avakesh

Overheard: Bilaam, the Son of a Beast

At a Bar Mitsvah:

Baal Bayis: You, know, I never understood that story about Bilaam and the donkey. If I was riding a donkey and it suddenly spoke to me, I would have ran away and ran and ran...

Talmid Chacham: But BIlaam was very close to his donkey. Chazal say (Sanhedrin 105a) that he related it as a husband to wife at night.

Baal Bayis: What does that mean? Such a prophet and doing this?!

Talmid Chacham: What Chazal mean is something deeper?

Baal Bayis: Nu...

Talmid Chacham: It says in Shemos 22:18 that. "Yo shall not allow a wich to live". The next possuk is: "All who lie with an animal shall be put to death".

Baal Bayis, taking the cue: So what's the connection?

Talmid Chacham: Recanati in his commentary on this verse brings several Zohars, including one that speaks about Bilaam and implies that the connection is that a sorcerer brings his "bris" into the world of impurity in order to perform sorcery. Recanati goes on to say: "and understand this very well" and does not fully explain.

Baal Byis: So what's the pshat?

Talmid Chacham: I heard it explained that humans live on an intermediate plane of being; above them is the angelic sphere and below them is the world of animals and spirits. One can "shortcircuit" the intermediate plain by either rising above it and acting within it so that there are effects upon the world of humans below, or one can accomplish the same results by going under the human plane and working within it. Animals do not affect the world of humans because they do not have intelligence. But a human being with intelligence can descend into this lower world and cause effects there that will cause changes within the human world.

Baal Bayis: So you are saying that this is what Chazal mean when they say that Bilaam was intimate with his donkey. They are saying that he used the most spiritual implement that a man has, his sexuality, to descend to and become a part of the animal world, to couple with a donkey and to become a great sorcerer.

Talmid Chacham: Exactly. There is a hint to this in the Torah itself. Bilaam is introduced to us as "Ben Baor", which in Hebrew means,"the son of a "beheima"

Related: Animal Men

Throwing apples in Belz in Shabbos Shira

We have previously written about the significance of apples. Here is apple throwing in Belz

and here in Klausenberg.

Walking on Water by Chaim Gershon

Hashem split the Red Sea before Bnei Yisroel. Several commentators [1] ask, "Why did Hashem make a miracle when the same results could have been accomplished in a more natural and less miraculous fashion. HaShem normally does not break the laws of nature that He established. It would have been more appropriate for them to walk on water which is more "natural" in the sense that water bugs do it! Or, why didn't they just take boats, although it might have taken more than a few trips !

The mystical answer is that the dry land and the sea are models for two different types of worlds: revealed and hidden. There is the part that people see and and the portion that is below the surface. The sea was split so that Bnei Yisroel access and connect with the part of the soul that is submerged and cannot be observed from the sea-banks. By walking in the sea bed which was rendered dry and not even muddy, the people were able to bridge between the diametric opposites, the visible world above and the hidden reality below. This experience was an emunah building experience that they would take with them to living in the world.

According to most opinions, when the Jewish people left Egypt and crossed the Yam Suf, they exited on the same side that they entered. What good did that do? a similar question has been asked about Yachatz, splitting the middle matzah during Seder [2] . Both halves are eaten during the Seder so why split them! Both processes, walking across the to these ame shore and Yachatz have been explained as examples of  Nesirah. It also explains why the Sages said that getting married and maintaining parnasa are as difficult as splitting the Yam Suf (Sotah 2a / Pesachim 118a). Two halves that are joined are something altogether different than the whole out of which they were taken.

Another example: A soul descends from heaven to this world and eventually it re-ascends without the body: What did the soul gain: it was pure before it came down and pure after it returned? Here too, the result, though it recreates the beginning, is an altogether different outcome. Likutei Levi Yitzchak writes that Lechem Oni is the revealed Torah and the hidden piece of Afikomen is Toras HaNistar. They both come from the same piece of Matzah but once they were separated and put together in the Seder, it is only then that they become truly whole! The splitting apart of the Matzah during Seder and then putting it together creates something new. To have them both in this manner at the seder to become a whole!

We enact the creation of the world where masculine and feminine were originally an organic whole that was then split in order for them to reach a greater unity through their own efforts. 

Avakesh elaborates: This touches on some of the most profound and difficult questions about Creation. Why was it necessary to create something that will eventually be repaired and made as it was in the beginning? Why did not G-d make it whole from the beginning? The topic is discussed extensively by Ramachal in the first 10 chapters of KL'CH Pische Chochma. Suffices to say, to an extent that any answer to this basic question can be expressed in words alone, the product of what was repaired and made whole is not the same as this product before it was broken. What is the difference? The history! The process of repair demonstrates something. To Ramachal it demonstrated Hashem's Goodness. R. Chaim suggests here based on his sources that in a more specific manner, the breaking of the Matza as well as the other examples he mentioned, demonstrate one aspect of this process, what is known as nesirah and the separation of and subsequent fusion of masculine and feminine in the process of emanation.

 

[1] Menachem Tziyon (Menachem Mendel of Rimanov), Rebbe Maharash of Lubavitch 5638B, several sources brought in Tikkun Leil Shivi shel Pesach.

[2] Sefer Bris Kehunas Olam

Name of G-d; name of Yakov's sons; the name of each one of us

יג  יְהַלְלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם יְהוָה--    כִּי-נִשְׂגָּב שְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ: .

13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for His name alone is exalted...(Tehillim 148).

The following is an explanation of a Rashi.. but really much more than that.

We start with the first Rashi on Shemos.

These are the names of the B'nei Yisrael.

Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime by their names, it again enumerates them by their names at their deaths. [This is] to show how dear they are [to G-d], because they are compared to the stars which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; as it is said: "Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name."

What is exactly about names that shows endearment?

It may be that repetition of the name itself shows endearment, as the verse clearly states, "Is Ephraim my dear son, is he a darling child? for as often as I speak against him, I do mention and mention him: therefore my heart yearneth for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, says Hashem( Yirmiah 31:20)". On the other hand, a person who does not like another, attempts to avoid his name by the use of euphemisms, such as when Shaul avoids using David's actual name, thus betraying Saul's anger: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'"^{[(Sam.I:20:30).}

Lehavdil, we know of this from Western Literature as well. A person who loves another loves repeating his or her name (for example, Romeo, Romeo in Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49 or Maria, Maria in West Side Story).

Rashi also  says in Bareishis 46:2 that a repetition of a name shows endearment,  "the repetition of Yakov, Yakov is a term of affection". This is based on a number of midrashic passage, for example, Bareishis Rabba 56:9. In Shemos Rabbah , end of chapter 2, Eitz Yosef explains: "..the repetition of a name is a language of edearment; because he likes  this person, he brings his name twice to his lips". This explanations assumes that repeating the names of the tribes is a form of endearment because Hashem, who had already counted them at the end of Genesis, now counts them again, and this is the same as repeating a name twice.

However this explanation has difficulties. First, in other passages, it is the use of the name itself that indicates endearment and not its repetition. For example, Rashi in the beginning of Bamidbar sees endearment in the fact that the Children of Israel were counted and does not mention "names". Second, repeating the name twice in the same sentence is quite different than using it twice diachronically.

This is what Rashi says in Bamidbar:

Because they (the Israelites) are precious before Him (Hashem), He counts them all the time; when they went out of Egypt He counted them [Shemos, 12:37], and when they fell because of [the sin of] the golden calf He counted them to know the number of those who remained, when He came to cause His Presence to rest upon them He counted them. On the first day of Nisan the Mishkon was set up, and on the first day of Iyar He counted them(1).

______________________________________________________________________

(1) Although I am assuming that Rashi to Shemos 1 uses the words "by their name", the version of that Rashi in the Ramban ( and a number of the mansucripts) does not have the words "by their names". On the other hand, Mizrachi strongly defends the version with the words "by   their name" in it. In Tanchuma, the "names" are not mentioned either: "..just as stars are brought out by name, so whent they come in, they come in with a counting". The counting itself is the sign of endearment, not the names. It is interesting that Rashi starts his commentary to each of the five books of the Chumash with some praise of Israel. In Genesis it is that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews and that Israel is called "Chosen of his produce (reishis tvuoso)", in Vayikra that Moshe was shown endearment, in Devarim the term is "Honor of Israel". It may this fact that led to Lubavitcher's Rebbe's question about why is that Hashem chose to express endearment through "names" rather through other means, such as giving a gift.

____________________________________________________________________

To understand what "name" signifies, we will take a detour into kabbalistic sources and come back by the way of philosophic inquiry.

There exists a difficult and influential passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer(PRDRE). It states(Ch.3):

Before the world was created, there was only He and His name alone (some versions say Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not He.., see Sefer Hoemunos 4:7. Another version in the printed version of PRDRE says, "His great name...).

 At first glance, this is very philosophically problematic, for if His name eternally existed before the world was created, His name possesses some of G-d's divine nature, at least its eternity, and this seems to violate the core Jewish principle that here is only one G-d.

 It is the same problem that is presented by the Problem of Divine Attributes, but sharper. Rambam in the Guide (I;50-60) describes this problem very well. If we say that G-d is merciful, and since any change in G-d is impossilbe, he being always perfect, Mercy is an attribute of G-d that is eternally coexistent with him, and if so, you have multiple divinities and not One G-d.  If He is one in the sense of being simple, how can a multiplicity of attributes be ascribed to Him? One answer was offered (by thinkers such as R. Saadiah Gaon)  via a distinction between attributes that are essential and those which are accidental. Essential attributes are those that are closely connected with the essence, such as existence or life; accidental attributes are those that are independent of the essence and that may be changed without affecting the essence, such as anger or mercifulness. Medieval logicians generally agreed that accidental attributes introduce a multiplicity into that which they describe, while they disagreed concerning essential attributes. Some, such as Maimonides' contemporary Averroes, held that essential attributes are implicitly contained in the essence and, hence, do not introduce multiplicity; others held that they provide new information and, hence, produce multiplicity. Avicenna was an exponent of the latter view, holding that essential attributes, particularly existence, are superadded to the essence. Aquinas held that we can speak of G-d's attributes as long as we remeber that they are essentially distinct form attributes taht we know, especially in their property of not being separate from G-d's oneness. Rambam accepted Avicenna's position on this point. He came to the conclusion that accidental attributes applied to God must be interpreted as attributes of action, that is, if it is said that God is merciful, it means that God acts mercifully; and essential attributes must be interpreted as negations (or more precisely, negations of privations), that is, if God is said to be existing, it means that he is not nonexistent.

Rambam himself says in 1:61 that what R. Eliezer in PRDRE means is that Hashem was unique before as after Creation, name being another word for uniqueness.

A number of early Kabbalists had a tradition that the first sefira of Kesser is what Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer meant whan it said that G-d's Name existed before the Creation. This is also found in the end of Tikkunei Zohar (10), "He and His name were one in kesser before the world was created" (see Radal's commentary for the many early kabbalists who expressed this view). This view is ascribed to Raavad by Sefer Hoemunos quoted in Pardes, Gate 3, a chapter devoted entirely to the question of whether Kesser is a part of Ein Sof or not. There, a full paragraph stating this view is quoted from Sefer Hoemunos Shaar 4, chapter 1, which I do not find in this location in our printed editions. Pardes himself strongly negates this view.

Nefesh Hachaim(4:2, in a note) explains that when Pirke DR'Eliezer says, "before the world was created", it is talking solely about the World of Beriah (Creation). This takes the sting and the novelty out of this statement because it is now speaking about the middle of the process of Creation and not its beginning and the "Name" is also now a created entity and not co-eternal with G-d. This is a very reasonable approach, considering that PDRE goes on to speak about seven things (Torah, Gehenna, Garden of Eden, Divine Throne, Temple, Repentance and the Name of Maschiach) that were created before the world was created.

A very astute and interesting approach is offered by the Rebbe Rashab in Hemshech Reish Samech Vav, Vayelech Hashem, p.165.He points out that Kesser is also called Ain, or Nothing. There are many reasons why it is called so, which he does not explain. A common explanation which is often offered is that it is called Ain because to us it is ungraspable, therefore as far as we are concerned it can be said that it does not exist. We can understand or say nothing about it; R. Arye Kaplan explained(Commentary to Sefer Yetzirah) that this is why the color of Kesser is black (see Pardes Shaar Hagavvanim), for when we try to understand Kesser we see only blacknes, an utter absence of light. Its brightness is so great that we cannot see it at all.

The transition from Kesser to the next adjacent sefira, Chochma, is called 'yesh miayin", or, "something from nothing". So when PRDE speaks of the Name, that is Kesser, existing before the world is created, it means only that stage in the Creation of the World that we call, "something from nothing", the point of transition from Kesser to Chochma. This is also what those who hold that Kesser is a part of the Ain Sof mean. Ain Sof is "no end". If it referred the the Essence of G-d, it whould have called G-d, "No beginning", or perhaps, "No end, no Beginning", but it does not. It does not because by Ain Sof it refers to Kesser which we cannot understand and which to us has no end ( or as Sefer Hoemunos says somewhere, we can speak about it endlessly), but in the process of Creation it does have a beginning. This is why it is called Ain Sof rather than "Ain techillah".

Ari himself in Eitz Chaim Shaar 42 takes a compromise position that Kesser is in an intermediary position between Ain Sof and other sefiros,  containing properties of both infinity and finititude, but this is not our topic here.

We are now equipped to understand why mentioning the names of the sons of Yakov who are coming into Egypt is a term of endearment. There is nothing closer to the very being a person than his or her name. The name of each person is unique and essential. In Hebrew, unlike in Spanish and some other tongues ("The Donald" in English, nothwdstanding) one cannot apply "the" participle to a name. One cannot say, "the Moshe", because this Moshe is by definition different than any other Moshe in the world. Your name is so central to who you are that only G-d truly knows it. This is why there is nothing more precious than calling a person by his or her name, and this is why Hashem calling the sons of Yakov, each one by his name, is the most precious form of expressing love and endearment.

I plan to post more on how our names shape us.

Gentile souls

 “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come[1]. "

When we consider the implications of this saying for non-Jews, three possibilities emerge:

1.All of Israel…but none of Gentiles.

2.All of Isreal, even the wicked… but among the Gentile is not so – only the righteous among Gentiles have the option in the World-to-Come.

3.All of Israel have it… even the wicked… but among the Gentiles all who are not wicked, even if they are not righteous but merely regular people, have a portion in the World-to-Come.

The possibility 3 is strengthened by the fact that the Mishna goes on to cite Bilaam, a Gentile, as one of four commoners who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. The implication is that if he had not been so exceptionally wicked, he would not have lost it. Rambam in his commentary to this mishna brings out this implication[2].“ It mentions Bilaam who was not of Israel because chassidei umot haolam (the good of the nations) do have a portion in the Wolrd-to-Come, but Bilaam is of the wicked of the nations and he does not have a portion in the World-to-Come”. It appears clear that Rambam implies that it is Bilaam’s exceeding wickedness that led him to lose his portion of immortality[3], but other Gentiles, even of average moral stature, would be able to receive a portion in it.

One must ask, however, why wicked Jews should be treated differently than wicked non-Jews. Commentators offer different explanations. Tiferes Israel ad loc implies that Jews possess a soul that is a spark of the Divine and can only be tainted but not damaged by sin. Even wicked Jews possess a soul that survives common sins but even it can be overcome by exceptional sins. The wicked of the nations have a soul that is more easily degraded by transgression and  lose the ability to be a part of the ability to be a part of the World-to-Come. Although he does not state so explicitly, his position appears to be similar to that of Tanya and Zohar who state that at least neshama of a Jew is different in some fashion than that of a Gentile[4].  Similarly Maharal[4], describes  that Jews possess a soul that is more separate (nivdal) from the body than that of gentiles, and hence less susceptible to its influence.

Meiri[5], on the other hand, raises the issue of holding correct belief in earning immortality. He writes that every Jew, even the most wicked, shares and minimally accepts basic beliefs of Judaism. As such, he automatically has a portion in the World –to-Come, something that is not true of wicked Gentiles[6].It is evident that the national perspective, the mere fact of belonging the Jewish people underlies the position that all of Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come. It may be that it operates only for the wicked of Israel, but it operates nevertheless. Although election of Israel is never adduced to support this notion, other forms of belonging to the nation of Israel play an important part.  Jews all share the basic dogmas of Judaism but only some exceptional Gentiles do so.

We can conclude that both the righteous and “average” Jews and Gentiles earn immortality based on their deeds, or are “entitled” to some basic portion in the World-to-Come. The wicked Jews deserve a minimal portion through their belonging to Israel but the truly wicked of the nations have no such right.

 This fact arises from the proof verses that Talmud discusses on 105A.

All of Israel have a protion in the World-to-Come, as it says, “and you nation are all righteous, forever they will inherit the Earth, the sprouting of planting of My hands, to glorify Me (Isaiah 5)”.

“This statement follows the view of R. Yehoshua, as we learned: “R. Eliezer says: “The wicked will return to Sheol, all nations, who forgot God (Psalms 5). The wicked will return to Sheol” – these are the sinners of Israel. “All the nations, who forgot of God – these are the nations of the World”

R. Eliezer derives from Psalms 5 that all nations of the world, not only he wicked,  are destined for Sheol[7]. Talmud posits that he cannot be the author of the statement in the Mishna that only very wicked Gentiles, on the order of Bilaam, are destined to perdition[8].

Who is the author of that teaching. R. Yehoshus! R. Yeshoshua said to him:  Had it stated, “and all nations who forgot God” (I would agree with you”. But it states, “nations[9] who forgot G-d, “ – only those nations who forgot God.

R. Yehoshua expresses the view of the anonymous Mishna at the beginning of chapter Chelek that only those individual non-Jews who “forget God”, meaning those who are as wicked as Bilaam, lose a portion in the world to Come[10]. This is the normative view in Judaism[11].

Interestingly, among several etymologies that the Talmud offers on 105a the name Bilaam, is one that reads his name as, “b’lo am – without a nation”, which can be understood that Jew nor Jew nor Gentile, neither included in the nation of Israel so he could take advantage of the principle, “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come”, nor is he automatically barred from such a portion by being of the nations “who forgot God”. The Talmud proceeds to relate that Bilaam slept with his female ass, underscoring his utter personal wickedness[12]. It is this utter wickedness that bars him from the World-to-Come. Here we have a different stand of thought than the one we had seen before. Whereas the Mishna speaks of the national “right” to the World-to-Come, this anonymous talmudic passage suggests that immortality depends solely on one’s deeds and implies no difference between the souls of Jews and Gentiles. It is this latter strand of thought that is expressed by Kuzari.

---

[1] As is well known, Rambam and Ramban have very different understandings of what this term means, the life of souls after the death of an individual or bodily Resurrection. Because of the complexity of this topic, although it impacts upon out topic in several ways, I will not discuss it farther. There are many works that discuss this disagreement, among them, Neil Gilman’s, The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought, Jewish Lights Publishing; 1ST edition (May 1997) and Simcha Paull Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994). I would just point out that if the World to Come means bodily Resurrection, non-Jews are certainly a part of that time.

While Tanach does not generally discuss life after death, for Jews or for Gentiles,  Rabbinic tradition teaches that a number of verses explicitly refer to the survival of the individual after death. Of relevance to our topic, there are many verses that indicate that the Messiah will usher in a time of universal recognition of One G-d, in which non-Jews will also share. Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) and Moshiach will attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) . Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) and the nations will recognize the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13–53:5). The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah8:23) and the entire world will learn to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9). There are many other verses, among them in Jeremiah 12, that suggest that the nations  of the world will both exist and have a place in the post-messianic world order.

---

[1] For a discussion, see Simcha Paull Raphael, The Jewish View of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994)

[2] Rashi says: “Bilaam and those who are like him (shekamoto). It is now appreciated that the original test of Rashi said, “Bilaam and Yeshu”, but it was changed by the censors.

[3] This interpretation is supported by passages in Rambam’s other writings.

[4] Tanya 2. Such a simplistic reading of Tiferes Israel leaves many questions. It contradicts his own famous comments in chapter 4 of the Chapters of the Fathers, in which he maintains that non-Jews as well as Jews were created in the image of God and possess the image of God. IF so, their souls are also of the same kind. It must be remembered that we deal here in Kabbalistic matters, to understand which, one requires specialized expertise. Suffices to say that according to R. Yitzhal Luria as reported in the first several chapters of Shaar Hagilgulim, very few Jews possess a neshama in any particular incarnation, the majority able to gain only a nefesh, and some, ruach – very few possess a  neshama. Thus, neshama in these sources is not what we colloquially term “soul”. There are also the comments of  R. Hillel MiParitch (Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Lekutei Biurim ) cited in Lessons in Tanya (Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY), Ch. 1, fn.33, who explains that having a soul means caring about others unselfishly: “It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.”  This ultimately goes to the role of neshama as a conduit of Divine Light to others and that it can only play this role when, in Imitatio Dei, it does so with no personal interest whatsoever, see Mahari Ashlag’s introduction to Zohar. Immortality depends on the soul, that is the person as a conduit to pass Hashem's light onto others.

One may counter the the nations do a great deal of chessed- just look at the modern Welfare State. However, it is not personal - it is a social contract. It does not pass on the Divine light; it merely keeps peace.

"Kindness of nations is sin" (Proverbs 14:3 as explained in Bava Basra 10b). "The nations of the world do chesed but it is chesed leumim. It is the chesed of society, instituionalized by the social structure of the nations. It does not emanate from kindness and consideration of one individual for another. This is why it is designated as transgression"(R. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason, p.156).

[5] Chidushei Hameiri, Sanhedrin, beginning of Chelek. His comments are consistent with the teaching that denies the portion in the World-to-Come to minim (heretics) and apikorsim.

[6] This view is similar to the Maimonidean perspective which predicates immortality on achieving the union with Active intelect through knowledge, especially theological knowledge. Although this view is ascribed to Rambam, he never specifically enunciates it in the Guide. However, his sources, especially in Alfarrabi do, and Rambam follows a very similar approach in his discussion of Prophecy.

[7] The exact meaning of Sheol is not our concern here. It suffices to say that in rabbinic sources it is usually, but not universally, identical with Gehenna.

[8] As can be expected this passage suffered interferences by censors. The version I quote is the one found in early manuscripts (Schottentstein Talmud, ad. loc.)

[9] The word for nations used in this verse is “Goyim”. R. Eliezer may understand the word as “non-Jews”, not “nations”, As Max Kapustin pointed out in the introduction to his translation of Mekhilta, it is one of many key-theological terms that has shifted its meaning from the generic “nations” to an appellation for an individual Gentile, without, however, severing its connection to the original Biblical meaning.

[10] In Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1, R. Yehoshua appears to restrict immortality only to the righteous Gentiles; however, there are so many variants of this Tosefta passage that it is difficult to determine what its original intent may have been.

[11] As codified by Maimonides and t be discussed shortly.

[12] Commentaries to Ein Yakov to Sanhedrin 105a

R. Yehuda Halevy comes to discussing whether non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come by the way of explaining why the Torah does not promise or stress eternal rewards and punishment like Christianity and Islam[1]. In I:109 he argues that and adherent of Torah, gains an ability to be close to G-d while still in this world. This is in essence not different from what happens after death though it may be different in degree.

We might expect that Kuzari’s view on the difference between Jewish and Gentile would lead him to a position that excludes Gentiles from the World-to-Come but this is not the case. Kuzari in a number of places, among them in 1:103 expresses his position clearly[2]:

“Thou hast, apparently, forgotten what we said previously concerning the genealogy of Adam's progeny, and how the spirit of divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren, and the essence of his father. It was he in whom this divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, whilst the others were as shells which had no share in it. The sons of Jacob were, however, distinguished from other people by godly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an angelic caste. Each of them, being permeated by the divine essence, endeavoured to attain the degree of prophecy, and most of them succeeded in so doing. Those who were not successful strove to approach it by means of pious acts, sanctity, purity, and intercourse with prophets. Know that he who converses with a prophet experiences spiritualization during the time he listens to his oration. He differs from his own kind in the purity of soul, in a yearning for the [higher] degrees and attachment to the qualities of meekness and purity. This was a manifest proof to them, and a clear and convincing sign of reward hereafter. For the only result to be expected from this is that the human soul becomes divine, being detached from material senses, joining the highest world, and enjoying the vision of the divine light, and hearing the divine speech. Such a soul is safe from death, even after its physical organs have perished[3].”

One might expect that this would lead Kuzari to deny immortality to Gentiles but he does not (I:113):

“We do not deny that the good actions of any man, to whichever people he may belong, will be rewarded by God. But the priority belongs to people who are near God during their life, and we estimate the rank they occupy near God after death accordingly.”

Kuzari appears to consider immortality to be a matter of reward and punishment as well as a natural outcome of the elevation of one’s soul through correct opinions and proper conduct. Although Jews have an advantage in the latter because they lead more godly lives, they as well as Gentiles are rewarded and punished for their conduct in this world. We focused here on the nature of Gentile soul, not on the broader subject of Immortality for Gentiles, which is a different and more complex topic, with a broader area of disagreement and consensus.

---

[1] This question was an important one and is discussed by many commentators and writers, such as, Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4, Akedat Yithak, Behukota, Abarvanel to Behukotai 26. Rambam discusses this in the Commentary to Chelek and Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1

[2] All quotations from The Kuzari: An argument for the faith of Israel, tr, Hartwig Hirschfeld

[3] The same solution is offered in Akedat Yitzhak Shaar 70

[4] AP Kleinberger, ha-Mahashavah ha-Pedagogit shel ha-Maharal mi-Prague (The Pedagogical Thought Of the Maharal of Prague), pp. 37-42, Jerusalem, 5723

 

 

Exorcism and second marriages

From J. Post:

Do Jews beleive in exorcisms? It depends who you ask.

A liturgical text dating back to the 18th century is being used by a British researcher as proof that they do, or at least did at one time. ....

A neatly written, 150-word text fragment - discovered by Dr. Renate Smithuis from the Centre For Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester - describes a ceremony to dispel the evil spirit of Nissim Ben Bunya from his widow, Qamar Bat Rahma.

It is one of the 11,000 manuscript fragments held at the University of Manchester's John Rylands Library - rescued from a 1,000-year-old storeroom - or Genizah - at the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo.

Smithuis thinks the Hebrew document was written in the 18th century, and probably originated in Egypt or Palestine.

The fragment contains the second part of a prayer ritual in which the husband - or husband-to-be - of a widow recites an exorcism prayer, to which the other men gathered in the synagogue respond with a similar prayer.

Avakesh comments:  I think that this interpretation of the fragment is a mistake. While I have not seen it, this is probably a prophylactic rite for a new husband of a widow. It is taught in Ari's Sefer Hagilgulim that the spirit of the first husband remains within a widow and can harm the new husband or his children with her. It has nothing to do with dybbuks or possession or exercism. This is a good example of why researchers in Jewish studies need to be consummate scholars in all areas of traditional Jewish literature. The generations of scholars who have now passed from the scene and were educated in yeshivos had this wide ranging knowledge. Unfortunately the new generation is university educated and not infrequenlty, in my experience, miss fairly obvious things.

Caveat: I did not see the fragment but would love to.

The concept is briefly discussed in a new book with a quotation from Shoresh Ishai, p. 68  here

A video of an exorcism perfomred a few weeks ago by R. David Batzri (Part 1 of 10)

 

Justifying the kabbala of Ramak

It should be clear by now that one of the main defenses of Ramak in the Lurianic era is that the Ramak's system it describes a more limited, an earlier stage of the unfolding of the "olamos", the "World of Tohu". While it limits the relevance of Ramak's work, it preserves the validity of Ramak's kabbala from within a Lurianic perspective.

What is "olam hatohu"?

It is a stage after the World of Akudim in which the sefiros came out in the form of ten separate circles or points, one above the other and did not yet relate or interact with one another. Unlike the fully developed and mature vessels of the rectified world of Atzilut to come, these vessels are considered as merely "points." and do not interact.  For this reason, this world is also called olam ha'Nekudim, "the world of points."

The world of Nekudim (all of) the lights enter, experiences "breaking of the vessels". The remnants are reconfigured in a way that gives rise to the the worlds of Beriah, Yetsira, Asiaya and results in the formation of a dynamic configuration of sefiros known as Parstufim.

When it is said that the Kabbala of Ramak describes the World of Tohu, what must be meant is that it describes this world, as it exists now within the rectified world of Tikkun, as cited from Leshem in the previous post. It cannot refer to the "historical" World of Tohu, for that world did not have an interaction between sefiros and Ramak's entire thought is based on such interaction ( this appears to be the opinion of the Lubavitecher Rebbe as well, see below). This requires elaboration but not now.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was a strong defender of Ramak. On many occasions , and publicly, he referred to the fact that the kabbala of Ramak was accepted by Besht and the Maggid of Mezeritch. In an exchange of letters with Rabbis Ishaya Zelig Margolis and Menachcm Zev Haleivy Greenglass of Yerushalaim, he expressed the view that Achiah Hashiloni and Elahu Hanavi, the teachers of Besht, "knew what matters can be relied on" and that acceptability of Ramak (and Emek Hamelech" is based on what they passed on to Besht. On other occasions he called Ramak "Tohu Shebatikkun" and of Ari, "Tikkun shebatikkun". It seems to me that he has a somewhat different understanding of how Tohu can still exist within Tikkun than Leshem but this is a different discussion.  I attach a file of an article on this topic.

Download Ramak

I think that chassidic thought in general, not only in Lubavitch, saw in Ramak a system that was much easier to relate to the inner workings of the psyche than the much more complex Lurianic framework. It is more simple to relate the first three sefiros (chabad) to the working of thought, from its inception to its conceptualization, and the emotions that it engenders to the remaining seven sefiros, than to deal with interactions between mind/ thought and different contributing emotions at the same time. For example, it is more straightforward to say that anger arises from a negative thought (chabad) and expresses itself as angry behavior (gevurah), then to tease out the contributions of different thoughts and perceptions as well as the contribution from other emotions: frustration, fear, dissapointment, desire for security or dominance etc, and then analyze it in terms of the point of impact, the actual Partsuf, the episode, the angry act itself. 

Ramak's Defenders 2

Rama MiPano was not the only defender of Ramak. A list of authors who cited and dealt with his words even after R. Chaim Vital's exhortation not to study mekubalim from Ramban to Ari can be found in the introduction to Toras Noson 66-69 and Introduction ot Pardes published in 2000 by Yerid Haseforim in Yerushalaim. They include:

1.Mahari Ergas in Shomer Emunim 1:17

2.R. Moshe Graff in the introduction to Vayakhel Moshe (published in Dessau 1699, facs. edition Jerusalem 1963)

3.R. Yehuda ben Shlomo, Biurim L'Zohar, Saloniki, tof reish yud beis.

4.R. Shabsai Sheftel, Shefa Tal (this very important sefer was recommended by Chasam Sofer)

5.R. Noson Shapiro in many of his seforim.

6.Bach, who wrote a commentary to Pardes, republished in Yerushalaim as Biurei Habach by Minchat Yerushalaim TShNT).

7.Midrash Pinchas by R. Pinchas MiKoretz, Imrei Pinchas 5:6

8.Gro at the end of Tosefes L'Maase Rav. Maase Rav himself recommended study of philosophy, then study of Ramak, then study of Ari, as we discussed here.

9.Keser Rosh reporting teachings of R. Chaim Volozhiner (found at the end of SIddur Hagro) says: "it is good to study Sefer Hapardes, that it is Pelach Harimon (a summary of Pardes by Rama Mipano).

10.R.Menachem Menchin wrote at the end of his introduction to Hagohos V'Biurim to Eitz Chaim: "One should take great care to look into the works of the Chosid Luzzatto and the work Shomer Emunim, and is also obligated as much as is possible to study the Sefer Elima of Ramak for he who does not study it, know that it is at the expense of his soul."

11.R. Avraham Azulai, the grandfather of Chido, in Ohr Hachama summarised and collected explanations from Ohr Yakar, Ramak's voluminous commentary onf Zohar.

12.R. Yakov Tsemach had a manuscript of Ohr Yakar according to the testimony of R. Dovid Kanforti in his Toldos Haramak, Kore Hadoros.

13.Ramchal praises study of Ramak (Klach 17).

14.Leshem in Hakdomas Shaarim has a discussion of the difference between the approach of Gro, which in Otzros Hagro (Shaar 7) he calls "Derech Hamarchivim" and the "Shitas Hatsimtsum" held by R. Chaim Vital and Rashash. At issue is the existence of Olam Halevush, a stage before the revelation of Adam Kadmon. This concept is found in the writings of R. Yisroel Serug but not in R. Chaim Vital. When discussing this, and remember that Ram Mipano already identified Ramak's teachings with Olam Hatohu, the Leshem comments that Olam Hatohu is still present within the depth of Olam Hatikun and it is therefore still valuable to learn about it.

15.Rashash, even though he writes in Nahar Shalom p.132 (there are two editions out with different paginations) that, "I do not touch the works of early or late Kabbalists, never studied them and have no knowledge of them", on p. 141 quotes Ramak's Shaar Hatsachtsachos, Ch. 1.

16.Ramaz (R. Moseh Zacuto), who was a student of R. Binyamin Halevy who was a student of R. Chaim Harofe, a student of R. Chaim Vital, wrote notes to Pardes.

This list does not include those who valued Ramak's works primarily as an introduction to the study of Kabbala in general, whose views we will discuss separately. I also hope to add a post explaining how Ramak can be said to deal with Olam Hatohu, what this means and its ramifications to the study of his commentaries.

The significance of all these examples is that they demonstrate that many later mekubbalim did not take R. Chiam Vital's warning seriously.

Ramak's defenders

One way to sideline R. Chaim Vital's criticism or pre-Lurianic Kabbala is to demonstrate that his opinion was ignored by virtually all Kabbalsits who came after him. First of all, R. Chaim Vital himself quotes and argues with Ramak in Shaar Haklalim, 12 and mentions him four times in Shaar Maamarei Rashbi (pp.98, 173, 291). In the last year of Ramak's life, the Arizal came to Safed. He too studies under Ramak, whom he refers to as "our teacher." Not only did Ari learn from Ramak, he considerd himself Ramak's successor. In this presentation, there is not, and never has been a break between Rmak and Ari's teachings.

Shivchei HoAri relates (free translation):

Before his passing in 1570, the Ramak said: "Know, that a man will come after me and enlighten your eyes in the wisdom fo Kabbala. Even if you understand that he argues against me, it is not true. Rather, in his days the conduits of holiness wil be closed and I wrote what I srote in a hidden fashion and through using the concepts fo sefiros. However, after my death, the conduits will be more revealed and that man will explain his words with concepts of Partsufim. And even though many of that person's statements may seem to contradict mine, do not oppose him and do not argue with him, for they stem from the same source as do mine and are absolutely true. His soul is a spark of Shimon bar Yochai's, and whoever opposes him opposes the Shechinah (the Divine Presence)."

"What is his name?" the disciples queried.

"I cannot tell you. At this point, he doesn't want his identity made known. This, though, I can say: He who sees the cloud which at my funeral will precede my bed, will be my successor."

A few weeks later, on the 23rd day of the month of Tammuz, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero passed on to his Heavenly reward.

Stunned by the news of this great loss, the entire community mourned. At his funeral, which was attended by all of Safed's Jews, many eulogies were recited. Among the eulogizers was the Ari, who described the Ramak as totally free of sin.

As the throng accompanied the Ramak on his last earthly journey, all wept bitterly. When the bearers of the his holy body reached the cemetery, they continued walking a long while, until reaching a certain site. Then, turning to the following crowd, they said: "We shall bury him here, beside one of Israel's greatest sages."

However, the Ari stopped them, crying out: "Don't bury him here. The cloud which is preceding him has continued on its path. Surely it will indicate where the Ramak desires to be buried."

Hearing these words, they knew the identity of their new leader.

Since I am writing this in the week of parshas Ki Teitse, I  refer to Ari's eulogy on Ramak which can be read on p.158, here.

Torah Noson (Introduction, pp. 66-69) cites many Kabbalists after R. Chaim Vital who discuss and go back and forth in the Torah of Ramak. Similarly, Rabbi Yeshayahu Hurwitz, author of Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Shelah), considered himself a student of Ramak and quoted extensively from his works. Chesed L'Avraham and Ohr Hachama on the Zohar, by the great R. Avrohom Azulai ((1570-1644) , draw extensively from Ramak, as well as Ari.

We will address the Chassidic approach to the relative standing of Ramak and Ari in a separate section.

Ramak and Ari spoke of different kabbalistic facets or worlds.

As is known, Rama MiPano(1548 1620); was a devoted student of Ramak "from his manuscripts" and he spend much wealth to obtain Ramak's writngs. One can dismiss this, however, since Ram MiPano received his Lurianic teachings via R. Yisroel Sarug and not R. Chaim Vital. Rabbi Menachem Azaria DeFano was one of Europe's leading Kabbalists, and he taught from Ramak's Pardes Rimonim regularly. This is what Ram MiPano writes in the introduction to his summary of Pardes entitled Pelach HaRimon, "He who despises him (Ramak) and his wisdom, God will despise him. For Moshe is true and his Torah is true according to the simple meaning of the words of Zohar and Geonim. Is someone who despises Radak's commentaries because he prefers Rashi going to give an account in judgment? Ramak opens the gates of understanding to the pshat that will not lie, even if there is also in it a deep meaning. So also is this matter, for Ramak opened for us the gates to the wisdom of Truth and through them every man can enter into the Hall. However, the Chacham Ramak expounded all his years the world of Belima (Tohu);and all the details on which we can expound in that world, he is justified to enter into the straight, perfect and clear way, in which there is not blemish".

In these few words, R Azaria Menachem MiPano touched on many themes. He says that Ramak and Ari speak of different worlds, which we will explain, he says that Ramak's teachings are pshat and are as true as the Ari's deeper derushim, and that Ramak remains valuable as an introduction to Kabbalistic sciences, before a student is ready to or should approach Ari's teachings. Similar sentiments are found in R. Moshe Zakutos' first note at the end of his Mevo Shearim and R. Meir Popper's second introduction to Eitz Chaim.

The contention that Ramak and Ari simply reveal different facets of kabbalistic worlds is already found in the words of Shivchei HoAri that I cited above. One must keep in mind that probably the most visible difference  between Ramak and Ari is that the former used sefiros and the laltter uses partsufim ( although in Elima Rabba Ramak discusses  Partsufim, which may simply be a nod to the Idras in which this concept is found, or may in truth reflect his deep knowledge of the system of partsufim which he may not have wanted to explicate in his other works). The simplest way to assign Ramak and Ari to different and complementary levels is to find in the more complex Lurainic system a point in which there are only sefiros and not yet Partsufim. This point is found on the level of Nekudim, also known as Tohu, or sometimes referred to as Atsilus (since it is before the fragments of keilim fell into Beriah) when the sefiros were just "coming out" and before Sheviras Hakeilm and formation of Partsufim. The question that I have on this approach, to me, is that at this point there was only a brief and incomplete arrangement of CHadar (Chesed, Din, Rachamim) - so how can one speak of a complete, independent and functioning system? More on this in the following post.

Kabbala of RAMAK in the post-Lurianic age

R.Moshe Kordovero was the culmination of a long process of development within the Kabbalistic tradition. Like R. Meir Gabbai's Avaodas Hakodesh (1567), it is a comprehensive presentation fo Kabbala, but it differs from it in some important respects. It is less overtly philosophical and more explicitly quotes, compares and discussses preceding Kabbalstic sources. Ramak quotes his sources, comprehesively reconciles them, brings proofs or questions from Zohar and other works and paskins between conflicting sources and conceptions. Ramak set out from the outside to review and reconcile, or reject opinions of early Kabbalists, from Geonim to his contemporaries, and to erect a consistent and straighforward edifice of Kabbalistic science that would stand forever. He half succeeded. His works, primarily Pardes but also Eilima Rabba and the 22 volume commentary to Zohar, Kli Yakar, are a consistent and staigthforward retelling of Kabbala as it was up to that time. Ramak is a patient and wise teacher and he takes the student by the hand, unharriedly leading him from concept to concept, from source to source, from quotation to its interpretation - until everything is clear and systematic, organized and shining with the profound and deep understanding with which he imbues it. I have hever studied R. Elyashiv works but I have been told that such a method of presentation is also characteristic of his works.

Within decades, however, the edifice lay, of not in ruins, then buried. R. Yitshak Luria, the Holy Ari, taught a vision of Kabbala of such luminescence and complexity, so apparently different from Ramak's version, so far removed from Ramak's rationality and reliance on sources, that  the very usefullness and value of his teachings came into question.

The questions that we will now discuss are:

1.Does Ramak's Kabbala still have value or has  it been supplanted by the teachings of the Ari?

2.Is it still true, or was it ever true?

3.Is it important as an introduction to Kabbalistic concepts, so that it is useful in the beginning of a course of Kabbalsitic studies but shold be abandoned thereafter?

We will not at this time discuss a related question: "Should only the writings of R. Cham Vital be studied, or are the writings of other "gurei hoAri" also accurate and correct?".

R. Chaim Vital opposed the teachings of Ramak.

What gave rise to this whole issue is the statements of R. Chaim Vital that the kabbala of Ramak should not be studied. He writes the following:

All the later kabbalistic works after Ramban - do not come close to them, for from time of Ramban and forward the way of this truth became hidden from the eyes of all the wise, and all that remained in them is some branches of the introductions, without roots. Upon these, the later kabbalists built their words, upon the foundations of human intellect. You can determine this yourself, for a sharp investigator can summarize and know all of their introductions in 4 or 5 days. All of their words are repetition of the same things in different words. Their basic conclusion is that there are ten sefiros and they authored multitudes of books on this principle, which can be encompassed in two or three pamphles. This is not what we find among the early kabbalists.... and people with a heart will not attempt to break closer to Hashem through looking into the works of the later Kabbalists, through study of later kabbalists.. (Introduciton to Shaar Hahakdomos).

In Introduction to Eitz Chaim he writes: From Ramban forward until my teacher (Ari) there was no one who achieved this wisdom in its truth, like him learned Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim, every matter according the so many ways in Pardes, the Work of Creation, and the Work of the Chariot.

R. Chaim Vital makes several points:

1.Everything after Ramban is of human origin, not divine and should not be studied. He does not name Ramak explicitly but clearly includes him in this group.

2.This Kabbala is a waste of time because the few remnants of the original teachings are scattered among "many words".

3.The quality of the later kabbalists is not the same as the Ari's, who explains Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim in many different ways according to the Pardes, whereas the later kabbalists presumably do not.

It is noteworthy what he does not say. He does not say that Kabbala of Ari is different, or better, just that it has more to offer, and that is it completely Divine and not of human origin. He does not say that it is harmful. On the other hand, his condemnation is sweeping and it must have been very difficult for his contemporaries to accept such a wholesale rejection of 400 years of tradition.

As we will see, the rejoinders come in several varieties. Some are by the way of demonstrating that great Kabbalistic authorities, even after R. Chaim Vital, continued to study and comment on the words of Ramak, that Ari himself did so, or that they explicitly praised and recommended the study of Ramak's works. Others attempt to explain that Ramak and Ari describe different aspects of the same Kabbalistic science. Still others "save" Ramak as appropriate for the beginning of Kabbalistic training, as the initiation text and an introduction to kabbalistic concepts and ideas. FInally, some admit that Ramak and Ari do not agree and choose Ramak.

More in the next post in this series.