A Question about The Tzimtzum...
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
tzimtzum. Where/When did it first appear and who brought it to the
attention of the wider public?
I noticed that the concept, although there are many technical
differences, is, in essence, perfectly analogous to the concept of the
Calabi-Yau space in modern string-theory. In string theory, if it had
not been for the formation of the extremly small and compactified
Calabi-Yau space, our world of 3-spatial 1 temporal dimensions would
not be possible. The function served by the Calabi-Yau space in string
theory is functionally the same as the tzimtzum in that, without it,
creation of our universe would not have occurred. Both systems offer a
purely geometric design for the compactified or contracted space and
both systems rely on that space as being the means of ensuring that
either energy or God's essence is distributed throughout our universe.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Pat
Rafael
news:1126952916.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pat, you're likely to get different answers depending upon your
correspondents' religious beliefs. (Yes, Judaism traditionally makes claims
which bear not only on metaphysics, but on history, as well.)
That said, I associate the doctrine of cosmic "tzimtzum" (divine
contraction) with the Medieval kabbalist, Isaac Luria, who lived in the 16th
Century in Egypt and Israel.
I'm not aware of an earlier textual appearance, although others may.
Rafael
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael,
Thank you!! I'm sorry I hadn't written back to thank you earlier,
but I had a Business trip to Chester to contend with and, I must admit,
I've been trying to do some reading regarding the Ari, whom you
mentioned as the source of the tzimtzum concept. From what I've read
elsewhere, the concept was developed by Luria, so consider yourself
vindicated. I have looked through Goole and it does seem that there
are a couple of websites that mention the Calabi-Yau space and the
tzimtzum together on the same page but have not equated one with the
other.
Personally, I find it spiritually refreshing to find that the most
modern and technically mathematical presentation for an explanation for
the universe in toto is supported by the some of the most complex
aspects of Jewish mysticism and vice versa. It's also equally
noteworthy that the only ancient and modern cosmological systems that
show, not only some support, but meticulous support for one another are
string theory and Judaism. I wish Einstein had been contemporary with
string theory, as I think his underlying belief that physics is HOW God
directs his creation would have leant a driving force to string
cosmology that it seems to lack without him.
I think I will take a serious look at Luria's works and those of
his students in the context of string theory and Einsteinian
deterministic physics together with the illusory appearance of quantum
phenomena and see if I can draw a few more similarities and
correspondences from it. Thanks, again, for your help.
Kind regards,
Pat
Rafael
news:1127327245.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pat,
This area is not my strong suit, but I've meaning to get my hands on a copy
of Daniel C. Matt's "God and the Big Bang", dealing with this same topic,
only by a scholar of Jewish mysticism. (I've read some other stuff by Matt,
which really impressed me.) He might add some useful historical background
(e.g. regarding Luria's influences).
Rafael
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael,
Thanks again for tip!! I'll try to look for it at my next trip to
the local Judaica shop. Last time I was there, I bought a copy of
Gerald Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang", which is also very good.
I'm in the process of reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the
Cosmos" at the moment, so I will read "God and the Big Bang" after
that. I always try to alternate between scientific works and religious
works but Matt's work will give me a chance to indulge both at the same
time.
It's nice to see that I'm not the only one around who sees that
these two fields use different language to speak about the same things.
And it's great to see that the form of religion that seems to be in
concert with science the most is Judaism. Thanks again!!
Cheers,
Pat
Rafael
news:1127420184....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Pat,
Woa, back up there! Greene's book is a decent book for lay folks (like me)
on physics (and has nothing to do with Bible, Judaism, or religion), but
Schroeder's work has been denounced by other experts as pseudo-science. See,
e.g., the following critiques:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html
For a more textual critique of Schroeder foray into biblical apologetics,
see the relevant section in Bible scholar Richard Elliot Friedman's "The
Hidden Face of God."
That there are some similarities between *Lurianic* (as opposed to Biblical)
cosmology and modern-scientific cosmology I grant you, but I wouldn't read
too much into that.
Rafael
PS: You needn't buy Matt's book. Just check your local library system for a
copy.
Lisa
PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was wondering about the development of the concept of the
> tzimtzum. Where/When did it first appear and who brought it to the
> attention of the wider public?
I don't know, but it's a fairly simple logical progression from more
basic ideas in Judaism.
We don't just say that there's only one God. We say that God *is* One.
We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
These are all biblical concepts.
So what does it mean that God is One? Well, consider a human being.
We are made up of multiple parts. Saying that God is One implies that
He is all of a piece, so to speak. Without divisions. A singularity,
in a sense that isn't always used. "That's all there is; there ain't
no more."
So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
and God is absolutely undifferentiated, doesn't that contradict the
obvious and observable fact that we exist and are separate from each
other and from the things around us?
If you say that we are a part of God, then you have God being
differentiated, and no longer One. If you say that we aren't, you have
a problem of God no longer being omnipresent, because where I am, He
isn't.
It's a paradox, and the only way out is to consider that things may not
be best defined the way we ordinarily do. When we say that God was
metzamtzem Himself, it doesn't mean that He created a space where He
isn't. Just a space that's... "shielded" from His full Self enough
that we can exist as differentiated elements of God.
It's not a comfortable solution, particularly from a rigorous point of
view, because it's essentially a bending of the rules. Or then again,
maybe it's not. Maybe it's simply a matter of perspective. From our
perspective, we're differentiated. But maybe from God's perspective,
that's not entirely the case. Maybe at some level we are One with God,
and we just don't perceive that at this time (or in this life).
Lisa
Rafael
news:1127498242.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was wondering about the development of the concept of the
> > tzimtzum. Where/When did it first appear and who brought it to the
> > attention of the wider public?
>
> I don't know, but it's a fairly simple logical progression from more
> basic ideas in Judaism.
>
> We don't just say that there's only one God. We say that God *is* One.
> We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
> world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
>
> These are all biblical concepts.
"YHVH echad" (God is One) is biblical, for sure.
But what are the biblical Hebrew equivalents of "omnipresent", "omnipotent",
and "omniscient"?
Those sound to me more like later (Greek-influenced) theological
formulations (albeit, inspired by the powerful biblical descriptions of
YHVH/Elohim).
> So what does it mean that God is One? Well, consider a human being.
> We are made up of multiple parts. Saying that God is One implies that
> He is all of a piece, so to speak. Without divisions. A singularity,
> in a sense that isn't always used. "That's all there is; there ain't
> no more."
The multiple parts (both mental and physical) add up to a single whole:
One = 1.0 or 100% (i.e. a proportional number)
The division is illusory. All is God (and God is Ayin, or No-Thing).
<snip>
Rafael
yaco...@aol.com
Lisa wrote:
> So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
> and God is absolutely undifferentiated, doesn't that contradict the
> obvious and observable fact that we exist and are separate from each
> other and from the things around us?
Not at all. God and people can both be in the same space and time and
not interfere with one another. When you say God *is* somewhere that
does not mean or at all require God to occupy space or dimension or
impinge on your space and dimension. The paradox ONLY exists if you
think about God in human terms.
Isaac Newton said exactly this. Curiously, he was a Maimonidean.
> If you say that we are a part of God, then you have God being
> differentiated, and no longer One. If you say that we aren't, you have
> a problem of God no longer being omnipresent, because where I am, He
> isn't.
Au contraire. He **is***, you just do not perceive Him there.
> It's a paradox, and the only way out is to consider that things may not
> be best defined the way we ordinarily do.
Indeed.
> When we say that God was
> metzamtzem Himself, it doesn't mean that He created a space where He
> isn't. Just a space that's... "shielded" from His full Self enough
> that we can exist as differentiated elements of God.
>
> It's not a comfortable solution, particularly from a rigorous point of
> view, because it's essentially a bending of the rules.
Which ones?
> Or then again,
> maybe it's not. Maybe it's simply a matter of perspective. From our
> perspective, we're differentiated. But maybe from God's perspective,
> that's not entirely the case. Maybe at some level we are One with God,
> and we just don't perceive that at this time (or in this life).
I doubt that very much. Judaism never asserted a common ground of
being between man and God; au contraire -- it posits a vast chasm --
requiring revelation to even know He is there.
Kabbala -- and "simsum" (that is actually how the Sephardi kabbalists
(including the half-Ashkenazi Luria) would have pronounced it) ---
needlessly muddy the waters, and move minds towards theories of some
"unity" of man and his creator.
> Lisa
Jacko
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
When I said Schroeder's book was very good I didn't mean to imply
that I was able to draw anything useful from it. His opinions are
interesting but, yes, they do tend to stray enough from "the beaten
path" to make the book interesting in the same way that the DaVinci
Code is interesting.
> That there are some similarities between *Lurianic* (as opposed to Biblical)
> cosmology and modern-scientific cosmology I grant you, but I wouldn't read
> too much into that.
>
As you might tell from my response to Lisa, I've developed my own
theory of how the two can go hand-in-hand. It takes a bit of thinking
outside the box but the system works. What I'm looking for are details
to tighten it up--evidence from both sides that make the whole fit
better with one another. The tzimtzum was a classical case in point.
I'm sure that there are others. Read my response to Lisa and let me
know what you think. The essence of my position is there, although it
is more developed than that. For example, if God is the only actor in
the system, it's no great wonder why He would refer to himself as "I am
that I am" when asked about His name.
Shlomo Argamon
yacova...@aol.com wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
>
> > So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
> > and God is absolutely undifferentiated, doesn't that contradict the
> > obvious and observable fact that we exist and are separate from each
> > other and from the things around us?
>
>
> Not at all. God and people can both be in the same space and time and
> not interfere with one another. When you say God *is* somewhere that
> does not mean or at all require God to occupy space or dimension or
> impinge on your space and dimension. The paradox ONLY exists if you
> think about God in human terms.
>
> Isaac Newton said exactly this. Curiously, he was a Maimonidean.
>
> > If you say that we are a part of God, then you have God being
> > differentiated, and no longer One. If you say that we aren't, you have
> > a problem of God no longer being omnipresent, because where I am, He
> > isn't.
>
> Au contraire. He **is***, you just do not perceive Him there.
Yup. Hu meqomo shel `olam, we'ein ha`olam meqomo.
:-)BB!!
-Shlomo-
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Essentially, you've cracked it. I have a theory, based on the
mechanisms of string theory, that allows for just that sort of
situation. If you shorten one of the dimensions of the Calabi-Yau
space to be exactly equal to the Planck length, you achieve, with
simple geometry, an amazing thing. In this dimension, there would only
be one place/point for energy, in the form of strings, to exist. This
extremely tiny dimension would effectively tie all the strings into one
unit and, thus, would mean that the entire universe is made of one
object of stringy energy. This energy, though, is conformed throughout
space-time in such a way--because of the geometry of space-time--to be
able to interact with itself in the ways that we see energy interact.
Because the "joining" occurs in a space that is not privy to our
space-time, the universe appears to be made of separate entities.
If this IS the case, then this object is everywhere that energy is
and is, thus, omnipresent. Because this object is the only actor in
the system, it is the ultimate performer of all actions and the
ultimate knower of all things doable and knowable; therefore, it is
also omnipotent and omniscient. So there is a way, at least within the
confines of string theory, to resolve the universe as we observe it and
define the whole thing as fitting the classical definition of God.
kepip...@hotmail.com
>
> Kabbala -- and "simsum" (that is actually how the Sephardi kabbalists
> (including the half-Ashkenazi Luria) would have pronounced it
Yes, they would have pronounced it simsum. But Strict Maimonideans are
not entirely divorced from the concept of simsum. If you take simsum
and grind it up fine, and then add honey to make a paste out of it with
perhaps other optional flavourings, you have a confection called
halava. And a very famous Strict Maimonidean scholar who used to post
to this very group used halavah as his pseudonym. Perhaps you even know
him personally?
On a seriouser note, it should be noted that different kabbalistic
scholars have taken very differing approaches to exactly what the
Lurian simsum is all about. It would be worthwhile studying them and
getting to know formally what these approaches are and how they differ
from one another before making sweeping assertions about how these
neo-Lurian schemes do or do not fit into the Maimonidean scheme.
Meanwhile I reiterate my good new year wishes to one and all. Shanah
Tobhah wumethukah. We illiterate neo-Christian Ashkanasim pronounce it
umesukkah, in anticipation of the sukkah in which we sit a fortnight
follwing the New Year phestibhal.
Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
Lurian-Maimonidean Disciple.
yaco...@aol.com
kepip...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On a seriouser note, it should be noted that different kabbalistic
> scholars have taken very differing approaches to exactly what the
> Lurian simsum is all about. It would be worthwhile studying them and
> getting to know formally what these approaches are and how they differ
> from one another before making sweeping assertions about how these
> neo-Lurian schemes do or do not fit into the Maimonidean scheme.
It would. I have. I realize you all live in a Jewish world that
assumes kabbala. It was not always so, and it is not so now for any
Musta'arab or Spanish-Portuguese Jew.
If you would genuinely study the Maimonidean controversy this will
beocme clear to you.
> Meanwhile I reiterate my good new year wishes to one and all. Shanah
> Tobhah wumethukah. We illiterate neo-Christian Ashkanasim pronounce it
> umesukkah,
Ach mein Gott; genoogh mit deine inferioritismus. Bitte?
If you cannot accept a genuine point about genuiine Hebrew we simply
cannot communicate.
> Lurian-Maimonidean Disciple.
Oxymoron.
Jacko
Shlomo Argamon
yaco...@aol.com wrote:
> kepip...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > On a seriouser note, it should be noted that different kabbalistic
> > scholars have taken very differing approaches to exactly what the
> > Lurian simsum is all about. It would be worthwhile studying them and
> > getting to know formally what these approaches are and how they differ
> > from one another before making sweeping assertions about how these
> > neo-Lurian schemes do or do not fit into the Maimonidean scheme.
>
> It would. I have. I realize you all live in a Jewish world that
> assumes kabbala. It was not always so, and it is not so now for any
> Musta'arab or Spanish-Portuguese Jew.
Serious question: What about Hakhmei Ara"ss? From R. Haim Sabato's
books it seems clear that qabbala was accepted in Aram Ssova - are they
another category? I've been wondering about this for a while.
Thanks,
-Shlomo-
kepip...@hotmail.com
It appears that indeed SDNWOTN. My points have entirely escaped you.
Since you decry my simulated inferiority I will assert my superiority.
We Ashkanasim have a custom of avoiding the bitter and sour foods and
beverages during the Penitential Period, in faavour of sweet ones.
perhaps if you differed to our custom at least once in a while you
would have a sweeter and thus happier time here. Perhaps try a little
of the sweet confection called halavah.
Even if you cannot accept a genuine point about genuinely offering a
witticism of methukah sukkah, you might still have replied in kind to
my wishes for a good new year. Apparently our inability to communicate
extends so far as an inability to return good wishes. I offer it again.
Once. Twice. Thrice. That is all the law requires of me. The ball as
they say is now in your court. Ani eth naphshi hisalti. I realise it is
not commendable to resort to the use of this phrase, but what choice do
you leave me? For my part, my good wishes remain in effect. In my
superior prayer book we recite each night befor retiring a paragraph
about hareini mohel lekhol mi shehikhis wuhiknit othi.... You may do as
you wish.
Giorgies
yaco...@aol.com
That is called backpedalling. I am sorry, I do not buy it.
> My points have entirely escaped you.
No, your assumptions about me were wrong. Now instead of trying to
trump me with the "study before you decry" speech, just accept the fact
that we are not all pro-kabbala. We think it was the undoing of our
people and the cause of Sabbateanism.
> Since you decry my simulated inferiority I will assert my superiority.
> We Ashkanasim have a custom of avoiding the bitter and sour foods and
> beverages during the Penitential Period, in faavour of sweet ones.
> perhaps if you differed to our custom at least once in a while you
> would have a sweeter and thus happier time here. Perhaps try a little
> of the sweet confection called halavah.
Stop giving me mussar. I do not accept it from you. Nothing personal,
just candor.
Aww-iite homey?
> Even if you cannot accept a genuine point about genuinely offering a
> witticism of methukah sukkah, you might still have replied in kind to
> my wishes for a good new year. Apparently our inability to communicate
> extends so far as an inability to return good wishes. I offer it again.
> Once. Twice. Thrice. That is all the law requires of me.
Whatever are you talking about? I just do not relate to your
(non-American, obviously) and to me quite arcane style. Again, nothing
personal, just candor.
> The ball as
> they say is now in your court. Ani eth naphshi hisalti. I realise it is
> not commendable to resort to the use of this phrase, but what choice do
> you leave me?
You seem to be in left field to me. Did I miss a torrid affair between
us at some point? I have no idea where you are coming from.
> For my part, my good wishes remain in effect. In my
> superior prayer book we recite each night befor retiring a paragraph
> about hareini mohel lekhol mi shehikhis wuhiknit othi.... You may do as
> you wish.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
> Giorgies
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
Shlomo Argamon wrote:
> yaco...@aol.com wrote:
> Serious question: What about Hakhmei Ara"ss? From R. Haim Sabato's
> books it seems clear that qabbala was accepted in Aram Ssova - are they
> another category? I've been wondering about this for a while.
>
> Thanks,
> -Shlomo-
Good question. Prior to 1500 Aram Soba had its own prayerbook, and no
qabbala. Then the megurashim came in the 1500s and took over due to
outnumbering the original population 4 to 1. Then qabbala took hold
and they changed the liturgy to match the Spanish ritual.
Subsequently, a minority of halabiyeh followed to some extent "minhag
musta'arab" and most followed minhag Sepharad, although some musta'arab
influence is felt almost everywhere. One finds hakhamim from both
camps, but the vast majority in recent history have been strident
kabbalists. The musta'arab hakhamim were Maimonideans, and structured
their lifelong studies around the Mishne Tora and the Dalalat il-Hairin
(Moreh).
None are left. The last was Sha'ul Matloub Abadi, of Brooklyn.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
yacova...@aol.com wrote:
> The musta'arab hakhamim were Maimonideans, and structured
> their lifelong studies around the Mishne Tora and the Dalalat il-Hairin
> (Moreh).
I should elaborate on this form of study. In the third and final stage
of study each hakham wrote a kind of set of personal notes on the MT,
more or less like what you see in the commentary of R. Yosef Qafih in
his edition of the MT.
This turns into a commentary on Talmud, Midrash Halakha, Tosefta etc.,
but is structured around the MT, which was studied with the Mishna (and
often memorized) in the second level of study.
All halabi started with recitation of the entire Miqra (first stage of
study), and in the synagogues one could often hear group recitation of
Tehillim by adult men who more or less remained at the first stage.
Jacko
Mimi Cohen
What is qabbala?
Lisa
Mimi Cohen wrote:
>
> What is qabbala?
Mimi, Qabbala is another way to write Kabbalah. Which is not to be
confused with the Demi Moore Kutcher Kabbalah-style paganism.
Jacko doesn't accept that Kabbalah was ever part of the Torah. So he's
going to give you a different answer, if he answers.
You can look at http://starways.net/lisa/essays/torah.html if you like.
It's brief, and imperfect, but it'll give you a rough idea of what
Kabbalah (also called Nistar) is.
Lisa
Ron Aaron
> Jacko doesn't accept that Kabbalah was ever part of the Torah. So he's
> going to give you a different answer, if he answers.
I won't speak for Jacko, but he may agree with my reformulation of what you
said he might say: that what is now known as "kabbalah" is not the qabbalah
which was received at Sinal -- not that qabbalah per se was not part of Torah.
I am quite sure he would agree that the subject matter known as "ma`asey
bereshit" etc. were received tradition. Where he (and I) differ from the
majority opinion is we say (following the Rambam) that those traditions have
been lost, whereas the majority say the Zohar etc. are (at least partly) those
traditions.
--
Reva Forth - http://ronware.org/reva/
Lisa
My mistake. Mimi, Ron is right. That was what I meant, and I'm sorry
if it came across the wrong way. My apologies to you as well, Jacko,
if that's how you read it.
Lisa
Rafael
news:1127502394.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
> When I said Schroeder's book was very good I didn't mean to imply
> that I was able to draw anything useful from it. His opinions are
> interesting but, yes, they do tend to stray enough from "the beaten
> path" to make the book interesting in the same way that the DaVinci
> Code is interesting.
>
> > That there are some similarities between *Lurianic* (as opposed to
Biblical)
> > cosmology and modern-scientific cosmology I grant you, but I wouldn't
read
> > too much into that.
> >
>
> As you might tell from my response to Lisa, I've developed my own
> theory of how the two can go hand-in-hand. It takes a bit of thinking
> outside the box but the system works. What I'm looking for are details
> to tighten it up--evidence from both sides that make the whole fit
> better with one another. The tzimtzum was a classical case in point.
> I'm sure that there are others. Read my response to Lisa and let me
> know what you think. The essence of my position is there, although it
> is more developed than that. For example, if God is the only actor in
> the system, it's no great wonder why He would refer to himself as "I am
> that I am" when asked about His name.
Gotcha.
BTW, I picked up Matt's "God and the Big Bang" at the library and read most
of it over the weekend. It's quite good, but more of a work of Jewish
religious philosophy than a work of history or physics.
So, for a more scholarly/academic approach, you should probably check out
Gershom Scholem and/or Moshe Idel.
However, I did want to highlight one particular quote found in Matt's book,
which is from the Zohar (a work from the 13th century CE published by a
Spanish Jew named Moses de Leon) which I thought might interest you:
A blinding spark flashed
within the concealed of the concealed,
from the mystery of the Infinite,
a cluster of vapor in formlessness...
Under the impact of breaking through,
one high and hidden point shone.
Beyond that point nothing is known.
So it is called Beginning.
Rafael
Mimi Cohen
Thanks
kepip...@hotmail.com
> kepip...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It appears that indeed SDNWOTN.
>
> That is called backpedalling. I am sorry, I do not buy it.
Backpedalling? Hardly! I imagine it is obvious to all save yourself
that my whole tone was sarcastic and poking not so subtle fun at your
professed self importance and your constant insistance that only you
and a very small group like you, most of them simply yourself under
different user names and servers, own exclusive rights to Jewish
culture while all the rest of us are ignorant products of the all too
long diaspora and living amongst the Christians. All I have been doing
is playing along with your game. As should have been obvious from my
constant mimicing of your ridiculous ways of spelling. But of course
nobody could be making fun of you. Oh No. I must be backpedalling.
>
> > My points have entirely escaped you.
>
> No, your assumptions about me were wrong.
My assumptions about you are right on the money. And they are not
assumptions you prove it with every post.
Now instead of trying to
> trump me with the "study before you decry" speech, just accept the fact
> that we are not all pro-kabbala. We think it was the undoing of our
> people and the cause of Sabbateanism.
All pro-kabbala? I daresy not. But anti-kabbala to the point of
thinking it 'was the undoing of our people and the cause of
Sabbateanism'? You a very small niche indeed.
> > Since you decry my simulated inferiority I will assert my superiority.
> > We Ashkanasim have a custom of avoiding the bitter and sour foods and
> > beverages during the Penitential Period, in faavour of sweet ones.
> > perhaps if you differed to our custom at least once in a while you
> > would have a sweeter and thus happier time here. Perhaps try a little
> > of the sweet confection called halavah.
>
> Stop giving me mussar. I do not accept it from you. Nothing personal,
> just candor.
Mussar? It is not mussar. Just a suggestion.
>
> Aww-iite homey?
Unable to comment, because I have no idea what that means.
>
> > Even if you cannot accept a genuine point about genuinely offering a
> > witticism of methukah sukkah, you might still have replied in kind to
> > my wishes for a good new year. Apparently our inability to communicate
> > extends so far as an inability to return good wishes. I offer it again.
> > Once. Twice. Thrice. That is all the law requires of me.
>
> Whatever are you talking about? I just do not relate to your
> (non-American, obviously) and to me quite arcane style. Again, nothing
> personal, just candor.
Non-American? Do you relate only to Americans? Pardon me for being
foreign born.
>
> > The ball as
> > they say is now in your court. Ani eth naphshi hisalti. I realise it is
> > not commendable to resort to the use of this phrase, but what choice do
> > you leave me?
>
> You seem to be in left field to me. Did I miss a torrid affair between
> us at some point? I have no idea where you are coming from.
You constantly accuse others of seeing nothing beyond an either-or
dichotomy. And now you do the same. Whe suggesteed anything about a
torrid affair. I extended to you my good wishes for a good new year, as
I would do do any fellow Jew. My expectation is that you would return
the good wishes, and nothing would be inferred therefrom about any
affair, torrid or otherwise.
>
> > For my part, my good wishes remain in effect. In my
> > superior prayer book we recite each night befor retiring a paragraph
> > about hareini mohel lekhol mi shehikhis wuhiknit othi.... You may do as
> > you wish.
>
> Thank you for stating the obvious.
You state it much better than I can. And you reassure me that it was
not in vain that the compilers of the Siddur I use inserted this
passage into the Qriath Shma 'Al Hamitah. Thank you for assuring that I
am not saying a berakha lebhatalah.
>
Having extended good wishes thrice, my obligations to you are
discharged. But I extend them once again, beyond the requirement of
law.
Giorgies
What about the rest of our readers? Have you ever wondered why on Rosh
Hashanah night we speak of shannah tovah umesukkah when we will not
enter the sukkah for another two weeks? It goes together with another
question: Why on Pesah night at the very begining of the Seder do we
speak of mitzvah aleinu lesapper and kol hamarbeh lesapper. But we do
not in fact eat the sapper until much later.
yaco...@aol.com
kepip...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> What about the rest of our readers? Have you ever wondered why on Rosh
> Hashanah night we speak of shannah tovah umesukkah when we will not
> enter the sukkah for another two weeks? It goes together with another
> question: Why on Pesah night at the very begining of the Seder do we
> speak of mitzvah aleinu lesapper and kol hamarbeh lesapper. But we do
> not in fact eat the sapper until much later.
I would hope not, he needs time to dispose of the bombs first. Then
you can eat him.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
kepip...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Backpedalling? Hardly! I imagine it is obvious to all save yourself
> that my whole tone was sarcastic and poking not so subtle fun at your
> professed self importance and your constant insistance that only you
> and a very small group like you, most of them simply yourself under
> different user names and servers, own exclusive rights to Jewish
> culture while all the rest of us are ignorant products of the all too
> long diaspora and living amongst the Christians.
Can you say "run-on sentence"?
> All I have been doing
> is playing along with your game.
Thanks for playing. And here's Johnny Johnston to tell you what you've
won!
> > > My points have entirely escaped you.
> >
> > No, your assumptions about me were wrong.
>
> My assumptions about you are right on the money. And they are not
> assumptions you prove it with every post.
Hard to imagine that your assumptions are not confirmed by your own
assumptions. But thanks again for paying our game!
> All pro-kabbala? I daresy not. But anti-kabbala to the point of
> thinking it 'was the undoing of our people and the cause of
> Sabbateanism'? You a very small niche indeed.
Yes, that's true.
> > Aww-iite homey?
>
> Unable to comment, because I have no idea what that means.
Exactly how I generally feel after reading your writing.
> > > Even if you cannot accept a genuine point about genuinely offering a
> > > witticism of methukah sukkah, you might still have replied in kind to
> > > my wishes for a good new year. Apparently our inability to communicate
> > > extends so far as an inability to return good wishes. I offer it again.
> > > Once. Twice. Thrice. That is all the law requires of me.
What law is that? Please cite exactly what you are referring to.
I am pretty certain you have things garbled.
> > > The ball as
> > > they say is now in your court. Ani eth naphshi hisalti. I realise it is
> > > not commendable to resort to the use of this phrase, but what choice do
> > > you leave me?
> >
> > You seem to be in left field to me. Did I miss a torrid affair between
> > us at some point? I have no idea where you are coming from.
>
> You constantly accuse others of seeing nothing beyond an either-or
> dichotomy. And now you do the same. Whe suggesteed anything about a
> torrid affair.
Are you the only one who can utilize sarcasm, grasshopper? Then if you
can take the rock from my hand, it is time for you to go.
> I extended to you my good wishes for a good new year, as
> I would do do any fellow Jew. My expectation is that you would return
> the good wishes, and nothing would be inferred therefrom about any
> affair, torrid or otherwise.
Too literal for me.
> You state it much better than I can. And you reassure me that it was
> not in vain that the compilers of the Siddur I use inserted this
> passage into the Qriath Shma 'Al Hamitah. Thank you for assuring that I
> am not saying a berakha lebhatalah.
Which berakha would that be? You did not quote a berakha at all!
> Having extended good wishes thrice, my obligations to you are
> discharged. But I extend them once again, beyond the requirement of
> law.
There is no such law. Again your superior education pays off.
> Giorgies
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
Lisa wrote:
> Ron Aaron wrote:
> > I won't speak for Jacko, but he may agree with my reformulation of what you
> > said he might say: that what is now known as "kabbalah" is not the qabbalah
> > which was received at Sinal -- not that qabbalah per se was not part of Torah.
> > I am quite sure he would agree that the subject matter known as "ma`asey
> > bereshit" etc. were received tradition. Where he (and I) differ from the
> > majority opinion is we say (following the Rambam) that those traditions have
> > been lost, whereas the majority say the Zohar etc. are (at least partly) those
> > traditions.
>
> My mistake. Mimi, Ron is right. That was what I meant, and I'm sorry
> if it came across the wrong way. My apologies to you as well, Jacko,
> if that's how you read it.
>
> Lisa
I did read it that way, but it is a correct statement nonetheless, and
I do not mind at all.
The term "kabbala" in a mystical sense, to me and my colleagues, refers
only to the kabbala of France and N. Spain starting form the Bahir and
continuing through the Zohar.
"kabbala" meant orignally an authorized *legal* tradition.
Ma'ase Bereshith and Ma'ase Merkabha certainly were the ancient forms
of Hebrew mysticism, but they were never articulated in a formulated
way and transmitted authoritatively (which is exactly what a "qabbala"
is), such as is done with the Zohar.
If you read carefully Tosefta Hagiga Ch. II, you see that only "rashe
peraqim" were ever handed over from teacher to student. Then a student
desiring esoterics made two derashot to the teacher. The first
(harsa'a) was a kind of test to allow him to say the second (derasha
bammerkabha). If the teacher liked the frst and then the second, he may
add a point or two, but generally simply accepted the student as having
been "inducted into the pardes."
Maimonides' point was that he *reconstructed* this knowledge without a
formal inductive process where a teacher could have thrown out rashe
peraqim and then certified that M had sucessfully "darash bammerkabha."
M was not saying that there was a "qabbala" for esoterics. There was
certainly not. The material requires way too much subjectivity.
Jacko
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Lisa wrote:
> PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was wondering about the development of the concept of the
> > tzimtzum. Where/When did it first appear and who brought it to the
> > attention of the wider public?
>
> I don't know, but it's a fairly simple logical progression from more
> basic ideas in Judaism.
>
> We don't just say that there's only one God. We say that God *is* One.
> We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
> world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
>
> These are all biblical concepts.
where in the bible?
KJV translation of Deut 4:39 says
"Know therefore this day, ... the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and
upon the earth beneath: [there is] none else."
(that may support your interpretation that there is nothing else except
G-d)
But these translations merely imply there being no other G-d.
Artscroll translation of Deut 4:39 says "...There is none other"
The Living Torah says "...There is no other"
This is no foundation for a theological leap regarding the concept of
HaShem.
One that is at the right level, would use Kabbalistic text as a source
for that. Not the written Torah, where kabbalah is hidden.
> So what does it mean that God is One? Well, consider a human being.
> We are made up of multiple parts. Saying that God is One implies that
> He is all of a piece, so to speak. Without divisions. A singularity,
> in a sense that isn't always used. "That's all there is; there ain't
> no more."
>
> So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
well, I can't see the bible proving it. But you maintain G-d is
everywhere. I see an important source that seems to disprove that you
say.
RAMBAM Mishneh Torah hilchot yesodai hatorah Ch 1 paragraphs 7 8 and 11
paragpraph 7
"..not one in the way that the body is divided into different portions"
(If he was everywhere, you could look at areas, say this portion is
over here, this over there. I do not think this is the G-d of Israel)
unfortunately, the RAMBAM seems a little unclear to me, where in
paragraph 8 he says
paragraph 8
"...it is impossible for a body not to be limited"
(that just tells us that when the RAMBAM says G-d doesn't have a body,
he isn't refuting your argument. Since if g-d is everywhere, he doesn't
have a body. But the RAMBAM refutes your argument elsewhere)
paragraph 11
"since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
there".
Micha Berger
: The division is illusory. All is God (and God is Ayin, or No-Thing).
I'm pretty sure this position first is found in Jewish tradition
in Chassidus. Possibly first in the Tanya (the defining book of
Chabad-Lubavitch).
-mi
--
Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Micha Berger
:> > If you say that we are a part of God, then you have God being
:> > differentiated, and no longer One. If you say that we aren't, you have
:> > a problem of God no longer being omnipresent, because where I am, He
:> > isn't.
:> Au contraire. He **is***, you just do not perceive Him there.
: Yup. Hu meqomo shel `olam, we'ein ha`olam meqomo.
See "panentheism".
As one e-friend used to have in her signature file, "We are all
pixels in G-d's Imagination."
One of the more bitter debating points between chassidus and the misnagdim
was whether tzitzum was real (misnagdim) or an illusion (chassidus,
again the more extreme conclusions first fleshed out in the Tanya).
-mi
--
Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - unknown MD, while a Nazi prisoner
Rafael
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:34:32 +0000 (UTC), Rafael <jmal...@cheerful.com> wrote:
> : The division is illusory. All is God (and God is Ayin, or No-Thing).
>
> I'm pretty sure this position first is found in Jewish tradition
> in Chassidus. Possibly first in the Tanya (the defining book of
> Chabad-Lubavitch).
The hasidic connection is surely there, but with earlier influences
feeding it.
To illustrate, here are a few translated quotations from Daniel C. Matt
(which I provide with the caveat that translation is itself
commentary):
David ben Abraham, 14th century:
"Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world.
But since it is simple, and all simple things are complex compared with
its simplicity, in comparison it is called ayin."
Moses Cordovero, 16th century:
"The essence of divinity is found in every single thing - nothing but
It exists. Since It causes every thing to be, no thing can live by
anything else. It enlivens them. Ein Sof exists in each existent. Do
not say, 'This is a stone and not God.' God forbid! Rather, all
existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity."
Jacob Joseph of Polonoye, early 19th century:
"You should believe that 'the whole world is filled with God's
presence.' (Is. 6:3) 'There is no place empty of It.' (Tiqqunei Zohar
57, 91b) All human thoughts have within them the reality of God."
Rafael
Rafael
> Gotcha.
>
> BTW, I picked up Matt's "God and the Big Bang" at the library and read most
> of it over the weekend. It's quite good, but more of a work of Jewish
> religious philosophy than a work of history or physics.
>
> So, for a more scholarly/academic approach, you should probably check out
> Gershom Scholem and/or Moshe Idel.
>
> However, I did want to highlight one particular quote found in Matt's book,
> which is from the Zohar (a work from the 13th century CE published by a
> Spanish Jew named Moses de Leon) which I thought might interest you:
>
> A blinding spark flashed
> within the concealed of the concealed,
> from the mystery of the Infinite,
> a cluster of vapor in formlessness...
> Under the impact of breaking through,
> one high and hidden point shone.
> Beyond that point nothing is known.
> So it is called Beginning.
PS: A less poetic version is (again, Moses de Leon, Sheqel ha-Qodesh):
"The beginning of existence is the secret concealed point. This is the
beginning of all the hidden things, which spread out from there and
emanate, according to their species. From a single point you can extend
the dimensions of all things. Similarly, when the concealed arouses
itself to exist, at first it brings into being something the size of
the point of a needle; from there it generates everything."
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Rafael wrote:
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:1127498242.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > I was wondering about the development of the concept of the
> > > tzimtzum. Where/When did it first appear and who brought it to the
> > > attention of the wider public?
> >
> > I don't know, but it's a fairly simple logical progression from more
> > basic ideas in Judaism.
> >
> > We don't just say that there's only one God. We say that God *is* One.
> > We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
> > world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
> >
> > These are all biblical concepts.
>
> YHVH/Elohim).
I don't mean to ruin your mood, but you should not write words which
an orthodox jew is not even allowed to read. Considering that this is a
newsgroup with orthodox jews reading.
If you were to include the muslim shahada in your text then it'd at
least be more polite, since it's not an individual word, it's easier
to see it coming.
Imagine if saying a certain word were to cause a person's skin to be
shed off. And then imagine slipping that word into a novel at the
person's favourite bookstore. Wouldn't that be a sick thing to do.
That is what you are doing.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:34:32 +0000 (UTC), Rafael <jmal...@cheerful.com> wrote:
> : The division is illusory. All is God (and God is Ayin, or No-Thing).
>
> I'm pretty sure this position first is found in Jewish tradition
> in Chassidus. Possibly first in the Tanya (the defining book of
> Chabad-Lubavitch).
>
conversation with knowledgeable chabad rabbi.
also, see other posts in response to Lisa. one mentioning the Altar
rebbe
another the RAMBAM.
q: if G-d is everywhere, then does he fill space?
rabbi:
he occupies and fills all space with his presence, which is a
reflection of himself.
G-d transcends all space
q: I once read - and I now think this is wrong - that G-d constricted
himself and this world is his garment, his constricted self, and this
is the kabbalsitic reasdon why he can't be addresed through objects.
I think the literal interpretation is wrong and the true interp has
something to do with - as you say - his presence.
rabbi: you're right. what you read is entirely wrong. He constricted
his light / his reflection. not himself.
Rafael
news:1127774414....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're not allowed to read English letters? How about if there are dashes in
between them?
I won't go out of my way to offend you, but I do have views of my own on
these matters, and I'm only willing to compromise them so far.
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
my error in the first paragraph, when I said "you should not write
words which an orthodox jew is not even allowed to read" I meant
"...not even allowed to say"
regarding the muslim shahada example. muslims believe that saying it
makes one a muslim. I would rather not say it. But this, with a
forbidden word - a single word, and forbidden by judaism, is far worse.
And hence the last paragraph where I was clear that it was about
saying.
And when one reads a word, one is saying it in one's head.
Regarding your question regarding the dashes. If you wrote G-d without
the dash, yes, Orthodox Jews can read that. You should know that. The
sin is to write it without the dash. Not to say it. It is read with the
O.
I am talking about G-d's holy name which you spelt out. So, the whoel
dash argument you brought up is absolutely irrelevant. Since we read
the word as if the dashes were not there and the letters were in their
place. Hence nobody even dashes that name.
Rafael
news:1127828353.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You read the Hebrew string every time you pick up a chumash or siddur. I'm
writing a string of English letters which represents that, so it's already
once removed.
Unless one mentally speculates as to the consonants, the string is basically
unpronounceable.
So my suggestion to you is that you refrain from such speculation (or at
least refrain from sounding it) and let me be the judge of my own practice.
If that's still too difficult for you, then you can always refrain from
reading my posts.
Rafael
Lisa
Rafael wrote:
>
> You read the Hebrew string every time you pick up a chumash or siddur. I'm
> writing a string of English letters which represents that, so it's already
> once removed.
>
> Unless one mentally speculates as to the consonants, the string is basically
> unpronounceable.
>
> So my suggestion to you is that you refrain from such speculation (or at
> least refrain from sounding it) and let me be the judge of my own practice.
>
> If that's still too difficult for you, then you can always refrain from
> reading my posts.
Speaking as an acknowledged religious fanatic (Anyone who disagrees,
raise your hand......... no one? Okay.), I don't have a real problem
with it. I consider writing it in English with vowels to be
deliberately offensive in some cases, and ignorant in others. But
bottom line, the Latin letter Y is not the same as the Hebrew letter
Yud. Same with the other letters involved. And the letter V isn't
even a correct translation of the letter Waw (vav).
Given my druther's, I'd probably rather avoid even the form that Rafael
is using, and I don't plan on using it myself, but I think there are
plenty of things he does that are so more worthy of condemnation that
getting uptight about this is just silly. Fact, if he really wanted to
be offensive, he could have added in vowels. Give him credit where
it's due, 'kay?
Lisa
Rafael
>
> Rafael wrote:
> >
> > You read the Hebrew string every time you pick up a chumash or siddur.
I'm
> > writing a string of English letters which represents that, so it's
already
> > once removed.
> >
> > Unless one mentally speculates as to the consonants, the string is
basically
> > unpronounceable.
> >
> > So my suggestion to you is that you refrain from such speculation (or at
> > least refrain from sounding it) and let me be the judge of my own
practice.
> >
> > If that's still too difficult for you, then you can always refrain from
> > reading my posts.
>
> Speaking as an acknowledged religious fanatic (Anyone who disagrees,
> raise your hand......... no one? Okay.), I don't have a real problem
> with it. I consider writing it in English with vowels to be
> deliberately offensive in some cases, and ignorant in others. But
> bottom line, the Latin letter Y is not the same as the Hebrew letter
> Yud. Same with the other letters involved. And the letter V isn't
> even a correct translation of the letter Waw (vav).
Thanks for the implicit correction. (I didn't mean to claim the Latin
alphabet for the English language alone!)
> Given my druther's, I'd probably rather avoid even the form that Rafael
> is using, and I don't plan on using it myself, but I think there are
> plenty of things he does that are so more worthy of condemnation that
> getting uptight about this is just silly. Fact, if he really wanted to
> be offensive, he could have added in vowels. Give him credit where
> it's due, 'kay?
Talk about a back-handed compliment! <g>
Rafael
Lisa
Rafael wrote:
> "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> news:1127833503.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > is using, and I don't plan on using it myself, but I think there are
> > plenty of things he does that are so more worthy of condemnation that
> > getting uptight about this is just silly. Fact, if he really wanted to
> > be offensive, he could have added in vowels. Give him credit where
> > it's due, 'kay?
>
> Talk about a back-handed compliment! <g>
Heh. It's something, no?
Lisa
Micha Berger
:> We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
:> world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
:> These are all biblical concepts.
: where in the bible?
"Es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz Ani malei -- I fill the heavens and the
earth." (Jer 23:24)
"Melo kol haaretz kevodo -- the whole world is filled of His Glory." (Isa
6:3)
: You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
: 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
: there".
No, He would be the fundamental principle from which the concept of
"where" derives. As in his Code, the Book of Knowledge, Fundamentals of
the Torah 2:3.
However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
from G-d, not made of Him.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Rafael
news:dhbuba$uqh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:22:28 +0000 (UTC), jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
<jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> :> We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
> :> world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
>
> :> These are all biblical concepts.
>
> : where in the bible?
>
> "Es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz Ani malei -- I fill the heavens and the
> earth." (Jer 23:24)
> "Melo kol haaretz kevodo -- the whole world is filled of His Glory." (Isa
> 6:3)
>
> : You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> : 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> : there".
>
> No, He would be the fundamental principle from which the concept of
> "where" derives. As in his Code, the Book of Knowledge, Fundamentals of
> the Torah 2:3.
>
> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
> from G-d, not made of Him.
Well, that seems a valid understanding of "yesh mi-ayin" (creation ex
nihilo, something from nothing).
But "yesh" could also be interpreted as an illusion fashioned from "ayin"
(i.e. like the pixel image you referred to earlier).
Again, as 14th century kabbalist, David ben Abraham Ha-Lavan, put it:
"Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world."
Seen in this way, God is Ayin; i.e. the hidden platform which serves the
collective user experience that we collectively call "yesh" (or "olam",
world).
For that matter (and this is where the computer metaphor breaks down), It
also provides the users.
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Lisa wrote:
<snip>
Further to my original post in response to you (which should have
appeared by the time this post appears)
The Alter Rebbe was respect by both camps not only the Chassidim. for
he was without question a Talmudic Gaint. did not accpet that concept
of G-d having a body or a shape. - or removign himself from the world.
I know you do not state any of these things. But I am told that he
gose on to say that there is no up or down left or right associated
with him.
"In the light of what has been said above (in chapter 7 above this part
of Shaar Hayichud) it is possible to understand the error of some
scholars in their own eyes, may G-d forgive them, who erred and
misinterpreted in their study of the writing of the Ari, of blessed
memory, and understood the doctrine of Tzimtzum, which is mentioned
therein literally --That the holy One, Blesed be He, removed Himself
and His essence, G-d forbid, from this world and only guides from
above, with individual Providence, all the created beings which are in
the heavens above and on the earth below. Now, aside from the fact that
it is altogether impossible to interpret the doctrine of Tzimtzum
literally, for then it is a phenomenon of corporeality, concerning the
Holy One, Blessed Be He, who is set apart from them, ... There is no
place devoid of Him, not in the upper worlds nor in the lower worlds;"
Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7
the Alter Rebbe goes on in explaining that frankly there is no direct
nor space , up or down. though some may error in this and say such
thing due to the fact they might take Tzimtzum litterally.
I am only posting this to respond to what I think is a heretical
intepretation of tzim tzum, which you have espoused. Or rather, a view
of tzim tzum that does not have a strong foundation in mainstream
orthodoxy Chassidic or Misnaged.
(I believe this next paragraph from the RAMBAN applies to you who uses
your own reasoning and 'logic' to analyse and figure out the nature of
G-d. If you weren't actually using your own reasoning on kabbalah, but
were using an argument from a Torah giant, then you didn't give a
source, which is also very bad. I don't think you or I should be
commenting on such matters. I am responding only to answer what I
believe kabbalistic authorities say is a heretical idea)
The great RAMBAN writes ,
The Ramban, the great Talmudic, Halachic and Kabbalistic authority (see
Faith and Folly by Rav Yaakov Hillel Shlita p.37) of the mediaeval era
ends his introduction to Sefer Bereshith (Shilo Publishing, translation
by Rabbi Chavel p.15) with the following warning: "Now behold I bring
into a faithful covenant and give proper counsel to all who look into
this book, not to reason or entertain any thought concerning any of the
mystic hints which I write regarding the hidden matters of the Torah,
for I do hereby firmly make known to him (the reader) that my words
will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or
contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Kabbalist speaking
into the ear of an understanding recipient. Reasoning about them is
foolishness; any unrelated thought brings much damage and withholds the
benefit. "Let him not trust in vanity, deceiving himself", (Job,
15:31) for these thoughts will bring him nothing but evil as if they
spoke falsely against God, which can not be forgiven...Rather let such
see in our commentaries novel interpretations of the plain meanings of
Scripture and Midrashim, and let them take moral instruction from the
mouths of our holy Rabbis:
"Into that which is beyond you, do not seek; into that which is more
powerful than you, do not inquire; about that which is concealed from
you, do not desire to know; about that which is hidden from you, do not
ask. Contemplate that which is permitted to you, and engage not
yourself in hidden things." (Bereishith Rabbah, 8:2)
Take note
Lisa
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> > So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
>
> well, I can't see the bible proving it. But you maintain G-d is
> everywhere. I see an important source that seems to disprove that you
> say.
>
> RAMBAM Mishneh Torah hilchot yesodai hatorah Ch 1 paragraphs 7 8 and 11
> paragpraph 7
> "..not one in the way that the body is divided into different portions"
>
> (If he was everywhere, you could look at areas, say this portion is
> over here, this over there. I do not think this is the G-d of Israel)
That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
that.
> unfortunately, the RAMBAM seems a little unclear to me, where in
> paragraph 8 he says
>
> paragraph 8
> "...it is impossible for a body not to be limited"
> (that just tells us that when the RAMBAM says G-d doesn't have a body,
> he isn't refuting your argument. Since if g-d is everywhere, he doesn't
> have a body. But the RAMBAM refutes your argument elsewhere)
>
> paragraph 11
> "since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
>
> You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> there".
No, James. That doesn't follow at all. Nor am I sure why you think it
does. It seems a complete non sequitur to me. Would it make you feel
better if I said "Hashem is not absent to my left, and not absent to my
right"? You're quibbling about semantics. I think everyone here
understood me quite well as meaning that Hashem is omnipresent, and not
that He is "a little here, a little there", chas v'shalom.
If you don't understand something, ask for a clarification before you
start throwing accusations.
Lisa
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:22:28 +0000 (UTC), jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> :> We say that He is omnipresent. Mekomo shel olam. The place of the
> :> world, which is essentially to say that the world is within Him.
>
> :> These are all biblical concepts.
>
> : where in the bible?
>
> "Es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz Ani malei -- I fill the heavens and the
> earth." (Jer 23:24)
> "Melo kol haaretz kevodo -- the whole world is filled of His Glory." (Isa
> 6:3)
Thanks, Micha.
> : You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> : 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> : there".
>
> No, He would be the fundamental principle from which the concept of
> "where" derives. As in his Code, the Book of Knowledge, Fundamentals of
> the Torah 2:3.
>
> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
> from G-d, not made of Him.
Are those two statements contradictory?
Lisa
Lisa
Ayin would be better translated as "unactualized" than "nothing". In a
sense, those are the same thing. Until potential is actualized, it's
essentially nothing. Yesh would then be actualized potential, and yesh
mi-ayin would be the act of bringing something into actuality when it
was previously only potential.
Lisa
Lisa
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Further to my original post in response to you (which should have
> appeared by the time this post appears)
>
> The Alter Rebbe was respect by both camps not only the Chassidim. for
> he was without question a Talmudic Gaint. did not accpet that concept
> of G-d having a body or a shape. - or removign himself from the world.
Nor do I. Hashem is everywhere.
> I am only posting this to respond to what I think is a heretical
> intepretation of tzim tzum, which you have espoused.
If you think I espoused such a view as you describe, you are mistaken.
Would you care to explain to me exactly what I said that gave you that
misapprehension?
> Or rather, a view
> of tzim tzum that does not have a strong foundation in mainstream
> orthodoxy Chassidic or Misnaged.
Perhaps it would be more productive for you, rather than to tell me
what an apostate I am, to consider whether you might have misunderstood
what I wrote.
> (I believe this next paragraph from the RAMBAN applies to you who uses
> your own reasoning and 'logic' to analyse and figure out the nature of
> G-d. If you weren't actually using your own reasoning on kabbalah, but
> were using an argument from a Torah giant, then you didn't give a
> source, which is also very bad.
It's "very bad"? On what basis do you say that? Could you give me a
source?
I don't always remember exactly who said what. I amalgamate teachings
from various sources (valid sources) and sometimes give over in my own
words views that are not identical to any one valid source, but are
consistent with several. That's actually the way I learn just about
everything. The way my mind works. It all goes into the mix.
My biggest shortcoming in learning Gemara is that I'm better able to
retain concepts and the various positions in various machlokot than I
am to remember precisely who said what. This is a pretty major
shortcoming, because different chachamim had different shittot, and
knowing those shittot is an important tool when it comes to
understanding their statements in context.
I recognize this flaw, and try to compensate for it. But in this case,
I don't think you can legitimately say that I am either using my own
reasoning on Kabbalah or being "very bad" by not citing a "Torah
giant".
> I don't think you or I should be commenting on such matters.
With all due respect, James, can you please tell me what your station
is that you think you can say what I should or should not be commenting
on? Certainly I'm no "Torah giant", and no one here is under any
illusion that I am. It's not as though people are going to run out and
start worshipping trees because I express a viewpoint that I got out of
various Torah sources.
> I am responding only to answer what I
> believe kabbalistic authorities say is a heretical idea)
Okay. But again, I don't believe I expressed what you claim I did. Or
if I did, I'm not aware of it, because you haven't explained exactly
what I said that you object to.
Don't be shy, James. I'm all ears.
> "Into that which is beyond you, do not seek; into that which is more
> powerful than you, do not inquire; about that which is concealed from
> you, do not desire to know; about that which is hidden from you, do not
> ask. Contemplate that which is permitted to you, and engage not
> yourself in hidden things." (Bereishith Rabbah, 8:2)
James, I'm not about to try and create a three year old calf and have
it for Shabbat dinner. It's sweet of you to worry, but don't fash
yourself, as they say. For one thing, I've *been* a pagan. Trust me
when I say that I'm innoculated against letting theorizing carry me
away.
> Take note
<snapping to attention and saluting> Note taken! Sir!
Lisa
Rafael
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Well, that seems a valid understanding of "yesh mi-ayin" (creation ex
> > nihilo, something from nothing).
> >
> > But "yesh" could also be interpreted as an illusion fashioned from "ayin"
> > (i.e. like the pixel image you referred to earlier).
> >
> > Again, as 14th century kabbalist, David ben Abraham Ha-Lavan, put it:
> >
> > "Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world."
> >
> > Seen in this way, God is Ayin; i.e. the hidden platform which serves the
> > collective user experience that we collectively call "yesh" (or "olam",
> > world).
>
> Ayin would be better translated as "unactualized" than "nothing".
Well, Alcalay translates "ayin" as "nothing, naught", which is how I've
always read it.
But I agree that, in this context (i.e. in relation with "yesh"),
there's an implication of unactualized potential.
Either way, there is a risk of sounding biased towards yesh, as if ayin
were somehow empty or incomplete without it.
I don't know about you, but that theological implication doesn't sit
well with me. I prefer not to speculate on *why* yesh flows from ayin
(or multiplicity from oneness). Instead, I just take for granted that
that's the way It is.
Rafael
Micha Berger
:> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
:> from G-d, not made of Him.
: Well, that seems a valid understanding of "yesh mi-ayin" (creation ex
: nihilo, something from nothing).
: But "yesh" could also be interpreted as an illusion fashioned from "ayin"
: (i.e. like the pixel image you referred to earlier).
: Again, as 14th century kabbalist, David ben Abraham Ha-Lavan...
Sure it's a meaningful metaphor for creation. I was just disputing
someone's association of Maimonides with the idea. No one would confuse
him with a kabbalist of any century.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
> > Rafael wrote:
> >
> > > Well, that seems a valid understanding of "yesh mi-ayin" (creation ex
> > > nihilo, something from nothing).
> > >
> > > But "yesh" could also be interpreted as an illusion fashioned from "ayin"
> > > (i.e. like the pixel image you referred to earlier).
> > >
> > > Again, as 14th century kabbalist, David ben Abraham Ha-Lavan, put it:
> > >
> > > "Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world."
> > >
> > > Seen in this way, God is Ayin; i.e. the hidden platform which serves the
> > > collective user experience that we collectively call "yesh" (or "olam",
> > > world).
> >
> > Ayin would be better translated as "unactualized" than "nothing".
>
> Well, Alcalay translates "ayin" as "nothing, naught", which is how I've
> always read it.
>
> But I agree that, in this context (i.e. in relation with "yesh"),
> there's an implication of unactualized potential.
>
> Either way, there is a risk of sounding biased towards yesh, as if ayin
> were somehow empty or incomplete without it.
>
With good reason, too. When you speak of "absolutely nothing", you
can't logically remove the fact of the potential for "absolutely
everything". Nor can you remove the rules of logic from applying to
the nothingness. By negating the ayin--by applying the "not" of
logical negation to the "not" that is the ayin--the whole nothingness
bursts forth into the realisation of the potential for absolutely
everything and you would get something, nay, everything from nothing.
Remember that, just because there is nothing material in ayin, it does
not necessarily preclude the abstract, which does not depend on
anything material for its existence.
> I don't know about you, but that theological implication doesn't sit
> well with me. I prefer not to speculate on *why* yesh flows from ayin
> (or multiplicity from oneness). Instead, I just take for granted that
> that's the way It is.
>
Basically, the potential FOR God, in a system where ayin is "that
which is" would naturally lead to the actual existence OF God because
logic would dictate it through the power of negating the ayin. Well,
at least that's my theory.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Lisa wrote:
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Lisa wrote:
>
> > > So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
> >
> > well, I can't see the bible proving it. But you maintain G-d is
> > everywhere. I see an important source that seems to disprove that you
> > say.
> >
> > RAMBAM Mishneh Torah hilchot yesodai hatorah Ch 1 paragraphs 7 8 and 11
> > paragpraph 7
> > "..not one in the way that the body is divided into different portions"
> >
> > (If he was everywhere, you could look at areas, say this portion is
> > over here, this over there. I do not think this is the G-d of Israel)
>
> That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
> everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
> in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
> understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
> everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
> understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
> that.
(I'm going to quote the last 2 paragraphs I wrote in this post, over
here, because I think it's best to read them first!! )
"I think, without sources for anything other than the RAMBAM, the only
sensible discussion we can have is whether G-d's literal omnipresence
contradicts the RAMBAM . (It's possible that it does and still
shouldn't be called heresy - if a leading kabbalsitic authority
subscribes to the view)."
"sorry for calling you a heretic for basically jut taking G-d's
omnipresence literally. There probably are kabbalistic authorities
that do so, even though we don't have any sources to back that up. But
i'm very reluctant, to hold a belief - a whole concept of G-d which
might be very wrong, and not even have a source for it, and furthermore
and importantly, it seems to me - through reasoning on the RAMBAM- that
it contradicts the RAMBAM."
Regarding this
> That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
> everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
> in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
> understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
> everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
> understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
> that.
You seem to be saying that G-d is All and All is G-d. THat implies that
whereever you look, he is. It makes him a connected spirit.
Infact, I once heard a view of tzim tzum espoused which I was later
told was absolutely wrong. It was beautifully explained though. The
lecture went something like this:
<possible heresy/ non mainstream view>
G-d is everywhere, (including the toilet). So, howcome we don't pray to
tables and chairs? THe reason is, that G-d constricted (not
contracted) himself in this world. In doing so, he removed himself to
some degree, from this world. This physical world that we see, is his
garment. If we want to speak to a person, we do not speak to his
garment. We know that the way to speak to a person is by speaking into
his ear / so it reaches his ears. Similarly, G-d has told us how we can
connect with him, that is by mitzvot, and prayer.
</...>
I'm not accusing you of espousing this view, which - from what i've
been told by a knowledgeable rabbi, - is heretical.
But, you are espousing a small part of it. I still say that to say that
G-di s everywhere, is to be able to mark out areas, and say, "this is
him and this is him and that is him, and whereever I can mark out, is
him" Looks to me like a connected spirit which can be divided into
portions , and strestches to fill the world.
Better to say as this rabbi told me clearly, G-d's presence fills the
world. But G-d does not. G-d transcends space. But his presence fills
space.
If something fills space, you can divide it into portions/areas any way
you like. Just name the co-ordinates and map out your area.
Regarding the concept that G-d didn't constrict himself. The
knowledgeable rabbi said it's absolutely wrong, G-d constricted his
light.
> > unfortunately, the RAMBAM seems a little unclear to me, where in
> > paragraph 8 he says
> >
> > paragraph 8
> > "...it is impossible for a body not to be limited"
> > (that just tells us that when the RAMBAM says G-d doesn't have a body,
> > he isn't refuting your argument. Since if g-d is everywhere, he doesn't
> > have a body. But the RAMBAM refutes your argument elsewhere)
> >
> > paragraph 11
> > "since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> > form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> > appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> > nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> > neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
> >
> > You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> > 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> > there".
>
> No, James. That doesn't follow at all. Nor am I sure why you think it
> does. It seems a complete non sequitur to me. Would it make you feel
> better if I said "Hashem is not absent to my left, and not absent to my
> right"? You're quibbling about semantics.
Since G-d transcends space. And his presence fills space.
To say G-d is absent or isn't absent, seems to take him and his
presence with him. There is a kabbalistic distinction between saying
"G-d" and saying "G-d's presence". One transcends space and the other
fills space.
I think everyone here
> understood me quite well as meaning that Hashem is omnipresent, and not
> that He is "a little here, a little there", chas v'shalom.
I wouldn't say you were saying "a little here, a little there" , you
weren't putting any space in between. But anything that occupies space
has Areas (one may say portions since that is the word in the
translation of the RAMBAM)
My understanding regarding G-d's omnipresence(from what the
knowledgeable rabbi told me), is that it cannot possibily be literal.
Since G-d transcends space. It is G-d's presence that is everywhere
and fills space.
> If you don't understand something, ask for a clarification before you
> start throwing accusations.
sorry, a lot of the stuff I quoted written by the Altar Rebbe didn't
apply to what you were saying, I didnt' mean to accuse you of that.
But apparently there is writing in that area of what he wrote, that
applies to it, in the same way as the RAMBAM does. Apparently in
'Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7 '
There may actually be some debate on the topic of whether G-d is
literally everywhere. I did once see an article on the Chabad site
(i'm unable to find the article, no matter what I search for), which
said that some kabbalists say G-d is in the world, and others say he
isn't.
At the moment, all the sources that I have references to, seem to
indicate that he isn't.
Maybe these kabbalists that say G-d is everywhere - in space, are
disagreeing with the RAMBAM. Maybe they have the authority to.
I think that rather than entertain a concept of G-d that is wrong, it's
safer to just quote authorities. At the moment, I see no authority
that entertains the belief that G-d is literally everywhere, present in
space.
The point is though, that regarding these kabbalistic concepts,
especially the nature of G-d, it's best to quote kabbalistic
authorities, and say that they believe XYZ. Who are we to choose
between them.
If I knew of an authoritative statement for the pantheistic view that
G-d is all and all is G-d. (Which as I wrote erarlier, really does seem
by the reasoning I have, to contradict the rambam) Then fine, there
would be a clear debate on the issue.
I guess there is a debate, since I did once read a chabad article
saying there was. But since I can't find that article, I haven't given
it much weight.
There are different approaches. But perhaps there's a great danger in
entertaining a wrong approach. Perhaps it's better to be in doubt. Or
perhaps it's better to be on the safe side and not contradict the
RAMBAM without a source. Though it seems that you believe that the
concept of G-d's literal omnipresence does not contradict the RAMBAM.
I think, without sources for anything other than the RAMBAM, the only
sensible discussion we can have is whether G-d's literal omnipresence
contradicts the RAMBAM . (It's possible that it does and still
shouldn't be called heresy - if a leading kabbalsitic authority
subscribes to the view).
sorry for calling you a heretic for basically jut taking G-d's
omnipresence literally. There probably are kabbalistic authorities
that do so, even though we don't have any sources to back that up. But
i'm very reluctant, to hold a belief - a whole concept of G-d which
might be very wrong, and not even have a source for it, and furthermore
and importantly, it seems to me - through reasoning on the RAMBAM- that
it contradicts the RAMBAM.
Rafael
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:03:59 +0000 (UTC), Rafael <jmal...@cheerful.com>
wrote:
> :> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
> :> from G-d, not made of Him.
>
> : Well, that seems a valid understanding of "yesh mi-ayin" (creation ex
> : nihilo, something from nothing).
>
> : But "yesh" could also be interpreted as an illusion fashioned from
"ayin"
> : (i.e. like the pixel image you referred to earlier).
>
> : Again, as 14th century kabbalist, David ben Abraham Ha-Lavan...
>
> Sure it's a meaningful metaphor for creation. I was just disputing
> someone's association of Maimonides with the idea. No one would confuse
> him with a kabbalist of any century.
That may be (given M's rationalist bent), but there is some amount of
synergy between his negative theology and the mystical concept of Ayin
(Nothingness), as well as with the sefirot (enumerations or emanations).
[Negative theology and emanationism are commonly attributed to
neo-Platonists, like Plotinus (see, e.g.,
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Plotin-One.htm).]
Again, quoting Daniel Matt:
"The kabbalists adopt Maimonides' negative style of theology and take it to
an extreme. Among their new names for God, Eyn Sof is the most famous but
not the most radical. Having carved away all that is false, they discover a
paradox of a name: ayin, Nothingness. We encounter this bizarre term among
Christian mystics as well: John Scotus Erigena calls God nihil; Meister
Eckhart, nichts; St. John of the Cross, nada.
...
"Ayin is an antidote to idolatry. It forces us to surrender our comfortable,
confining images; it melts them down. This 'Nichts of the Jews,' writes the
seventeenth-century poet Henry Vaughan, exposes 'the naked divinity without
a cover.' (7) But how can we think or speak of God without images and
conceptions? We can't. Even ayin is a conception. The images it evokes may
be vast---a limitless ocean, the expanse of outer space---but they are
images nonetheless. The value of nothingness is that it dissolves all images
and conceptions, including itself."
http://www.jrf.org/jrf-oldsite/matt.html
Rafael
Rafael
news:1127891199....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Either way, there is a risk of sounding biased towards yesh, as if ayin
> > were somehow empty or incomplete without it.
>
> With good reason, too. When you speak of "absolutely nothing", you
> can't logically remove the fact of the potential for "absolutely
> everything". Nor can you remove the rules of logic from applying to
> the nothingness. By negating the ayin--by applying the "not" of
> logical negation to the "not" that is the ayin--the whole nothingness
> bursts forth into the realisation of the potential for absolutely
> everything and you would get something, nay, everything from nothing.
> Remember that, just because there is nothing material in ayin, it does
> not necessarily preclude the abstract, which does not depend on
> anything material for its existence.
Good point.
But if the distinction between ayin and yesh is only one of perspective
(i.e. they are dual aspects of the same ultimate reality that is the Ein
Sof), then we run the risk of allowing our concepts to lead us astray (i.e.
into a substantial duality).
This, I suspect, is why some kabbalists emphasized the ultimate quality of
Ayin, as opposed to the cosmic cataclysm which resulted in yesh [i.e. the
shevirat ha-kelim (breaking of the vessels), the tikkun (repair) of which is
our religious and spiritual duty; see, e.g.,
http://www.newkabbalah.com/FormProp.htm].
> > I don't know about you, but that theological implication doesn't sit
> > well with me. I prefer not to speculate on *why* yesh flows from ayin
> > (or multiplicity from oneness). Instead, I just take for granted that
> > that's the way It is.
> >
>
> Basically, the potential FOR God, in a system where ayin is "that
> which is" would naturally lead to the actual existence OF God because
> logic would dictate it through the power of negating the ayin. Well,
> at least that's my theory.
I think it's called "conversion by definition." <g>
Rafael
Yisroel Markov
[snip]
>paragraph 11
>"since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
>form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
>appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
>nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
>neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
>
>You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
>'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
>there".
Stone Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men! One of their popular songs
goes exactly like that:
Hashem is here, Hashem is there
Hashem is truly everywhere!
Up, up, down, down
Right, left, and all around
Here, there, and everywhere
That's where He can be found!
And they actually point in all those directions as they sing!!
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Lisa
Hashem's literal omnipresence does not contradict the Rambam. And what
do you mean by "without sources for anything other than the Rambam"?
We have many other sources.
> "sorry for calling you a heretic for basically jut taking G-d's
> omnipresence literally.
I accept the apology, but I repeat that you are misunderstanding the
Rambam if you think that literal omnipresence is in any way
contradictory to what he wrote.
> There probably are kabbalistic authorities
> that do so, even though we don't have any sources to back that up.
Who is "we"?
> But i'm very reluctant, to hold a belief - a whole concept of G-d which
> might be very wrong, and not even have a source for it, and furthermore
> and importantly, it seems to me - through reasoning on the RAMBAM- that
> it contradicts the RAMBAM."
But (she repeated, patiently) it doesn't contradict the Rambam.
Continuing to assert that it does doesn't make it so. If you see a
contradiction, you are welcome to explain it. But you've done that,
and it also relied on an assertion you made which you haven't
substantiated.
> Regarding this
> > That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
> > everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
> > in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
> > understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
> > everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
> > understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
> > that.
>
> You seem to be saying that G-d is All and All is G-d. THat implies that
> whereever you look, he is. It makes him a connected spirit.
No, it doesn't. And while I'd be more than happy to explain to you
another way of looking at it, I believe I'll wait for you to ask. I'm
tired of replying to bald assertions. If you don't want to ask, you
can also do a search, because I've spoken to this here many times
before. Alternatively, you can go on, blissfully unaware that anyone
could possibly disagree with your reading of the Rambam.
> Infact, I once heard a view of tzim tzum espoused which I was later
> told was absolutely wrong. It was beautifully explained though. The
> lecture went something like this:
>
> <possible heresy/ non mainstream view>
> G-d is everywhere, (including the toilet). So, howcome we don't pray to
> tables and chairs? THe reason is, that G-d constricted (not
> contracted) himself in this world. In doing so, he removed himself to
> some degree, from this world.
Hashem didn't remove Himself. He lessened His presence. His presence
is not Him. It is, as all things are, one of His creations.
> This physical world that we see, is his
> garment. If we want to speak to a person, we do not speak to his
> garment. We know that the way to speak to a person is by speaking into
> his ear / so it reaches his ears. Similarly, G-d has told us how we can
> connect with him, that is by mitzvot, and prayer.
> </...>
>
> I'm not accusing you of espousing this view, which - from what i've
> been told by a knowledgeable rabbi, - is heretical.
You're really into the whole heresy thing, James. It's cute.
> But, you are espousing a small part of it.
No, James. I am not. You need to stop telling me what I'm saying.
You can ask if I'm saying X. You can say, "Gosh, that sounds like X;
can you please clarify?" You can ask me how what I've said differs
from X. But saying that I'm espousing X is inappropriate. As I said
in my previous post, I take *great* care in my choice of words. I post
verbosely specifically in order to ensure clarity. That doesn't mean I
never make mistakes. I do. But I could wish that you'd take half the
care in reading that I do in writing. It would spare us both these
ridiculous interchanges, where you argue against a strawman that has
nothing to do with what I've said.
> I still say that to say that
> G-di s everywhere, is to be able to mark out areas, and say, "this is
> him and this is him and that is him, and whereever I can mark out, is
> him" Looks to me like a connected spirit which can be divided into
> portions , and strestches to fill the world.
And I still say that your claim doesn't follow logically from anything.
Hu Mekomo shel olam. There can be no such thing as a place where
Hashem is absent. But I'm not going to make the words I write obscure
and hard to understand by phrasing everything in the negative. I will
say that Hashem is everywhere, rather than there is no place where
Hashem isn't. Because the two are identical in normal language, and
the latter comes across like technobabble.
Further, the idea of stretching to fill the world is obviously not what
I'm saying, because Hashem created the world. The world is a subset of
Hashem, and not the other way around.
> Better to say as this rabbi told me clearly, G-d's presence fills the
> world. But G-d does not. G-d transcends space. But his presence fills
> space.
I completely disagree. Hashem's presence does indeed fill the world.
But if your implication when you say that He transcends space is that
He is outside of space, you are wrong. Note that I'm not saying that
this *is* what you're saying. I phrased it conditionally, rather than
presume to tell you what you *are* saying.
I think that your confusion may stem from a misconception that saying
Hashem is everywhere means that He is contained in everything. That's
not what the word means. To go back to that square foot of space,
*all* of that space exists within my cubicle. That doesn't mean that
my cubical is contained within that cubic foot of space.
> If something fills space, you can divide it into portions/areas any way
> you like. Just name the co-ordinates and map out your area.
Wrong.
> Regarding the concept that G-d didn't constrict himself. The
> knowledgeable rabbi said it's absolutely wrong, G-d constricted his
> light.
His light is not Himself.
> > > unfortunately, the RAMBAM seems a little unclear to me, where in
> > > paragraph 8 he says
> > >
> > > paragraph 8
> > > "...it is impossible for a body not to be limited"
> > > (that just tells us that when the RAMBAM says G-d doesn't have a body,
> > > he isn't refuting your argument. Since if g-d is everywhere, he doesn't
> > > have a body. But the RAMBAM refutes your argument elsewhere)
> > >
> > > paragraph 11
> > > "since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> > > form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> > > appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> > > nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> > > neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
> > >
> > > You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> > > 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> > > there".
> >
> > No, James. That doesn't follow at all. Nor am I sure why you think it
> > does. It seems a complete non sequitur to me. Would it make you feel
> > better if I said "Hashem is not absent to my left, and not absent to my
> > right"? You're quibbling about semantics.
>
> Since G-d transcends space. And his presence fills space.
In a sense, nothing exists *but* Hashem. Everything, including you and
me and the keyboard I'm typing on, are all part of Hashem. His
presence is part of Him. There is nothing that is external to Him.
Hashem is not delimited by space, and saying that He is everywhere
doesn't mean that He is in specific places in the sense of
separateness.
Work on it, James. Read Flatland and practice visualizing things that
you will never be able to visualize. Stop trying to use hammer and
nail definitions for Hashem. They don't work.
> To say G-d is absent or isn't absent, seems to take him and his
> presence with him.
"Seems" --to whom? Certainly not to me. Are you making the mistake of
equating Hashem and His presence? His presence, His attributes,
everything about Hashem that we can conceptualize, all of these are
creations of Hashem.
Consider: if you can conceptualize such a thing as Hashem's presence,
in that very act, you have delimited it. You have restricted it, in
some sense. But that's fine, because Hashem's presense is not Hashem.
It is a creation of Hashem.
> There is a kabbalistic distinction between saying
> "G-d" and saying "G-d's presence". One transcends space and the other
> fills space.
This discussion is pointless in English. You use terms like
"transcend" without giving any indication of what real concept you mean
by it. Do translate "transcend" for me, James. I'd like to understand
what you're thinking about. Because if you mean that Hashem is only
outside of space, you're supposing something that can exist externally
from Hashem. And as heresies go, that's pretty substantial.
> I think everyone here
> > understood me quite well as meaning that Hashem is omnipresent, and not
> > that He is "a little here, a little there", chas v'shalom.
>
> I wouldn't say you were saying "a little here, a little there" , you
> weren't putting any space in between. But anything that occupies space
> has Areas (one may say portions since that is the word in the
> translation of the RAMBAM)
Rambam didn't speak English, so it isn't really. Hashem does not
occupy space. Space is a subset of Hashem. Just as (by analogy) the
cubic foot of air in front of my face is a subset of my cubical. There
is no space in that cubic foot that is *not* my cubical. But no one
could say that my cubical is in that cubic foot of space.
> My understanding regarding G-d's omnipresence(from what the
> knowledgeable rabbi told me), is that it cannot possibily be literal.
> Since G-d transcends space. It is G-d's presence that is everywhere
> and fills space.
Translate. You're using buzzwords that mean nothing. Given their
meanings in plain English, you're plain wrong.
> > If you don't understand something, ask for a clarification before you
> > start throwing accusations.
>
> sorry, a lot of the stuff I quoted written by the Altar Rebbe didn't
> apply to what you were saying, I didnt' mean to accuse you of that.
> But apparently there is writing in that area of what he wrote, that
> applies to it, in the same way as the RAMBAM does. Apparently in
> 'Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7 '
>
> There may actually be some debate on the topic of whether G-d is
> literally everywhere. I did once see an article on the Chabad site
> (i'm unable to find the article, no matter what I search for), which
> said that some kabbalists say G-d is in the world, and others say he
> isn't.
Don't quote Chabad at me, please. They believe a dead man is Mashiach.
> At the moment, all the sources that I have references to, seem to
> indicate that he isn't.
And all of what you've posted here seems to indicate that you just
don't understand what you've read. I have to assume that if you can't
read my mere English post without completely misunderstanding it, your
understanding of the texts you refer to may be suspect.
> Maybe these kabbalists that say G-d is everywhere - in space, are
> disagreeing with the RAMBAM. Maybe they have the authority to.
Yeah, katonti, right. Hashem gave me a mind, James. If those
authorities didn't want people to apply their minds to what they wrote,
they wouldn't have written it.
> I think that rather than entertain a concept of G-d that is wrong, it's
> safer to just quote authorities. At the moment, I see no authority
> that entertains the belief that G-d is literally everywhere, present in
> space.
I'd be surprised if anyone is actually reading this anymore, but on the
off chance that there is someone, let's have an Instant Poll:
Is Lisa concerned about "safer"?
* Yes
* No
Let's hear from whoever is left here.
> The point is though, that regarding these kabbalistic concepts,
> especially the nature of G-d, it's best to quote kabbalistic
> authorities, and say that they believe XYZ. Who are we to choose
> between them.
I can't speak for you, but I'm Lifsha Bracha bat Natan Reuven u'Malka,
l'Mishpachat Aaronson, ha-keruya Lisa Beth Liel b'loazit. I learn what
is taught, and I integrate what I learn. That's better than parroting
rote statements. Even rote statements by Gedolim.
> If I knew of an authoritative statement for the pantheistic view that
> G-d is all and all is G-d.
It's not pantheistic. At most, it's similar to panentheism, which is a
whole other animal.
> (Which as I wrote erarlier, really does seem
> by the reasoning I have, to contradict the rambam) Then fine, there
> would be a clear debate on the issue.
The reasoning you have, as you put it, is flawed.
> I guess there is a debate, since I did once read a chabad article
> saying there was. But since I can't find that article, I haven't given
> it much weight.
>
> There are different approaches. But perhaps there's a great danger in
> entertaining a wrong approach.
If you're concerned about that great danger, be careful. I don't share
your concern.
> Perhaps it's better to be in doubt.
I don't share your doubt. I'm putting forward a position. I do not
know with 100% certainty that it is correct. But I'm not a rabbi. No
one expects what I say to be authoritative in that sense. Some accept
that I'm knowledgable, but I still lack rabbinic authority, and I
*hope* that everyone knows that.
> Or
> perhaps it's better to be on the safe side and not contradict the
> RAMBAM without a source.
James, I'm going to type this really slowly, just to help you out:
I... A-M... N-O-T... C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-N-G... T-H-E... R-A-M-B-A-M.
Read that. Reread it. Meditate on it. Cogitate on it. Internalize
it until you can bring it up from memory. Until you wake in the middle
of the night screaming: "Lisa isn't contradicting the Rambam! Lisa
isn't contradicting the Rambam", and the neighbors come running to see
what's wrong.
> Though it seems that you believe that the
> concept of G-d's literal omnipresence does not contradict the RAMBAM.
Gee, you think? Whatever could have given you that idea?
> I think, without sources for anything other than the RAMBAM, the only
> sensible discussion we can have is whether G-d's literal omnipresence
> contradicts the RAMBAM .
And yet you have seen fit to assume that, rather than to discuss it.
Why is that?
> (It's possible that it does and still
> shouldn't be called heresy - if a leading kabbalsitic authority
> subscribes to the view).
Actually, I can say things that contradict the Rambam without any need
of a Kabbalistic authority. Particularly since the Rambam himself
wasn't a Kabbalist. And also because he was Rishon, and not a deity.
Disagreeing with the Rambam is not heresy. Get a grip, James.
> sorry for calling you a heretic for basically jut taking G-d's
> omnipresence literally. There probably are kabbalistic authorities
> that do so, even though we don't have any sources to back that up. But
> i'm very reluctant, to hold a belief - a whole concept of G-d which
> might be very wrong, and not even have a source for it, and furthermore
> and importantly, it seems to me - through reasoning on the RAMBAM- that
> it contradicts the RAMBAM.
Your reasoning is flawed, James. Furthermore, there is no obligation
in Judaism to hold a specific correct concept of Hashem. Lastly, I'd
like to say that replying to this post was a surreal experience.
Lisa
Lisa
Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:22:28 +0000 (UTC), "jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>
> [snip]
>
> >paragraph 11
> >"since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> >form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> >appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> >nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> >neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
> >
> >You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> >'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> >there".
>
> Stone Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men! One of their popular songs
> goes exactly like that:
>
> Hashem is here, Hashem is there
> Hashem is truly everywhere!
> Up, up, down, down
> Right, left, and all around
> Here, there, and everywhere
> That's where He can be found!
>
> And they actually point in all those directions as they sing!!
And that's legit when talking to kids.
Lisa
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
I don't judge people according to relative standards of decency.
Regarding an average arab doing something bad(eg hateful against
israel), I wouldn't say "what would you expect, he's an arab".
Similarly with Rafael
yaco...@aol.com
Micha Berger wrote:.
> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
> from G-d, not made of Him.
>
> -mi
Not "emanated". Created.
Western man cannto accept that ther eis simply no ground of being
between man and God. The Hebrew Bible has no problem with that. Thus,
no need of "emanation" and no need of Platonic "sefiroth."
Jacko
Rafael
news:1127908410.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
These ideas are found in the East, as well; e.g.:
"Although Christianity holds that God is immanent (that is, everywhere
throughout the universe), that is usually not meant in physical terms. God
is near all humans (perhaps his spirit is in the air), but he is not in
physical objects; God created, but he is not his creation. For example, he
is not a chair nor is he in a chair.
"Hinduism provides a radically different idea, one which goes against the
evidences of human senses. The idea is quite simple: Brahman (the "creator"
god) IS his creation. The cosmos is not so much a creation, but more an
emanation from him. His essence lies in all created objects, including human
beings. This means that the multiplicity of the cosmos--with all its gods,
goddesses, humans, animals, and other beings and objects--is actually a
unity; it is one divine being. The multiplicity that hides the cosmos' unity
is called maya; that is the reality humans perceive with their senses
everyday. The overcoming of maya to perceive true reality (Brahman) thus
constitutes an important task in Hinduism."
- http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/religionet/er/hinduism/HCOSMOS.HTM
Rafael
Rafael
Lisa
Let me repeat, without the left-hand stuff this time, that I don't
think Rafael did anything wrong. I don't think you have any cause to
judge him negatively for writing the Tetragrammaton the way he did.
Where relative standards of decency come in is when I say that he
deserves credit for not having used the vocalized version that so many
non-Jews and non-religious Jews use.
And we *do* use relative standards for many thing. Consider King
Solomon "worshipping idols" and Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah "keeping an ox
that worked on Shabbat". Not to mention Moshe Rabbenu. They are
judged more strictly given their level. I wouldn't complement a frum
Jew on not using a vocalized version of the Tetragrammaton, because I'd
expect that.
But again, lest it go unnoticed, I'm saying that you have not shown any
reason why Rafael -- or anyone else -- should be criticized for writing
YHVH. I just did it myself to make this point. That is *not* Hashem's
name. The third letter in the Tetragrammaton is *not* pronounced "V".
I feel like the guy in Life of Brian going "Jehova! Jehova!" Take a
tranquilizer or something, James. Please.
Lisa
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
String theory would also view the world this way in that, it is the
geometry or the shape of space-time that allows for the illusion of our
universe. Without it, energy would not be able to interact with itself
in the ways that are familiar to us.
>The overcoming of maya to perceive true reality (Brahman) thus
> constitutes an important task in Hinduism."
>
True, but this is coupled with the great realisation that the Atman
IS Brahman, or the true self or the consciousness that is oneself IS
the consciousness of Brahman, i.e., your thoughts are not yours, per
se, but Brahman's thoughts via the vehicle of you (or your Atman).
yaco...@aol.com
> > between man and God. The Hebrew Bible has no problem with that. Thus,
> > no need of "emanation" and no need of Platonic "sefiroth."
> These ideas are found in the East, as well; e.g.:
> "Hinduism provides a radically different idea, one which goes against the
> evidences of human senses. The idea is quite simple: Brahman (the "creator"
> god) IS his creation. The cosmos is not so much a creation, but more an
> emanation from him. His essence lies in all created objects, including human
> beings. This means that the multiplicity of the cosmos--with all its gods,
> goddesses, humans, animals, and other beings and objects--is actually a
> unity; it is one divine being. The multiplicity that hides the cosmos' unity
> is called maya; that is the reality humans perceive with their senses
> everyday. The overcoming of maya to perceive true reality (Brahman) thus
> constitutes an important task in Hinduism."
> Rafael
I would class indo-European man as "Western" man, but yes, Hinduism
also seeks a ground of being between man and God. This idea is
summarily rejected by the Hebrew Bible.
Jacko
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael wrote:
> <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127891199....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rafael wrote:
> >
> > > Either way, there is a risk of sounding biased towards yesh, as if ayin
> > > were somehow empty or incomplete without it.
> >
> > With good reason, too. When you speak of "absolutely nothing", you
> > can't logically remove the fact of the potential for "absolutely
> > everything". Nor can you remove the rules of logic from applying to
> > the nothingness. By negating the ayin--by applying the "not" of
> > logical negation to the "not" that is the ayin--the whole nothingness
> > bursts forth into the realisation of the potential for absolutely
> > everything and you would get something, nay, everything from nothing.
> > Remember that, just because there is nothing material in ayin, it does
> > not necessarily preclude the abstract, which does not depend on
> > anything material for its existence.
>
> Good point.
>
> But if the distinction between ayin and yesh is only one of perspective
> (i.e. they are dual aspects of the same ultimate reality that is the Ein
> Sof), then we run the risk of allowing our concepts to lead us astray (i.e.
> into a substantial duality).
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial duality"; could you
elaborate a bit more? Unless you mean about the difference between
abstract and material. I would, as Plato did, hold them as separate
stages in the development of existence. The primary difference being
that you can never destroy the abstract concept. My take on the
abstract is that it persists in the mind of God and serves as the basis
for all the other forms of existence like that which is real and that
which is dream and that which is wakefully conceived etc. I would
think that the difference between ayin and yesh is the difference
between potential and actuated--it's analogous to (and perhaps
synonymous with) the difference between potential and kinetic energy.
"All that could ever be" was held in the mind of God as potential and,
at the moment of creation, actuated. The goal is to reach that
potential, which is probably beyond our poor powers of conception to
conceive. Of course, God has all the energy and all the space and time
at His disposal.
In addition, though, to the above, is the importance of
consciousness. I don't know if you read my response to Lisa, in which
I briefly outlined my theory regarding the nature of energy and its
relationship to deity. I didn't delve into consciousness there but it
is my belief that God experiences THROUGH our experience and, in
extension, through every action performed by energy. I believe that
the gathering of experiences by God is, like entropy, an action that
always increases. I believe that it is this growth of consciousness
that IS the purpose for existence. It is what God thrives upon. He
craves experience in order for growth of consciousness and uses energy
as the means to this end. He will only be satisfied when He has
reached His potential. I expect that, when this occurs, the Ayin Soph
will be fully restored.
> This, I suspect, is why some kabbalists emphasized the ultimate quality of
> Ayin, as opposed to the cosmic cataclysm which resulted in yesh [i.e. the
> shevirat ha-kelim (breaking of the vessels), the tikkun (repair) of which is
> our religious and spiritual duty; see, e.g.,
> http://www.newkabbalah.com/FormProp.htm].
>
The physical, string-theory, analogy of breaking the vessels would be
conforming into the 4-dimensional space-time that we know and the
Calabi-Yau space. This effectively broke the continuity of the Ayin
Soph--a state of pure, raw, unadulterated energy spreading throughout
all that was--and produced this universe. The repair is the process of
the growth of consciousness that, when fully completed, would result in
the restoration of the Ayin Soph in a reverse process of unfolding the
dimensions created to support the process of realising God's potential.
The reason for stressing the ultimate quality of Ayin, I would think,
is because it serves as the functional, conceptual basis for all the
rest.
fla...@verizon.net
On 28-Sep-2005, "Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote:
> I feel like the guy in Life of Brian going "Jehova! Jehova!"
That *was* some good steak, huh?
Susan
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Lisa wrote:
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Lisa wrote:
>
> > > So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
> >
> > well, I can't see the bible proving it. But you maintain G-d is
> > everywhere. I see an important source that seems to disprove that you
> > say.
> >
> > RAMBAM Mishneh Torah hilchot yesodai hatorah Ch 1 paragraphs 7 8 and 11
> > paragpraph 7
> > "..not one in the way that the body is divided into different portions"
> >
> > (If he was everywhere, you could look at areas, say this portion is
> > over here, this over there. I do not think this is the G-d of Israel)
>
> That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
> everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
> in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
> understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
> everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
> understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
> that.
>
I understood you perfectly. Energy, too, can be described this way.
That reminds me of a minor internal revelation that I had regarding
God's omniscience. It dawned on me that having omniscience was
relatively useless. It's like having all the data in all the computers
in the world. It's utterly useless unless you understand the data. So
it's God's omniprehension that matters far more than His omniscience.
And, if He perfectly understands omniscience, we can completely trust
that he would, given His attribut of omnipotence, always act perfectly
wisely demonstrating His attribute of omnisapience.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Lisa wrote:
> > > jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > > Lisa wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So what do we do with the fact that we're here? If God is everywhere,
> > > >
> > > > well, I can't see the bible proving it. But you maintain G-d is
> > > > everywhere. I see an important source that seems to disprove that you
> > > > say.
(I'll just add. Althoug you didn't mention a biblical support. Micha
Berger provided a verse that appears to me to be a biblical proof or
support for G-d being everywhere. Jer 23:24 "..Indeed, I fill the
heavens and the earth, says G-d" The Living Nach )
> > > > RAMBAM Mishneh Torah hilchot yesodai hatorah Ch 1 paragraphs 7 8 and 11
> > > > paragpraph 7
> > > > "..not one in the way that the body is divided into different portions"
> > > >
> > > > (If he was everywhere, you could look at areas, say this portion is
> > > > over here, this over there. I do not think this is the G-d of Israel)
> > >
> > > That's a very strange inference to make. Saying that Hashem is
> > > everywhere means that there is nowhere that He isn't. Not that He is
> > > in discrete places. Perhaps it would have been easier for you to
> > > understand had I said "Everywhere is Him", rather than "He is
> > > everywhere". But it would have been harder for most people to
> > > understand, and I chose my words with care. I generally try to do
> > > that.
> >
> > (I'm going to quote the last 2 paragraphs I wrote in this post, over
> > here, because I think it's best to read them first!! )
> >
> > "I think, without sources for anything other than the RAMBAM, the only
> > sensible discussion we can have is whether G-d's literal omnipresence
> > contradicts the RAMBAM . (It's possible that it does and still
> > shouldn't be called heresy - if a leading kabbalsitic authority
> > subscribes to the view)."
>
> Hashem's literal omnipresence does not contradict the Rambam. And what
> do you mean by "without sources for anything other than the Rambam"?
> We have many other sources.
this is a meaningful sensible issue here. as I said, whether or not
literal omnipresence contradicts the RAMBAM.
> No, James. I am not. You need to stop telling me what I'm saying. [most of straw man accusation snipped]
the 'small part of it' that I was referring to you espousing, was
literal omnipresence. Are you not espousing that?
<snip>
>spare us both these
> ridiculous interchanges, where you argue against a strawman that has
> nothing to do with what I've said.
>
> > I still say that to say that
> > G-di s everywhere, is to be able to mark out areas, and say, "this is
> > him and this is him and that is him, and whereever I can mark out, is
> > him" Looks to me like a connected spirit which can be divided into
> > portions , and strestches to fill the world.
>
> And I still say that your claim doesn't follow logically from anything.
> Hu Mekomo shel olam.
googling tells me a possible source for the phrase you wrote describing
HaShem is from Bereishit Rabbah 68:9
"sheHu mekomo shel olam veien olam mekomo" (He is the place of the
world
but the world is not His place)"
Midrashing are often not literal, especially when dealing with a
kabbalistic issue.
One might interpret this midrash, as He or some aspect of him(e.g. his
presence), is in the world. And if the world weren't here, he wouldn't
be without a place.
If it were He himself that were in this world, then I would immediately
say he is literally omnipresent, so as not to put a limit on him. But
as I said, this interpretation seems to me to contradict the RAMBAM.
Micha's quote for g-d's literal omnipresence - Jeremiah "I fill..." is
stronger, but still, it leaves open what he fills it with. It could be
'merely' full with his presence.
The issue which I wanted to discuss, was whether literal omniprseence
contradicts the RAMBAM.
And that midrash doesn't address that issue.
>There can be no such thing as a place where
> Hashem is absent. But I'm not going to make the words I write obscure
> and hard to understand by phrasing everything in the negative. I will
> say that Hashem is everywhere, rather than there is no place where
> Hashem isn't. Because the two are identical in normal language, and
> the latter comes across like technobabble.
>
> Further, the idea of stretching to fill the world is obviously not what
> I'm saying, because Hashem created the world. The world is a subset of
> Hashem, and not the other way around.
Ok, it's clear then that your position is not that he stretches to fill
his creation.
But do you agree that anything that fills something, is connected. (If
you will say this is an assertion, then please say why. I think this
is the crux of the issue)
if his presence fills the world, his presence is connectd (no prob with
the RAMBAM). If he fills the world, I say, he is connected (prob with
RAMBAM)
> > Better to say as this rabbi told me clearly, G-d's presence fills the
> > world. But G-d does not. G-d transcends space. But his presence fills
> > space.
> I completely disagree. Hashem's presence does indeed fill the world.
> But if your implication when you say that He transcends space is that
> He is outside of space, you are wrong. Note that I'm not saying that
> this *is* what you're saying. I phrased it conditionally, rather than
> presume to tell you what you *are* saying.
I'm saying he doesn't occupy space.
> I think that your confusion may stem from a misconception that saying
> Hashem is everywhere means that He is contained in everything.
ok. your view of G-d is everywhere is not a G-d is all and all is
G-d position. I had thought it was. Yuor view does make more sense
than that. His presence is not boudn by his physical and spiritual
creations. so, your view is not pantheistic.
But as I said, because my reasoning that if A fills B, then A is
connected, see a problem with that position and the RAMBAM.
That's
> not what the word means. To go back to that square foot of space,
> *all* of that space exists within my cubicle. That doesn't mean that
> my cubical is contained within that cubic foot of space.
fine, I see now that you do not believe G-d is all and all is G-d.
> > If something fills space, you can divide it into portions/areas any way
> > you like. Just name the co-ordinates and map out your area.
>
> Wrong.
Why?
> > Regarding the concept that G-d didn't constrict himself. The
> > knowledgeable rabbi said it's absolutely wrong, G-d constricted his
> > light.
>
> His light is not Himself.
>
> > > > unfortunately, the RAMBAM seems a little unclear to me, where in
> > > > paragraph 8 he says
> > > >
> > > > paragraph 8
> > > > "...it is impossible for a body not to be limited"
> > > > (that just tells us that when the RAMBAM says G-d doesn't have a body,
> > > > he isn't refuting your argument. Since if g-d is everywhere, he doesn't
> > > > have a body. But the RAMBAM refutes your argument elsewhere)
> > > >
> > > > paragraph 11
> > > > "since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> > > > form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> > > > appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> > > > nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> > > > neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
> > > >
> > > > You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> > > > 'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> > > > there".
> > >
> > > No, James. That doesn't follow at all. Nor am I sure why you think it
> > > does. It seems a complete non sequitur to me. Would it make you feel
> > > better if I said "Hashem is not absent to my left, and not absent to my
> > > right"? You're quibbling about semantics.
no, however you say it, I think you're saying the same thing, and as I
said, I tinhk it disagrees with the RAMBAM. For the reason given, that
A fills B implies that A is connected.
> > Since G-d transcends space. And his presence fills space.
>
> In a sense, nothing exists *but* Hashem. Everything, including you and
> me and the keyboard I'm typing on, are all part of Hashem. His
> presence is part of Him. There is nothing that is external to Him.
seems connected to me, including within the subset that is his
creation.
> Hashem is not delimited by space, and saying that He is everywhere
> doesn't mean that He is in specific places in the sense of
> separateness.
When I talked about G-d literal omnipresence allowing you to mark out
areas, I am nto saying those areas are distinct in any way other than
the co-ordinates they are at. I'm not saying there's an area over here
and an area over here, and a gap in between where he isn't.
> Work on it, James. Read Flatland and practice visualizing things that
> you will never be able to visualize. Stop trying to use hammer and
> nail definitions for Hashem. They don't work.
>
> > To say G-d is absent or isn't absent, seems to take him and his
> > presence with him.
>
> "Seems" --to whom? Certainly not to me. Are you making the mistake of
> equating Hashem and His presence? His presence, His attributes,
> everything about Hashem that we can conceptualize, all of these are
> creations of Hashem.
HaShem's attributes and presence are HaShem's creation? sounds like
HaShem creating himself.
> Consider: if you can conceptualize such a thing as Hashem's presence,
> in that very act, you have delimited it. You have restricted it, in
> some sense. But that's fine, because Hashem's presense is not Hashem.
> It is a creation of Hashem.
>
> > There is a kabbalistic distinction between saying
> > "G-d" and saying "G-d's presence". One transcends space and the other
> > fills space.
>
> This discussion is pointless in English. You use terms like
> "transcend" without giving any indication of what real concept you mean
> by it. Do translate "transcend" for me, James.
doesn't occupy. HaShem transcends space meant he doesn't occupy it.
But I know your position is different, and it's possible that I am
wrong. And if holding a totally wrong conception of G-d is heresy, then
i'm holding a heretical belief - which I don't want.
I'd like to understand
> what you're thinking about. Because if you mean that Hashem is only
> outside of space, you're supposing something that can exist externally
> from Hashem. And as heresies go, that's pretty substantial.
now you're calling me a heretic!!
External implies independence. As far as I understand it, it's a widely
accepted orthodox jewish view that G-d creates the world, and if he
stopped energising it, it'd vanish. So I wouldn't say that by my
position, G-d's creation is external to him.
> > I think everyone here
> > > understood me quite well as meaning that Hashem is omnipresent, and not
> > > that He is "a little here, a little there", chas v'shalom.
the terminology I used to describe G-d's literal omnipresence regarding
areas was clearer, since "a little here, a little there" makes it
sounds like there would be gaps.
the key thing established for me here regarding your position is that
you do not believe that G-d is all and all is G-d. I didn't know that
before.
> > I wouldn't say you were saying "a little here, a little there" , you
> > weren't putting any space in between. But anything that occupies space
> > has Areas (one may say portions since that is the word in the
> > translation of the RAMBAM)
>
> Rambam didn't speak English, so it isn't really. Hashem does not
> occupy space. Space is a subset of Hashem. Just as (by analogy) the
> cubic foot of air in front of my face is a subset of my cubical. There
> is no space in that cubic foot that is *not* my cubical. But no one
> could say that my cubical is in that cubic foot of space.
no, but one would say that the cubical occupies that cubic foot of
space and beyond.
You seem to be saying Space or any creation of HaShem, is a subset of
HaShem but HaShem doesn't occupy that which he is a subset of. e.g. he
doesn't occupy space.
this doesn't match your analogy. Where the cubic foot is a subset of
the cubicle and the cubicle does occupy it (and beyond).
>
> > My understanding regarding G-d's omnipresence(from what the
> > knowledgeable rabbi told me), is that it cannot possibily be literal.
> > Since G-d transcends space. It is G-d's presence that is everywhere
> > and fills space.
>
> Translate. You're using buzzwords that mean nothing. Given their
> meanings in plain English, you're plain wrong.
>
but if you need a translation in plain english, then you must know what
I mean, so why would you need a translation?
> > > If you don't understand something, ask for a clarification before you
> > > start throwing accusations.
> > sorry, a lot of the stuff I quoted written by the Altar Rebbe didn't
> > apply to what you were saying, I didnt' mean to accuse you of that.
> > But apparently there is writing in that area of what he wrote, that
> > applies to it, in the same way as the RAMBAM does. Apparently in
> > 'Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7 '
> >
> > There may actually be some debate on the topic of whether G-d is
> > literally everywhere. I did once see an article on the Chabad site
> > (i'm unable to find the article, no matter what I search for), which
> > said that some kabbalists say G-d is in the world, and others say he
> > isn't.
>
> Don't quote Chabad at me, please. They believe a dead man is Mashiach.
if yo ukeep objecting to everything, this post will go on forever ;)
<snip huge chunk> (if you'd like me to respond to the nipped chunk, I
can, but I don't think they contained any big arguments, just brief
objections to side issues). I snipped it not out of disdain, but just
to keep this post from launching off into outer space.
Actually, I can say things that contradict the Rambam without any need
> of a Kabbalistic authority. Particularly since the Rambam himself
> wasn't a Kabbalist.
According to the amazing RAMBAN(who was of course a kabbalist), the
RAMBAM was a master kabbalist. According to other Rabbis too, but the
RAMBAN is extraordinarily brilliant and precise in his logic, and also
a great kabbalist.
So, I believe the RAMBAN was right.
http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/rambam.pdf
> Disagreeing with the Rambam is not heresy. Get a grip, James.
No, it isn't. And I never said it was. Infact, I said that maybe the
RAMBAM is wrong.
i'm not going to go on a huge sophisticated digression about you
attacking straw men.
What I had thought was that holding a wrong conception of G-d, was
heresy. But in retrospect, I don't think that particular source that
told me this, is that good. Even though he is a rabbi and I could
probably find his source material somewhere. So, maybe it is heresy,
maybe it's not. I won't say either way. Of course if it is heersy, then
maybe i'm a heretic. At least I tried!
yaco...@aol.com
Lisa wrote:
> Ayin would be better translated as "unactualized" than "nothing". In a
> sense, those are the same thing. Until potential is actualized, it's
> essentially nothing. Yesh would then be actualized potential, and yesh
> mi-ayin would be the act of bringing something into actuality when it
> was previously only potential.
>
> Lisa
While this sounds like good European kabbala, I would point out that
your explanation posits some kind of prefiguring (at least in
principle) of the "unactualized" to be "actualized."
I do not believe a pre-kabbalistic notion of creation would include
this. True tohu wabohu is not potentially anything at all. The
forces/structure/rules of the game which allowed reality to exist
themselves did not yet exist, so how could any prefiguring be done.
Actualization along which pathway? Example: matter and "anti-matter"
were not yet distinct (i.e, they had no interaction) thus only
subsequently when God "hibdhil ben ha'aor wubhen hahoshekh" did they
assume their current structure.
Prefiguring conditions the "unactualized" along certain paths. An
absolutely free being has no such conditions upon His creative ability.
So how could God then "think" about creating form the "ayin"??/ Isn't
the very "thinking about it" some kind of prefiguring?
Yes, from an anthropocentiric POV, and no form a theocentric POV.
The function of Jewish esoterics is to debunk the anthropocentirc POV
and see the theocentirc POV.
Jacko
Rafael
news:1127937648.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Let me repeat, without the left-hand stuff this time, that I don't
> think Rafael did anything wrong. I don't think you have any cause to
> judge him negatively for writing the Tetragrammaton the way he did.
>
> Where relative standards of decency come in is when I say that he
> deserves credit for not having used the vocalized version that so many
> non-Jews and non-religious Jews use.
>
> And we *do* use relative standards for many thing. Consider King
> Solomon "worshipping idols" and Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah "keeping an ox
> that worked on Shabbat". Not to mention Moshe Rabbenu. They are
> judged more strictly given their level. I wouldn't complement a frum
> Jew on not using a vocalized version of the Tetragrammaton, because I'd
> expect that.
>
> But again, lest it go unnoticed, I'm saying that you have not shown any
> reason why Rafael -- or anyone else -- should be criticized for writing
> YHVH. I just did it myself to make this point. That is *not* Hashem's
> name. The third letter in the Tetragrammaton is *not* pronounced "V".
I would think a vuv is pronounced like a 'V' (notwithstanding the custom of
using a 'W', instead).
Regardless, my argument to James was based not on the 'V' in particular but
on the fact that the string uses Latin letters and is non-vowelized. One
might say that's even twice removed.
And, yes, I'm not particularly mindful of the taboo against pronouncing
God's name (not that I'm sure I know what it is), so I could indeed do worse
in O eyes.
Rafael
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:22:28 +0000 (UTC), "jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> said:
>
> [snip]
>
> >paragraph 11
> >"since it has been clarified that he does not have a body or corporeal
> >form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are
> >appropriate to him: neither connection nor separation, neither place
> >nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, nmeither right nor left,
> >neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting"
> >
> >You see. If G-d was everywhere, he would be connected. He would have
> >'place' (everywhere), we could point left and right and say "he is
> >there".
>
> Stone Uncle Moishy and the Mitzvah Men! One of their popular songs
> goes exactly like that:
>
> Hashem is here, Hashem is there
> Hashem is truly everywhere!
> Up, up, down, down
> Right, left, and all around
> Here, there, and everywhere
> That's where He can be found!
>
> And they actually point in all those directions as they sing!!
I never remember it as "Stone Uncle Moishy"! I thought it was just
"Uncle Moishy"
I used to sing it too. Maybe it's literal and right to imply literal
omnipresence. Maybe it's misleading and was only intended
metaphorically.
Or maybe, the guy that wrote it was not qualified to comment on such
matters!!
Besides the obvious other limitations and purposes of a nursery rhyme.
Anyhow. Even if the guy that wrote it heard of G-d's omnipresence from
a kabbalistic authority, then ther's still the question - does it
contradict the RAMBAM or not regarding being connected - left right up
down
Besides the fact that qouting a nursery rhyme is amusing, i'm sure you
didn't mean it to sufficient as sensible response outside the realm of
humour ;)
Rafael
news:1127933376.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Good point.
> >
> > But if the distinction between ayin and yesh is only one of perspective
> > (i.e. they are dual aspects of the same ultimate reality that is the Ein
> > Sof), then we run the risk of allowing our concepts to lead us astray
(i.e.
> > into a substantial duality).
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial duality"; could you
> elaborate a bit more?
Crudely put, that God and the universe are made of different "stuff."
Ayin (Nothingness) neutralizes this concept (and all others, including
itself), in keeping with the negative theology commonly practiced by Jews
(at least since the Maimonides).
> Unless you mean about the difference between
> abstract and material. I would, as Plato did, hold them as separate
> stages in the development of existence. The primary difference being
> that you can never destroy the abstract concept. My take on the
> abstract is that it persists in the mind of God and serves as the basis
> for all the other forms of existence like that which is real and that
> which is dream and that which is wakefully conceived etc.
This description reminds me of transcendental idealism, associated with Kant
and Hegel.
You may also appreciate this: http://www.ctmu.org/
Would you say that Ayin is what's ultimately real and, by comparison, yesh
is like a dream (albeit, an evolving, lawful one)?
Also, aren't you saying that God is Mind? If so, then "mind of God" suggests
that there's more to God than just mind (e.g. a body).
> I would
> think that the difference between ayin and yesh is the difference
> between potential and actuated--it's analogous to (and perhaps
> synonymous with) the difference between potential and kinetic energy.
> "All that could ever be" was held in the mind of God as potential and,
> at the moment of creation, actuated. The goal is to reach that
> potential, which is probably beyond our poor powers of conception to
> conceive. Of course, God has all the energy and all the space and time
> at His disposal.
> In addition, though, to the above, is the importance of
> consciousness. I don't know if you read my response to Lisa, in which
> I briefly outlined my theory regarding the nature of energy and its
> relationship to deity. I didn't delve into consciousness there but it
> is my belief that God experiences THROUGH our experience and, in
> extension, through every action performed by energy. I believe that
> the gathering of experiences by God is, like entropy, an action that
> always increases. I believe that it is this growth of consciousness
> that IS the purpose for existence. It is what God thrives upon. He
> craves experience in order for growth of consciousness and uses energy
> as the means to this end. He will only be satisfied when He has
> reached His potential. I expect that, when this occurs, the Ayin Soph
> will be fully restored.
Jewish mysticism scholar Arthur Green arrived at a similar theory (see,
e.g., his "Seek My Face"), with more of an emphasis on kabbalistic and
hasidic texts than on physics (although he does devote a little space to
that, and to evolutionary biology, as well).
Rafael
<snip>
Rafael
news:1127942520.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would you also call the Far East "indo-European"?
"The Tao, in order of manifest, becomes chi, literally, 'breath.' In Taoist
cosmology, this point of first emanation, or singularity, is represented by
'Yuanshi Tianzun', the Supreme one. This energy in turn brings forth the
second and third complementary forces, the yin and yang- dual concepts of
light and darkness, matter and energy, male and female. All of manifest
creation is permeated by and powered by the interplay of these conflicting
forces. This conflict gives rise to ever unfolding creation, and maintains
the equilibrium of the universe. This interplay brings about the Myriad
things:
"The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three;
Three produced All things."
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa091702a.htm
Rafael
Rafael
news:dhgpkh$fms$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127933376.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rafael wrote:
> >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > > But if the distinction between ayin and yesh is only one of
perspective
> > > (i.e. they are dual aspects of the same ultimate reality that is the
Ein
> > > Sof), then we run the risk of allowing our concepts to lead us astray
> (i.e.
> > > into a substantial duality).
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial duality"; could you
> > elaborate a bit more?
>
> Crudely put, that God and the universe are made of different "stuff."
>
> Ayin (Nothingness) neutralizes this concept (and all others, including
> itself), in keeping with the negative theology commonly practiced by Jews
> (at least since the Maimonides).
Typo: That you should say either "Maimonides" or "the RaMBaM."
Rafael
Rafael
news:1127942520.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I would class indo-European man as "Western" man, but yes, Hinduism
> also seeks a ground of being between man and God. This idea is
> summarily rejected by the Hebrew Bible.
>
> Jacko
Multiple authors bring multiple theologies (as Richard E. Friedman points
out in "Who Wrote the Bible?"), but I agree with you insofar as the biblical
authors were in a different spacetime than the Medieval kabbalists. (From my
unorthodox perspective, that doesn't automatically make the former any
better or more authoritative than the latter.)
Also, the biblical cosmos is radically different than the modern-scientific
one. To my mind, e.g., there is no "creation ex nihilo" (at least not of all
matter) described in Genesis 1. Rather, it looks more like Elohim formed the
heavens and the earth within the primordial waters of the Deep (Tehom,
demythologized here, relatively speaking, from the Canaanite godess of
chaos, Tiamat). Whether the Deep was created ex nihilo at some earlier
point, or is eternal, the text doesn't say (although there is a later verse
in Psalms which suggests that God did create the Deep, as well).
Rafael
Yisroel Markov
said:
>jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
[snip]
>> I think that rather than entertain a concept of G-d that is wrong, it's
>> safer to just quote authorities. At the moment, I see no authority
>> that entertains the belief that G-d is literally everywhere, present in
>> space.
>
>I'd be surprised if anyone is actually reading this anymore, but on the
>off chance that there is someone, let's have an Instant Poll:
>
>Is Lisa concerned about "safer"?
>* Yes
>* No
No.
>Let's hear from whoever is left here.
This *has* grown kind of big and unwieldy...
[snip]
Ron Aaron
wrote:
> I would think a vuv is pronounced like a 'V' (notwithstanding the custom of
> using a 'W', instead).
The sixth letter is a "w" sound, analagous to the Arabic letter of the same
name. Look at the pointed "vowel" forms - both "oh" and "ooh" are variants of
the "w", whereas "bet"s forms of "b" and "v" are also variants of the same
sound. Think of how the lips are placed to make the sounds.
Note too that in Arabic, David is pronounced "daud", not "daveed".
--
Reva Forth - http://ronware.org/reva/
Rafael
news:slrndjo7vk....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Who among the Jews alive today (i.e. aside from academics) pronounces a vav
as a 'w'? I've only heard it pronounced as a 'v'.
Rafael
Ron Aaron
wrote:
> Who among the Jews alive today (i.e. aside from academics) pronounces a vav
> as a 'w'? I've only heard it pronounced as a 'v'.
Yemenites do, as do many other Jews from Arab lands (including my Moroccan
Hevruta). I try to. It's becoming slightly more common. It is the correct
pronunciation, despite that the majority in Israel don't use it.
Rafael
It seems to me that the "correct" pronunciation is whatever's the convention
(except, of course, as an historical point of interest).
But inasmuch as others agree with you, then my use of 'YHVH' is not twice,
but thrice removed from the Hebrew divine name (i.e. Latin alphabet, no
attempt at vowelization, *and* an "incorrect" transliteration of vav).
Rafael
yaco...@aol.com
Rafael wrote:
> Who among the Jews alive today (i.e. aside from academics) pronounces a vav
> as a 'w'? I've only heard it pronounced as a 'v'.
Shows that you should not assume the Jews you have seen to date are a
complete representation.
All Iraqis and Yemenites. Some Syrians, Egyptians and N. Africans.
Some Persians.
> Rafael
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
Rafael wrote:
> Multiple authors bring multiple theologies (as Richard E. Friedman points
> out in "Who Wrote the Bible?"),
Unless properly redacted.
> but I agree with you insofar as the biblical
> authors were in a different spacetime than the Medieval kabbalists. (From my
> unorthodox perspective, that doesn't automatically make the former any
> better or more authoritative than the latter.)
Okay.
> Also, the biblical cosmos is radically different than the modern-scientific
> one.
I do not agree.
> To my mind, e.g., there is no "creation ex nihilo" (at least not of all
> matter) described in Genesis 1.
Bereshith and bara need to be understood.
> Rather, it looks more like Elohim formed the
> heavens and the earth within the primordial waters of the Deep (Tehom,
> demythologized here,
Naaah. Tehom was subsequent to "shamayim wa'ares".
> relatively speaking, from the Canaanite godess of
> chaos, Tiamat).
Hebrew uses tohu wabohu to express "chaos", not "tehom."
> Whether the Deep was created ex nihilo at some earlier
> point, or is eternal, the text doesn't say (although there is a later verse
> in Psalms which suggests that God did create the Deep, as well).
Actually it does. But I read the Book form the perspectivce of the
People of the Book.
>
> Rafael
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
Rafael wrote:
> Would you also call the Far East "indo-European"?
No, would you?
> "The Tao, in order of manifest, becomes chi, literally, 'breath.' In Taoist
> cosmology, this point of first emanation, or singularity, is represented by
> 'Yuanshi Tianzun', the Supreme one. This energy in turn brings forth the
> second and third complementary forces, the yin and yang- dual concepts of
> light and darkness, matter and energy, male and female. All of manifest
> creation is permeated by and powered by the interplay of these conflicting
> forces. This conflict gives rise to ever unfolding creation, and maintains
> the equilibrium of the universe. This interplay brings about the Myriad
> things:
> "The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three;
> Three produced All things."
Tao is not God. This description is not Platonic "emanation."
> Rafael
Jacko
Rafael
news:1128015087.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Would you also call the Far East "indo-European"?
>
> No, would you?
Of course not. But I'm not the one who said "Western man cannto accept that
ther eis simply no ground of being
between man and God. The Hebrew Bible has no problem with that. Thus, no
need of 'emanation" and no need of Platonic 'sefiroth.'"
Sure, Taoism is not Platonism, and nor is Hinduism, and neither are
monotheistic in the strict sense of eradicated all lesser gods (as Judaism,
at least in a latter stage, does).
Yet both Hinduism and Taoism feature emanationist cosmologies. One refers to
the concept of an Absolute or Supreme One as 'Brahman', the other as
'Yuanshi Tianzun', but the ideas are essentially the same.
In this regard, your East/West distinctions are, at best, arbitrary (i.e. as
if these philosophies must be identical in every regard, or only in ways of
your choosing, in order to merit notice of commonality), and, at worst,
downright false.
Rafael
> > "The Tao, in order of manifest, becomes chi, literally, 'breath.' In
Taoist
> > cosmology, this point of first emanation, or singularity, is represented
by
> > 'Yuanshi Tianzun', the Supreme one. This energy in turn brings forth the
> > second and third complementary forces, the yin and yang- dual concepts
of
> > light and darkness, matter and energy, male and female. All of manifest
> > creation is permeated by and powered by the interplay of these
conflicting
> > forces. This conflict gives rise to ever unfolding creation, and
maintains
> > the equilibrium of the universe. This interplay brings about the Myriad
> > things:
> > "The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three;
> > Three produced All things."
>
> Tao is not God. This description is not Platonic "emanation."
>
> Jacko
Rafael
news:1128015336.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Multiple authors bring multiple theologies (as Richard E. Friedman
points
> > out in "Who Wrote the Bible?"),
>
> Unless properly redacted.
A redactor can only accomplish so much.
> > but I agree with you insofar as the biblical
> > authors were in a different spacetime than the Medieval kabbalists.
(From my
> > unorthodox perspective, that doesn't automatically make the former any
> > better or more authoritative than the latter.)
>
> Okay.
>
> > Also, the biblical cosmos is radically different than the
modern-scientific
> > one.
>
> I do not agree.
Unsurprisingly.
> > To my mind, e.g., there is no "creation ex nihilo" (at least not of all
> > matter) described in Genesis 1.
>
> Bereshith and bara need to be understood.
In their historical context, yes.
> > Rather, it looks more like Elohim formed the
> > heavens and the earth within the primordial waters of the Deep (Tehom,
> > demythologized here,
>
> Naaah. Tehom was subsequent to "shamayim wa'ares".
The first verse is merely an overview of what follows in that passage. (See
Nahum Sarna's comments in JPS.)
> > relatively speaking, from the Canaanite godess of
> > chaos, Tiamat).
>
> Hebrew uses tohu wabohu to express "chaos", not "tehom."
'Tohu va-vohu' does indeed describe chaos (or the state of being unformed or
disorderly). But, in the ancient Near East, Tiamat was the mythological
representation of that concept, of which 'tehom' is the depersonalized
cognate (also found in Ugaritic texts).
> > Whether the Deep was created ex nihilo at some earlier
> > point, or is eternal, the text doesn't say (although there is a later
verse
> > in Psalms which suggests that God did create the Deep, as well).
>
> Actually it does. But I read the Book form the perspectivce of the
> People of the Book.
Be that as it may, you seem to be reading in what's not there.
Rafael
Rafael
news:1128014901.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've davened with Persians, Moroccan and Yemenite Jews on numerous occasions
(in the US and in Israel), and I never picked up on it. Either I just didn't
notice or they've adopted the modern Israeli pronunciation.
I've seen academics (both Ashkenazi and Gentile) use a 'w' in writing,
however.
Rafael
Fiona Abrahami
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote
Also Kurdi, Afghani, Indian, some Turkish, and native "Israeli" (Jerushalmi,
Tzfati etc) Sephardim. Do you know about Bukhari, Jacko, I am not familiar
with their accent but I suspect they will probably use waw too, seeing as
the Afghans I know do? And what about Balkan and Bulgarian, do you know?
And I'm sure I've heard some Ashkenasim use it too, but I can't remember
where they were from.
Fiona
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Further to my original post in response to you (which should have
> appeared by the time this post appears)
>
> The Alter Rebbe was respect by both camps not only the Chassidim. for
> he was without question a Talmudic Gaint. did not accpet that concept
> of G-d having a body or a shape. - or removign himself from the world.
> I know you do not state any of these things. But I am told that he
> gose on to say that there is no up or down left or right associated
> with him.
>
> "In the light of what has been said above (in chapter 7 above this part
> of Shaar Hayichud) it is possible to understand the error of some
> scholars in their own eyes, may G-d forgive them, who erred and
> misinterpreted in their study of the writing of the Ari, of blessed
> memory, and understood the doctrine of Tzimtzum, which is mentioned
> therein literally --That the holy One, Blesed be He, removed Himself
> and His essence, G-d forbid, from this world and only guides from
> above, with individual Providence, all the created beings which are in
> the heavens above and on the earth below. Now, aside from the fact that
> it is altogether impossible to interpret the doctrine of Tzimtzum
> literally, for then it is a phenomenon of corporeality, concerning the
> Holy One, Blessed Be He, who is set apart from them, ... There is no
> place devoid of Him, not in the upper worlds nor in the lower worlds;"
> Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7
> nor space , up or down. though some may error in this and say such
> thing due to the fact they might take Tzimtzum litterally.
>
>
> I am only posting this to respond to what I think is a heretical
> intepretation of tzim tzum, which you have espoused. Or rather, a view
> of tzim tzum that does not have a strong foundation in mainstream
> orthodoxy Chassidic or Misnaged.
>
> (I believe this next paragraph from the RAMBAN applies to you who uses
> your own reasoning and 'logic' to analyse and figure out the nature of
> G-d. If you weren't actually using your own reasoning on kabbalah, but
> were using an argument from a Torah giant, then you didn't give a
> source, which is also very bad. I don't think you or I should be
> commenting on such matters. I am responding only to answer what I
> believe kabbalistic authorities say is a heretical idea)
>
> The great RAMBAN writes ,
> The Ramban, the great Talmudic, Halachic and Kabbalistic authority (see
> Faith and Folly by Rav Yaakov Hillel Shlita p.37) of the mediaeval era
> ends his introduction to Sefer Bereshith (Shilo Publishing, translation
> by Rabbi Chavel p.15) with the following warning: "Now behold I bring
> into a faithful covenant and give proper counsel to all who look into
> this book, not to reason or entertain any thought concerning any of the
> mystic hints which I write regarding the hidden matters of the Torah,
> for I do hereby firmly make known to him (the reader) that my words
> will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or
> contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Kabbalist speaking
> into the ear of an understanding recipient. Reasoning about them is
> foolishness; any unrelated thought brings much damage and withholds the
> benefit. "Let him not trust in vanity, deceiving himself", (Job,
> 15:31) for these thoughts will bring him nothing but evil as if they
> spoke falsely against God, which can not be forgiven...Rather let such
> see in our commentaries novel interpretations of the plain meanings of
> Scripture and Midrashim, and let them take moral instruction from the
> mouths of our holy Rabbis:
> "Into that which is beyond you, do not seek; into that which is more
> powerful than you, do not inquire; about that which is concealed from
> you, do not desire to know; about that which is hidden from you, do not
> ask. Contemplate that which is permitted to you, and engage not
> yourself in hidden things." (Bereishith Rabbah, 8:2)
>
> Take note
Perhaps what is beyond one is not beyond another. It is futile for
a person with the IQ of 70 to try to understand calculus, that doesn't
mean calculus cannot be understood. You may know your own limits but
not those of others. The Ramban was instructing us not to go beyond
our own limits not drawing a line in the sand that applies to everyone
equally. It is not for A to say what is B's capacity, for B may be
beyond A's capacity.
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael wrote:
> Rafael wrote:
>
> > Gotcha.
> >
> > BTW, I picked up Matt's "God and the Big Bang" at the library and read most
> > of it over the weekend. It's quite good, but more of a work of Jewish
> > religious philosophy than a work of history or physics.
> >
> > So, for a more scholarly/academic approach, you should probably check out
> > Gershom Scholem and/or Moshe Idel.
> >
> > However, I did want to highlight one particular quote found in Matt's book,
> > which is from the Zohar (a work from the 13th century CE published by a
> > Spanish Jew named Moses de Leon) which I thought might interest you:
> >
> > A blinding spark flashed
> > within the concealed of the concealed,
> > from the mystery of the Infinite,
> > a cluster of vapor in formlessness...
> > Under the impact of breaking through,
> > one high and hidden point shone.
> > Beyond that point nothing is known.
> > So it is called Beginning.
>
> PS: A less poetic version is (again, Moses de Leon, Sheqel ha-Qodesh):
>
> "The beginning of existence is the secret concealed point. This is the
> beginning of all the hidden things, which spread out from there and
> emanate, according to their species. From a single point you can extend
> the dimensions of all things. Similarly, when the concealed arouses
> itself to exist, at first it brings into being something the size of
> the point of a needle; from there it generates everything."
>
> Rafael
Interesting. String theory still seems to be the scientific
explanation for creation that is the most compatible with these
kabbalists concepts. The third sentence is also very congruent with
Hindu cosmology. Although that final line is a bit confusing. He
seems to be talking about God as "the concealed" or, perhaps, he
intends the concealed to be a form of God that is more abstract, i.e.,
whose existence is more abstract than substantive. The "it" that
generates existence from there, would then either be God in actuality
or a Demiurge-type of creator. I seem to remember a theory brought out
somewhere--that also may have been completely off the mark(but I don't
have a problem with exploring any concept, as you never know what might
be derived until you look)--that spoke of YHVH creating the Elohim and
the Elohim, then, created the Universe. It was a very
Pharoanic-Egyptian styled viewpoint, taking Elohim as a literal plural
rather than as the more familiar singular entity with a pluralised name
to emphasise greatness.
PatrickDH...@hotmail.com
Rafael wrote:
> <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127933376.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rafael wrote:
> >
> > > Good point.
> > >
> > > But if the distinction between ayin and yesh is only one of perspective
> > > (i.e. they are dual aspects of the same ultimate reality that is the Ein
> > > Sof), then we run the risk of allowing our concepts to lead us astray
> (i.e.
> > > into a substantial duality).
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial duality"; could you
> > elaborate a bit more?
>
> Crudely put, that God and the universe are made of different "stuff."
>
But we view our spirit and our body as made of different stuff. We
know that the body can be reduced to energy. But there are many forms
of energy. What we refer to as spirit could well be a field effect of
energy moving between our 4D space-time and the Calabi-Yau space. Heat
and light are different, yet they are both energy. Electricity and
magnetism are different, yet we now know they are different aspects of
a phenomenon that encompasses them both. I would assume (big
assumption, I know) that there is nothing other than the stuff of God,
as that is the simplest way to maintain omnipotence, omnipresence and
omniscience.
> Ayin (Nothingness) neutralizes this concept (and all others, including
> itself), in keeping with the negative theology commonly practiced by Jews
> (at least since the Maimonides).
>
> > Unless you mean about the difference between
> > abstract and material. I would, as Plato did, hold them as separate
> > stages in the development of existence. The primary difference being
> > that you can never destroy the abstract concept. My take on the
> > abstract is that it persists in the mind of God and serves as the basis
> > for all the other forms of existence like that which is real and that
> > which is dream and that which is wakefully conceived etc.
>
> This description reminds me of transcendental idealism, associated with Kant
> and Hegel.
>
> You may also appreciate this: http://www.ctmu.org/
>
> Would you say that Ayin is what's ultimately real and, by comparison, yesh
> is like a dream (albeit, an evolving, lawful one)?
>
I would say it's more the other way around, in that dreams have no
substance and the yesh does, irrespective of the fact that a dream
implies a dreamer. There is some truth to the concept that the
universe is like a dream of God's but that God's dream, because of his
omnipotence, must needs be real (like Anselm's ontological argument).
> Also, aren't you saying that God is Mind? If so, then "mind of God" suggests
> that there's more to God than just mind (e.g. a body).
>
That goes back to "likeness and image". We have both substance and
mind. I would think God does too. But we know so little about how our
minds work, that, I feel, to try to extrapolate to God's mind is almost
futile with so little understanding of our own. I'm a huge proponent
of trying to study more about the inner workings of mind/spirit, but if
it's akin to studying the physical, then we need to develop far better
mental and spiritual tools than those we have at our disposal today.
Mathematics is a great mental tool but says little about spirit.
Meditation is a great spiritual tool but has only a smattering of
influence on the mental side of things. We either need better tools
than these or a tool that works well in both realms than these two.
I would say there's far more to God than just mind as there is far
more to us than just mind. If I were to stretch the concept, I would
say that energy is the substance/body of God. In my system, our
consciousness is to the mind of God like the awareness of a neuron in
our central nervous system. Each neuron performs its tasks and
communicates with those neurons around it, but it has almost no way of
conceiving what is happening in the brain. So, too, we would have
little concept of what might be occuring in the mind of God.
Cheers!! I'll look him up when I get the chance.
> Rafael
>
> <snip>
yaco...@aol.com
Fiona Abrahami wrote:
> Also Kurdi, Afghani, Indian, some Turkish, and native "Israeli" (Jerushalmi,
> Tzfati etc) Sephardim.
> Do you know about Bukhari, Jacko, I am not familiar
> with their accent but I suspect they will probably use waw too, seeing as
> the Afghans I know do?
I think I heard an old timer say waw. The modern Bukhari do not say
waw. One woudl guess the old timers would. They also have the Yemeni
(and Ashkenazi) qames.
> And what about Balkan and Bulgarian, do you know?
Yes, Ladino Jews say vav.
> And I'm sure I've heard some Ashkenasim use it too, but I can't remember
> where they were from.
I have never met any, but it is a big world.
> Fiona
Shlomo Argamon
Me.
-Shlomo-
Shlomo Argamon
Micha Berger
:> Sure it's a meaningful metaphor for creation. I was just disputing
:> someone's association of Maimonides with the idea. No one would confuse
:> him with a kabbalist of any century.
: That may be (given M's rationalist bent), but there is some amount of
: synergy between his negative theology and the mystical concept of Ayin
: (Nothingness), as well as with the sefirot (enumerations or emanations).
: [Negative theology and emanationism are commonly attributed to
: neo-Platonists, like Plotinus (see, e.g.,
: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Plotin-One.htm).]
Except that the Rambam limited it to negative attributes. That Hashem is
absolutely one to the point that He has no attributes, only essence. Any
attribute we use to describe Him must be either:
1- a description of how His actions appear to us; or
2- a description of what He isn't.
It's quite likely that Rambam was himself a neoplatonist, as I've argued
here before. If the Rambam learned Aristotle in Arabic, he had Averro's
translation. That translation included Plotinus's Enneads along with
Aristotle's Metaphysics.
The description of creation in Fundamentals of the Torah 2:5-9, is that of
Hashem's existence down through a chain of causality through the levels
of angels to the physical world. It certainly sounds neoplatonic to me.
It also explains why the Rambam identifies G-d as Cause with G-d as Agens
(Moreh I ch 69). The former is aristotilian, the latter neoplatonic. He
would have been under the impression that Aristo held both, and therefore
that they are identical. Once believing they're identical, the Rambam
had reason to find an explanation.
But this means that neither of the above positions are fully true WRT
the Rambam's understanding of ex nihilo. He sees G-d as Maker AND as
the One Who chose to emanate the universe.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
:> However, I believe M taught that the world was emanated (by choice)
:> from G-d, not made of Him.
: Are those two statements contradictory?
I don't think so. Think of the metaphor of a lamp. Is the light a lamp
shines the same thing as the lamp itself?
However, the Tanya seems to teach otherwise. (Again, drifting from the
Rambam.) He uses the metaphor of sun and light, but in one sentence
compares existance to the rays of light, and in the next he compares
Hashem to the light and existance to the pattern of light left on the
wall. Then his conclusion is not that we are rays of light at all, but
that we exist through G-d giving us free will, and the illusion that
not all is G-d!
-mi
--
Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter
Micha Berger
: Except that the Rambam limited it to negative attributes. That Hashem is
: absolutely one to the point that He has no attributes, only essence. Any
: attribute we use to describe Him must be either:
: 1- a description of how His actions appear to us; or
: 2- a description of what He isn't.
To continue...
Not a mystical concept of negative theology, but only negative attributes.
Not ayin (zero) but one.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Putting aside the context of where I posted what the RAMBAN said. And
just looking at what he has said. The RAMBAN lived in a time which, as
I think yaacov mentioned mentioned - since it was before the 1500s,
before rabbi yitzchak luria, before the zohar was discovered or
publically revealed and in writing. This was a time when kabbalah was
well hidden (as perhaps it was meant to be - especially at that time.
And as *perhaps* it should be now).
the RAMBAN is very clear, he means one should not seek to learn
kabbalah. But if one is at the right level, then he shall ear it from
the mouth of a wise kabbalist. That was how it was at that time.
Nowadays it's a bit different. Perhaps the divine rules have changed
The Zohar, Judaism's primary book of Kabbalah, or Mysticism, had
predicted that the "gates of wisdom" would be opened in the "sixth
hundred year of the sixth thousand," - 5500, or 1740
Or perhaps world jewry is misbehaving
The RAMBAN is certainly not saying that the people who aren't capable
of studying kabbalh should not study it. It's not about IQ or
intellectual capabilities. Or anything you can judge yourself.
The RAMBAN is clearly saying, it's up to the wise kabbalist whether he
passes the information to you or not. And I assure you they were quite
picky in those days!!! In those days, most rabbis were probably not
kabbalists. Infact, the idea of somebody that is not a rabbi, delving
into kabbalah was probably considered taboo.
The RAMBAM wrote his books for an intelligent audience, for Torah
scholars. And he tells his audience not to reason abotu these
concepts. Which is absolutely right. Even the RAMBAN would probably not
reason/speculate about these concepts. Look how the greek philosophers
reasoned, considered so many things proven, and then found out they
were wrong. The rules of physics we are used to, change for black
holes. Sometimes you can't speculate, you can only know if G-d has told
you. i.e. by tradition.
Also. What the RAMBAN wrote is written for an orthodox audience -
peopel that blieeve traditional judaism. If you don't believe in it
and if you don't even know that perspective, then he wasn't writing for
you nd you won't make sense of what the RAMBAN says. He never said
anyting about intellectual ability. or capability.
He is simply saying do not seek it. And if you are ready then a wise
kabbalist will pass these traditions to you. He will judge whether you
have the required traits. the necessary intelligence and logic(since
unlike maths, there are spiritual risks in misunderstanding it), good
character traits, great Torah knowledge, practicing torah well, e.t.c.
Clearly the RAMBAN merited it and had the kabbalistic traditions passed
to him. Not so for most of his highly intelligent good orthodox
audience that read his writing.
Lisa
Yemenites. When I sing Dror Yikra with the well known Yemenite tune, I
try to get all the consonants correct. Waw, thau, dhaleth, `ayin, etc.
Lisa
yaco...@aol.com
Rafael wrote:
> 'Tohu va-vohu' does indeed describe chaos (or the state of being unformed or
> disorderly). But, in the ancient Near East, Tiamat was the mythological
> representation of that concept, of which 'tehom' is the depersonalized
> cognate (also found in Ugaritic texts).
So what?
You make th esame argument over nad over. The Hebrews MUST be somehow
equal to their non Hebrew neighbors.
I am not equal to my neighbors. I se ehow they think and what mental
mediators they -- and you -- have, yet they -- and you -- cannot
comprehend that I and mine do not have them.
When we point this out they -- and you -- think you trump us with an
argument to authoritas; secular authoritas (and disjointed Jews such as
Richard Friedman), but authoritas nonethless.
Fine.
But I am not going to repeat conclusions with you again and again. You
never demonstrate anything, you just repeat "scholarly" and
"enlightened" truisms and tell me what my Book "objectively" has to
mean based on Canaanites.
You never give the People of the Book any credence to read the Book.
Ths is what the hakhamim called "yohara" and stated it was endemic to
certain gentiles claiming to "read" the Tora.
Reading is nto objective, and the map is simply not the territory.
Jacko
Rafael
news:1128084880.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rafael wrote:
> > 'Tohu va-vohu' does indeed describe chaos (or the state of being
unformed or
> > disorderly). But, in the ancient Near East, Tiamat was the mythological
> > representation of that concept, of which 'tehom' is the depersonalized
> > cognate (also found in Ugaritic texts).
>
>
> So what?
>
> You make th esame argument over nad over. The Hebrews MUST be somehow
> equal to their non Hebrew neighbors.
Every group is somehow unique; otherwise how could we distinguish them from
each other?
But it's the Hebrews were not unique, in relation to other ancient Near
Eastern peoples, in every way. Modern scholars, like Friedman, Sarna,
Milgrom, and Tigay, have found numerous common traits, both in narrative and
legal terms. (The JPS commentaries are excellent layman sources for such
comparisons and contrasts, IMO.)
And, getting back to the point regarding cosmology, I say that Genesis 1 is
radically different from modern-scientific cosmology, not because of the
eternity vs. ex nihilo question (which seems more of a philosophical
question than a scientific one), but simply because Genesis 1 describes a
flat earth covered by a hard dome floating in a watery cosmos ('Tiamat' in
Near Eastern mythology, and 'tehom' in its depersonalized form).
Need I say more?
<snip>
Rafael
Rafael
news:dhjfrf$qod$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Every group is somehow unique; otherwise how could we distinguish them
from
> each other?
>
> But it's the Hebrews were not unique, in relation to other ancient Near
> Eastern peoples, in every way.
Typo: That should say "But even the Hebrews..."
Rafael