If the Maharam Alashkar would really
have accepted that story as fact, he
wouldn’t have bothered to answer all
the complaints of Reb Shem Tov. The Ri
Irgis also prefaced it with that qualifier.
I don’t think he means to say, if you
believed what I said until now I have
another one for ya.
The Abrabanel also mentions it at one
point as an apocryphal idea, that who
knows might have even happened. Why
would the Abrabanel bother writing a
Perush on the Moreh Nevuchim when
the gist of it was retracted?
What you said about the Rambam being
Mechaven to the Sod by learning
Lishma, is a wonderful point. I’ve heard
that before as well. But the Raavad (who
might not have seen the Moreh when
he wrote the following) wrote in
Yesodei hatorah, where the Rambam
explains Panai Lo Yera’u, that there is a
Sod here and perhaps the Rambam
doesn’t know it. So, the Raavad wasn’t
convinced that the Rambam didn’t learn
Kabbala.
Sam, if the Ramban is not considered
to have violated the Rambam’s
principles, or the Ramak and the Beis
Yosef, why would you say that about
the Arizal? Just because he brought
more terminology to the table? Every
and any Sefer of Toras Ari begins with
warnings not to take things literally.
The Sifrei Ari were not written in a
vacuum. They were written for those
already versed in Toras Ramak, who
constantly warned and explained
exactly how things are to be
understood. The Shla Hakadosh often
quotes from Kisvei Ari, and yet
expounds much on the Rambam’s
principles. Did you ever learn through
the fourth Be’er of the Maharal’s Be’er
Hagola or the Ramchal’s Choker
Umekubal?