avakesh

He and His Name 4; Three in One

As we already discussed, one way to explain how the Name and Hashem can be one, is to posit that the Name is the potential within the One for the subsequent creation. Being a potential, it does not contradict unity. This is how Rabbi Meir Gabbai in chapter 3 approaches this issue. So far, so good. How surprising then is it to find that he goes on to say that there are actually three aspects in the Unity.

To understand what he means we must first digress into the fascinating and obscure topics of pre-Zoharian Kabbala, specifically, the Kabbala of the Geonim. I will start with how the Pardes and Avodas Hakodesh attempted to fit Geonic teachings into the ten-sefirotic perspective, but the truth is that now that we have the actual Kabbalsitic works of Geonim, there is little doubt, at least in my mind, that Geonim received and expressed a very different tradition than that of the Zohar. We will discuss this next time, but when the Kabbalsits who "cut their teeth" on the Zohar encountered the "strange" teachings of the Geonim, they labored it understand them within their own perspective.

You may remember the disagreement about whether the sefirah of Keter is one of the ten sefiros or not. Pardes in Shaar 3 held that it was one of the ten, below and after Ain Sof, and Avodas Hakodesh said that it was not. Instead, Keter was that Name that R. Eliezer posited existed alongside the Hashem before the Beginning, and Emanation began with Chochma and not Keter.

The Geonim, on the other hand, spoke of 13 stations of Emanation. That would be very troublesome to the ten-sefirotic system. Therefore, both Pardes and Avodas Hakodesh took the group of the exra three and moved it away and apart from the Ten. Pardes located after the Ain Sof began to create or emanate ( and thus headed off any challenge to the Oneness of the One) but before the ten sefirot came out, although the three are inextricably connected to Ain Sof, in the same way that sefiros are connected. This group is above but related to Keter and this is where the 13 Tikkunei Dikna in the Keter of the Ari eventually came from. Other early Kabblists located these "extra" three within Tiferes and even Malchus (see here and "An introduction to the Kabbalah"  By Mosheh Ḥalamish. p. 96 and p. 125).           

Avodas Hakodesh, on the other hand, did something more daring and troubling. He put the three extra levels within the One itself.

Let's first see how Pardes handled the issue. Shaar 11 begins with the presentation of a teshuvah from Rav Hai Gaon. In the words of the Pardes: " ..although his language is long and extended and beyond it's content and requires a long explanation". Nevertheless, a question that was asked to Rav Hai Gaon by Rav Paltai and his chabura: "teach us so master, for we found that our sages speak of 13 measures that Moshe, Our Master, received. And the book of Creation(Sefer Yetzira) of our Father Abraham says that there are ten sefiros. We need to learn from your holy mouth if there are 10 but not 13, or, is it only thirteen and not 10. We need your Torah and we long for your response".  Hai Gaon did respond and his explanation according to the Pardes is that there really 10 sefiros but above them, that is above the ten sefiros and above Keter, there are three additional hidden worlds. They're called Ohr Kadmon, Ohr Metsuchtsach and Ohr Tsach (from Tikkunei Zohar#70), called by these names because they're very hidden and mysterious. Their essence is the essence of Ain Sof and the three are intimately a part of the Root of all Roots and are the existence within the Ain Sof of of the possibiity of the three lines in which sefiros will ultimately arrange - Severity(Din), Mercy(Rachamim) and Kindess(Chessed).

Avodas Hakodesh(Ch.3 and end of Ch. 6), on the other hand seems to take the existence of the three aspects to be the Name and Essence to the Root of Roots(Shem V'Etsem leShoresh HaSheroshim) within Ain Sof. They are the highest extent of Avir Kadmon(Primordial Air) from which the ten sefiros ultimatley derive. It seems to me that there is a subtle but crucial difference between this explanation and that of Pardes. Avodas Hakodesh admits of One that is Everything, as we discussed in the previous post in this series. Within the Ain Sof there are things that eventually were emanated to become Everything in this world and those things that were never emanated and "remained" in the Ain Sof. The ones that will eventually emanate were always distinct as a group. One aspect of them is Name, that which we will eventually be able to recognize and call a name, and Essence, or what they actually are. These two are aspects of the Root of all Roots - the domain out of which all these things were to be emanated, before they were emanated.

Christian kabbalists were quick to pounce on these three as a trinitarian doctrine, which they are not, see here for a contemporary response. Della Pica Mirandolla saw here a vindication of Christianity but the Pope did not think so, threatened him with inquisition and Pico renounced this position, among several others. It should suffice to review the Pardes and Avodas Hakodesh explanation to see how much that is not true.

In the next post, we will attempt to unravel what Kabbala of Geonim was actually all about and understand what Hai Gaon may have meant by his response.

He and His Name 3: Is Keser one of the ten sefiros.

We started this series by asking how could R. Eliezer say that before the world was created there was only Hashem and His Great Name? Isn't it again the principle of total unity of God? Some thinkers who considered this question responded that it is not; all depends on what is Unity and how you understand it.

Before we launch into this question, we must briefly consider an important issue in early Kabbalah – Is Keser counted as one of the 10 sefiros?

To take a step back, the process of emanation consisted of 10 steps or stations, called sefiros. The first one was Keser, followed by Chochma, Bina, Gevura, Chessed, Tiferes, Hod, Netsach, Yesod and Malchus. Our passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer is understood as saying that Keser is not a part of the 10 but rather above the 10. As such, it is a part of the Ain Sof. What takes its place within the 10 sefiros? It is Daas, or according to the Gr"o in the first chapter of Sefer Yetsira, it is the Malchus of Ain Sof. Those who hold the position that Keser is not incldued in the 10 sefiros, base themselves primarily on this passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer (or at least, Pardes 3:1 says so).

The process of emanation then begins from Chochma, and in fact Targum Yerushalmi translates, "In the beginning God created" as  "With Chochma God created". This and the various proofs from Sefer Yetzira, Zohar and Tikkunim are discussed in Pardes Shaar 3, Sefer Hoemunos, ch. 4 and Avodas Hakodesh of R. Meir Gabbai 1: 2 and 1:12. There is much more to say about the subject but that is really not our focus at this time.

How can Keser be is eternally preexistent within the Ain Sof and yet G-d be One? One way to understand it is how R. Meir Gabbay explains it. He says that the possibility of future creation was always existing within the Ain Sof. This possibility is called the "Name " or Keser. Being a potential and not an actuality, it does not detract from Unity. He then goes further and says that all 10 sefiros were always preexistent and coiled within Keser, ready to spring forth and develop.

To understand why this does not contradict God's Unity it is necessary to appreciate that the Unity of these Kabbalists is not the same as the Unity of Rambam. Maimonidean Unity is unique and unlike anything that exists or can be imagined by human beings. It is Nothing like anything we know. Kabbalistic Unity, on the other hand, is Everything that ever existed or can potentially exist. Rambam believes in creation; Kabbalists believe in emanation. According to Kabbalists, Ain Sof is infinite because it contains everything and more. The finite is also a part of the infinite, just like any finite set of numbers is a part of the infinite set of numbers, without detracting from the Infinite itself. Imagine the Infinite Hotel -  there are an infinite number of rooms in this  hotel and each room is occupied. If ten more people come to check in,  the clerk will tell everyone to move over ten rooms so as to make room for these ten new guests. So now the discreet number, ten, is at the same time both finite in itself and a part of the infinite set. This demonstrates that finite and infinite are not so far apart and that the finite can be a part of the infinite, while remaining limited in itself, much like a mathematical  line is made up of an infinite amount of finite dots. Such is the mystery of the infinite and the finite in which we all simultaneously live and operate. Seen this way, what R. Eliezer is saying is that everything emanated was present with an infinite number of other "things" within the Ain Sof before it was emanated. This everything is called "His Great Name". At the end of chapter 4, Avodas Hakodesh expresses an almost Chabad- like idea that everything that was to be created was always present within the Ain Sof  the only difference between before creation and after the creation is our newly existent inability after creation to see Hashem's Essence (he does not use this  term) as it is.

The position that Keser is not a part of the 10 but is rather present in the Ain Sof is not the only possible position. Two other positions are found among the early Kabbalists. One is that Keser, as the first of the Ten, is radically separate and different from Ain Sof (this became the prevailing thinking in subsequent Kabbalistic thought, on the authority of Pardes) and the other that Keser actually is Ain Sof. While these are fascinating topics, it is not for our consideration right now. We will discuss how the former position might explain the statement of R. Eliezer in the next post. After all, if Keser is not a part of the Ain Sof but is simply the first and the most important of the 10 sefiros, what is this Great Name that R. Eliezer says was in existence before the world was created? We will consider answers that proponents of this position gave to this question, God willing in the next post in this series, after we discuss the views of the Geonim.

 

 

Hashem and His name 2: Rambam

We had discussed think the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that before the world was created there was only Hashem and his Great Name.

Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim 1: 61 correctly identifies this as a problem to the central teaching that undergirds his entire philosophy – that God's attributes are simply names that humans give to the effects of His actions. Here is how he puts this point:

"It is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, hé, vau and hé. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained."

Given that names are simply what we call his actions, what is it that the Rabbi Eliezer actually saying? Actions can only be possible after the world is created whereas Rabbi Eliezer's statement refers to something that appears to be in true and eternal and existing before the Creation.

Rambam does two things. One, he uses Rabbi Eliezer's statement to reinforce his own take on the Attributes. Two, he interprets the statement of Rabbi Eliezer in a way that intends to remove the problem but which is in itself not very clear. I quote his interpretation.

"In the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (chap. iii.) occurs the following passage: "Before the universe was created, there was only the Almighty and His name." Observe how clearly the author states that all these appellatives employed as names of God came into existence after the Creation. This is true; for they all refer to actions manifested in the Universe. If, however, you consider His essence as separate and as abstracted from all staff actions, you will not describe it by an appellative, but by a proper noun, which exclusively indicates that essence. Every other name of God is a derivative, only the Tetragrammaton is a real nomen proprium, and must not be considered from any other point of view."

Rabbi Dovid Luria in his commentary to Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer has harsh words against this passage of Moreh Nevukhim. First he points out that Rambam was not very definitive and that his language is, "It is possible to say". He then focuses on Rambam's admission that, although names cannot be applied to Hashem, the one that denotes essence can be applied to Hashem. "How can it be", he asks, "that before the creation any name can exist?". He continues that it is not consistent with Rambam's own insistence that no attribute at all then be applied to God. If this is so, then existence(metsius) is also an attribute that cannot be applied to Him." He ends with a interesting statement that the Kabbalists were more consistent in not attributing physicality to God then Rambam.

I did not see that classic commentators on Rambam deal well with this question. I also think that Rav Dovid Luria conflates Existence with Essence. However, in the question of existence as an Attribute lies a potential answer.

The name Havaya certainly has something to do with existence because it is a combination of the three tenses of the word "to be": past, present, and future. Existence is not quite an attribute, in the sense that Will, Knowledge, Movement, etc might be. Existence is much closer to Essence than other Attributes. I have spoken of it here.

Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason argued that existence is also an external attribute, for it is possible to imagine a horse which is in every aspect the same as a real, specific horse, except that it does not exist. This was his argument against the Ontological Proof, which states that a Perfect God must exist. Perfection must include existence for there is no greater imperfection than non-existence. Platinga, a contemporary Catholic philosopher, has offered an interesting counter-argument against Kant. In any case, this may be what Rambam meant - that Existence is different than any other Name. The name Havaya, which denotes existence, was applicable to Hashem's essence even before the creation.

In the next post we will delve into the question of early Kabbalists of whether Keter was pre-existent with God prior to creation, or not. This is usually expressed as the question of whether Keter is a part of the the ten sefiros or a part of the Ain Sof and not one of the ten sefiros.

 

He and His Name: Problematic passage

This is a first post on a remarkable Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer. This passage is important because it discusses the very nature of divine unity. I will begin with briefly reviewing the nature of the problem and how to other religious traditions have dealt with it.
First let me quote the passage itself, which is found in the beginning of the third chapter.

Ad Sheinivra Haolam haya Hakadosh baruch hu v'shmo Hagadol levad.
Until the world was created there was only Hakadosh Baruch Hu and His great name alone.

Some versions use the word "Kodem" instead of "Ad shenivra".

The issue of, of course, is that it seems to imply eternal duality within the  God-Head.  Before the world was created, there were two entities: G-d and His Name. That's pretty strange, isn't it? Hashem is One, not Two!

A few points are in order. It is of course axiomatic in Judaism that God is One. As Rambam expresses it, this One is unique and unlike any other One that is known to man. All other entities known to Man are by definitions either composite or in some way share some characteristic or attribute with created things. Since God is categorically different, His being One is also completely different from anything we know. We can only define His uniqueness by saying what He is not, the so-called "negative theology". A G-d like this cannot be dual.

This does, however, create another problems. How is G-d able to interact with the world? How was He able to crate it? How did he bridge the radical divide between One and Many? How does He continue to guide us, to answer our prayers, to teach us His Law, and dwell within us and in our Holy Places?

It is tempting to interpose another Deity to fulfill this function.

Although Kabbalists define One differently, they also, as we shall see, uphold the Unity of Hashem.

So what I R. Eliezer talking about?

To appreciate what Judaism is, it is essential to understand how it handles challenges to its essential beliefs from within its own tradition. We will launch on an exploration  that will do just that. R Eliezer's statement is a serious challenge to the concept of Hashem's Unity. Let see how it had been explained throughout the ages.

First, let's look at how other traditions have handled the issue of One and Many. Even within the context of monotheistic religions, dual g-ds are not unknown. Neopatonists, such as Plotinus,  envisioned a single Hidden God (Deus Absconditus) that could not be known and had no interactions with the created world. It was permanently joined with its knowledge, Nous, in the process of Self-Contemplation. That is all that this God does: self-contemplation. The Nous is a part of of this G-d and of same Essence but also sufficiently distinct of It, that it could lead to a series of emanations, one of which was the Demiurge, the actual Creator of this world that we know. The Nous was inseparable from the Hidden God, but at the same time presented a beginning of a movement toward emanations. Of course pagan NeoPlatonists did not have a problem with a Duality within the Divine.

Christianity faced a similar problem. Having chosen to follow the high Christology of the Gospel of John, it launched itself into the morass of theological complications and contradictions. Unlike the synoptic Gospels, John represents Jesus as the Word or Logos, that existed before the creation and, hence before his own humanity. By choosing John over the Synoptic Gospels, Christianity received two contradictory doctrines. From Jews it knew that God is One. From John it learned that He was Two, and eventually, when the Holy Spirit was added, that He was, R"L, three. John claimed that JC was the son of God, but not only the Son, but pre-existent and in some way equal to Father. In a crucial opening passage, John says, that Word was God. It is interesting and noteworthy that Christianity when faced with this kind of a conflict, always elected the more pagan interpretation or directions. As time went on, Christian sects that were more Jewish or that tended to Judaic sensibilities, became heretics. Jewish Christians and Ebionites were quickly read out of the church (as were, in all fairness Marcionites and Gnostics).Then the Church rejected Arianism,a teaching in which the Word/ Logos was one of God's creation's in time and not fully Divine. Anastasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Arius' antagonist, taught that the Son was not created but eternally begotten from the Father, which means that the Father is eternally Father, but never without a son. EventuallyChristians came to believe that there were three persons(Father, Son and the Holy Spirit)  that are identical in essence, the difference between the three is simply that the father begets the son and not vice versa and that differentiation between the Three is in causation and not in essence.

Judaism of course chose the opposite direction when faced with the challenge of One and Many. It elected to explain the statement of R. Eliezer in a way that accentuated the Unity and explained away the plurality.There are a number of explanations, some Kabbalistic and some not.

 In the next post we will explore Rambam's approach to this puzzling passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer.

 

Difficult Aggada in Chullin 7b: Powers of witchraft

"A woman tried to dig up some earth from under R. Chanina's feet (to use for a spell against him). He said: "Take, it won't work, for it says: "there is no one but He(Devarim 4,6)".

(How can this be, do we not learn that witchcraft has power, did not) R. Yochanan said: 'Why is witchcraft called keshafim? Because they weaken(makchishim) the Family above". (Answer:) R. Chanina is different for he had great merit!".

This is very difficult to understand. Do witches have the power to overcome G-d's plan or do they not? If they do, they should be able to hurt a person with merits as wells as one without. If they don't have such powers, than they cannot bypass Hashem's plans in any way, even for an average person.

R. Chaim Volozhiner in Nefesh Hachaim 3:12 derives from here that concentrating on Hashem's uniqueness and power willl dispel the negative powers. In other words, R. Chanina was not unique. What he could do, unlike other people is that he was able to cleave to Hashem and concentrate on Hashem's Unity to the utmost. Others who can do the same will also be saved from dark powers. R. Chaim calls it ""a wonderful segula". The Brisker Rov followed this advice during WWII and was repeatedly saved by concentrating on Hashem's unity at dangerous times(see here, p. 31).

The story of R. Chanina is preceded by another statement of R. Chanina: "No man stubs his toe below unless it is decreed upon him in Heaven". This too appears to contradict the statement that witchraft can overcome the Supernal Family. Farthermore, who is this "Family"? Rashi to Zevachim Rashi (41b DH Famalia) says: "A king's Famalya is his company that agrees with him. If the majority soured, his Famalya does not endure. He partially leaves their company, and is not as informal with them as before. Likewise, if most of Yisrael sinned, it is as if there is no Kedushah." Famalya appears to refer to Israel as it exists even on earth and also in the higher spheres.

Sefer ha'Chinuch(28) draws a distinction between intermediate powers Above and Hashem himself. Witchraft can overcome the intermediate powers but not Hashem himself."Hashem created everything with a nature to do beneficial things in the world. Everything has a power above it forcing it to do its action, e.g. every grass has an angel above it telling it to grow. Hash-m commanded that we not mix seeds or animals to make a new species and Mevatel the species it came from. Chachamim say that Keshafim Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah, i.e. it temporarily overpowers the power above it. It does not say that it overpowers the *decree* above, for Hash-m decreed that this action come from them."

R. Bechaye (Shmos 22:17) explains that kishuf is like chemistry (my analogy), "Kishuf is connecting separate things. When lower things are connected, the forces above join, and a wondrous strange act results. "

R. Chananel rejects a part of our passage. He explains that it "appears as if they are Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah. Really, they cannot change Hashem's decree, like R. Chanina said. The Gemara said that he is different due to his merits, but we do not rely on this answer".

I suggest that the solution may come from what avakesh wrote about BIlaam. It is based on Recanti's commentary to the the following verses in Mishpatim.

It says in Shemos 22:18 that. "Yo shall not allow a witch to live". The next possuk is: "All who lie with an animal shall be put to death". Note that it also says: 'He who slaughters to gods shall be destroyed, except to Hashem alone". These last words echoe R. Chanina's words, "There is no One but He".

What's the connection between these verses?

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. Recanti goes on to say: "and understand this very well". He goes on the say something enigmatic about a human's "nefesh" descending into the world of animal "nefesh".

 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.

This 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.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".

Now we understand how witchcraft can overcome the family above. It means that a witch or a sorcerer can affect human levels and the worlds immediately adjacent to the one in which we live by descending ot lower levels. R. Chanina, however, lives in a world higher than these worlds. Kishuf cannot reach that high! R. Chanina was immune to witchraft because he lived, as we may say, in the world of Atzilus, on the levels not susceptible to the reach of sorcery.

On a deeper level, this is the meaning of the "talking donkey". There were two talking animals in the Torah: Bilaam's donkey and the snake in Genesis (see Ibn Ezra's comparison of the two). On a very basic level both are symbolic of human descent. When men and animals speak, they become equated. For Bilaams, the donkey represents his descent, not only below the level of a prophet but even below the level of a human, when he disregarded Divine Will and insisted on cursing Israel.

 

Are disagreements arbitrary?

A recent post about the distinct ways R. Akiva and R. Ishmael interpret verses merited this comment: "i am so confused. i choose to be a democrat or a republican. that is arbitrary. same with choosing a mode of interpretation. just one opinion or another. i like vanilla, you like chocolate. different theories, not! just he says, he says. am i missing something?".

I thought that it warranted a specific reply, and in depth.

The perception that all disagreements are arbitrary is prevalent in the modern world. Perhaps it is because so many disagreements that we encounter are quite arbitrary. People disagree with others because they don't like them  or the way in which they say what they say, or their groups; because they wish to belong to a popular group or party or because , at that moment, they are ornery and feels like disagreeing.

I particularly hear this sentiment from those who are exposed to Jewish thought in the Conservative venues. How does a typical Conservative adult education session works? The leader asks a member to read a (usually translated) statement from,  say R. Akiva. Then someone else reads a quote from R. Ishmael. Then the leader asks, "And how do you feel about it", and a discussion ensues, in which rank beginners pass judgments and share feelings about what was said by the greatest Tannaim.

The truth is that ALL disagreements among serious people are based on underlying assumptions. For example, the debate about raising or not raising the Federal debt ceiling is at the root a disagreement about the role of the government. Some believe that it should be constrained and, therefore, are against raising the debt ceiling. Others believe in expanidng governmental powers and want the ceiling raised so more money is available to the governmental agencies. In turn, that underlying dispute is also predicated on different views on the role of the individual in the society, on the nature and goals of the American Experiment and on many other equally weighty propositions.

The point is that even in the secular sphere, disagreements are based on something that is deeper than they.

For us as Jews looking at our tradition, disagreements are a fact of life. They are everywhere. Granted, what we agree on is much more than what we disagree about, the sheer number of disputes is a prominent fact.

Why do Tannaim disagree? Some believe that the personality of a Tanna determines his views. Conservative scholars, beginning with Zecharias Frankel in Darke ha-Mishnah" (Leipsic, 1859).   and many others claimed that it was because this Tanna was tacitun and withdrawn or gregarious or outgoing that he selected a certain view. Even R. Dovid Tsvi Hoffman allowed this approach to seep into his "Mar Samuel", for which R. Samson Raphael Hrisch vehemently denounced him. R. Hirsch (Selected Writings, vol. 5) consdered this a form of heresy but he did not himself provide an good explanation for the phenomena of machlokes. I am not talking about how disagreements are possible but why specific Tannaim select specific stands.

Many Conservative scholars, for example Professor FInkelstein (Pharisees and Sadduccees), explain this through a Marxist lens, Pharisees were a group of small shopkeepers and merchants and, therefore, they championed certain views whereas Saducess were aristocrats and warriors and they defended a different view. Neeedless  to say, I don't accept this facile and wholly inadequate explanation for it is too reductionist; neither is the Marxist perspective any longer popular.

To me, disagreements among Sages represent their differing grasps of spirituality. One Sage sees reality on a a certain spiritual plane, one in which the haalacha appears in one way, and another Sage, because his root of the soul is different, sees it in another way. The Lubavitcher Rebbe's approach is similar, for example, the disagreements between Hillel is due to Shammia representing Gevura and Hillel representing Chessed. Rebbe's view is solidly based on Zohar and has influenced several contemporary writers, such as R. Jonathan Sacks and R. Nachman Cohen, who published several books extending this concept to other pairs of Tannaim who disagree. When I discussed this once with R Cohen, he rolled off a number of other authorities throughout the ages who employed this approach.)

This is similar to what Ritva says in Eruvin 13b. He says that Moshe received every possible opinion but it was handed over to the Sages as to what opinions they would select according to what the generation needs. See an interesting article on this here.

At least, this is how I see this issue at this time. As I reach higher in the never ending climb to the root of my soul, perhaps my perception will change.

 

 

Knotted to HaShem by Chaim Gershon

Menachos 42b

“Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, If a man made [the tzitzis] from the fringes
of the cloth, or from sewing threads....  they are invalid”

 

 

 Why can't we knot tzitzis out of the threads of the garment itself?

 

Chabad Chassidus (5724 Shelach mamar and Magen Avos (Kopust) (see hebrewbooks.org) wonders why on a mystical level are the strings separately added to the garment and not knotted from the garment itself.
שבחוטין אינן נחשבים מגופו של טלית רק קשורין ומיוחדין עמה בלבד

Kabbalah explains that the garment represents the surrounding light (ohr makif) and it is internalized and brought down by the strings, which serve as conduits of light into the lower universes. With this, the fact that tzitzis are not part of the garment and must be later attached to it teaches several points:

1- necessity of tzimtzum in bringing down energy from higher spiritual worlds.
2- that being created separate and later being united by knotting together is a higher level that being always attached. The former allows the conduits to maintain an existence that is separate from the light that they convey. The latter would lead to the conduits being nullified automatically to the overwhelming greatness of the light out of which they are fashioned.

The women who spun the hairs on the goats, created conduits out of the light itself. Though it seems that it would holier to emulate these women, the existence of independent entities that must then struggle to connect to their source, as in tzitizis, is a greater achievement. This explains why a tallis is worn during davening, symbolizing that an individual can connect with HaShem despite his seemingly independent existence.

 

see here and here and here

Avakesh comments: From DailyZohar.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altz is Gott: Is this classic Rabbinic theology?

The conventional view of Rabbinic theology is that it accepts a distinction between the physical and spiritual world. The spiritual is above and the physial is below. Divine Presence rests on the Ark, which measures 10 tephachim high. Never had Glory (Shekhina) descended below and never had Moshe and Eliahu ascended to above, as it says” The heavens are heavens of the L-rd and earth he has given to the sons of men (Tehilim115) (Sukkah 5 and in the Mekhilta D.Rabbi Yishmoel, Yisro). Revelation is perceived as ocurring within the boundary between the physical below and the spiritual above. We find an example of this phenomona in this week’s parsha, Yisro.

…You have seen that from heavens I have spoken to you (Shemos 20,19) One verse states: “that from heaven” and another one says:”…and Hashem descended upon the mountain Sinai (Shemos 19,20)…” How shall both verses be reconciled? A third verse comes and mediates between them - from heaven He made you hear His voice to chastise you and His fire he made you see on the earth and His words you heard from within the fire (Devarim 4) - these are words of R. Yishmoel. R. Akiva says: “This teaches that the Holy One Blessed be He spread upper heavens on top of the mountain and spoke to them from heaven as it says “and He spread heavens and descended and darkness under his feet (Tehilim 18). Rebbi says: “and Hashem descended on Mount Sinai -top of mountain “and He called to Moshe” - to the top of the mountain “and Moshe went up” - you may think as it sounds, no, just like one who employs helpers can reach to places personally or through helpers, so much more the Glory of One who spoke and the world came into being (in other words, some messenger angel carried out Hashem’s commands and He Himself was not present at the top of the mountain)

Rebbi’s wording is somewhat obscure. I follow the explanation of Hagahos uBiurim.

Rabbi Yishmoel, as Rashi explains in his comments to this verse, understands that “His Glory is in heaven and his fire and power are on the earth”. In other words, what concerns R. Yishmoel is an obvious contradiction between G-d being described as located both on the top of the mountain at Revelation, in the physical realm,  and Him being heard from heaven, presumably far above the mountain. The solution is likewise straightforward - He was seen on the mountain but His voice emanated from heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, resolves the contradiction by positing the folding over of heaven on top of the mountain. The spiritual was stretched and folded on top of the physical.

Similarly in an earlier comment, “…and all the people see the voices (20,15)”. They see that which is visible and they hear that which is audible - words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They see and hear that which is visible. There is nothing that comes from the Mouth of the Almighty and (was not) inscribed on the tablets, as it says “the voice of G-d inscribes flames of fire”(Tehilim 29). Thus, here too R. Yishmoel simply points out that they saw the fire which was at one place, on top of the mountain, and they heard the sound that came from another place, from the heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, suggests that they saw and heard that joining of the physical and heavenly that was at that moment taking place on the top of the mountain. In Rashi’s words - “they saw the audible, something not possible in another place”

We realize, however, that R. Akiva is also addressing a completely different issue when we compare his words with an anonymous Tanna quoted in parsha 4 of the Mekhilta (19,20).

‘’...and Hashem descended on the mount Sinai”. You may think that the Glory literally descended and that He spread it over the mountain - it says to teach us - “for from heaven”. That teaches us that the Holy One Blessed be He spread the lower heaven and higher heaven on the mountain and that the Glory descended and spread them (the heavens) on mount Sinai as a man folds a pillow at the head of a bed and as a man who speaks from the top of that pillow. So it says: as the melting fire, fire bubbles water(Ishaia 64) and it says (ibid) in your making things of wonder”.

The most outstanding difference in formulation between this Tanna and R. Akiva is that the former describes a process of folding upper and lower heaven while the latter mentions only the upper heaven. The issue, perhaps, is whether there exists an intemediate substance, what philosphers called, ether (hiyuli), that is made of such fine particles that it is in some ways almost spiritual.This substance is the Lower Heaven. The interaction of the Heavenly and Earthly is portrayed as the touching of two opposite - fire and water. Nevertheless, though the twain shall never meet, they come together and are united at the boundary: the bubbles of boiling water.

It seems to me that R. Akiva is not as much troubled by the contradiction between verses as he feels the need to address the philosophical and religious difficulty that they present. Every religion must present a compelling vision of how the spiritual or heavenly realms can interact with the physical and the earthly. It does not matter whether the physical is the top of a mountain or the lowest valley and it should not matter whether you conceive of the spiritual as the highest or lowest heavens; the twain should never be able to meet. Yet history and human experience demonstrate unequivocally that in some way the physical and the spiritual intertwine, or at the very least, touch each other.

There are two ways of describing this relationship. The first one sees the spiritual as a dimension above and beyond the physical. To explain this, imagine a world that is completely two dimensional, consisting of length and width and nothing else. Imagine also that it is populated by two dimensional intelligent beings, sort of cut-out paper characters that operate and move solely along a two-dimensional plane. How would these beings perceive a man walking about in their world?

Well, first of all they see him as a set of footprints, unaware of the vast dimensions above their two dimensional space. More importantly, what they do percieve, seems to randomly disappear and then miraculously reappear far from where it was originally sighted. This is because they are only aware of him when he steps on their plain; they are blind to the process of walking that occurs above and outside their dimension.

R. Akiva sees the spiritual as a dimension above our world. Sefer Yetsira (5,2), attributed by many sources to R. Akiva (Pardes1,1) expresses this view in these words:”…depth of beginning and depth of end (dimension of time), depth of good and depth of evil (moral), depth of above and depth of below (height,) depth of east and depth of west (width), depth of north and depth of south (length)…When the dimensions, for a moment, connect, we perceive them as miraculous events - and that is what took place at Sinai. For more on this see here.

Chazal speak of Shkhina as "resting" upon a prophet. Avos are the Merkavah (Genesis Rabba 47:6). Just like the Shekhina rides upon the Keruvim, so can the Holy Spirit rest and touch a human being. Once you admit of it entering a human being, however, you are in the realm of the idolatrous, of incorporation of the spirit within a body, of a human becoming divine. Pagans believed in Possession, a spirit dwelling within the body as an uneasy guest, and Incarnation, a spirit entering the body as it sole element of vitality.

Chazal would never accept these concepts. There is no commentator (with the sole exception of R. Bachaya, which deserves a separate discussion) that would even consider explaining that the three men who visited Avrohom were incarnated beings.

There is, however, another solution to the problem of physical and spiritual. It is possible to see the spiritual as present within the physical and the physical as enveloping and enclothing the spiritual, and this is key, in a continuous process. Take for example, a concept such as kindness. Now, kindness does not exist in a physical sense; it cannot be touched, measured or tasted. It is, therefore, a spiritual entity.

One cannot, however, grasp the concept of kindness without understanding the concept of free choice to be kind or otherwise; in this sense, the concept of kindness enclothes the concept of choice within it. The concept of free choice itself cannot be grasped without knowing the concept of good and evil, without which choice mean nothing. Good and evil themselves presuppose a system of moral authority or a Divine Being from Whom it stems. The concepts of a Divine Being is enclothed within the concept of moral choice etc.

Thus, an observable physical act of kindness enclothes the concept of kindness, which itself enclothes a concept of choice, within which dwells the understanding of good and evil and the concept of a Divine Being. (I set up an example to consist of 4 stages corresponding to the 4 Kabbalistic worlds, but, of course, the act of kindness also envelopes many other concepts of different levels of complexity, analogous to the Kabbalistic idea of Partsufim).

The anonymous Tanna resolves the difficulty of the spiritual physical connection that is resident in the concept of Revelation in the manner just described. The higher heaven are folded into the lower heaven, G-d speaks, as if from a pillow above the double covering. In other words, spiritual comes in a series of "levushim", or, we might say is enclothed in various garments, some just a membrane, like a pillowcase, others thick and obscure, like the pillow itself. In kabbala, there is a disagreement whether this is true only of the spiritual worlds or even of the physical world. In other words, some believe that there is no discontinuity between the spiritual and the physical, so that the physical is sumply the end product of emanation. Others, hold that it is ony true of the spiritual worlds and the physical world was created through a separate process, as Creation, not as emanation.

The impression one gets from Chazal is like the latter view. It would be desirable to find the former view in the words of Tannaim as well, so as to legitimize it before all. The way in which we explained the view of the Anonymous Tanna may serve that purpose.

There is a well known diagreement between R. Yosi and Chochomim in Shevuos 35b. whether the name Tsva(k)os, which means Hosts, is a Holy Name of G-d of merely means hosts and is not holy. R. Yosi says that the name Tsva(k)os is not holy and can be erased, whereas Chochomim says it is Holy and cannot be erased (and this is the halacha). The Rogatchover once explained that the disagreement is the same one as about whether Tsimtusm is Kephsuto or not. If Tsimtsum Kipshuto, G-d withdrew from the world and allowed a space for physical beings to exist in it. He interacts with them from outside this "space" and hosts that are within it are not holy. All the things, (hosts) within it are physical bodies and are not holy. If not kepshuto, He remains within the physical space just as before the withdrawal, physical adn piritual are identical in essence, though not in degree, and both the name Hashem and Tsva(k)os are equally Holy.

 ת"ר כתב אלף למד מאלהים יה מיי' ה"ז אינו נמחק שין דלת משדי אלף דלת מאדני צדי בית מצבאות ה"ז נמחק רבי יוסי אומר צבאות כולו נמחק שלא נקרא צבאות אלא על שם ישראל שנאמר (שמות ז) והוצאתי את צבאותי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי

In other words, is it that there is a separate G-d and there is a multiplicity of mundane events and beings in our world, the former is Holy and the latter are not. Or, is it that Holiness pervades all worlds, including our own and all the physical beings within it.

The anonymous Tanna and R. Akiva may be disagreeing about the very same point.

 

 

Names and destiny

Names continue to fascinate me. Kabbalistically, a person's name is connected with his essence and the root of his soul. R. Yosef Karo writes in Magid Meisharim (Shemos) that a man named Abraham leans toward the side of kindness and one who is called Yosef is either a hero in sexual matters or feeds and supports others. While essentially Kabbalistic, it could be interpreted to refer to the subconscious effect of carrying a name and its meaning, which creates an expectations that will influence a person to express precisely the qualities associated with the name. It appears incontrovertible that one's name has a shaping and clarifying influence on the development of personality and on how others view him/her, and that it modifies a person's perception of who he or she is. There is scientific evidence to this concept.

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...). The Name is Essence!

This assumption that a name affects the person may be based on Brochos 7b.

How do we know that the name is causative (shapes and affects individuals and events)? R. Elazar said. The verse says " come see works of Hashem, that he put destruction (shamus) in the land. Do not read Shamos but sheimos (names).[

There are other sources as well. In Yoma 83b we are treated to a story of how R. Meir was able to prevent financial loss by paying attention to a name of an innkeeper who turned out to be a wicked swindler. Similarly we read in Sotah 9b, "If her name was not Delila she should have been called that, since she weakened his strength and his vigor". Similarly in Sotah 34b we are told that all of the spies were named according to their deeds. I

In Tanach names are certainly reflective of their bearers. For example, Esav has a name indicating his physical appearance (Genesis 25:) and is also called Edom (red), alluding to his violent tendencies, that he sheds blood. Moses's name reflected how the daughter of Pharaoh drew him from the Nile (Exodus 2:10). Noah's birth was accompanied by the aspiration that the newborn would provide comfort "from our work and from the toil of our hands, because of the ground which God cursed" (Genesis 5:29). And he called his name Noach, meaning to say, "This one will give us comfort (e-noach-meinu) (Genesis 5, 29)". Here the name reflects the man's essence. Another example: "The name of one was Peleg, for in his days, the entire world became divided (ni-peleg-a) (Geneis 10,25)". There are countless such  examples.

That a name may indicate something about its owner also goes back to Tanach. "Naval is his name and navala he does (Samuel 1, 25,25). "It is for this that they called him Yakov and he outwitted me these two times (Genesis 27,36).

Not only this - we all have different names.

You find that a person is called by three names: one by which that his father and mother call him, one that people call him and one that he acquires himself. The best one is the one that he acquires himself (Tanchuma VaYakhel, 1).

As is known, Ashkenazim have the custom of not naming their children after living relatives. This is based on Sefer Chassidim 460 who says that it is discourage because it indicates an anticipation that that person will soon die, as explained by Noheg K'Tson Yosef, Yoledes 5.. Of interest, the issue of Gilgul(transmigration) is not cited exlicitly by Sefer Chassidim. An obvious explanation of why we should wait until a relative departs is to give his or her soul an opportunity to partially transmigrate into the newborn baby. To name a child by a parent's name while he is still alive is akin to the sin of Onan, wo did not want to give "seed" to his brother. Abarbanel (unlike Ari who held that souls transmigrate into animals and even stones and trees) on Yibum in Ki Teitse makes the point that giglul is the more appropriate the greater the degree of similarity between the source and the destination and that is why Torah commanded that a brother should marry his passed brother's wife and produce progeny. See a discussion here.

In the recent edition of Kolmos from Mishpacha(Chanukkah 5771, #15), R. Binyamin Jacobson answers a question from Kallah Rabbasi 3, where it says that 80.000 boys named Aharon were present at Aharon's funeral. Does this not sypport the view of teh Sephardim that one names children after LIVING relatives?

His answer is noteworthy. He brings Bareishis Rabba 37,7: "The ancestors, since they knew their genealogies, would derive names from events. We, who are not certain of our genealogies, derive names from our forefathers. Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel said: The ancestors who used the power of Divine Inspiration drew names out of (future) events; we who do not have access to Divine Inspiration, draw names from our forefathers (Genesis Rabbah 37,7)."

SInce Aharon's contemporaries named their children after events, they named them Aharon after the setting up of the Mishkon. Therefore, it does not apply to our practice at all.

This is an ingenious answer but it doesn't explain everything. There are many examples of Talmuidc Sages who were named after their fathers when they were still alive (see R. Reuven Margolios extensive note in his edition of Sefer Chassidim 460) and this still requires an explanation.

 

Panim Chadashos: an explanation of an obscure halacha.

The light of a man's face during the day during the week is not the same as it is on Shabbos (Gen.Rabbah 11:2)

On Shabbos the face of every person is transformed. The gemara in Ketubot 7b says that Rabi Yehuda rules that sheva berachot are recited for all seven days so long as "panim chadashot," literally "new faces," have come to celebrate. If there are no panim chadashot, the law is that only the last of the sheva berachot ("asher bara") is recited.Tosafot note that Shabbat and holidays are also referred to as panim chadashot, based on a Midrash where Hashem refers to Shabbat as such (the logical extension to holidays is made by the various commentators).This is why on Shabbos each person has a "A New Face (Panim Chadashos) ", and can be counted for a minyan for Sheva Brochos, even he already attended a previous sheva brochos (Sefas Emes).

"The face of a person shows his internal situation (matsav ruach), if it is setteld or he is upset ( Klach 32)". In Daas Tevunos 2:9 , Ramchal farther explains that the face is called Panim while the inner world of a person is called pnim. This is because the face reflects what is deeper and inside. "After all, we can clearly determine if a person is alive or dead by the pallor of his face, or whether he’s ill or well by the hue and tone of his face, and we could even be said to “read” a person’s thoughts on his face thanks to its affect, color, and configuration. For, the very physical human face is capable of reflecting the soul to the eye that’s sensitive enough to read it."

Thus, on Shabbos the inner state of a person is different, whch in turns is reflected in his countenance. In what way is it different?

As is well known, the soul of a person is elevated on Shabbos. With Borechu in the Friday night, he receives the “Ru’ah” portion of the extra soul with which we are endowed on Shabbat. The “Neshama” aspect of the extra soul descends upon a person later during Maariv, during the recitation of “U’fros Alenu Sukat Shelomecha.”

So what we have is that on Shabbos the inner state of person changes, which changes his face as well. In this sense, we can speak of Panim Chadashos on Shabbos and explain the halacha of Panim Chadashos on Shabbos.