Anti-Maimonidean Demons
Visual Purple
I feel obliged to warn every Jew about the teachings of Rabbi Moshe
ben Nachman (Nachmanides, the RaMba"N, not to be confused with the
RaMba"M.).
Go to thumbnail #45, which is page 47 of the text "Anti-Maimonidean
Demons":
http://www.chayas.com/AntiRAMBAM.pdf
I have checked the references concerning the Introduction to the
Ramban's biblical commentary and his biblical commenary concerning
Na'amah.
I have, sadly found what Rabbi Faur says to be accurate.
The RaMba"N clearly injected pseudo-Kabbalah, the worst of it, into
Judaism, into the very heart and Soul of Judaism - החומש.
I was shocked and hurt to read this.
D2
Micha Berger
> I feel obliged to warn every Jew about the teachings of Rabbi Moshe
> ben Nachman (Nachmanides, the RaMba"N, not to be confused with the
> RaMba"M.).
> I have, sadly found what Rabbi Faur says to be accurate.
> The RaMba"N clearly injected pseudo-Kabbalah, the worst of it, into
> Judaism, into the very heart and Soul of Judaism - ??????????.
No, the Ramban injected real Qaballah, nothing pseudo about it.
But how is that any worse than injecting Aristotilian and neo-Platonic
philosophy, as the Rambam did? Yes, he reached non-Aristotilian
conclusions, but did so by assuming Aristotle's basic worldview, eg WRT
form vs substance, essence vs accident (and the types of accidental
properties), types of causases, etc... The result was a vision of
Negative Theology so austere, it required major reinterpretation of
every passage in Tanakh and Talmuds that imply someone having a personal
relationship with G-d. (To M, closeness to G-d means having fewer errors
in understanding what He isn't.)
Qabbalah, OTOH, is risky in that it gets the person to spend a lot of
time paying attention to the real between G-d and Creation. If Judaism
is likened to how to drive the car, Qabbalah is auto mechanics. How to
understand the creation and running of the world in terms of the Or Ein
Sof (kind of like emanation, but Willfull). Such paying attention to the
process is very close to how idolatry got started the first time around.
We worship G-d, not process and middlemen (whether angelic or metaphoric,
or even if that distinction is a real one).
It is Faur's choice of mythos that a model based on the Greeks and
ibn Sinna is more authentic than one based on Sefer haYetzirah, the
Heichalot literature, and other esoteric sources. While one can ask
how much of the Zohar emerged when, and thus how much of the Qabbalah,
we can trace the evolution of Qabbalah to a point in time far earlier
than the introduction of Greek thought.
The world at the time was exploring theology, be it Christian
Scholasticism or the Moslem Kalam. We were raising the same questions,
and came up with a variety of answers. Both the Rationalists and the
Qabbalists came up with new answers to new Questions. And both answers
fit within the schema of Judaism.
Bottom line is that playing Jewish Philosophy is a tricky game, in that
there is no way to get theology right. G-d is incomprehensible. Any
valid model has value. Meaning: Any system of thought that accurately
explains some subset of the truth in terms we can comprehend, is as
valuable as the signficance of that subset. And each are as dangerous
as the opportunity to confuse model with reality.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance?
bows...@gmail.com
> Visual Purple <DoreenDo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, the Ramban injected real Qaballah, nothing pseudo about it.
It is pseudo-Jewish mysticism. It has nothing to do with the descent
into the Pardes, or ruwah haqqodesh. De Leon's family admitted he
wrote the Zohar in medieval Spain.
> But how is that any worse than injecting Aristotilian and neo-Platonic
> philosophy, as the Rambam did?
You cnfuse using biig words and assumptions. The Fact is there are no
Maimonideans who are either, then or now.
They considered Aristotle to represent the best at the time of gentile
science. At least he did not posit all kinds of pseudo beings as
driving reality, as was the fashion in medieval Europe up until the
Renaissance.
> Yes, he reached non-Aristotilian
> conclusions, but did so by assuming Aristotle's basic worldview, eg WRT
> form vs substance, essence vs accident (and the types of accidental
> properties), types of causases, etc...
And he explicitly rejected Aristotelian Physics and metaphysics in the
Guide! You have not suceeded in properly reading it! Precisely the
intent of Maimonides. The guide has some intellectual labyrinths in
it to prevent the non-prepared from seeing its true message.
> The result was a vision of
> Negative Theology so austere, it required major reinterpretation of
> every passage in Tanakh and Talmuds that imply someone having a personal
> relationship with G-d.
That's is a naked conclusion and also ridiculous. Unless re-
interperet means in a way you and your ilk do not read Tora.
> (To M, closeness to G-d means having fewer errors
> in understanding what He isn't.)
Nope. It means comunicating alphabetically with God in a two way
dialogue.
> Qabbalah, OTOH, is risky in that it gets the person to spend a lot of
> time paying attention to the real between G-d and Creation.
And demons, and analphabetic imagination passing as "spiritual
entities."
> If Judaism
> is likened to how to drive the car, Qabbalah is auto mechanics.
No. It is reading a children's book on how a car operates.
> How to
> understand the creation and running of the world in terms of the Or Ein
> Sof (kind of like emanation, but Willfull).
Not willful. Precisely R. Yehuda Halevi's point. Pagan emantaions
leads you to a "God" subject to certain universal rules. Hardly a
freely choosing being!
> Such paying attention to the
> process is very close to how idolatry got started the first time around.
That's not really it. Not as Maimonides explains it based on rabbinic
sources, anyway.
> We worship G-d, not process and middlemen (whether angelic or metaphoric,
> or even if that distinction is a real one).
> It is Faur's choice of mythos that a model based on the Greeks and
> ibn Sinna is more authentic than one based on Sefer haYetzirah, the
> Heichalot literature, and other esoteric sources.
It was Maimonides! And all the members of his culture and tradition.
Please get things straight, huh?
> While one can ask
> how much of the Zohar emerged when, and thus how much of the Qabbalah,
> we can trace the evolution of Qabbalah to a point in time far earlier
> than the introduction of Greek thought.
So pagan influence existed in the Babylonian communities, who, ah,
lived in pagan Persia. So?
> The world at the time was exploring theology, be it Christian
> Scholasticism or the Moslem Kalam. We were raising the same questions,
> and came up with a variety of answers.
Not true. Not at ALL!
Theology is a non-Jewish idea. Theo-logia? Describe God? "For none
shall see me and live." "I am that I am"
> Both the Rationalists and the
> Qabbalists came up with new answers to new Questions.
Maimonideans are not "rationalists." They are traditional Jews. Only
modern academics seem to desire some bipolar specturm, each side of
which is a gentile based thought pattern.
> And both answers
> fit within the schema of Judaism.
Say you. Maimonides said no, in spades.
Just accept it.
> Bottom line is that playing Jewish Philosophy is a tricky game, in that
> there is no way to get theology right.
Which is why Maimonideans do not bother at all with "Jewish
Philosohpy"
> G-d is incomprehensible. Any
> valid model has value.
Tautology! Who gets to say what is "valid" You? Kabbalists in
backwater provincial Spain? Or the Tosefta in Hagiga? (which rejected
ALL models)
> Meaning: Any system of thought that accurately
> explains some subset of the truth in terms we can comprehend, is as
> valuable as the signficance of that subset.
And again, who ghests to judge "accurate"? Someone who accepts the
necromancy of Nahmanides? The demonology? Modern Kabbalist sorcerers
in Israel?
> And each are as dangerous
> as the opportunity to confuse model with reality.
The guide is precisely about how to free your mind from all such
models (and linguistic preconceptions that assume them) as regards
God.
> Tir'u baTov!
It is not so easy. One must perceive it, which requires a valid
tradition and humility.
> -Micha
Yisroel Markov
Berger) said:
>Visual Purple <Doree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I feel obliged to warn every Jew about the teachings of Rabbi Moshe
>> ben Nachman (Nachmanides, the RaMba"N, not to be confused with the
>> RaMba"M.).
>..
>> I have, sadly found what Rabbi Faur says to be accurate.
>
>> The RaMba"N clearly injected pseudo-Kabbalah, the worst of it, into
>> Judaism, into the very heart and Soul of Judaism - ??????????.
>
>No, the Ramban injected real Qaballah, nothing pseudo about it.
You and Jacko can argue about this with a lot more firepower than I
have. I'll ask you just one question: how do you, Micha Berger, feel
about these ideas of Ramban's? R' Faur didn't make up these quotes. I
looked up the ones in the article that are from his Commentary on the
Tora. What do you think about the idea that Moshe-rabeinu was who he
was largely due to his upbringing in Paro's palace and all the demonic
and necromantic knowledge he had acquired there? "The wisdom of
necromancy"? The blatantly pagan idea that knowing and uttering secret
names of God can give the wielder magic power over real things? Is R'
Faur spinning these quotes unfairly?
If this is what "real Qabbalah" is about, I for one want no part of
it.
[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Yisroel Markov
>On Apr 27, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
[snip]
>> The result was a vision of
>> Negative Theology so austere, it required major reinterpretation of
>> every passage in Tanakh and Talmuds that imply someone having a personal
>> relationship with G-d.
>
>That's is a naked conclusion and also ridiculous. Unless re-
>interperet means in a way you and your ilk do not read Tora.
His vision does require reading a lot of passages allegorically,
doesn't it? What about king Shaul summoning the spirit of Shmuel? And
what about the numerous mentions of demons and witchcraft in the
Gemara?
[snip]
>> If Judaism
>> is likened to how to drive the car, Qabbalah is auto mechanics.
>
>No. It is reading a children's book on how a car operates.
More like reading a non-mechanic's guesses on how a car operates,
doesn't it? "Turning a wheel summons a host of angels, one of which
looks at the wheel, instructs a second one to communicate with a band
of lesser angels sitting next to the wheel, rubbing shoulders with the
angels who turn the wheel, and this causes light to shine on the band
of lesser angels, which enables them to turn the wheels."
>> How to
>> understand the creation and running of the world in terms of the Or Ein
>> Sof (kind of like emanation, but Willfull).
>
>Not willful. Precisely R. Yehuda Halevi's point.
Speaking of which - what do you make of claims that Rambam disagreed
with R' Halevi's understanding of the nature of holiness and Jewish
uniqueness?
yaco...@aol.com
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:16:33 +0000 (UTC), bowse...@gmail.com said:
>
> >On Apr 27, 12:43 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The result was a vision of
> >> Negative Theology so austere, it required major reinterpretation of
> >> every passage in Tanakh and Talmuds that imply someone having a personal
> >> relationship with G-d.
>
> >That's is a naked conclusion and also ridiculous. Unless re-
> >interperet means in a way you and your ilk do not read Tora.
>
> His vision does require reading a lot of passages allegorically,
> doesn't it? What about king Shaul summoning the spirit of Shmuel? And
> what about the numerous mentions of demons and witchcraft in the
> Gemara?
Yes.
What about the delusions Saul was undergoing, repeatedly described as
"ruwwah ra'ah"?
(these are connected)
Maimonides tells you what they refer to, based entirely on Rabbinic
sources.
E.g, Lillith is actually Eve, post expulsion and for 130 years
subsequent.
Allegory -- like prophecy -- is central to Judaism!
"Kilshon bene adam" can refer to the top 10% just as well as the
bottom 10%, no?
> >> If Judaism
> >> is likened to how to drive the car, Qabbalah is auto mechanics.
>
> >No. It is reading a children's book on how a car operates.
> More like reading a non-mechanic's guesses on how a car operates,
> doesn't it? "Turning a wheel summons a host of angels, one of which
> looks at the wheel, instructs a second one to communicate with a band
> of lesser angels sitting next to the wheel, rubbing shoulders with the
> angels who turn the wheel, and this causes light to shine on the band
> of lesser angels, which enables them to turn the wheels."
Sadaqta mimmeni!
> >Not willful. Precisely R. Yehuda Halevi's point.
>
> Speaking of which - what do you make of claims that Rambam disagreed
> with R' Halevi's understanding of the nature of holiness and Jewish
> uniqueness?
Nonsense. But a favorite canard designed to disconnect the two, so as
to spin Maimonides as a lone "genius" who "we don't follow."
They shared a culture!
Maimonides recited the same berakhoth that encode such natures. He
also felt revelation was **necessary** to be Jewish and to have Jewish
prophecy, ergo this is not something attainable by man without Divine
Providence.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Salaam,
Jacko
Micha Berger
> You and Jacko can argue about this with a lot more firepower than I
> have. I'll ask you just one question: how do you, Micha Berger, feel
I avoid Qabbalah. Traditionally, it was understood to be a dangerous
model for theological questions in that there are a myriad of possible
misunderstandings that are downright avodah zarah (roughly: idolotrous).
I dabble in Maimonides. Took the time to peruse the Greeks in order to
better understand R' Saadia Gaon, the Guide, the Kuzari, Ohr Hashem,
and Shaar haYichud of Chovos haLvavos. There I could likely have
misunderstandings, but they're not likely to be avodah zarah.
But that whole realm doesn't appeal to me because classical Greek
philosophy doesn't ask or address today's questions.
The poster who said I didn't understand M because I thought he was
Aristotilian doesn't get my point. Being Kalam or Scholastic isn't about
agreeing with Aristo or Plotinus (neoPlatonism). It's about using their
model of the world. Asking their questions.
But even so, M didn't reject all that much of Aristo. He still felt that
every action starts with intellect and will, which then imparts impetus to
an object, turning potential into actual, and the impetus eventually runs
out. This kind of physics underlies M's understanding of the planets, of
angels, and even of how one interprets half the "attributes" of G-d. His
proof of the eternity of G-d as First Cause relies on form vs substance,
an Aristotilian distinction accepted by the Qabbalists as well. As well
as his particular model of causality, his notion that forms degrade with
time (a precursor to the concept of entropy based on the aforementioned
bit about impetus not being conserved), etc...
M's argument in III:18 that someone is more human the more knowledge of
G-d he has is siding with Aristo that man is animae rationis. Although
Swift, in GFulliver's travels, has a Huynhmhm scholar point our attention
to the next word -- "capax" (that it's our ability to think rather than
thought itself that defines our humanity). And this underlies his entire
ethic. He follows Aristo on the notion that men sin because we don't know
well enough. A failure of knowledge rather than of desire or middos. Thus
to know G-d is to love G-d is to act like G-d -- experimental evidence
to the contrary not withstanding.
(Arguably any of Greek philosophy could have originated as a Jewish
thought taught to the Babylonians when we were their court mages during
the Babylonian Exile, and from there to the Greeks. After all, Greece
picked up much from our Babylonian and Phoenician neighbors, and the
Tanakh says they in turn were learning from our prophets. We don't
have records of how thought evolved before the Milesian School. Thales
obviously had predecessors. In any case...)
> looked up the ones in the article that are from his Commentary on the
> Tora. What do you think about the idea that Moshe-rabeinu was who he
> was largely due to his upbringing in Paro's palace and all the demonic
> and necromantic knowledge he had acquired there? "The wisdom of
> necromancy"? The blatantly pagan idea that knowing and uttering secret
> names of God can give the wielder magic power over real things? Is R'
> Faur spinning these quotes unfairly?
There are rationalist Mequbalism who understand Qabbalah as a semniotic
/ symbology system. Whatever the book of Samuel and the Talmud mean
by these things the Qabbalah does. I don't know what that is, but the
addition of Qabbalah isn't what creates these questions.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission?
Yisroel Markov
Berger) said:
>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
>> You and Jacko can argue about this with a lot more firepower than I
>> have. I'll ask you just one question: how do you, Micha Berger, feel
>> about these ideas of Ramban's? ...
>
>I avoid Qabbalah. Traditionally, it was understood to be a dangerous
>model for theological questions in that there are a myriad of possible
>misunderstandings that are downright avodah zarah (roughly: idolotrous).
Thank you. IMHO, this also constitutes a response to the original
poster: today's observant Jews can utilize Ramban - or anyone else -
without necessarily buying into every single idea of his.
bows...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:18:50 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
> Berger) said:
>
> >> You and Jacko can argue about this with a lot more firepower than I
> >> have. I'll ask you just one question: how do you, Micha Berger, feel
> >> about these ideas of Ramban's? ...
>
> >I avoid Qabbalah. Traditionally, it was understood to be a dangerous
> >model for theological questions in that there are a myriad of possible
> >misunderstandings that are downright avodah zarah (roughly: idolotrous).
>
> Thank you. IMHO, this also constitutes a response to the original
> poster: today's observant Jews can utilize Ramban - or anyone else -
> without necessarily buying into every single idea of his.
Of course that would run contrary to Deutoronomy 12:30-31.
Also to the concern regarding R. Meir and Elisha ben Abuya hashed out
in Babli Hagiga Pereq
En Dorshin.
Also, finally, to Maimonides' parable of the beasts in one's house who
all seem to have exited, in Guide 2:38.
There are mental processes that operate whether or not one "buys in"
to Nahmanides' necromancy, magical medicine, propitiation of the
Devil, etc., etc.
Is it worth retrogressing to the Catalonian Middle Ages?
Yisroel Markov
>On May 1, 3:34 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:18:50 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>> Berger) said:
>>
>> >Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@munginame.com> wrote:
>> >> You and Jacko can argue about this with a lot more firepower than I
>> >> have. I'll ask you just one question: how do you, Micha Berger, feel
>> >> about these ideas of Ramban's? ...
>>
>> >I avoid Qabbalah. Traditionally, it was understood to be a dangerous
>> >model for theological questions in that there are a myriad of possible
>> >misunderstandings that are downright avodah zarah (roughly: idolotrous).
>>
>> Thank you. IMHO, this also constitutes a response to the original
>> poster: today's observant Jews can utilize Ramban - or anyone else -
>> without necessarily buying into every single idea of his.
>
>Of course that would run contrary to Deutoronomy 12:30-31.
Did everything the Ramban ever put forward come from the idolatrous
Gentiles?
>Also to the concern regarding R. Meir and Elisha ben Abuya hashed out
>in Babli Hagiga Pereq En Dorshin.
>
>Also, finally, to Maimonides' parable of the beasts in one's house who
>all seem to have exited, in Guide 2:38.
>
>There are mental processes that operate whether or not one "buys in"
>to Nahmanides' necromancy, magical medicine, propitiation of the
>Devil, etc., etc.
Alas, these are not limited to the Ramban. I recently attended a Habad
farbrengen in my community. I had to leave after half an hour - the
witchcraft talk and the near-maniacal centeredness of everything on
the Rebbe, Rebbe, Rebbe just got to be too much. The Ramban may have
been one of those who legitimized such notions to many Jews, but he
was far from alone.
>Is it worth retrogressing to the Catalonian Middle Ages?
No, but I don't think that this is what's happening every time someone
quotes the Ramban in a "drosheh". No more than people becoming
Maimonideans by quoting his works, which happens quite a lot.
yaco...@aol.com
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:38 +0000 (UTC), bowse...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Thank you. IMHO, this also constitutes a response to the original
> >> poster: today's observant Jews can utilize Ramban - or anyone else -
> >> without necessarily buying into every single idea of his.
>
> >Of course that would run contrary to Deutoronomy 12:30-31.
>
> Did everything the Ramban ever put forward come from the idolatrous
> Gentiles?
Not my point. In his youth Ramban was a fine hakham. Then somethign
changed at some point.I believe it is he discovered that his maternal
grandmother, who he shared with Rabbenu Yona, had two husbands,
butnever divorced the first.
After that, he embraced the French and th emystics with zeal. This
mystical bent and the entire mind set and world view is thoroughly
mixed up in everything he wrote after that.
You want to pick and choose. The sources I provided say that is
impossible. They look at things holistically.
A human mind is a hologram. Every piece encodes the whole.
What possible aboda zara does a nice Easter Bonnet have? And yet, we
are commanded not to adopt the nice and beautifula nd pleasant rituals
of gentiles -- "ki gam et benehem ve'et benotehem yisrefu ba'esh
lelohehem."
The latter is an intimate part of the former, and vice versa.
> Alas, these are not limited to the Ramban. I recently attended a Habad
> farbrengen in my community. I had to leave after half an hour - the
> witchcraft talk and the near-maniacal centeredness of everything on
> the Rebbe, Rebbe, Rebbe just got to be too much. The Ramban may have
> been one of those who legitimized such notions to many Jews, but he
> was far from alone.
He makes it appear that these things you witnessed were "always part
of Judaism" and a "legitimate expression of our faith." You buy that?
> >Is it worth retrogressing to the Catalonian Middle Ages?
>
> No, but I don't think that this is what's happening every time someone
> quotes the Ramban in a "drosheh".
I am not so sure. Modern Judaism is very close to the same mental
world of Ramban. We speak scientifically at times, but, just like the
faithful gentiles, when it comes to "faith"and "religion" any radical
metaphysics is acceptable, as long as there is a book written in
Hebrew that expresses it.
Quoting Ramban makes peoplein the audience who are trying to get out
of this "well, think it is okay." How many young men, looking for
guidance, seeing the "rabbi" give this "droshe" are precluded from
individuating for another ten, fifteen, twenty years?
> No more than people becoming
> Maimonideans by quoting his works, which happens quite a lot.
Not the same.
Not everyone can be an athlete, so wearing a jersey and fancy tennis
shoes is not going to get you there. But it does no harm if you do.
But people in bad physical shape should avoid potato chips and sugar-
carbs and soda pop completely.
If they want to become healthy, that is.
Jacko
Yisroel Markov
>On May 4, 4:34 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:38 +0000 (UTC), bowse...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>
>> >> Thank you. IMHO, this also constitutes a response to the original
>> >> poster: today's observant Jews can utilize Ramban - or anyone else -
>> >> without necessarily buying into every single idea of his.
>>
>> >Of course that would run contrary to Deutoronomy 12:30-31.
>>
>> Did everything the Ramban ever put forward come from the idolatrous
>> Gentiles?
>
>Not my point. In his youth Ramban was a fine hakham. Then somethign
>changed at some point.I believe it is he discovered that his maternal
>grandmother, who he shared with Rabbenu Yona, had two husbands,
>but never divorced the first.
What is the source of this information, please?
>After that, he embraced the French and th emystics with zeal. This
>mystical bent and the entire mind set and world view is thoroughly
>mixed up in everything he wrote after that.
>
>You want to pick and choose. The sources I provided say that is
>impossible. They look at things holistically.
But doesn't every major Jewish figure stand on the shoulders of those
who came before? Doesn't every one of them utilize whatever he found
worthwhile in the legacy of his predecessors? How holistic was Rambam,
for example - "accept the truth from whatever source"?
Abarbanel had famously said of Rambam: "The good we accept and the bad
we don't." I haven't seen many references to necromancy or witchcraft
from those who quote Ramban today.
Or are you talking about something else entirely?
>A human mind is a hologram. Every piece encodes the whole.
>
>What possible aboda zara does a nice Easter Bonnet have? And yet, we
>are commanded not to adopt the nice and beautifula nd pleasant rituals
>of gentiles -- "ki gam et benehem ve'et benotehem yisrefu ba'esh
>lelohehem."
>
>The latter is an intimate part of the former, and vice versa.
>
>> Alas, these are not limited to the Ramban. I recently attended a Habad
>> farbrengen in my community. I had to leave after half an hour - the
>> witchcraft talk and the near-maniacal centeredness of everything on
>> the Rebbe, Rebbe, Rebbe just got to be too much. The Ramban may have
>> been one of those who legitimized such notions to many Jews, but he
>> was far from alone.
>
>He makes it appear that these things you witnessed were "always part
>of Judaism" and a "legitimate expression of our faith." You buy that?
Hell no. He's not alone... but I just found a page (on vbm-torah.org)
that attributes to him "a towering influence in the debate between
Aristotelianism as advocated by the Rambam and the traditional
approach", or WTTE. So you have a point - undermining the influence of
Ramban may be a necessary pre-requisite to ridding Judaism of such
notions.
>> >Is it worth retrogressing to the Catalonian Middle Ages?
>>
>> No, but I don't think that this is what's happening every time someone
>> quotes the Ramban in a "drosheh".
>
>I am not so sure. Modern Judaism is very close to the same mental
>world of Ramban. We speak scientifically at times, but, just like the
>faithful gentiles, when it comes to "faith"and "religion" any radical
>metaphysics is acceptable, as long as there is a book written in
>Hebrew that expresses it.
>
>Quoting Ramban makes peoplein the audience who are trying to get out
>of this "well, think it is okay." How many young men, looking for
>guidance, seeing the "rabbi" give this "droshe" are precluded from
>individuating for another ten, fifteen, twenty years?
>
>> No more than people becoming
>> Maimonideans by quoting his works, which happens quite a lot.
>
>Not the same.
>
>Not everyone can be an athlete, so wearing a jersey and fancy tennis
>shoes is not going to get you there. But it does no harm if you do.
>But people in bad physical shape should avoid potato chips and sugar-
>carbs and soda pop completely.
Interesting analogy. Was this a part of the mystics' appeal vs.
Rambam's approach - "attach yourself to the tzaddik, the fount of
mystical wisdom, and ride his coattails to Paradise" vs. "do all this
work, and even so, you may not become an athlete"?
>If they want to become healthy, that is.
meir b.
> In his youth Ramban was a fine hakham. Then somethign
> changed at some point.I believe it is he discovered that his maternal
> grandmother, who he shared with Rabbenu Yona, had two husbands,
> but never divorced the first.
>
> After that, he embraced the French and the mystics with zeal. This
> mystical bent and the entire mind set and world view is thoroughly
> mixed up in everything he wrote after that.
What is the source of the first paragraph, and how does the
second paragraph follow from it?
Meir
yaco...@aol.com
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:26:06 +0000 (UTC), yacova...@aol.com said:
>
>
>
>
> >Not my point. In his youth Ramban was a fine hakham. Then somethign
> >changed at some point.I believe it is he discovered that his maternal
> >grandmother, who he shared with Rabbenu Yona, had two husbands,
> >but never divorced the first.
>
> What is the source of this information, please?
Iggereth Qena'oth. Was reprinted at teh back of Qobes Teshuboth
HaRambam, Leipzig.
There is also something cllaed Iggereth Menahoth, I believe.
Both provide correspondence between D. Qamhi and the French and
Ramban.
> But doesn't every major Jewish figure stand on the shoulders of those
> who came before? Doesn't every one of them utilize whatever he found
> worthwhile in the legacy of his predecessors? How holistic was Rambam,
> for example - "accept the truth from whatever source"?
That regards science. Regarding Tora, he used his Jewish values to
distinguish.
> Abarbanel had famously said of Rambam: "The good we accept and the bad
> we don't."
And the bad was . . . ?
> I haven't seen many references to necromancy or witchcraft
> from those who quote Ramban today.
They get close. Magic exists and is real, there is a "shefa" of the
stars, etc.
> Hell no. He's not alone... but I just found a page (on vbm-torah.org)
> that attributes to him "a towering influence in the debate between
> Aristotelianism as advocated by the Rambam and the traditional
> approach", or WTTE.
Maimonides only accepted the physics of A, and only as regards planet
Earth.
He rejected in toto his notion of God, and of providence. Guide III,
15-18.
The theories about the Aristotelianism of Maimonides are mostly
nonsense. Held by those unwilling to read the Guide in the original.
Science is not "philosophy."
> So you have a point - undermining the influence of
> Ramban may be a necessary pre-requisite to ridding Judaism of such
> notions.
It aint just Ramban, however.
> >Not everyone can be an athlete, so wearing a jersey and fancy tennis
> >shoes is not going to get you there. But it does no harm if you do.
> >But people in bad physical shape should avoid potato chips and sugar-
> >carbs and soda pop completely.
>
> Interesting analogy. Was this a part of the mystics' appeal vs.
> Rambam's approach - "attach yourself to the tzaddik, the fount of
> mystical wisdom, and ride his coattails to Paradise" vs. "do all this
> work, and even so, you may not become an athlete"?
Vicarious spritiual advancement. Like losing weight by taking a pill
and they tell you "you can eat anything you want to."
> >If they want to become healthy, that is.
Indeed.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
1. Iggereth Qena'oth/Iggereth Menahoth.
2. Psychological compensation.
Jacko
meir b.
> On May 5, 3:47 pm, "meir b." <meir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 8:26 am, yacova...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > In his youth Ramban was a fine hakham. Then somethign
> > > changed at some point.I believe it is he discovered that his maternal
> > > grandmother, who he shared with Rabbenu Yona, had two husbands,
> > > but never divorced the first.
>
> > > After that, he embraced the French and the mystics with zeal. This
> > > mystical bent and the entire mind set and world view is thoroughly
> > > mixed up in everything he wrote after that.
>
> > What is the source of the first paragraph, and how does the
> > second paragraph follow from it?
> 1. Iggereth Qena'oth/Iggereth Menahoth.
I have access to that sefer. Do you have a page number?
> 2. Psychological compensation.
Amateur psychology on your part?
Meir