avakesh

Gentile gilgulim

A reader asked me about a post that mentioned that Avtalyon was a gilgul of Aristotle. This statement is, on the face of it, a striking one, for no less a reason that it presupposes that non-Jews undergo a process of gilgul, which is contrary to the teaching of the Ari as presented in Sefer Hagilgulim.

He then shared with me the following source from the recently translated work of R. Azariah DePano (Reincarnation of Souls, p.38), that says that he was gilgul not of Aristotle but of Aristobolus: "Aristobolous was a spark of Avtalyon" (must be understood in reverse because Avatolyon lived afer Aristobolus), who taught unworthy students, who became Saducees. Aristobolous was related to their aspect, which is why he ultimately repented. He was reincarnated in Antoninus, who studied under Rabbeinu Hakadosh."

Now, one first thinks that this Aristobolus is the first Hasmonean king and this is who we are talking about. However, turns out that there were several other Aristiboluses:

• Aristobulus I (died 103 BC), king of the Hebrew Hasmonean Dynasty, 104–103 BC
• Aristobulus II (died 49 BC), king of Judea from the Hasmonean Dynasty, 67–63 BC
• Aristobulus III of Judea (53 BC–36 BC), last scion of the Hasmonean royal house
• Aristobulus IV (31 BC–7 BC), Prince of Judea, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, married Berenice, father of Agrippa I
• Aristobulus Minor, son of the above, brother of Agrippa I
• Aristobulus of Chalcis
• Aristobulus of Alexandria (c. 160 BC), Hellenistic Jewish philosopher
• Aristobulus of Cassandreia (375 BC–301 BC), Greek historian and engineer, accompanied Alexander the Great on his campaigns
• Aristobulus of Britannia, one of the Seventy Disciples, brother of Barnabas
• Aristobulus of Paneas, one of 72 priests who translated the Torah into the Greek

Airstoboluso l Aexandria and Aristobolus of Paneas are interesting candidates in light of what we will speak about shortly. If we assume Asitobolus III, IV or Minor, the literal reading that "Aristibolos was a spark of Avtalyon" (presupposing that Aristobolus lived after Avtalyon) can be mantained.

By the way, this name comes from the Greek name Αριστοτελης (Aristoteles) which meant "the best purpose", derived from αριστος (aristos) "best" and τελος (telos)"purpose, aim". There is something of the concept of gilgul in this name itself.

Going back to the Avtalyon being a gilgul of Aristotle, the source is from Seder Hadoros, Avtulmus in the name in Gilgulei Haneshomos, the very same sefer of which we just read an excerpt in English above. However, here it says something different.

Download Aristotle Seder Hadoros07242016_0000. 

Here is says that Avtalyon was a gilgul of Aristotolus. You note right away that this name, Aristotolos is not the name by which Aristotle is usually known in Jewish sources, A more common name is Aristo. That makes one wonder whether a transposition of a letter somewhere along the line of transmission made Aristobolus into Aristotolos.

To come back, how does one reconcile the reading of Sefer Hadoros with the view of the Ari that Gentiles do not undergo gilgul?

I offer two possible answers.

One is that there were early Kabbalists who disagreed with the view that Gentiles do not reincarnate. This question is discussed in Minchas Yehuda by R. Yehuda Hachayat, who quotes a view the gilgul also takes place with Gentiles and argues against it. There is a fascinating discussion about it in Brian Ogren, Renaissance and rebirth: Reincarnation in early modern Italian kabbalah, p. 159 ( his book is available in Google Books).

One can make a  distinction between reincarnating into a Gentile or a Gentile soul reincarnating into  a Jew. The former is much more understadable, since Lurianic gilgul can take place even into stones, so why not Gentiles. A more difficult problem presented by the above passage is reincarnation from Gentiles into Jews.Turns out, there is source also for that. 

"Abraham and Sarah, the first Jewish couple, were married for many years before they were blessed with a child, but their union generated many spiritual children. Kabbalah explains that the souls created by Abraham and Sarah—and the souls created from the unions of other righteous couples—have been distributed among the nations of the world, and it is these souls who become converts to Judaism", from Shelah Ha-Kadosh, Sha’ar Ha-Osios, “Kedushas Hazivug,” 402.

"This is why a convert is called the son or daughter of Abraham and Sarah. In a sense, his or her soul stems directly from our first patriarch and matriarch." A similar concept is quoted in the name of Sefer Hapliyah - that the souls of the converts were Jewish to begin with. This is why the expression is, " Convert who converted (ger shenisgayer)", instead of the" Gentile who converted".

 

So it may be that some Gentles have Jewish souls. Presumably, they can then reincarnate into Jews on their path to completion even according to the Ari..

 

Another interesting claim is that Holocaust gilgulim are showing up in gentiles.

 

 

 

In his own image

Prophetic vision and its relevance to religious life remains of central importance in Judaism. Rather than being an interesting and historically limited quirk, prophecy is a paradigm of spiritual life in the Jewish tradition. Prophecy is a part of a continuum of inspiration that leads directly to the Almighty. At the top is prophecy, in its middle is Ruach Hakodesh, and at the  bottom spiritual inspiration and enthusiasm. "It is impossible for a person to maintain consciousness of God's eminence and greatness unless he first delves into the essence of his own soul. (Noam Elimelech, Vaeschanan, q.v.Hishomer ..)"

We have spoken before about the concept of Deeper is Higher. It says that this soul is a microcosm of the world and, therefore, one perrceives higher worlds by descending deeper into one's soul. R. Chaim Vital puts it like this (Shaarei Kedusha 3:7): "...thought of a prophet spreads out and rises form level to level, from below to above, until it reaches a place of origin of his own soul. (Standing) at that place he "thinks" to lift the light of sefiros to the Infinite (ain sof) and pull from there the returning light from above to below... until it reaches his intellect. It takes its portion in that light according to the amount of origin of his soul in the higher worlds, from there it pulls through the power of the imaginative faculty of Chaya-soul has in supernal worlds. There in his senses there come to be formed things (meaning images) or in his external senses".

Dr. Alan Brill recently posted on the only recorded lecture by G. Scholem, in which he discusses this concept. Here is a quote from this very interesting post:

Scholem quoted from Moshe of Kiev – Shushan Sodot, the following passage from a studentof Abulafia. As you read the passage note that Scholem reads the passage as reaching the psychology depth of the soul and Moshe Idel in his work uses the same passage to discuss prophecy, prophetic kabbalah, and visual phenomena.

The wise and illuminated R. Nathan, blessed be his memory, told me ‘Know that the perfection of the secret of prophecy for the prophet is that he should suddenly see the form of his self-standing in front of him. He will then forget his own self and it will disappear from him. And he will see the form of his self in front of him, speaking with him and telling him the future.

Scholem explains it as showing the Kabblah as offering self-knowledge into the depths of the human nature...

However, you got to be careful with Scholem. A longer quote can be found in Zinberg's History of Jewish Literature, p. 17-19. While in isolation, it can certainly be understood this way, and the idea itself is certainly correct, an earlier passage in Shushan Sodot (also quoted by Zinberg) seems to talk of every person's image imperceptibly float over his body. It is this image, external and not internal ,that speaks and communicates with the prophet. In essence it is simply a restatement of the widely known idea that the deepest part of a person's soul, the Chaya and Yechida are located outside of the body.

As expressed by Scholem, the idea partakes of a heretical rejoinder that prophetic experience comes solely from inside the person and in no way reflects reality outside of him  - "it's all in your mind". In contrast to this formulation that undoubtedly appealed to Scholem, the source that he quotes is more subtle. Yes, it is the person's own image that speaks to him, but not form inside his imagination and misguided religious zeal, but from that part of him which is outside and unaffected by his psychological makeup, that's part which is the mediator between the spiritual world and his mind and senses. This is an important, albeit a subtle distinction between how Scholem explains that and what the source actually says.

Minor point: the author of Shashan Sodot was not exactly a student of Abulafia, though he was influenced by his writings - see the extended discussion by Zinberg.

Zinberg was a fascincating individual. From what I remember from the introduction to his amazing multivolume overview of the entire Jewish literature until his time, he was a chemical engineer by profession, who, left behind in the Stalinist Russia, devoted all his free time to sitting and researching in the Leningrad library. Ultimately, he was exlied by Stalin and died somewhere in the Stalin Gulag.

He and His Name: Conclusion

 In the past posts we have discussed a profound, albeit a troubling statement of Pirke D"Rabbi Eliezer. It appears to allow a duality within the Godhead by saying that, "Before the world was created there was only Hashem and His Name". We saw that a number of attempts at explanation have been made, without, however being very satisfactory.  We will now discuss an explanation that is, at least to me, entirely satisfactory and meaningful.

If we look at the statement closely, we can focus on the line "Before the World was Created". What does this mean? Does it mean all the way before, the very, very beginning, that time before there was time? Or, does it mean that in the process of Emanation, and before the stage we call Creation, there was an intermediate "time", when only Hashem and His Name were in existence. Many commentators say, "Yes", we are talking only about a discrete and intermediate stage in the process of emanation. A list all of commentators who say this  can be found in the commentary of R. Dovid Luria to the passage in question, in the third chapter of Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer. They include the Villna Gaon, R Chaim Volozhiner in Nefesh Hachaim 2:2 and is probably  based on Sefer Chareidim, and R. Todros Halevi in Otzar Hakavod. The most involved and the longest explanation can be found in Rebbe Rashab's RS'Vov, p. 247-249 (and the entire maamar is devoted to this).

To explicate the profound issues involved, we need to take a step back.

The simplest understanding of this approach, is to say that Emanation proceeded through the steps of Atsilus, Beriah, Yetzira, Asiysa. Atsilus is a state of un-differentiation, that time when Light has moved forth and began to separate from the Divine but individual entities did not yet form. The subsequent step was Beriya, a period of differentiation and separation of different things one from another. Naturally then, the "Name" became distinct from the Godhead just prior to the step of Beriya, or, what is called, "Before the World was Created".

I think one can mine this for more meaning, however.

We are used to thinking that the concept of Emanation is opposed to the concept of Creation. There are some very good reasons to think that . R. Meir Gabbai in Avodas Hakkadosh, Shaar 1, argues that only Emanation fulfils the purpose of making the world. This is because Hashem is hidden. How does one find Him? By projecting forward things of this world up towards their source. That is only possible with the process of Emanation. With emanation every detail that one finds in this world is a projection and a development from the Source. With creation, it is not necessarily so. An infinite and all-powerful Creator could have created our world with only a fraction of his Essence. In that case, human beings could not project from creatures of this world to the true Creator who has made them. Only if the world in all its details has emanated step-by-step and without a break from the Almighty, can a human being in some way retro-engineer an understanding of Hashem from this world.

However, as we discussed in the past, there is a sizable group of opinion that emanation was only of the spiritual world and that when it came time to make the physical world, there was a skip that was a Creation. Spiritual can not become physical and an act of Creation was necessary to make this world.

If so, one can explain that it was specifically before the quantum jump from Emanation to Creation, that a sort of a duality came to exist within the God-Head. What this duality was was simply He and the entire sephirotic apparatus, which, from Kesser to Malchus is deservedly called, "His Name".

To go even deeper, it is known that this world was created according to the Torah, as it says in  Zohar (2:161b): “God looked into the Torah and created the world.” Mishlei 3:19-20: By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the watery depths were divided,  and the clouds let drop the dew.

What does this mean? One can explain it in one of two different ways.

One is that the Torah served as the blueprint in that every detail in the Torah is reflected in the actual physical world that we see. Another one is that this world was made to be such a world that it's would reflect spiritual values. In other words, there are many possible worlds. In some of them concepts such as loyalty, love, beauty, piety etc will exist and in some of the possible worlds they would not exist. However it does not mean that every physical detail is a direct result of a spiritual detail. It is a kind of an Anthropic Principle – the world was created so as to enable the existence an expression of spirituality within itself.

The first opinion posits that emanation proceeded from spiritual to physical, so that every spiritual detail is expressed in the physical world. This second opinion is that Hashem based the world, in the worlds of Mishlei, "laid its foundation by Wisdom", upon spiritual ideas, but not that every physical detail has a spiritual antecedent. 

 

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