Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 071

Sunday, June 18 2006

• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• Re: Marcus Aurelius versus Haman
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• RE: Marcus Aurelius versus Haman
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)
• RE: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>, Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:03:49 -0400
>:                      Kabbalists are just more radical in their
>: monotheism then philosophers. There is an interesting note in Tanya
>: chapter 2 relating to this.

>I was surprised by this claim.

Good.

>The philosophers -- R' Saadia, the Rambam, R' Yosef Albo -- all have a
>negative theology, that all attributes that sound like we're attributing
>to Hashem are really statements of what He isn't (or of how his actions
>appear, or of our relationship to Him, etc... depending on the rishon).
>Specifically because they do NOT allow for the idea that Hashem really
>has attributes. See Moreh I:51-60.

They do allow in a negative sense. In Kabbalah Ayn Sof is like a black
box. We cannot really say anything about AS.

>In contrast to RMS's position, R' Yichyeh el Qafeh (R' "Kapach"'s
>grandfather) was purported to have said of qabbalah, "These [Notzrim]
>have three, and these have 10... How are they different?" (Not to say
>RYeQ had a problem with sefiros as understood by R' Saadia.) I am
>not supporting or defending the position, just showing that the notion
>that Qabbalah asserts a more strict unity than the philosophers is VERY
>FAR from a given.

The Rivash in his Tshuvah mentions this type of view and gives the
Kabbalistic answer, which preserves the idea that seferot are not
attributes of AS.

>On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 05:58:57AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: But you and I weren't discussing olamos higher than Atzilus as your
>: aforementioned note mentions; we were discussing Atzmus versus non-Atzmus
>: which has nothing to do with the note in Tanya. In fact, this is precisely
>: what the baal haTanya is coming to be sholel.
>"Olamos higher than atzilus"? Are we positing layers between the Ma'or
>and the Or that He is ne'etzel?

There is a lot going on between Atzilus and the first tzimtzum.

>On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:35:56AM -0400, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>: Are you saying that 'atzmus' is not higher then Atzilus?
>Are you placing the Borei on the same spectrum? The Ma'or isn't higher
>than the Or, height simply isn't relevent.
>To put it another way... The "altitude" of which we speak is how far
>down the "beam of light" the item in question is. (See above WRT the
>Rambam.) The Ma'or isn't anywhere on the beam.

Obviously the idea of 'higher' and 'lower' is a difficult one in a 
0-dimensional context.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

I think I've adequately explained my position. I'll just reiterate a
few points which seem not to have been clear enough:

1. The Rambam views both simplicity and necessary existence as
comprehensible. As evidence I cited a proof he gives which makes use of
God's simplicity.

2. The Rambam wrote ambiguously about the raltionship between simplicity
and necessity in Hilchoth Yesodei HaTorah in order to allow followers
of Aristotle (like RSC) to accept the necessary existence of God.
One can not make diyyukim in Hilchoth Yesodei HaTorah without checking
the parallels in the Moreh Nevuhim (the Abarbanel in Rosh Amana chapter
20 says "b'sefer hamada bau hadvarim haelu b'iyun kal bilti mdukdak k'fi
kavanath hasefer").

3. All aspects of God's simplicity are identical (that's yesod #2 -
cf. the discussions of simplicity in Rosh Amana chapters 20 and 8).

<RSC>
>> > OTOH, Tzimtzum as a process of he'elem is far more profound because it
>> > applies to *all* of Havaya, even the kutzo shel yud.
<me>
>> Tzimtzum is the
>> ground for permitting differentiated existence. RSC seems to claim that 
>> it has an instantiation at each level of existence.

> <RSC>
> The primary source is Kisvey Arizal and he just doesn't present it the way
> RDR does. He says that before the process of Tzimtzum, all of existence
> comprised the Or Elyon haPashut and when it was oleh b'machshavah to create
> existence, Hashem employed Tzimtzum and created a chalal for *all* of
> existence as we know it.

IOW this is RSC's diyyuk, and his opinion is not supported by his
evidence.

> As far as looking for an earlier source, since the Arizal was the first
> documented marah d'shmatsah, he is the source.

Aren't you the one who told me that Massecheth Atziluth was written at
the time of King David?

David Riceman

In response to what RLLiel wrote
> I also remember hearing a story about R' Yehudah HaNasi bowing down to
> Antoninus as a kind of tikkun for the fact that Binyamin hadn't bowed
> down to Eisav, though I may be mangling that.

RSCoffer wrote
>I think so. Whenever Antoninus and Rebbi would meet in one of their
>clandestine meetings, Antoninus would wait on Rebbi with food and
>drink. If Rebbi wanted to rest, he would bend down and request that
>Rebbi step on him to get up onto the bed.

The gemara indicates that Rebbe was unconfortable with this, which was
done at Antoninus' initiative.

>Rebbi never bowed down to Antoninus.

A more careful formulation would be "the gemara does not say that Rebb
bowed down toAntoninus." (An even more careful formulation would be
"I am not aware of any rabbinic statement that Rebbi bowed down to
Antoninus".) Given Antoninus' prominence, it is entirely possible that
Rebbe did bow. It's possible, based on their obvious friendship, that
he did not.

>The ideal relationship between Yaakov and Eisav was this...

This is RSC's leap (although it may well be a defensible position),
not something the gemara which describes this action of Antoninus says.

 For a description of the relationship between Antoninus (Marcus Aurelius)
and Rebbi, see Avodah Zara 10b.

See Sanhedrin 91b, where Rebbe and Antoninus discuss several philosophical
points. In two cases, Rebbe retracts his original position, finding
Antoninus' arguments more compelling. In each of these cases, Rebbe said
"Antoninus taught me this, and (in fact) the biblical text supports
him". Rebbe's respect for Antoninus' opinion. and his willingness to
consider the validity of his arguments even when they contradicted own
opinion, is obvious in this passage. It is manifest that Rebbe did not
consider his friend Antoninus, whom he considered his intellectual equal,
a mere step stool.

Scholars differ as to whether the Antoninus referred to in the gemara
is indeed Marcus Aurelius or some other prominent Roman.

Saul Mashbaum

On 14 Jun, 2006, at 15:06:42 -0400GMT, R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Chabad adds that the Ari captured this 13th nusach, that the Baal
> haTanya correctly reproduced it, and therefore their "Nusach Ari"
> (a title which can just as fairly be given to any chassidish "Nusach
> Sfard") is the safest choice of nusach, usable by all. I do not know
> enough Chabad Torah to give a primary source for this.

See the introduction to their Hebrew-English siddur.
I don't have a copy to check, but it may include a footnote or other
reference to where that preference comes from specifically.
If i remember correctly, they attribute it to the Maggid of Mezhritch  
(for Pseudo-Sfard in general as replacement nusahh).

 -Stephen (Steg) Belsky
   "involve yourself with the world.
    reach out.  touch.  taste.  live.
    trust me on this one, if on nothing else."
       ~ walter slovotsky, _guardians of the flame_

On June 15, 2006, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> In response to what RLLiel wrote
>> I also remember hearing a story about R' Yehudah HaNasi bowing down to
>> Antoninus as a kind of tikkun for the fact that Binyamin hadn't bowed
>> down to Eisav, though I may be mangling that.

> RSCoffer wrote
>>I think so. Whenever Antoninus and Rebbi would meet in one of their
>>clandestine meetings, Antoninus would wait on Rebbi with food and
>>drink. If Rebbi wanted to rest, he would bend down and request that
>>Rebbi step on him to get up onto the bed.

> The gemara indicates that Rebbe was unconfortable with this, which was
> done at Antoninus' initiative.

So? Rebbi had good manners and attempted to maintain the appropriate
protocol exercised before a king. This doesn't detract from the general
flavour of the Gemara that Antoninus was the one who was machniya himself
before Rebbi.

>>Rebbi never bowed down to Antoninus.

> A more careful formulation would be "the gemara does not say that Rebb
> bowed down toAntoninus." 

The above formulation can only characterized as 'more careful' for one
who doubts the veracity of the Gemara's narrative (which is unadvised
because the Talmud is the primary source of the relationship which
obtained between Antoninus and Rebbi - the Roman historians surely did
not document their relationship). AFAIC, the Gemara is clear about the
relationship between Rebbi and Antoninus. The latter was machniya himself
to the former, not the opposite. The account related in the Gemara
supports this position. Anyone who wishes to introduce doubt into the
episode of Rebbi and Antoninus, alav (or in our case ale'ha) ha'ra'aya.

>>The ideal relationship between Yaakov and Eisav was this...

> This is RSC's leap (although it may well be a defensible position),
> not something the gemara which describes this action of Antoninus says.

Not my leap. I heard it from R' Avigdor Miller who surely had an
appropriate source for this idea. I don't remember (know) where Chazal
discuss it but I am confident that the general idea is discussed by Chazal
(perhaps a Medrash or Zohar) although I cannot produce a reference at
this time.

> For a description of the relationship between Antoninus (Marcus Aurelius)
> and Rebbi, see Avodah Zara 10b.
> See Sanhedrin 91b, where Rebbe and Antoninus discuss several philosophical
> points. In two cases, Rebbe retracts his original position, finding
> Antoninus' arguments more compelling. In each of these cases, Rebbe said
> "Antoninus taught me this, and (in fact) the biblical text supports
> him". Rebbe's respect for Antoninus' opinion. and his willingness to
> consider the validity of his arguments even when they contradicted own
> opinion, is obvious in this passage. It is manifest that Rebbe did not
> consider his friend Antoninus, whom he considered his intellectual equal,
> a mere step stool.

Two things. First of all, it is not manifest that Rebbi considered
Antoninus his 'intellectual equal' (i.e. equally aware and proficient in
the verities of life) merely because he learned two things from him. The
Gemara in Avodah Zara presents a quite different view of the relationship
between Rebbi and Antoninus.

Second, I never claimed that Rebbi viewed Antoninus as a "mere stepping
stool". "Es achicha ta'avod" is a nevuah related in the Torah and is an
essential description of the mission of Eisav regardless of modern day
liberal attitudes which attempt to reinterpret or recast the message of
the Torah.

> Scholars differ as to whether the Antoninus referred to in the gemara
> is indeed Marcus Aurelius or some other prominent Roman.

Agreed. I am following the opinion of the Doros Rishonim (R' Yitzchak
Isaac haLevi) and Rav Avigdor Miller, both reputable historians.

Simcha Coffer

On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:08:47AM -0400, Moshe Shulman wrote:
:>The philosophers -- R' Saadia, the Rambam, R' Yosef Albo -- all have a
:>negative theology, that all attributes that sound like we're attributing
:>to Hashem are really statements of what He isn't (or of how his actions
:>appear, or of our relationship to Him, etc... depending on the rishon).
:>Specifically because they do NOT allow for the idea that Hashem really
:>has attributes. See Moreh I:51-60.

: They do allow in a negative sense. In Kabbalah Ayn Sof is like a black
: box. We cannot really say anything about AS.

The words "Ein Sof" themselves describe a negative attribute, or the
negation of all attributes. For that matter, so is "We cannot really
say anything about AS." As is your later comment:

: Obviously the idea of 'higher' and 'lower' is a difficult one in a 
: 0-dimensional context.

NO dimensions? Isn't that just a negation?

BTW, in and of itself, this is poorly phrased. A photon has zero rest
mass. A niggun doesn't have zero weight; discussing its weight is
meaningless. Zero dimensional is a point in a mathematical space (which
could be real space or not) that has a size of 0 -- not spacelessness.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:14:57PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: I don't see the relevance of the above quotation to our discussion. All
: the Rambam is saying is that whenever he discusses elements of the
: foundations of our religion, such as the existence of God, His oneness,
: His eternity, His lack of corporeality, His static nature, His not having
: a cause which preceded Him etc., all of these elements are presented in
: such a way that they can coincide with kadmus...

This is stated too weakly, IMHO. He presents them in a way that they must
coincide with qadmus, that one could never have any of these features
without the others. And hence, they're all One. 

Or, as RDR wrote on Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:17:56AM -0400:
: 3. All aspects of God's simplicity are identical (that's yesod #2 -
: cf. the discussions of simplicity in Rosh Amana chapters 20 and 8).

:                                                      How can one say that
: they are not really his opinions? He claims that people who don't believe
: in his stated Yesodos lose their chelek l'olam habba. That's pretty
: harsh for something that wasn't even really his belief, don't you think?

But that's not what RDR said. What RDR said was that the Rambam argued
from a weaker position than his own (ie without his asserting yeish
mei'ayin) so that people wouldn't question the conclusion. However,
he later shows that the hypothetical doesn't work anyway.

:>> He brings no
:>> pesukim to back his conclusions there and claims that this idea of
:>> simplicity is impossible to comprehend and almost impossible even to
:>> express. OTOH, when it comes to independence, he makes no such claim and in
:>> fact, 1:2-3 makes it clear that the Rambam felt that the doctrine of
:>> independence is clearly understandable.

:> This is false. See MN 1:56-57 that both are incomprehensible. On the
:> other hand RSC's definition of incomprehensible is not the Rambam's.

To me it seems you're both using language that confuses the ability to
prove something must be true, and the ability to undestand that something.

:>                                                    See,
:> for example, MN II:1: "There cannot be two necessary existents, since,
:> if there were, necessary existence would be an accident appertaining to
:> their essences, and neither would be essentially a necessary existent,
:> but would be necessary due to this other thing ....

: RDR starts the quote in the middle of the sentence skipping three
: important words: "v'chein yuchahc b'kalus" - and similarly [to all
: of the elements discussed regarding Hashem like his lack of a guf,
: his simple nature etc], it can easily be proven that there cannot be
: two necessary existents etc. How can something incomprehensible be
: proven? And easily too.

We're speaking of guf, not gashmiyus. (As the paytan puts it "ein
lo demus haguf ve'eino guf"...) The Rambam holds that mal'achim have
gufim by having a tzurah beli chomer. The number two is an attribute,
and therefore is itself a minimal tzurah. What I'm getting at is that I
don't believe the Rambam would actually distinguish between plurality,
attributes and guf. They are just aspects of the same idea.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On June 15, 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> I think I've adequately explained my position. I'll just reiterate a
> few points which seem not to have been clear enough:
 
> 1. The Rambam views both simplicity and necessary existence as
> comprehensible. As evidence I cited a proof he gives which makes use of
> God's simplicity.

And yet, on June 13, 2006, I posted the following:

<SC>
He brings no pesukim to back his conclusions there and claims that this idea
of 
simplicity is impossible to comprehend and almost impossible even to
express. OTOH, when it comes to independence, he makes no such claim and in
fact, 1:2-3 makes it clear that the Rambam felt that the doctrine of
independence is clearly understandable.

To which RDR replied.

<RDR>
This is false. See MN 1:56-57 that both are incomprehensible.

In view of the above quote, I consider RDR's #1 inexplicable. Unfortunately,
I see no possible way of continuing our dialogue in this sugya as I am now
entirely unclear regarding my opponent's position.

> 2. The Rambam wrote ambiguously about the raltionship between simplicity
> and necessity in Hilchoth Yesodei HaTorah in order to allow followers
> of Aristotle (like RSC) to accept the necessary existence of God.
> One can not make diyyukim in Hilchoth Yesodei HaTorah without checking
> the parallels in the Moreh Nevuhim (the Abarbanel in Rosh Amana chapter
> 20 says "b'sefer hamada bau hadvarim haelu b'iyun kal bilti mdukdak k'fi
> kavanath hasefer").

I already responded to the above so I won't repeat. But I have some new
things to add. 

First of all, I'm not an Aristotelian per se. I, like the Rambam, do not
believe in kadmut, Aristotelian or Platonic. However, I do accept much of
what Aristotle says but generally allow myself to be guided by the Rambam in
this regard. Like Chazal say, chochma ba'umos...ta'amin. BTY, the academic
view is that the Rambam believed in Platonic kadmut, and some even go as far
as saying that he supported Aristotelian kadmut chs'v, but rejected it in
his books because he had to make a show of towing the line - This claim is
one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever heard. They justify it by
employing the method of "contradiction of the 7th type" which, IMO, is
merely a sophisticated way of justifying pre-conceived notions into one's
reading of the Moreh and deliberately imputing unwarranted dissembling to
the Rambam's works)

Second of all, I agree with RDR that it is very difficult to make diyyukim
in Yesodei haTorah without knowing the foundational principles they are
built on but I never claimed differently. Any diyyuk I made is fully
supported by the Rambam in the Moreh and other places IMO although
obviously, RDR seems to disagree.

Third of all, RDR seems to be taking his professed doctrine of "no diyyukim
in the Rambam" a bit too far. He quotes the Abarbanel in a context that
seems to indicate that he (RDR) understands the Abarbanel as understanding
the Rambam in Sefer Mada to have performed an inferior task in the
explication of the Yesodos haTorah than the one he does in the Moreh and to
demonstrate this point, RDR quotes the Abarbanel as follows: "b'sefer hamada
bau hadvarim haelu b'iyun kal bilti mdukdak" and thus, 'diyyukim' in Mada
are 'out'. But this couldn't be further from the truth. The entire twentieth
perek in Rosh Amanah is one long expression of the most profound diyyukim in
every word of the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei haTorah.   

The word "ha'elu" in the above quote of the Abarbanel is referring to a
specific subject, that is, ben Sinai and ben Reshed's opinions whether
schalim nivdalim and the like are 'quantified' merely in the context of
their relationship of "ilah v'alul" (causal relationships) or is there a
more intrinsic association to the concept of quantity i.e. spiritual beings
are differentiated by their levels of perfection. Ben Sinai maintains the
first, Ben Reshed maintains the second. The Rambam holds like Ben Sinai but
does not explain why. According to the Abarbanel, a discussion of this topic
and a way to reach a resolution as to who is correct is a long and
complicated process. The Rambam didn't bother engaging in the background
details but just stated ben Sinai's opinion without explanation. This is
what the Abarbanel is referring to in RDR's quote. But this in no way means
that the rest of Hilchos Yesodei haTorah are not perfectly medukdak and in
perfect harmony with the philosophical concepts discussed in the Moreh.

BTY, I've always understood differentiation in muvdalim like ben Reshed and
have written about it before on Avodah. I don't understand why the Rambam
feels he must gravitate to ben Sinai's opinion. I know he is attempting to
answer the question of the difference between the differentiation of
malachim and the non-differentiation of Hashem but I can see ben Reshed as
an equally viable approach. My impression from the Abarbanel is that he
maintains this view too.

> <RSC>
> >> > OTOH, Tzimtzum as a process of he'elem is far more profound because
it
> >> > applies to *all* of Havaya, even the kutzo shel yud.

> <me>
> >> Tzimtzum is the
> >> ground for permitting differentiated existence. RSC seems to claim that
> >> it has an instantiation at each level of existence.
 
> > <RSC>
> > The primary source is Kisvey Arizal and he just doesn't present it the
way
> > RDR does. He says that before the process of Tzimtzum, all of existence
> > comprised the Or Elyon haPashut and when it was oleh b'machshavah to
create
> > existence, Hashem employed Tzimtzum and created a chalal for *all* of
> > existence as we know it.
 
> IOW this is RSC's diyyuk, and his opinion is not supported by his
> evidence.
 
Here is a partial  translation (mine) of Heichalos Adam Kadmon, Heichal
Aleph, Anaph Beis, Oss Dalet.

"Know, that before the emanations were emanated and the creatures were
created, the Simple Supernal Light filled all of existence not leaving any
open space in the sense of empty space and a vaccum; rather, all was
entirely occupied by the Simple Light of the Infinite One. There was no
aspect of "beginning" and no aspect of "end" rather everything was solely
the Simple Light, perfectly equal [in occupation throughout all of
existence] and this is what is referred to as the Light of the Infinite.

And 'when' it arose in His simple Will to create the worlds, to emanate the
emanations, to cause to materialize the completeness of His works, His names
etc. behold then, He was mitzamtzem etc."

This sounds to me like the Arizal understood the process of Tzimtzum as a
retraction of the OES to create a chalal for *all* of existence. If RDR
interprets differently, so be it. 

> > As far as looking for an earlier source, since the Arizal was the first
> > documented marah d'shmatsah, he is the source.
 
> Aren't you the one who told me that Massecheth Atziluth was written at
> the time of King David?

One and the same. Looks like RDR has me here. The only thing I can say is
that Maseches Atzilus just makes a vague, one line reference to Tzimtzum,
nothing like the Arizal's description. BTY, the reference in MA is to the Or
Ein Sof, not Atzmus, another shining example of the fact that it is
impossible to say that gedolim like the Gra and R' Chaim understood any
differently (the preceding has nothing to do with the current discussion...I
just felt like throwing it in)

Simcha Coffer

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]