- This topic has 70 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sam2: You may be right that the Ravaad held that corporeality is kfira and he was speaking about believing in it by mistake.
But where does the Rambam discuss bkfira bishogeg? I have heard the idea of “nebach an apikores is oich an apikores” attributed to much more recent people. If it was stated by the Rambam, wouldn’t it be strange not to take it from him?
If you are so sure there are “rishonim” who believe this who is it and where? The Ravad does in fact make reference to great people making mistakes. Yes mistakes.
Same2: “The Rambam does say that requesting something of angels is Apikorsus as it is attributing a solely Divine purpose to any being other than Hakadosh Baruch Hu.”
Where does he say that?
Requesting as a form of prayer is a prayer. If I request of an angel to grant me health, I would be asking the angel to confer that benefit on me when that benefit comes solely from God.
If I Request of you to hold the door open for me am I an apikorus since I am requesting something from a power other than God?
No, since God gave you the power to hold open doors, hence I am not praying, just asking you to do something that you are able to do. If Hashem created angels with the ability to bring prayers from people to him then how is that different than asking you to hold open a door?
(Obviously Hashem does not need them to do that anymore than he needs rain to make plants grow. This is simply what He willed.)
Son of Man: I’ll try and find the Mekoros from the Moreh about making requests from angels.
The “nebach an Apikores…” phrase is what R’ Chaim Brisker said explaining this Rambam (and it’s M’vuar from the explanation the Rambam gives in the Moreh of why an Apikores loses his Chelek).
I think that Pashtus is that Rashi held of a corporealism that the Rambam would call Apikorsus (we’ve been over this here; see Rashi on B’reishis “Na’aseh Adam B’tzalmeinu Kidmuseinu”; see Rashi to Avos 3:14; see Rashbam to Bava Basra 58a; see Rashi to Avodah Zarah where the Gemara Darshens the Passuk “Lo Sa’asun Iti”; and I think there’s a Machzor Vitry that quotes this also but I don’t recall where. Rav Moshe Taku (a seldom-quoted Ba’al Hatosfos) says it B’fierush that he holds that way and the Rambam attacked his Shittah explicitly in a letter. But it would be a tremendous insult to the Rambam that “Gedolim V’tovim Mimenu” that the Ra’avad refers to is R’ Moshe Taku. And I agree that we very much hold they are mistaken. Agreeing with them would be Apikorsus. But there are Rishonim who said it.
I might suggest that stealing here is used in a broader sense of unfair advantage; wealthy people dictate the terms of contracts and employment opportunities even when the other party is obviously going along with it only because they have no choice, wealthy people monopolize opportunities and so on. Perhaps he means ‘Ill gotten wealth’, not theft in the classic sense.
Rosh Cham
Yeridas hadoros is a basic chazal talk about it in various places. Although once in every few centuries a neshama that belonged in a previous generation gets dropped down in a later generation for the benefit of the people who need it at that time like the Arizal, Baal Shem Tov and Vilna Gaon…
Sam, I am really surprised that you would slander the greatest Rishonim based on nothing. Such heinous accusations just because Rashi and Rashbam explained the Pshat of the words!? If the idea of Tzelem bothers you, take course #1 in Kabbala, Chassidus, or even certain types of Chakira and Mussar.
Just like we can draw a diagram of meta-physical concepts, of how they interrelate, something (or in this case, someone) can be formed in that shape. We know, and you expressed an awareness of the fact, that there is a Shiur Koma, of the Hanhaga, Hashgacha, Hashpaa, Haora, or whatever else you call it. Most of us take this for granted.
It didn’t cross the mind of any Meforash on Rashi to say what you are saying about him. The Pasuk referes to Malachim as Ruchos; do you seriously think Rashi held more Hagshama about Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Rachmana Litzlan?
It is mind boggling that people would not be afraid of the Achrayos of tampering with such things.
Besides for the above, even had you found such a thing, do you really think it is a ???? ??????
HaLeiVi: Torah is Torah. I don’t think there’s a reason to hide Shittos. It’s a Shittah that’s been rejected. There’s no reason not to learn it. We don’t wipe R’ Hillel out of our Gemaros in Sanhedrin. It was a Shittah, they were allowed to have it, and we hold that they were mistaken. Rav Moshe Taku (who is quoted in Tosfos) says it explicitly. One would think that if a relatively early Ba’al Hatosfos held of a Shittah that the rest thought was K’firah that someone would mention it. They don’t. It took the Rambam to mention it. There are many Tosfosim that seem to go against our current conceptions of Ikkarei Emunah (see Niddah 16b and Yevamos 66a, I think). That is because our Ikkarim are based on the Rambam and the other Rishonim weren’t Meshubad to them. I think it is dishonest to make anachronistic assumptions about the Rishonim that they clearly didn’t have themselves and one cannot properly learn P’shat in these Rishonim here if you refuse to accept what they’re saying.
That aside, I think Rashi is very, very clear on this. Even if you want to Kabbalistically explain away Rashi in Avos (where he seems to explicitly be coming to argue on the total noncorporealistic Shittah), Rashi to B’reishis (which is clearly based on Bava Basra 58a) and Rashi on “Lo Sa’asun Iti” in Avodah Zarah there are more than clear. This is his Shittah and we have rejected it.
The Gemara is clear. He is simply explaining it.
If you found a certain Baal Tosfos, fine. But to put this on Rashi is a terrible accusation, pinning on our greatest Rishonim what the Zohar Hakadosh says is part of Arur Asher Yaase Pesel Umaseicha Vesam Basseser, is horrible. These references were glossed over for a thousand years and nobody thought of it what the recent researchers found with their newly found zest for all things odd.
It is actually pretty ridiculous to claim something like this when our Neshama is not Megusham and does not have a form. The Gemara says that Hakadosh Baruch Hu fills the world like a Neshama fills the body. Was Rashi ignoring this when he translated Bitzalmeinu the way we all do today?
Does the Gemara in Brachos 6 also show this Shita when Rebbe Yishmael mentions nodding of the head? Does the Gemara later discussin clapping hands, kicking feet, sighing and crying also promote this ‘shita’? Why does Rashi go at such lengths to explain Vayisatzev El Libo? Why does he find it necessary to explain Erda Na?
Just because Rashi didn’t make a More Nevuchim to explain how such terms come in, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have any deeper understanding of such matters. As the Yashar Micandia writes, if I were to write you a math book does that show you that I don’t know philosophy?
It is also hard to gleen what someone held from a critique against him. The Rambam complained about a Sefer Shiur Koma. Presently, we don’t give such a thing a second thought.
HaLeiVi: I’m not sure what you mean by “the researchers”. I found these Rashis, they seemed confusing, so I kept an eye out for similar things over the years. I’m not saying Rashi went nearly as far as R’ Moshe Taku in saying that HKBH could have an actual physical body if He wanted/needed to. I think Rashi thinks that He has a perceptible form, whether or not that form has any practical application.
What do you mean by us presently not giving such things a second thought (in reference to Shiur Komah)? Do you mean we learn it or we don’t?
Who knows? Maybe if Rashi had seen the Zohar he would have explained these Gemaros differently? I don’t know. But the fact is that Rashi says what he says.
Kabbala predates the Zohar Hakadosh, as we are all aware, and it is Rashi who told us how to find the Shem Ayin Beis. We see that many Rishonim express Kabbalistic ideas here and there. The Raavad even figured that the Rambam knew Kabbala. There is no reason why he shouldn’t have, if he learned from a Rebbi.
I say we don’t give it a second thought, because we know how to take it, whether we actually learn it or not. Every elementary kid, at least in my upbringing, knew that there is no Guf and we still translate those Pesukim and Mamarei Chazal exactly as Rashi did.
Yes, there is a form that is being discussed. This form belongs to Hashem. Hashem cannot be defined, and He therefore is not in a certain form. Sounds confusing? Fine. We don’t understand everything. Or, we can delve into the topic and learn the ins and outs.
The Rambam was fighting a crusade and had to turn Hagshama into a taboo. In doing so he discarded Medrashim as Daas Yachid and the such. Those Mamarim are nicely explained by others, but for the Rambam’s purpose he chose to discard them.
We are, Baruch Hashem, way past that point. My second graders never thought of Hashem as physical, and yet they still had no problem understanding that certain terms are used that sound physical.
Actually, most of the first Chelek of the Moreh Nevuchim sounds extra and not particularly enlightening. Yes, I’m aware that Pi Haaretz doesn’t mean that the earth can talk, and Ein Haaretz doesn’t mean that it can see. I’m equally aware that Ha’aniya Chashva Lehishaver doesn’t mean that the boat had a meeting with its captain.
Rashi, on the Gemara of Ein Ben David Baa Ad Sheyichlu Kol Neshamos Shebaguf, says that there’s a place called Guf where the Neshamos are from. In Shabbos, when the Gemara says that the Ruach stays in the body until the Stimas Hagolel, Rashi explains that Yesh Bo Tzad Chayos. Does that sound physical? I think you should look out for these types of Rashi’s as well.
Just realize, all the Mefarshey Rashi deal with these Rashi’s without batting an eyelash. Whatever it means it means. It’s not the first funny sounding Medrash. The fact is that Yecheskiel Hanavi saw KiDmus Mar’eh (which is three stages of comparison). There is a form to speak of, and it doesn’t mean that you are defining Hashem with that.
I mentioned researchers because I’ve heard of this before, together with some other very shallow proofs.
I quoted the Zohar Hakadosh not to say that Rashi won’t say that in the face of the Zohar Hakadosh, but to show how far it is and therefore Chas Veshalom to pin something like that on Rashi Hakadosh.
If Rashi and Rabbanei Tzarfas would actually hold a certain way Hashkafically, we would probably hold the same.
HaLeiVi:
Just realize, all the Mefarshey Rashi deal with these Rashi’s without batting an eyelash. Whatever it means it means. It’s not the first funny sounding Medrash. The fact is that Yecheskiel Hanavi saw KiDmus Mar’eh (which is three stages of comparison). There is a form to speak of, and it doesn’t mean that you are defining Hashem with that.
The best way that I can explain this (and I really do mean it) is “second sight”. Meaning, when someone “sees” something that their mind can’t comprehend (and that is what a Nevuah is, “seeing”), the mind tries to translate it into something that it can comprehend, and moves past the original “first sight”. This may be what a Human mind can comprehend (a form), and may even be how us Humans relate to the Ribbono Shel Olam, but in no way is that the actuality of the Ribbono Shel Olam.
Sam2 sadly you are learning wrong pshat in Rashi and I would take it very slow because you are treading in dangerous waters. Aside from some random Rishon you are pulling up, look up the classic miforshim and do some research. I hope you are not sacrificing your afterlife on this but you may be. Also, if even one person chas vshalom read your posts and came to the wrong conclusions then your toast.
This may be what a Human mind can comprehend (a form), and may even be how us Humans relate to the Ribbono Shel Olam, but in no way is that the actuality of the Ribbono Shel Olam.
as a follow-up, this (IMHO, but I imagine there are Rishonim that say so as well) is what the Torah means by “Lo Yirani HaAdam V’Chai”. Even Moshe Rabbainu was human, and Humans are unable to “see” the Ribbono Shel Olam. If one were to “see”, he/she would be overloaded and die.
Son of Man,
What gives you the divine intuition to know such things?
It’s ironic that with a screename like that, you’re channeling the Divine intuition. Another Jewish heretic from Nazareth who also called himself the Son of Man did the same as you 2000 years ago.
Son of Man: I never once claimed that it was acceptable to believe in any form of corporealism. In fact, I explicitly stated the oposite several times on this thread. My only point was that Rashi apparently didn’t see things that way. Which is fine.
Sam2
You should really say that “I sam2 think based on my limited understanding velulei dmistifina that Rashi didn’t see things that way.”
WIY, it might be very hard to say that every time. Perhaps you should make an easy to remember acronym.
WIY: I think I actually said something like that the first time I said this over here (I definitely did the first time I ever said in public in part of a Shiur). But, as HaLeiVi said, it’s long, cumbersome, and feels arrogant because it feels like fake humility. I have nothing wrong with being wrong about this. It’s just that from what I’ve seen I don’t think I am.
Rashi on Naaseh Adam says, ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? — ‘Is there a right and left before Him? It means, these were pro and these were con.
What does that sound like? (Pretty good for a Rashi that discusses Tshuvaso Betzido.) Like I said, stay on the lookout.
The Ibn Ezra is not only in one place. It is in five or six, IIRC. Also IIRC, the most revealing occurrences are in Yeshaya at the beginning of perek mem, corresponding to the suggestion by bible critics that from that point on, Yeshaya was written by others.
I’m not certain how controversial this even is, since the gemara says that Chizkiyahu and his disciples wrote Yeshaya. I just took a quick look at the gemara (BB 15a) and the Gemara and Rashi are using (heaven forbid) historical evidence to support the authorship of certain seforim.
(Note: I looked into this a few years ago and I think what I’ve written is accurate but it’s been a while.)
So you are proving something about the Torah, from Tanach?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.