedicated to the king himself to spend time on examining the glories of the palace. Maimonides was right. After telling this, Rabbi Abraham Jacob went on to say that Maimonides was of the seed of David and codified the Law so that all should be ready for the coming of the Messiah, and he himself should have been the Messiah were it not that the world was not ready for his coming. That is why all the righteous try their utmost to defend Maimonides against his detractors. From a foe of the kabbalah Maimonides has become the longed-for Messiah who was unfortunate enough to be born before his time.

1. Ahad Ha’am, ‘Shilton Hasekhel’, in Al Parashat Derakhim (Berlin, 1921), 4: 1-37. Also see Solomon Goldman, The Jew and the Universe (New York, 1936; ed. Anna Pom, New York, 1973), which contains a critique of Ahad Ha’am’s essay on Maimonides.

2. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, ‘Sefer Hamada, Yesodei Hatorah’, 4: 12, and ‘Hilkhot Teshuvah’, 10: 3.

3. See Gershom Scholem, ‘Devekut, or Communion with God’, in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York, 1973), 203--27. On p. 205 Scholem notes the strong resemblances between Maimonides’ view of devekut and that of the early kabbalist and talmudist, Nahmanides. Nahmanides’ statement is in his commentary on Deuteronomy 11: 22, Commentary on the Torah, ed. H. D. Chavel (Jerusalem, 1960). ‘Devarim’, 395.

4. In his discussion of devekut, Guide, III, 51.

5. Abraham Joshua Heschel, ‘Did Maimonides strive for Prophetic Inspiration?’, in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, Heb. section (New York, 1945), 150-88.

6. See Jacob I. Dienstag: ‘Maimonides’ Guide and Sefer HaMadda in Hasidic Literature’, in Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume, Heb. section (New York, 1964), 307-30. See especially pp. 314-16, where Dienstag provides an illuminating parallel between Maimonides on devekut and Abraham of Kalisk (1740-1810).

7. Guide, I, 51-60.

8. ‘The Mystical Prayer of Elijah’ in Tikkunei Zohar, Second Introduction.

9. For Abraham ibn David (Rabad), see his stricture to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, ‘Teshuvah’ 3: 7. On Moses of Taku see Ketav Tamim, ed. from the Paris manuscript by J. Dan, in ‘Kuntresim’, Texts and Studies 61 (1984).

10. Shiur Komah (Warsaw, 1885) 34b (Arabic no. 67).

11. Chap. 7, ‘Sha’ar Mahut Vehanhagah’ (Jerusalem, 1962).

12. Mishneh Torah, ‘Yesodei Hatorah’, 2: 10; Guide, I, 68.

13. Tanya (Vilna, 1930), Part I, chs. 2, 48; Part II, ch. 7. On this author’s discussion of Maimonides’ doctrine of negative attributes, see his Likkutei Torah(Brooklyn, 1976), ‘Pikkudei’, 6c (Arabic no. 12).

14. Derekh Mitzvotekha (Brooklyn, 1976), 46b-47a.

15. Mishneh Torah, ‘Yesodei Ha-Torah’ 4:10-13; Guide, Introduction.

16. Sefer Ha’emunot (Ferrara, 1556; photo-copy, Jerusalem, 1969), Introduction, 4a.

17. Guide, III.

18. Sefer Ha’emunot, I, ch. 1, 7a.

19. Ed. H. A. Erlanger (Jerusalem, 1975), 203.

20. Mishneh Torah, ‘Teshuvah’, 8: 2.

21. Guide, I, 70.

22. Mishneh Torah, ‘Teshuvah’ 8: 5. For the kabbalistic opposition to Maimonides’ eschatology see e.g. Rabad on ‘Teshuvah’ 8: 2, 4; Shem Tov, Sefer Ha’emunot, I, 1, p. 5b; Migdal Oz on these passages in the Mishneh Torah. Midrash Hane’elam, Zohar 2, 135b-136a, appears to be based on Maimonides!

23. Guide, II, 42.

24. Nahmanides’ Commentary on Genesis 18: 1, ed. Chavel, pp. 103-7.

25. Mishneh Torah, ‘Yesodei Hatorah’, 1: 10.

26. Quoted in Kesef Mishneh ad loc., obviously referring to the doctrine of the sefirot; perhaps ‘face’ is Tiferet and ‘back’ is Malkhut, or ‘face’ is Hesed and ‘back’ is Gevurah.

27. Jerusalem, 1957, no. 117.

28. e.g. in Lemberg edn. of the Guide, 1866.

29. See R. J. Z. Werblowsky, Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic (Oxford, 1962), 31 and 170 note 2. Cf. my Jewish Mystical Testimonies (New York, 1977), 115-16. Werblowsky points out that the reference to reincarnation in a worm has been omitted from the printed versions of the Maggid Mesharim out of respect for Maimonides. Werblowsky supplies it from the manuscript.

30. See Dienstag, op. cit., pp. 316-17.

31. Shivhei Haran (Lemberg, 1864), chapter on ‘Keeping Away from Speculation and being strong in Faith’.

32. S. A. Horodesky, Hahasidut vehahasidim (Berlin, 1923), 2: 40.

33. In Kesef Mishneh on ‘Yesodei Hatorah’, 1: 10.

34. Migdal Oz on Mishneh Torah, ‘Yesodei Hatorah’, 1: 10.

35. On the whole subject of Maimonides’ alleged conversion to kabbalism see the famous essay of G. Scholem, ‘Mehoker limekkubal, Sefer Harambam’,Tarbiz, 6: 3 (1935), 90-8. Scholem notes that it would seem that the author of these commentaries on Ramban is Isaac of Acre in his Me’irat Einayim, but Scholem was unable to discover any reference to the report in any of the manuscripts of the work he consulted. It is not found in the Erlanger edn., op. cit., either. Israel Weinstock, Bema’agalei Hanigleh Vehanistar (Jerusalem, 1969) has adduced a good deal of evidence to show that some of the basic kabbalistic ideas were known to the medieval philosophers including Maimonides. In the light of his investigations, he remarks, the whole question of Maimonides’ relationship to the kabbalah will need to be reopened (118, n. 34). Cf. H. J. Michael, Or Hahayyim (Frankfurt, 1891), 537 and 551-2; S. N. Hones, Toledot Haposekim (Warsaw, 1922), 443 (from Michael).

36. Opening word of chapter three of Avot. In the Jerusalem, 1970, edn. of Nahalat Avot, the passage is found on p. 209.

37. Avodat Hakodesh (Jerusalem, 1973), Part II, ch. 13, 33c (Arabic no. 66).

38. Heb. navukh, obviously inspired by Maimonides’ Moreh Nevukhim (Guide of the Perplexed).

39. The meaning appears to be that the propositions of the philosophers were only guesswork since they had not advanced the convincing proof that the contrary of the positions is false.

40. Responsa, op. cit., no. 117, p. 313.

41. Behinat Hadat, ed. Isaac Reggio (Vienna, 1833). On p. 40 the older Delmedigo says that none of the geonim knew the kabbalah. Reggio’s note to this page refers to the younger Delmedigo’s defense but dismisses it, referring to Leon da Modena (1571-1648), who, in his Ari Nohem, ed. Julius Furst (Leipzig, 1840), ch. 12, p. 34, says the whole thing is only a dream.

42. Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia), Matzref Lehokhmah, ed. D. Tors (Odessa, 1864), 34a-b (Arabic no. 68-69).

43. Sefer Hagilgulim (Premisla, 1875), Part II, 8b.

44. Ze’er, i.e. Ze’er Anpin, one of the partzufim of the Lurianic kabbalah. Interestingly enough Vital says here that Maimonides did not know the kabbalah at all whereas Nahmanides came to know it in his old age. There seems to be some confusion here between Nahmanides and Maimonides, i.e. the notion that Maimonides only became a kabbalist in his old age was transferred to Nahmanides.

45. Shem Hagedolim (Warsaw, 1876), s.v. ‘Harambam’, I, # 100. Azulai refers to the strong doubts expressed as to the authenticity of the secret document in Moses ben Jacob’s Shushin Sadat (Koretz, 1784), 31a.

46. Shomer Emunim, ed. Isaac Stem (Jerusalem, 1965), Part I, 12-13, pp. 10-13. The ‘secret document’ is also referred to in the commentary on the Guideby Moses b. Joshua of Narbonne (d. 1362): Narboni, ed. J. Goldenthal (Vienna, 1852), Part 2, 21, p. 4a.

47. E.g. in Mishneh Torah, ‘Avodah Zarah’, 11 end, on magic. Commentary on the Mishnah, ‘Avodah Zarah’, ch. 4; Guide, 111, 46 on demons. Cf. Mishneh Torah, ‘Sanhedrin’ 12: 2, where Maimonides says, ‘Even if he heard the voice of the one who gave the warning without actually seeing him’, obviously giving his interpretation to Me’ilah 6b, ‘even by a demon’. See Me’iri on Me’ilah 6b, who says derekh mashal (‘as a parable’; ‘in a manner of speaking’). Also see Rabad on Mishneh Torah ad loc. And see Vilna Gaon to ‘Yoreh De’ah’ 179, n. 13.

48. See my Seeker of Unity (London, 1966).

49. Guide, III, 17-18.

50. Shomer Emunim, Part I, 81, although Ergas does not mention Maimonides here by name.

51. Stern’s Introduction, 31-4.

52. Phinehas of Koretz (1726-1791) in Pe’er Layesharim, ed. I. D. Ozenstein (Jerusalem, 1921). No. 38, p. 5b.

53. Dienstag, op. cit., 325.

54. See Tosafists to Avodah Zarah 17b, s.v. dimos.

55. Divrei Hayyim (Brooklyn, 1962), ‘Mikketz’, 13d (Arabic no. 26).

56. See Heschel’s Yiddish book Kotzk (Tel Aviv, 1973), I: 175-6. On page 347, n. 8 gives as his source a verbal report to him.

57. Keneset Yisra’el by Reuben Zvi of Ostila (Warsaw, 1906), 7b-8a. See Sefer Hahakdamah Vehapetihah by R. Gershom Hanokh Henekh of Radzyn, ed. Yeruham Latner (New York, 1950); this is the introduction of R. Gershom Hanokh to his father’s Beit Ya’akov. See pp. 28-40 for a defense of Rambam as kabbalist.

..