Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 204

Tue, 25 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. Re: Rationalism and supernaturalism (David Riceman)
• 3. Rambam and magic (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Berich Shemei (Arie Folger)
• 6. The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (Celejar)
• 7. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Berich Shemei (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (Richard Wolpoe)

RnCL writes:

>> But even if the Rav is not negligent, if the item is lost or stolen,
> then he has been put in the position of having to swear that he was not
> negligent.  Why should he be put in this position if what he did was not
> only mutar but a mitzvah? <<



You could ask the same question on a Shomer Aveida, who is also involved in
a Mitzvah and yet he is either a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar. (BK 56).
L'Halachah, he is a Shomer Sachar.


> >> On the basis of this interchange and pasuk though, it would seem that,
> if hitting can be considered a mitzvah even if not needed for the talmid
> to learn the particular lesson in question, then according to RZNG the
> taking of a talmid's property could also be considered a mitzvah even if
> not needed for the talmid to learn the particular lesson in question -
> maybe perhaps on the basis that one only really learns well on bread and
> water and sleeping on hard benches, so maybe a Rav should confiscate all
> of a talmid's wealth so as to ensure he learns well.  Which does seem a
> huge consequence. <<



See Igros Moshe YD vol. I: 140 - where he holds (contra his son R' Dovid)
that the Gemara only allows this if the student was lackadaisical
previously, but has now bettered his attitude, but if he did nothing wrong
there is no allowance. Also see Igros YD vol. II: 103 - where he holds that
the Gemara is only referring to where based on his talents he could learn
more but he is lazy.

So it is not so simple to say that if the Talmid is up to par that the Rebbe
can confiscate his wealth so he could be Lomed Mitoch HaDechak, when right
now he is doing fine. (It is also not so Pashut that such an approach of
confiscation would work. We don't find R' Elazar ben Azarya, or R' Elazar
ben Chisma, or R' Yehudah HaNassi,  throwing away their money so they  could
learn out of poverty.Certainly an Ashir SheYarad MiNechasav because it was
all taken away could be depressed and not learn well.)

All the best,

Doron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070924/6381e4ad/attachment.htm 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> Can someone explain those "philosophical grounds" to me?
Magic is a suspension of the laws of nature (see Ramban Shoftim 18:9).  
The Rambam held that the laws of nature do not get suspended (see PHM 
Avoth 5:5) since that would imply that God changes (see Ikkar #2).
> What did the Rambam say about the various gemaras that a person said the Shem Hemeforash and was able to fly in the air, or kill another person, or whatever.
He says (in the hakdamah to Perek Helek) that the Gemara is relating 
either dreams or allegories, and that the gemara doesn't need to specify 
that since no sensible person could possibly take such things literally.

David Riceman

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:12:52 -0700 RAM wrote:

> R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> > ... Rambam outlaws "magic shows" as kishuf while others define 
> > kishuf as being "real black magic" as opposed to sleight of
> > hand. However, Rambam could not hold this shita since on
> > philosophical grounds he denies the existence of real magic ...
> 
> Can someone explain those "philosophical grounds" to me?
> 
> What did the Rambam say about the various gemaras that a person said the Shem Hemeforash and was able to fly in the air, or kill another person, or whatever. If one accepts the idea that white magic exists, isn't it inconsistent to deny black magic?

He certainly didn't accept the existence of white magic; he interpreted
the Talmudic sources non-literally.

> Akiva Miller

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Monday, 24. September 2007 16.38:49 Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> Without more evidence, I do not accept this view, and am not convinced
> that it is the mainstream.  While I am aware that there is evidence of
> Sufi influence in the thought of various thinkers who lived and wrote
> in Islamic civilizations, I would like to see justification for this
> claim about the Rambam.

On account of this post, I took my trusted Moreh Nevukhim (thank you for the 
impetus) and turned to the latter part of the third section, and sure enough, 
chapters 50 and 51 seem difficult to read as an ultrarationalist. One must be 
careful, however, as you already pointed out, to consider that there are 
things which we may consider to be nonrational, such as the soul, which for 
the Rambam fit into Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. However, this does 
not detract from my observation that Rambam knows some kind of mysticism. 
IOW, Rambam's rationalism included some nonrationalism in it, for it seemed 
rational to him to include some nonrationalism.

<SNIP>
> I concede that there is much in the medieval attempts to rationalize
> Talmudic literature which greatly strains one's credibility, but the
> issue here isn't the level of plausibility that you or I assign these
> interpretations, but the fact that Rishonim apparently believed them;
> this is not because the Rishonim are necessarily infallible, but
> because our discussion is about whether historically Judaism has been
> inextricably intertwined with mysticism.

My point was that the existence of RSG's philosophical commentary on Sefer 
Yetzira does not require that SY was read rationalistically only. Somehow, 
barring explicit statements to that effect on Rambam's part, I would consider 
such a view very difficult.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RDBloom wrote:
> I may add that Baer and Heidenheim also don't print Thilim 27 LeDavid, H
> Ori VeYishi, which Litvaks say from RH Elul thru Sukkot.

They do.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:12:52 -0700 RAF wrote:

> I wrote
> > > Cognoscenti see in the Moreh Nevukhim a mystical system, too (in the
> > > third
> 
> RYG asked:
> > That may be the view of some, but is it the mainstream understanding?
> 
> It is my understanding that that view is fairly mainstream. I learned it from 

Without more evidence, I do not accept this view, and am not convinced
that it is the mainstream.  While I am aware that there is evidence of
Sufi influence in the thought of various thinkers who lived and wrote
in Islamic civilizations, I would like to see justification for this
claim about the Rambam.

> an academician. The difficulty here is distinguishing between Kabbalah 
> (Zohar, Bahir, perhaps even Sefirot, etc.) and mysticism in general. Look, 
> the philosophical Rishonim and Geonim did not exclude Sefer Yetzira from the 
> cannon, and despite Rav Sa'adya Gaon's attempt to explain it philosophically, 
> I don't think it can be entirely reduced to rational philosophy.

I concede that there is much in the medieval attempts to rationalize
Talmudic literature which greatly strains one's credibility, but the
issue here isn't the level of plausibility that you or I assign these
interpretations, but the fact that Rishonim apparently believed them;
this is not because the Rishonim are necessarily infallible, but
because our discussion is about whether historically Judaism has been
inextricably intertwined with mysticism.

> But then again, mysticism need not conflict with rational philosophy. What 
> matters is the kind of mysticism. According to most readings in Rambam, ve'al 
> a'hat qama veqama other authorities, the soul retains individuality after 
> death, meaning that the soul has a real, separate existence, distinct from 
> the body. Consequently, it isn't so surprising to consider the world of the 
> soul, i.e. mysticism.

The Rambam apparently considered this a purely scientific belief, and
maintained that Aristotle believed the same thing; I don't think there
was anything mystical about it from his perspective.

> With this, I have also replied to your other question. However, I would like 
> to stress that even if you were to deny what I consider obvious, meaning that 
> you would deny that mystical experiences can be real and valid even according 
> to rationalist philosophers, I care to stress that Ashkenaz clearly accepted 
> mysticism, as we see the numerous references to angelology, as in Makhnisei 
> Ra'hamim and Midat haRa'hamim 'Aleinu Hitgalgeli. Thus, the Ashkenaz that 
> rejected the popularization of kabbalah and may be never even accepted the 
> authoritative character that some other circles granted it, this same 
> Ashkenaz clearly accepted Jewish mysticism as a concept.
> 
> Hence there is no contradition between accepting the mystical concept of 'eit 
> ratzon regarding seli'hot, and rejecting the inclusion of kabbalistic prayers 
> or minhaggim.

No quarrel with this.

> Kind regards & gemar tov,
> -- 
> Arie Folger
> http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On 9/24/07, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> On account of this post, I took my trusted Moreh Nevukhim (thank you for
> the
> impetus) and turned to the latter part of the third section, and sure
> enough,
> chapters 50 and 51 seem difficult to read as an ultrarationalist. One must
> be
> careful, however, as you already pointed out, to consider that there are
> things which we may consider to be nonrational, such as the soul, which
> for
> the Rambam fit into Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. However, this
> does
> not detract from my observation that Rambam knows some kind of mysticism.
> IOW, Rambam's rationalism included some nonrationalism in it, for it
> seemed
> rational to him to include some nonrationalism.
>
>
> My point was that the existence of RSG's philosophical commentary on Sefer
> Yetzira does not require that SY was read rationalistically only. Somehow,
> barring explicit statements to that effect on Rambam's part, I would
> consider
> such a view very difficult.
>
>
> Kol tuv,
> --
>

I posted years ago that Qabbalh and Mysticism were not identical - albeit
overlapping. A Sephardic haCham confirmed this to me recently.

He confieded to methat Mysitcism as exemplefied by Nevi'im and beni nevi'im
is an old honorable Jewish Tradition to "encounter the Divine" etc.

Qabbalah is OTOH some kind of system [I was fuzzy as to exactly WHAT kind]
and he claimed it  has many questionable problems with Sephiros and other
structures which would never fit a purely Maimonidean concept of  Yichud
Hashem.  [for parallels see Selichos such as Macchnisei Rahcamim or "na kol
Middah nechona, etc."]

Back to Tanach: Some of the Purest forms of Mysticism can be found in
Tehillm and Shir haShirim. And some Jewish forms of Rationalism can easily
be noted in Mishlei and Kohelles.   Therefore, both Rationlism and Mysticism
are native to Judaism

He concluded that Qabbalah was  a form of  mysticism heavily influenced by
Babylonia and Eastern philosophies, while Rambam was influenced by
Aristotle and Western Philosophies.

Years ago I taught a class on Ratonalism and Msyticism and I showed that
there were a series of many 'Rational Mystics."  Some Great Examplars
include the RambaN, Maharal miPrague and the Gra, RambaM might fit tis mold
too, albeit his mysticism seems divorced from pure Qabbalah .

-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070924/ccc9cec9/attachment.html 

On 9/23/07, Dov Bloom <dovb@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote in response to R Micha's question:
> I have heard TWO versions.
> Version A  - The yekkishe Minhag is pre-Ari etc. and therfore NEVER
> incorporated Brich  Shemi etc.
> Version B  - The Yekkes reacted to Shabtai Zvi and therfore removed
> kabbalah AFTERWARDS
> ...I favor Version B but note that  I suspect some Shlah influence  [e.gtikkun leil Shavuos] but NOT Lurianic stuff.  [
> E.G. no Psalm 30 before Barcu She'amar]
>
> I (DB) favor version A.
>
> Ashkenaz poskim Rishonim and Achronim  stressed the minhag very much.
> There is a famous Maharil that especially on issues connected with Tfila
> one should respect the minhag and not even change the tunes in shul!
>
> We know the "yekkim" coined the phrase "minhag avoteinu Torah Hi".
>
> See Magen Avraham on SA OH 690 22 who stresses the importance of following
> minhag, quoting the Tshuvot HaRamah besheim HaMaharik on not abandoning a
> minhag, and explaining the principle "minhag oker halacha".
>
> WRT Berich Shmei, Siddur Avodat Yisrael of Baer says in place of his
> regular commentary in Shacharit of Shabbat (p 222) (my translation) "Berich
> Shmei has been copied into the new (!) siddurim from the Zohar...".
>
> On page 122,Shacharit of weekdays, he says clearly that Berich Shmei is
> not found in the 2 important 16 century siddurim that he quotes from all the
> time , "gam beKitvei Yad uv'chol siddur yashan einenu, veHaAcharonim
> he'etiku mi-Zohar al-pi HaAri....ve'Yaan ki beharbeh kehilot Ashkenaz ein
> omrim oto lo aarich be'peirusho" (neither is it found in the siddur
> manuscripts nor in any old siddur, and the Achronim [he means here
> newcomers, Johnny-come-latelys, not poskim achronim] copied it from the
> Zohar according to the Ari. Since many Ashkenazic communities don't say it I
> won't bother commenting on it....). [ad can leshono]
>
> So R Seligman Baer who extensively studied the Ashkenazi Siddurim in old
> printed versions and manuscripts says nothing to indicate RRW's Version B,
> that Berich Shmei was ever included in Ashkenazi tfila and later excluded
> because of SZ. If there were MSS or siddurim to evidence, he would quote
> them (see below on Kabbalat Shabbat).
>
> RRW correctly brings a parallel. Mizmor Shir Hanukat HaBayit LeDavid,
> which is a late addition (less than 200 years) is not found in Yekke
> siddurim.
>
> I may add that Baer and Heidenheim also don't print Thilim 27 LeDavid, H
> Ori VeYishi, which Litvaks say from RH Elul thru Sukkot. That is also a very
> very late addition so the classic Yekkim of course didn't add it to their
> siddurim, because "minhag avoteinu Torah Hi". Neither do they repeat
> Zecher-Zeicher on Shabbat Zachor, which has become popular only in the last
> decades and has been discussed on Avodah extensively before.
>
> One late addition which did find its way into the Yekke Siddurim is
> Kabbalat Shabbat. Baer correctly notes that all of the Kitvei Yad don't have
> Kabbalat Shabbat, and "lo yad'u hakadmonim davar me-amiratam beleil
> Shabbat....". He quoted the Mate Moshe in 1615 as still not having it, and
> says he found it first mentioned by Yosif Ometz in 1630. He (grudgingly?)
> quotes the Ya'avetz as having it in his siddur "Al pi haRamak" (Cordovero).
> He identifies the time of the Ramak and goes on to include Kabbalat Shabbat
> in his Siddur and even comments on it, unlike Berich Shmei....


Indeed.  IIRC Rav Schwab attributed the curiosity of many with Breu'ers
davening as an opportunity to daven with "Minhag Rishonim."

There is no question that Brich Shmei was never native to Yekkishe davening,
The question might be: did it creep in somehow after ARIzal and was
subsequently removed following Shabtai Zvi?  I agree that this is unlikely.
But I also repeat that the Elokeichem for Shabbas Shuva is AFAIK the only
one present in the Roedelheim [BOTH Siddur & Machazor] that IS omitted by
Breuer's - ostensibly because of the initials Shin Tzaddi.


-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070924/54c84e42/attachment.htm 

Celejar (or possibly RAF?) wrote:
>
> While I am aware that there is evidence of
> Sufi influence in the thought of various thinkers who lived and wrote
> in Islamic civilizations, I would like to see justification for this
> claim about the Rambam.
>
>   

> R. Abraham Maimonides says very flattering things about the Sufis (IIRC he describes them as, of his contemporaries, the closest in behavior to the Biblical prophets).  I don't know to what extent his father agreed with that opinion, but he's very careful never actually to disagree with his father.

David Riceman

On 9/24/07, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
>
> Celejar (or possibly RAF?) wrote:
>
> > R. Abraham Maimonides says very flattering things about the Sufis (IIRC
> he describes them as, of his contemporaries, the closest in behavior to the
> Biblical prophets).  I don't know to what extent his father agreed with that
> opinion, but he's very careful never actually to disagree with his father.
>
> David Riceman
> _______________________________________________
>

I don't know if R. Avraham disagreed with his father or not but his bent
towards Sui'ism is seen as a break from his father's philosophy.

Or to frame it another way, R. Avraham's hashkafa migth have been 180
degrees differnet from his father but he did not necesarily rebel against
his father nor did he see his father WRONG in any way. He just might have
needed a different derech for himself.

And he might have even defended his father's position [both Hlachically and
Hashkafically] w/o  agreeing with  him on the overall approach.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Transcendent God and and an immortal soul MUST have had elements of
Mysticism in his outlook. He just did not have  a mystical system akin to
"Qabblah". I am confident he saw Transcendental themes in the Merkava
literature etc.

He probably simply did not believe in MAGIC, that miracles literally
happened like changing vinegar to oil willy-nilly on this plane.

Thre is a sugya in Yoma re: the mistake of seeing Moonbeams in the morning
and confusing it wtih Dawn. IIRC The Gemara [or the rishonim] reject that
event as being on Yom Kippur since the Moon is not in the proper position on
the 10th of the month to affect this phenomenon. I have always wondered: To
those who see "magical" stuff all the time in the Talmud, why not say that
this one incident MIRACULOUSLY happened on the 10th of Tishre? After all It
is a  better read into the Mishna in Yoma to presume that the g'zeria was
dealing with YK!  So what if it is astronomically impossible?

This kind of Magical read into the story I believe is what the Rambam
rejects.  The idea of
a Navi connecting in a "gnostic" way with God is an entirely other matter.

Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070924/8da5cd4f/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 204
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."