Rambam: rebbe of Ramchal
If Rambam was ignorant of kabbalah, this to me is sufficient proof that kabbalah is not authentic.
MESH this page with these two pages:
Embedded Files
Is the kabbalah a modern invention, which would explain why Rambam never heard of it? Or was Rambam in fact a kabbalist (see "Sources" on the menu above)!
Is the kabbalah a modern invention, which would explain why Rambam never heard of it? Or was Rambam in fact a kabbalist (see "Sources" on the menu above)!
In my opinion, if there are teachings of the Zohar which were not known by Rambam they do not have an ancient source - but I believe that Rambam DID in fact know all of the hidden teachings.
In my opinion, if there are teachings of the Zohar which were not known by Rambam they do not have an ancient source - but I believe that Rambam DID in fact know all of the hidden teachings.
And I don't believe Rambam only learned sod in his old age, too late to write about it. I find the whole idea almost heretical and offensive. I think people simply don't understand how deep science is, how close to the secrets of creation the mind can come to when contemplating nature, and so they don't understand the writings of a mind like Rambam, or why he was so impressed with Aristotle etc.
And I don't believe Rambam only learned sod in his old age, too late to write about it. I find the whole idea almost heretical and offensive. I think people simply don't understand how deep science is, how close to the secrets of creation the mind can come to when contemplating nature, and so they don't understand the writings of a mind like Rambam, or why he was so impressed with Aristotle etc.
Question: 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? (Note: This is not an issue related only to Rambam - there are ge'onim also who are said to have 'lacked the mesorah' or were 'ignorant of the kabbalah'.)
Question: 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? (Note: This is not an issue related only to Rambam - there are ge'onim also who are said to have 'lacked the mesorah' or were 'ignorant of the kabbalah'.)
I'm convinced the Rambam knew the essence of Torah and therefore the essence of the level of Sod, which today we refer to as 'Kabbalah'. My attitude is that if Rambam did not know something alleged to be part of Torah knowledge, it isn't really part of the mesorah!
I'm convinced the Rambam knew the essence of Torah and therefore the essence of the level of Sod, which today we refer to as 'Kabbalah'. My attitude is that if Rambam did not know something alleged to be part of Torah knowledge, it isn't really part of the mesorah!
He writes so much about Breishit (and ma'aseh merkavah) as mystical secrets, but doesn't tell the secrets. I think that the first two accounts in Breishit, creation and Eden, contain all that is essential in Kabbalah, in Torah, and that Rambam's preoccupation with these accounts, trying to get at their essence by eliminating what he felt is not the essence, is a result of his knowledge of the deepest levels of Torah. I think Ramchal is patterned partly after Rambam and means in various ways to indicate that he is following Rambam, for example by using the YHW-H in the beginning of Mesillat yesharim, like Rambam in the Yad. And his sefer is a development of hilchos de'ot plus pirkei avot (on which Rambam wrote) plus.... etc.
He writes so much about Breishit (and ma'aseh merkavah) as mystical secrets, but doesn't tell the secrets. I think that the first two accounts in Breishit, creation and Eden, contain all that is essential in Kabbalah, in Torah, and that Rambam's preoccupation with these accounts, trying to get at their essence by eliminating what he felt is not the essence, is a result of his knowledge of the deepest levels of Torah. I think Ramchal is patterned partly after Rambam and means in various ways to indicate that he is following Rambam, for example by using the YHW-H in the beginning of Mesillat yesharim, like Rambam in the Yad. And his sefer is a development of hilchos de'ot plus pirkei avot (on which Rambam wrote) plus.... etc.
So 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 which cannot be found in Rambam even in a deep search.
So 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 which cannot be found in Rambam even in a deep search.
The "sphirot"
The "sphirot"
Even if Rambam knew the essence of Torah and therefore the essence of the level of Sod which today we refer to as 'Kabbalah', did he know of the sfirot?
Even if Rambam knew the essence of Torah and therefore the essence of the level of Sod which today we refer to as 'Kabbalah', did he know of the sfirot?
Anyone conversant with mathematics understands that there is nothing at all fundamental kmathematically with the number ten. One can use any number as a base, 3 or 16 or 1,047 or whatever. It has been said that there are 10 commandments because of the ten sfirot. But why ten? We know anthropoligically tha thumans use their fingers to count and given that we have twn fingers, bviously we countied using base 10. But there is nothing fundamnetla aobut this base.
Anyone conversant with mathematics understands that there is nothing at all fundamental kmathematically with the number ten. One can use any number as a base, 3 or 16 or 1,047 or whatever. It has been said that there are 10 commandments because of the ten sfirot. But why ten? We know anthropoligically tha thumans use their fingers to count and given that we have twn fingers, bviously we countied using base 10. But there is nothing fundamnetla aobut this base.
Of course one can say that there IS something fundamental cosmically in ten - albeit not mathematically - and that God created humans with ten fingers so that this cosmic number would find expression in human activity. But is that what kabbalah teaches?
Of course one can say that there IS something fundamental cosmically in ten - albeit not mathematically - and that God created humans with ten fingers so that this cosmic number would find expression in human activity. But is that what kabbalah teaches?
In any case, for this and other reasons I feel that Rambam would consider the idea of 10 sfirot as a deep idea that involved the number 10 and the idea of 'sfirot' in an allegorical manner - just as for example "the 7 days of creation" is a deep secret and does not limit God to numbers or to completing actions within the dimension of time etc.
[for the ramifications to the idea of shabbat of whether the creation really did take 6 days, see this video from 6:00-end]. In any case, for this and other reasons I feel that Rambam would consider the idea of 10 sfirot as a deep idea that involved the number 10 and the idea of 'sfirot' in an allegorical manner - just as for example "the 7 days of creation" is a deep secret and does not limit God to numbers or to completing actions within the dimension of time etc.
Rambam of course DOES write a lot about the sfirot of the heavens, the galgalim, Aristotle's cosmology etc, and I think all this is meant at the level of both pshat and sod. [see later section, below, re 10 sfirot]
Rambam of course DOES write a lot about the sfirot of the heavens, the galgalim, Aristotle's cosmology etc, and I think all this is meant at the level of both pshat and sod. [see later section, below, re 10 sfirot]
In any case, re the sphirot as with all of kabalah - as mentioned above, my attitude is that if Rambam did not know something alleged to be part of Torah knowledge, it isn't really part of the mesorah!
In any case, re the sphirot as with all of kabalah - as mentioned above, my attitude is that if Rambam did not know something alleged to be part of Torah knowledge, it isn't really part of the mesorah!
Ma'aseh Breishis & Ma'aseh Merkava
Ma'aseh Breishis & Ma'aseh Merkava
I think Rambam's hilchot 'yesodei hatorah' is meant as 'sodei hatorah', and the word 'yesod' is deliberately chosen. Also, the YHW - H of the first words also indicates a second message, ie if the initial YUD is part of an acrostic it leaves the rest of the word 'sodei'. (And of course since yud is hashem, it becomes "sodei hashem".)
I think Rambam's hilchot 'yesodei hatorah' is meant as 'sodei hatorah', and the word 'yesod' is deliberately chosen. Also, the YHW - H of the first words also indicates a second message, ie if the initial YUD is part of an acrostic it leaves the rest of the word 'sodei'. (And of course since yud is hashem, it becomes "sodei hashem".)
And hilchot "de'ot" is about the secrets in the etz ha-"da'at" story.
And hilchot "de'ot" is about the secrets in the etz ha-"da'at" story.
Since Rambam lived before the revelation of the inner secrets (Zohar etc), even where he writes about Breishit (and ma'aseh merkavah) as mystical secrets, but doesn't tell the secrets.
Since Rambam lived before the revelation of the inner secrets (Zohar etc), even where he writes about Breishit (and ma'aseh merkavah) as mystical secrets, but doesn't tell the secrets.
I think that the first two accounts in Breishit, creation and Eden, contain all that is essential in Kabbalah, in Torah, and that Rambam's preoccupation with these accounts, trying to get at their essence by eliminating what he felt is not the essence, is a result of his knowledge of the deepest levels of Torah.
I think that the first two accounts in Breishit, creation and Eden, contain all that is essential in Kabbalah, in Torah, and that Rambam's preoccupation with these accounts, trying to get at their essence by eliminating what he felt is not the essence, is a result of his knowledge of the deepest levels of Torah.
In the same way that the Torah itself does not openly mention olam habah, schar ve’onesh in after-life, techiyas hamesim etc, only in allusion, so too Rambam. The creation and Eden accounts are mystical, allegorical, and so are deep secrets, rather than literal which would make them into just history. Nach has more, and Rambam follows this, and uses psukim.
In the same way that the Torah itself does not openly mention olam habah, schar ve’onesh in after-life, techiyas hamesim etc, only in allusion, so too Rambam. The creation and Eden accounts are mystical, allegorical, and so are deep secrets, rather than literal which would make them into just history. Nach has more, and Rambam follows this, and uses psukim.
The gemoro has strange things (and mishna has secrets too according to some), and Rambam’s Yad is perhaps a means of separating, combining hints to the meanings of the agadata etc from all over shas into the opening parts of sefer Hamada, and then the halacha parts in the rest. So he sets the stage, as was done in Chumash, first the mystical since it is the fundamental, then halacha, which is the Way to attain the goal etc set out in the mystical.
The gemoro has strange things (and mishna has secrets too according to some), and Rambam’s Yad is perhaps a means of separating, combining hints to the meanings of the agadata etc from all over shas into the opening parts of sefer Hamada, and then the halacha parts in the rest. So he sets the stage, as was done in Chumash, first the mystical since it is the fundamental, then halacha, which is the Way to attain the goal etc set out in the mystical.
And I don’t believe Rambam only learned sod in his old age, too late to write about it. I find the whole idea almost heretical and offensive. I think people simply don't understand how deep science is, how close to the secrets of creation the mind can come to when contemplating nature, and so they don't understand the writings of a mind like Rambam, or why he was so impressed with Aristotle etc.
And I don’t believe Rambam only learned sod in his old age, too late to write about it. I find the whole idea almost heretical and offensive. I think people simply don't understand how deep science is, how close to the secrets of creation the mind can come to when contemplating nature, and so they don't understand the writings of a mind like Rambam, or why he was so impressed with Aristotle etc.
The Moreh Nevuchim was first and foremost to demonstrate that one need not accept Aristotle’s conclusion that the universe is eternal. Why is this so important to refute? Because Aristotle was at the level of a novi (in potential; and Rambam counts “not to listen to the nevuiim of the goyim” as a mitzva?) and because if the universe is eternal then it coexists with God, and God exists in time etc, and this is exactly what Rambam negates in hilchos y hatorah, the foundation of en od milvado. So the Moreh is all about en od milvado, and of course it is about ma'aseh breishis etc, which he states explicitly is mysticism, and that he doesn’t explain the secrets.
The Moreh Nevuchim was first and foremost to demonstrate that one need not accept Aristotle’s conclusion that the universe is eternal. Why is this so important to refute? Because Aristotle was at the level of a novi (in potential; and Rambam counts “not to listen to the nevuiim of the goyim” as a mitzva?) and because if the universe is eternal then it coexists with God, and God exists in time etc, and this is exactly what Rambam negates in hilchos y hatorah, the foundation of en od milvado. So the Moreh is all about en od milvado, and of course it is about ma'aseh breishis etc, which he states explicitly is mysticism, and that he doesn’t explain the secrets.
So he has a mesorah of secrets, and that they have to be kept as secrets – but of course this is also in the gemara and also the mishna.
So he has a mesorah of secrets, and that they have to be kept as secrets – but of course this is also in the gemara and also the mishna.
....
WhyRambam's Aristotelian discussions are Kabbalah
WhyRambam's Aristotelian discussions are Kabbalah
Many kabbalists seem to have been offended on distanced by Rambam's adherence to Aristotelian notions. However to me it seems that those ideas are very much in tume with kabbalah. And there is in my opinion no reason to assume that Aristotle cannot in some sense be part of the mesorah if a non-Jew like Adam or Noach or Malkitzedek can be part of the tradition of kabbalah, and if Bilam can be of the same stature as Moshe Rabenu.
Many kabbalists seem to have been offended on distanced by Rambam's adherence to Aristotelian notions. However to me it seems that those ideas are very much in tume with kabbalah. And there is in my opinion no reason to assume that Aristotle cannot in some sense be part of the mesorah if a non-Jew like Adam or Noach or Malkitzedek can be part of the tradition of kabbalah, and if Bilam can be of the same stature as Moshe Rabenu.
Aristotelian vs modern physics: Modern physics is quite abstract, but has expunged mind and overtly mind-like attributes, very different than Arisototelian physics (but see this). Whereas Aristotle taught that the planets are beings and have awareness, and that things fall to the Earth faster when they are closer because their natural place is in the Earth (and a falling stone falls faster as it gets closer to the Earth like a horse which smells the barn and so runs faster on the way back), today's physics creates mathematical models and states these as laws, etc, as is well-known. So to a moern physicist, Aristotelian physics seems very much like kabbalah.
Aristotelian vs modern physics: Modern physics is quite abstract, but has expunged mind and overtly mind-like attributes, very different than Arisototelian physics (but see this). Whereas Aristotle taught that the planets are beings and have awareness, and that things fall to the Earth faster when they are closer because their natural place is in the Earth (and a falling stone falls faster as it gets closer to the Earth like a horse which smells the barn and so runs faster on the way back), today's physics creates mathematical models and states these as laws, etc, as is well-known. So to a moern physicist, Aristotelian physics seems very much like kabbalah.
Chazal stated that "a blade of grass does not move without an angel telling it to do so". Rambam says that an angel is simply the way that humans perceive the manifestation of God's will. That is, if God wills that grass move when there is wind, then this is part of God's created "laws of nature" and when the grass indeed moves a human can perceive this actuation of God's will as "an angel". So therefore, saying "an angel caused it to move" is identical to saying "it moved as dictated by the laws of nature". To me this is a key to understanding much of Rambam's discussions, and to seeing how his Aristotelian discussions are explications of kabbalah.
Chazal stated that "a blade of grass does not move without an angel telling it to do so". Rambam says that an angel is simply the way that humans perceive the manifestation of God's will. That is, if God wills that grass move when there is wind, then this is part of God's created "laws of nature" and when the grass indeed moves a human can perceive this actuation of God's will as "an angel". So therefore, saying "an angel caused it to move" is identical to saying "it moved as dictated by the laws of nature". To me this is a key to understanding much of Rambam's discussions, and to seeing how his Aristotelian discussions are explications of kabbalah.
If the laws of nature governing the moion of a blade of grass can give insight into angles and the Will of God, then it also can be that studying the laws of nature governing the most sophisticated and complex aspects of the universe - as Rambam prescribed in order to fulfil "le'ahava ule'yir'ah oso" - can give insights into the sophistication of the ways of H', at least as perceived by humans. See: Platonism and Kabbalah. And so there is in my way of thinking no reason for kabbalists to be distanced by Rambam's extensive discussions of Platonic & Aristotelian notions and his elevation of their insights to the level of 'near-prophecy'.
If the laws of nature governing the moion of a blade of grass can give insight into angles and the Will of God, then it also can be that studying the laws of nature governing the most sophisticated and complex aspects of the universe - as Rambam prescribed in order to fulfil "le'ahava ule'yir'ah oso" - can give insights into the sophistication of the ways of H', at least as perceived by humans. See: Platonism and Kabbalah. And so there is in my way of thinking no reason for kabbalists to be distanced by Rambam's extensive discussions of Platonic & Aristotelian notions and his elevation of their insights to the level of 'near-prophecy'.
Rambam in the beginning of sefer hamada, in hilchos yesodei hatorah, speaks of knowing there is a God, one God etc, and then:
הגלגלים הם הנקראים שמים ורקיע וזבול וערבות והם תשעה גלגלים
And then after all this he speaks of the names of Hashem etc. Clearly to Rambam when he speak so these "physical" entities, if they are sandwhiched between clearly spiritual topics, he is signaling that even in this discussion of 'galgalim; etc he is nevertheless in fact discussing "yesodei hatorah", but in cloaked form, which to me clearly indicates that he is referring to what today we call "kabbalah".
Ramchal as a talmid of Rambam
Ramchal as a talmid of Rambam
I think Ramchal is patterned partly after Rambam and means in various ways to indicate that he is following Rambam, for example by using the YHW-H in the beginning of Mesillat yesharim, like Rambam in the Yad. And his sefer is a development of hilchos de'ot plus pirkei avot (on which Rambam wrote) plus.... etc. And of course there sfarim of the ge'onim as well, some of whom are also said to have 'lacked the mesorah' or were 'ignorant of the kabbalah'.
Given Ramchal's stress on the term "chasidus", it's interesting to know whether the word appears in chumash. Of course it appears many times in thilim, and also in Micha Yirmiyahu Shmuel (Shmuel:urim vetumim?), however in chumash perhaps the closest is in "Vezos HaBrocho":
תֻּמֶּיךָ וְאוּרֶיךָ לְאִישׁ חֲסִידֶךָ, וּלְלֵוִי אָמַר
where "chasidecha" is referring to hashem or to m' rabenu...
The term "chasidus": 1. Dovid HaMelech, 2. Rambam, 3. Ramchal
The term "chasidus": 1. Dovid HaMelech, 2. Rambam, 3. Ramchal
1.The mekubel Dovid HaMelech:
1.The mekubel Dovid HaMelech:
a. contrasts or differentiates between "tzadik" & "chosid", and associates them to 'derech' vs 'maaseh':
“Tzadik h bechol derochov vechosid bechol maasov”. [So “Derech hashem” is for tzadik, and “Maaseh hashem” is for chosid?]
b. contrasts "tzadik" and "rosho": תהלים לז טז טוֹב מְעַט לַצַּדִּיק מֵהֲמוֹן רְשָׁעִים רַבִּים.
רש"י טובים מעט אנשים שהולכים לעזרת הצדיקים
"מהמון רשעים רבים"
- אמרפל וחביריו שהתחילו מלחמה בעולם בשביל לשבות את לוט ולהתגרות באברהם מעט אנשים שהיו עם אברהם הצליחו והרגו כל אותן האוכלסין
מצודת דוד המעט שיש להצדיק יותר טוב מעושר רב שביד הרשעים
.......
2.Rambam
Contrast the temperament of a tzadik, chochom & chosid
In beginning of Hilchos De'os ("de'os" = from etz ha'da'as?) Rambam contrasts "tzadik" and "rosho" based on: תהלים לז טז (see above) but with a very different interpretation from the usual one (brought above).
In contrast, Rambam uses this pasuk to contrast the temperament of a tzadik, chochom & chosid, and uses the key terms ‘de’os’&'derech' (and derech "hayoshor"; and 'tov' of course):
Chochom, Tzadik, Chosid:
כענין שנאמר "טוב מעט לצדיק" : ולא יקפוץ ידו ביותר ולא יפזר ממונו אלא נותן צדקה כפי מסת ידו ומלוה כראוי למי שצריך ולא יהא מהולל ושוחק ולא עצב ואונן אלא שמח כל ימיו בנחת בסבר פנים יפות וכן שאר דעותיו ודרך זו היא דרך החכמים כל אדם שדעותיו דעות בינונית ממוצעות נקרא חכם:
ה. ומי שהוא מדקדק על עצמו ביותר ויתרחק מדעה בינונית מעט לצד זה או לצד זה נקרא חסיד. כיצד מי שיתרחק מגובה הלב עד הקצה האחרון ויהיה שפל רוח ביותר נקרא חסיד וזו היא מדת חסידות ואם נתרחק עד האמצע בלבד ויהיה עניו נקרא חכם וזו היא מדת חכמה ועל דרך זו שאר כל הדעות וחסידים הראשונים היו מטין דעות שלהן מדרך האמצעית כנגד שתי הקצוות יש דעה שמטין אותה כנגד הקצה האחרון ויש דעה שמטין אותה כנגד הקצה הראשון וזהו לפנים משורת הדין ומצווין אנו ללכת בדרכים האלו הבינונים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים שנאמר והלכת בדרכיו:
So Rambam is talking about a human being's inner development of temperament (as an aspect of character), and placing this in the overall category of religion.
3. Ramchal: his distinction is well-known.
……………
Comparison/contrast to Rambam: The difference between chochom, tzadik, chosid is an important distinction in Ramchal as well Rambam. Rambam starts with ‘yesod’ and so does ramchal. But Rambam says ‘yesod hayesodos’ and Ramchal stresses ‘hachasidus’. But the fact that Rambam stresses ‘the same difference’ means to me that Ramchal, who lived (long) after the Zohar was revealed is giving a more open perush on what Rambam (who lived shortly before it was revealed) was writing in a hidden way.
…………….
Some notes:
AR: Explain more why ‘chasidut’ specifically, as opposed to Tzidkut (eg Noach was a tzadik). [re use of term chosid: see re R Yehuda HaChosid Sefer HaChasidim (1100 Europe)].
A. Clarify relation (I can make one up, but I want to know if there's an established accepted link) between:
1. chesed and chasidus:
2. Yesod and sod
B. See Rambam, Yesodei haTorah? What is ‘shem’ in “yir’as hashem”. 1. the name of God is a thing on its own; or 2: ‘the Name’ means God.
C.yesod appears only shmos/vayikra, not in breishis, it is always 'yesod hamizbe'ach'. Then in Chabakuk & Yeshayahu, in another meaning.
Who started idea of YHV – H as an acrostic?
Who started idea of YHV – H as an acrostic?
1. The mekubal Dovid HaMelekh wrote
תהילים 96:11 יִשְׂמְח֣וּ הַ֭שָּׁמַיִם וְתָגֵ֣ל הָאָ֑רֶץ יִֽרְעַ֥ם הַ֝יָּ֗ם וּמְלֹאֽוֹ׃
What is the earliest indications of this being recognized as an acrostic?
2. Rambam lists the first few mitzvos, and the 13 principles = "Yesodot". And the yesod hayesodot is….
The acrostic in this was pointed out by the Kesef mishne (R Yosak Karo) in his commentary, but he seems to do so as a speculation - does this mean it was unknown before, not marked as such in Rambam’s manuscript?
What does Rambam mean to tell us by starting with that? That he is dealing in mysticism? That there are hidden aspects in his writings (as he mentions in intro to M Nevuchim) Was it commonly used before/during/after the time of Rambam?
Is there a connotation to ‘yesod’ related to ‘sod’ or ‘yesod’ of the seffirot? Not difficult to make a connection to ‘yesod’: eg etz ha’da’at, bonding to God, man and woman etc.
Was the word Yesod used in earlier treatises other than Zohar (which is indeterminate in time source etc).
Tzadik (and Chochom) vs Chosid: Yesod is Yosef who overcame it, and it is the Tzadik, which in chasidus is a figure of the highest not just like noach ish tzadik, fulfilling the mitzvos so maybe indeed Rambam used Yesod as a sign of the kabalistic intent. Is ‘chasid’ related to ‘chesed’ as ‘Yesod’ is related to ‘sod’?
.................................
3. Ramchal uses the same ‘Akostrikon’, and starts off with the same word "Yesod".
How common was the use of this Akostrikon?
Wiki: In the Hebrew Bible, the tetragrammaton occurs 6828 times…The only books it does not appear in are Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and Song of Songs.[1]In the Book of Esther the Tetragrammaton is present in four complex acrostics in Hebrew: the initial or last letters of four consecutive words, either forwards or backwards comprise YHWH. These letters were distinguished in at least three ancient Hebrew manuscripts in red.[32]
Also: 'akrostikon' :https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%
But who uses it it first in an obvious way, clearly indicating that it was meant as such?
Is there any early reference to "VaYehi erev..." as an acrostikon? Perhaps some posukin nach references this in a hidden way, by using similar words also in an acrosticon or using the name of H, or perhaps a midrash or commentary doe shtis?
If it was unusual to use this, can it be that Ramchal is hinting that he follows Rambam, in sod?
Ramchal continues the akostrikon differently, however, the letters of the words 'Yesodos' and 'chasidus' are so similar [just the chet of chasidus is left out, chasidut without chet!? (it leaves SDT, like ‘sodot’…)]
Parallel between the structure of Yah Hachazakah ('Mado') and Mesillas Yesharim
Parallel between the structure of Yah Hachazakah ('Mado') and Mesillas Yesharim
Ramchal's choice of pasuk upon which to base Mesilas Yesharim can be seen as his undertanding that it was at the heart of Rambam's writings, as we will see from the parallels. Also, Rambam analyses the yesodei hatorah from a rational intellectual perspective, ie philosophy/metaphysics; it is exactly this type of analysis which Ramchal speaks about (in the introduction to "M.Y.") as being necessary, but Ramchal focuses mostly on the equivalent of Hilchos De’os. In Derech Hashem maybe we can say that Ramchal focuses on Hilchos Yesodei haTorah. In boht, Ramchal is expounding on Rambam's insights, and adding methods of attaining the goals Rambam presents. So Ramchal is a perush on Rambam - or his 'talmid' - in this sense, as well actually inculcating in himself all the spiritual/ethical/temperamental self-development Rambam wrote about (and outlining to others the path forward). So Rambam is also therefore a talmid of R Pinchas Ben Yair, and part of the chain of the mesorah commonly called 'kabbalah'.
הלכותיו חמש, וזה הוא סידורן:
הלכות יסודי התורה
הלכות דעות
הלכות תלמוד תורה
הלכות עבודה זרה וחוקות הגויים
הלכות תשובה
:הלכות יסודי התורה
:הלכות יסודי התורה
יש בכללן עשר מצות, שש מצות עשה, וארבע מצות לא תעשה. וזהו פרטן
א) לידע שיש שם אלוה.
ב) שלא יעלה במחשבה שיש שם אלוה אחר זולתי ה'.
ג) ליחדו.
ד) לאהבו.
ה) ליראה ממנו.
ו) לקדש שמו.
ז) שלא לחלל שמו.
ח) שלא לאבד דברים שנקרא שמו עליהם.
ט) לשמוע מן הנביא המדבר בשמו.
י) שלא לנסותו.
וביאור כל המצות האלו בפרקים אלו
.יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון והוא ממציא כל נמצא וכל הנמצאים משמים וארץ ומה שביניהם לא נמצאו אלא מאמתת המצאו
....
הלכות דעות. יש בכללן אחת עשרה מצות, חמש מצות עשה, ושש מצות לא תעשה.
וזהו פרטן:
א) להדמות בדרכיו.
ב) להדבק ביודעיו.
ג) לאהוב את ריעים.
ד) לאהוב את הגרים.
(ה) שלא לשנא אחים.
(ו) להוכיח.
(ז) שלא להלבין פנים.
(ח) שלא לענות אמללים.
(ט) שלא להלוך רכיל.
(י) שלא לנקום.
(יא) שלא לנטור.
וביאור כל המצות האלו בפרקים אלו.
In hilchos de'os, Rambam talks of character traits, temperament, and they way that one ought to develop them, particulalry in one's conduct vis a vis other people, ie ethical behavior. This is clearly meant a as path to self-perfection, which is in Jewish mysticism a quintessential aspect of the purpose of the study of kabbalah.
דעות הרבה יש לכל אחד ואחד מבני אדם וזו משונה מזו ורחוקה ממנו ביותר יש אדם שהוא בעל חמה כועס תמיד ויש אדם שדעתו מיושבת עליו ואינו כועס כלל ואם יכעס יכעס כעס מעט בכמה שנים ויש אדם שהוא גבה לב ביותר ויש שהוא שפל רוח ביותר ויש שהוא בעל תאוה לא תשבע נפשו מהלוך בתאוה ויש שהוא בעל לב טהור מאד ולא יתאוה אפילו לדברים מעטים שהגוף צריך להן ויש בעל נפש רחבה שלא תשבע נפשו מכל ממון העולם כענין שנאמר אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף ויש מקצר נפשו שדיו אפילו דבר מעט שלא יספיק לו ולא ירדוף להשיג כל צרכו ויש שהוא מסגף עצמו ברעב וקובץ על ידו ואינו אוכל פרוטה משלו אלא בצער גדול ויש שהוא מאבד כל ממונו בידו לדעתו ועל דרכים אלו שאר כל הדעות כגון מהולל ואונן וכילי ושוע ואכזרי ורחמן ורך לבב ואמיץ לב וכיוצא בהן:
..................
In the intro to the Yad, ie right before Yesodei HaTorah, Rambam lists the mitzvos:
Yesodei HaTorah List of Mitzvos H. De’os
1. there’s a God, 1
2. not to think there’s another God,
3. to ‘unify’ God, 2
4. to Love, 3 3 D leehov es re’im; 4 D is le'ehov gerim)
5. Awe/Fear, 4
Lehispallel 5 (avodah)
Ledovko 6 2 D
Lehishova bishmo 7
Lehidamos bidrochov hatovim 8 1 D
Lekadesh es shmo 9
Kriyas shma twice daily 10
Lilmod torah 11
6. lekadesh shmo
In Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah he will be speaking of 6 of the first mitzvos, plus 4 others, total 10.
Ramchal builds the introduction to Mesilas yesharim, and therefore all of that sefer, on the pasuk “le’ahava oso, leyiroh, ledavka, laleches bidrachov, ulkayem ….” etc, and this is exactly what Rambam does in constructing the list of the mitzvos. So Ramchal’s list - taken from the pasuk - is the same as Rambam’s.
Ramchal builds the introduction to Mesilas yesharim, and therefore all of that sefer, on the pasuk “le’ahava oso, leyiroh, ledavka, laleches bidrachov, ulkayem ….” etc, and this is exactly what Rambam does in constructing the list of the mitzvos. So Ramchal’s list - taken from the pasuk - is the same as Rambam’s.
H Yesodei HaTorah:
H Yesodei HaTorah:
perek 1:
en od milvado (Rambam says this explicitly). All exists due to God’s existence, not independently, and God can exist w/o them but not v.v
The truth of God’s existence is not dependent on anything, and so “H’ elokechem emes [= only God is the true existence,]”.
God is unity not one (since God is incorporeal etc, God cannot be ;’divided’ etc, so God is unity, not ‘one’), H elokenu H echad.
And God is beyond time and space and attributes. Dibro torah bilshon beneodom, moshol, mer’eh ne’vu’ah umachazeh.
Le’ohovoi ul’yir’ah oso
At the end Rambam mentions ‘derech hashem’. Ramchal names his sefer this.
And he uses the word yida’ativ re God about Avraham, so maybe it is because of the name of the book, de’os.
De’os:
Ch 3, b:all focus is on “yichaven libo vechol maasov leyda es hashem”
6:2: u’bo tidbok: is re God, but human cannot cling to God (ksuvos, and sifri) so must cling to talmidei chachamim etc.
………….
Mysticism and cosmology are usually thought of as different from ethical self-development (self-growth, character improvement), relationships, and the achievement of joy, but in Jewish mysticism they are the same.
Mysticism and cosmology are usually thought of as different from ethical self-development (self-growth, character improvement), relationships, and the achievement of joy, but in Jewish mysticism they are the same.
Subtopic: Ramchal followed the teachings hidden in Rambam:
Subtopic: Ramchal followed the teachings hidden in Rambam:
Ramchal: When you look further into the matter, you will see that only union with God constitutes true perfection, as King David said (Psalms 73:28), "But as for me, the nearness of God is my good," and (Psalms 27:4), "I asked one thing from God; that will I seek - to dwell in God's house all the days of my life..."
AR: Why do we need these psukim? On the one hand they are not very specific, they do not openly unequivocally say what Ramchal is quoting them for, and on the other hand, Ramchal’s point is well-taken without a pasuk as source, so why is it needed? Answer: Ramchal is treating K David. as a mystic, after all, he was constantly drawing near to God via action and song. His writings are therefore to be seen as teachings of deep mystical secrets, not just poetry and history. Ramchal may have been in the line of tradition from KD and before him, passing on the inner meanings of all of tanach.Ramchal is telling us that nothing in this book is new, we all know it, he is simply spelling it out so that we can read it and apply ourselves to doing it. So this is all part of the inner teachings of the torah, and the sources are Tradition, but are encoded in the psukim of tanach. This was what KD actually meant, what he taught to his disciples, this is what his disciples understood these passages to be referring to.
Comparing Sulam, Ramchal (Compare also to others, Rambam, and eg “Living Inspired”)
Comparing Sulam, Ramchal, Rambam, and eg “Living Inspired”
TEXT OF THE MATERIAL IN THE CHART ABOVE: Sulam: Ramchal Rambam…. “Living Inspired”we were created to receive joy, Same. The purpose is the oneg of connection to God, but is in next world. But in this world if we have dvekus we also have some… to obtain it we need to create the appropriate relationship with God, Same. this is achieved via becoming like God Rambam lists this as a mitzvah.Ramchal…. the way to do this is by turning ‘ratzon lekabel’ into ‘ratzon lekabel al menat lehashpiyah’.Keeping mitzvos leads to dvekus, developing self… This-worldly pleasures are….Ok, but for appropriate use; world is full of impediments, meant to be overcome, the joy at end is proportional to the struggle with this-worldly impediments The role of the mitzvoth…. AR: R' 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?...
TEXT OF THE MATERIAL IN THE CHART ABOVE: Sulam: Ramchal Rambam…. “Living Inspired”we were created to receive joy, Same. The purpose is the oneg of connection to God, but is in next world. But in this world if we have dvekus we also have some… to obtain it we need to create the appropriate relationship with God, Same. this is achieved via becoming like God Rambam lists this as a mitzvah.Ramchal…. the way to do this is by turning ‘ratzon lekabel’ into ‘ratzon lekabel al menat lehashpiyah’.Keeping mitzvos leads to dvekus, developing self… This-worldly pleasures are….Ok, but for appropriate use; world is full of impediments, meant to be overcome, the joy at end is proportional to the struggle with this-worldly impediments The role of the mitzvoth…. AR: R' 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?...
.................................................................................................................................................................
Question: what do these have in common?
Mysticism;
cosmology;
ethical self-development (self-growth, character improvement);
relationships;
the achievement of joy.
Answer: Although the above are generally thought of as being quite different, in Jewish mysticism they are very inter-related.
Subtopic: Ramchal followed the teachings hidden in Rambam:
Ramchal: When you look further into the matter, you will see that only union with God constitutes true perfection, as King David said (Psalms 73:28), "But as for me, the nearness of God is my good," and (Psalms 27:4), "I asked one thing from God; that will I seek - to dwell in God's house all the days of my life..."
AR: Why do we need these psukim? On the one hand they are not very specific, they do not openly unequivocally say what Ramchal is quoting them for, and on the other hand, Ramchal’s point is well-taken without a pasuk as source, so why is it needed? Answer: Ramchal is treating K David. as a mystic, after all, he was constantly drawing near to God via action and song. His writings are therefore to be seen as teachings of deep mystical secrets, not just poetry and history. Ramchal may have been in the line of tradition from KD and before him, passing on the inner meanings of all of tanach.Ramchal is telling us that nothing in this book is new, we all know it, he is simply spelling it out so that we can read it and apply ourselves to doing it. So this is all part of the inner teachings of the torah, and the sources are Tradition, but are encoded in the psukim of tanach. This was what KD actually meant, what he taught to his disciples, this is what his disciples understood these passages to be referring to.
Topic: The chain of mesorah (kaboloh):
Topic: The chain of mesorah (kaboloh):
A: Breishis (creation account: not experiences by any human, revealed in chumash to M"R (and maybe earlier to others) and then via him to Bnei Yisrael; B: Eden account: experienced by OdomHarishon, revealed to & by M"R)
Chumash (experienced by avos/imahos etc & M"R; revealed to them);
Neviim etc;
Pirkei ovos ("al 3 dvorim ha'olam omed") etc [maybe all of miishnayos]; Medrash etc; R' P ben Yair;
Talmud, Geonim. Rambam, Ramban; the Vilna Gaon, the ARI, Ramchal etc.
.................................................................................................................................
Rambam’s order of material follows breishis and eden:
A: first is ma’aseh breishis = rambam's 'spheres' etc, hilchos yesodei hatorah;
B: then GanEden account = ethical (good/evil) = eg hilchos deos.
The basic idea is that cosmogony and ethics are interelated.
The basic idea is that cosmogony and ethics are interelated.
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 M Yesharim (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, not just pragmatic rules - it does what the first two stories in chumash do, and what rambam and ramchal do, namely tying mystical concept of universe to ethical development: starts with Moshe Kibel Torah MiSinai etc; this is mystical: MR didn’t eat or drink etc for 40 days, he was in a mystical state and received teachings to be transmitted, but the teachings in Pirkei Avos are mostly ethical self-development. So the mesorah is a kabbalah, and this 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 is through what Rambam calls hilchos de’os, andas Ramchal explains.
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.
....................
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.
[There are various interesting stories about Achiyah HaShiloni, and the relaiton to Pilgash of Ur, the lawgiver, figures living before Hammurabi the Babylonian.]
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.
..............................
1. There was a mekubel who travelled from Bovel in the times of the geonim (850) to Italy, and transmitted his learning there. Who did he teach so early in Europe?2. See Rashi which mentions Kabbala.3. Mavo to the yad talks of what is torah sheb’al peh etc. Mitzva is oral tradition, an explication of Torah (yet then he lists the mitzvos as commandments?).………...…………..……….
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, ma'aseh breishis and ma'aseh 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 Mesilas Yesharim 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 (not saphir or sepher, mispar etc). 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!]
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.
What does kabbalah say about maaseh merkava relative to what Rmabam says? And how does it replate it to maaseh breishis? [see bottom of this page].
………..
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.]
………………………………..
Mesilas 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].
As explained above, although most people do not realize this, there is nothing intrinsically special in the number ten (since we have small limbs which stick out (fingers), 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). . 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#44
Re my writing a book about all this: beware lahagos sfarim harbeh…: http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/sifrut/yitsirot/sabato-1.htm
…
Various Approaches to "living 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”: Recognizing the metaphysical patterns and motifs underlying historical events, personal life challenges.
……………
Place this and other books into the above context: R Tatz, “Living Inspired”: Recognizing the metaphysical patterns and motifs underlying historical events, personal life challenges.
……
Kabbalah and Rationalism, Dreams and Philosophy………
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.
(מבוסס בחלקו על ספר "ירום משה", לר' משה וובר)
…….
TOPIC: Rambam on Existence as good in of itself: Ramchal has a similar idea
TOPIC: 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
Cosmology & Kaballah
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:
.………..................
The 4 worlds: http://www.hidush.co.il/hidush.asp?id=1289
"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
(לזאת יקרא) אשה
אשה (אל אחותה)
מתהלכת
ילכו
כי מאיש (לקחה זאת)
לאיש (שתים חברת) אש
אשר שם (הזהב)
אשר יהיה שם (הרוח)
ורוח א-להים מרחפת
הרוח ללכת
קול ה' א-להים מתהלך לרוח היום
רוח החיה באופנים
מתהלך בגן
היא מתהלכת
(מכל מלאכתו) אשר עשה
ומעשיהם
נפש חיה
רוח החיה
לארבעה ראשים
אל ראשי החיה
רקיע
רקיע
(המים אשר) מתחת לרקיע
ותחת הרקיע
(את קולך שמעתי בגן) וארא
(כקרח) הנורא
וישמעו את קול יקוק א-להים
ושמע את קול כנפיהם
מים
מים רבים
קול ה' מתהלך בגן לרוח היום
כקול שדי בלכתם
ויתפרו עלי תאנה ויעשו להם חגרות
שתים מכסות להנה גויתיהם
המים אשר מעל לרקיע
כקול מים רבים
אבן השהם
אבן ספיר
וישלח אותם
שולח אני אותך
ומכל עץ הגן תאכל
אכל את אשר אני נותן לך
הגן
נגה
הכוכבים
נגה (=אחד מכוכבי הלכת)
ואכן יש מקבילות רבות בין הפסוקים בשני המקומות, כדלהלן:
בראשית
יחזקאל
א-להים יקוק
א-להים יקוק
ונהר יוצא מעדן
על נהר כבר
ורוח א-להים
יד יקוק רוח סערה
עוף כנף
כנפיים
ומשם יפרד
וכנפיהם פרודות
והיה לארבעה ראשים
וארבע פנים לאחת
הוא הסובב
ונגה סביב לו לא יסבו בלכתן
את השמים
נפתחו השמים
מלאו את הארץ ואת הארץ
אופן אחד בארץ
וירא א-להים (כי טוב)
מראות א-להים
חית (השדה)
חיות
אדם
אדם
מות תמות
דמות
……
………….
Report abuse