User talk:Jimharlow99

Welcome!

Hello, Jimharlow99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jheald (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editing of Jewish philosophy!

The page was really in need of such development! I made the Template:Jewish philosophy box, which I just added to the main page. I don't have the time, or enough knowledge, to complete it up to the standard of knowledge of your edits. A few weeks ago I annonamously added the pictures to the Jewish philosophy page, and have also brought the Template:Kabbalah up to its present standard. I designed the Template:Jewish philosophy to have the same dimensions as the Kabbalah template to reflect the alternative, parallel relationship between the two schools of Rationalism and Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism. The colours for the Template:Jewish philosophy match many of the series of templates utilised on Western Philosophy wikipedia pages. The specific limitations of the template are explained in the top descriptive box. The special, cannonic status of Medieval Jewish philosophy-"Hakirah" within Rabbinic Judaism, which sets it apart from Philo and Modern Jewish philosophy (including Orthodox figures like Joseph Soloveitchik), is outlined by the description in that section. I thought this necessary as this cannonic status makes Medieval Jewish philosophy a special case in traditional and contemporary Orthodox thought, as even its mystical opponents accepted it as legitimate. This legitimacy is brought out by later rational, systemising mystics, especially in rational articulations of Hasidic philosophy-most notably Schneur Zalman of Liadi and his school (While Nachman of Breslov represents the anti-Philosophical stream in Hasidism, Schneur Zalman represents the mystical intellectual synthesis. Habad texts can integrate the perspectives of Hakirah into their mysical theosophy).

I would be very grateful if you could complete the Jewish philosophy template, so that it matches in alternative parallel the Kabbalah template - if you have time! You could contact me at my talk page, if you wish. With best wishes April8 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

From April8

I'll get back to you very soon about the Template:Jewish philosophy and Jewish philosophy page, as soon as I've completed the Template:Kabbalah to what I hope will be its improvement. In the meantime, I would suggest 2 additions to the Jewish philosophy page, and one suggestion for the Template:Jewish philosophy, that I think would improve them (if you agree!):

1. The introductory paragraph at the top of the Jewish philosophy page should mention that Medieval Jewish Philosophy is "called Hakirah (Hebrew: חקירה-literally "Investigation") in Rabbinic Judaism, to distinguish it from Talmudic theology and Kabbalah. It forms part of the canon of Rabbinic literature. The term Hakirah is not usually used for Modern Jewish Philosophy".
2. It would be ideal if the page on Jewish philosophy could incorporate tables that at a glance give authoritative summaries of the different schools in Jewish philosophy, by listing the main figures under their philosophical schools:

eg.

Arisotelians	Neo-Platonists	etc.-I don't know all the categories!
Person1 Person2 Person3 etc.

Where parallel categorisation tables would bring more helpful summary, if you think (I don't know enough to say!), 2 or more tables could summarise different descriptive aspects of Jewish philosophy, where the main figures might therefore be included in more than one such table: eg.

Maimonideans	Anti-Maimonideans	header 3
Person1 Person2 etc.

This multiplicity of overlaping tables should only be used if the catagorisations would warrant it, as for the most helpful, authoritative summarisation, the number of tables should be kept to a minimum. The same approach could also be used for Modern Jewish philosophy, under that part of the page.

1. On the Template:Jewish philosophy, I think a more helpful summary would be provided if the people are carefully listed chronologically, after their century dates, like I did on the people section of Template:Kabbalah. I followed birth dates for exact chronological order, but listed them generally under the century of their main contribution in Jewish thought and leadership. In some cases, this listed them in a following century to their longest lifespan, such as with Nachman of Breslov: His short ten years in the 1800s were his most groundbraking. April8 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish philosophy

You're right, I should have outlined my concerns to you first, or on the article talk page. In my defence, I was conscious that the time I personally was going to be able to give the article was very limited; and I also wanted to defer to involving those with the very greatest depth of knowledge in the subject, and those with most experience in helping editors new to Wikipedia. So that is why I took the matter in the first instance to the talk pages for the Wikipedia: Judaism and Wikipedia: Philosophy projects. Please accept my apologies.

I see that User:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda has now started to engage with you about the article content issues on the article talk page, so I'll leave that aspect of it to that page.

There are two things that I would emphasise though, on a quite general basis, applicable to any Wikipedia article:

Tone

Project-wide, WP aims for a tone of authority and detachment. See WP:TONE, WP:MOS#First-person pronouns and WP:MOS#Second-person pronouns. It should be formal and impartial. Being personal in tone makes your contribution seem lightweight, and more like a personal essay than an authoritative review. Both factors will predispose editors to revert such material. So: more Olympian omniscience; less "we" and "you" (preferably none at all). Don't underestimate this. Many editors will remove content that seems too informal on sight, without even seriously considering it.

Also, note that an article should not aim to set out what you know to be true -- even if it is true. Rather, the aim is to report what serious sources have said about a subject, even if (especially if) they disagree. See WP:V, considered one of the five key pillars of Wikipedia. In general, any statement you add to an article that is more than a tautology, however innocent the statement seems, should be sourced to an independent reliable source -- showing that it is somebody else's opinion, not yours.

(And where there is any ground that a significant balance of opionion takes an alternative view, on any point, that must also be reflected in the article -- see WP:NPOV, another of Wikipedia's fundamental five pillars).

So this is the first thing you need to think about, regarding your recent contributions: they just don't read like Wikipedia. (And WP is apt to reject grafts it identifies as "not-self"!)

Length

The second issue you need to seriously consider is length. Target length for a Wikipedia article is 32k. (See WP:LENGTH). The Jewish philosophy article was already over 80k before you started editing it, right at the limit of what is acceptable. It is now well over 200k. So to get it back to an acceptable (useful) size, out of every three sentences, two need to go.

That means you need to be quite ruthless about what is central to the article, and what is peripheral and can go. As a top-level article, the aim is to give the reader a nutshell survey of the whole topic: what are the main issues? what are the main threads in the history? who are the most important figures? There is so much to cover that anything that is not absolutely central to the topic must be left to other articles. This article has to provide the reader with the most basic top-level orientation. For anything more detailed than that, they need to follow a link.

(Note that this is a very different strategy to most paper encyclopedias. There, articles on important subjects are long -- sometimes even a hundred pages -- because in a paper encyclopedia linear reading is easy, jumping to cross-references is hard. But on the web, the opposite is the case: jumping to cross-references is easy, it is linear scrolling that is hard. On WP, therefore, a pyramid structure: for important subjects, tightly written overview articles, remaining short; but linking to a wealth of more detailed articles exploring particular periods, or figures, or ideas in appropriate detail.)

Implications

This is why I think your recent work on the Jewish philosophy article has created a number of problems; so I hope you will come forward, on the article talk page, with a plan as to how you propose to address them. Jheald (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jewish philosophy. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not delete large portions of an article without an edit summary. Thanks A8UDI talk 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Words of encouragement!

I see from the discussion pages that you have been having some difficulties! I hope you will continue to work hard to improve the page on Jewish philosophy, as it really needs to be improved! I couldn't write it, and I look forward to its encyclopaedic quality! Here's my encouragement (for what it's worth!).

Hegelian tension of valid opposition leads to higher resolution!

Mystical descent, the hidden, inner start of higher ascent!

"Say not the struggle nought availeth!" (Arthur Hugh Clough) April8 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MoS

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I think these may help you when you edit a page. A8UDI 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Note that the Infobox settlement template is expected to be used at the top of an article about a town or settlement -- not to generate maps for articles on more general topics. I'm not completely sure, but I think the template may have invisible side-effects - viz. marking the article as about a geographic feature; and associating co-ordinates with the article subject.

I asked at Template talk:Infobox settlement whether there was an alternative to do what you're doing, but they were lukewarm -- see the discussion there; suggesting only that {{Infobox settlement}} was not appropriate; that the simpler series of {{location map}} templates might be better; but they were not convinced that all the maps were a good idea.

Myself, I think they may have value, to emphasise the wide geographic spread of the people discussed; but it's not exactly in keeping with the house style, which is not to have a map just for a passing geographic reference. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive and helpful criticism [[User:Jheald|Jheald]; let me mull this over for a moment. I was hoping to provide readers a "Where, when, who" story encapsulated in the links within the maps. Let me see if I can derive a better method of representing that material. Again, thank you. Jimharlow99 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I received some helpful comments at Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Use_to_illustrate_non-settlement_articles?; I'll swap out the current maps and replace them with {{location map}} template instead. This will take me a couple of days.Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bahshamiyya

The article Bahshamiyya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Multiple references for Abd al-Jabbar, about whom there is already an article, but it doesn't mention this word and I cannot verify that anyone uses it

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I've already removed this tag. I made a typo in the search field when I went looking for references, which is why I came up with nothing. I've now tagged the article as patrolled and I expect it will remain intact. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

From April8

Hello Jimharlow99! How are you doing? I was clarifying text on Kabbalah page, and received a post with an external link, that you may be intersested in. It cites a historical debate in commentary on the Guide For The Perplexed, and the Halachic rulings of Maimonides, as to whether Maimonides studied Kabbalah. I guess Menachem Kelner (is that his name?) has one Rationalist view. I was previosly aware of the Chabad view of Maimonides' Kabbalistic scholarship (though only on Hasidic heresay, without seeing it explained in Chabad texts myself), but This external link I was sent summarises it.

In accordance with the post, I clarified the text on the Kabbalah page ("Concepts: Kabbalistic understanding of God" section. Have a look at my attempt to summarise the difference between the structured emanations of God articulated in Kabbalah vs. the adjective description debate in Medieval Jewish philosophy as to how to describe God. Did I summarise well the alternative characteristic natures of the two different approaches to traditional Jewish theology? Is my distinction the essential difference? Is my characterisation that "Jewish philosophy investigates whether God can be described beyond Negative theology adjectives" a coorect summarisation of the nature of Medieval Jewish philosophy?

P.S. You may also be interested in a work I have heard about, but not studied myself. It remains so far untranslated as far as I know, while I can only read English (Hasidic Baal Teshuvah, and no good at picking up languages!). By Menachem Mendel Schneersohn (1789-1866), cited on that page in the "Works" section: "Sefer Chakira: Derech Emunah - exposition of Jewish philosophy". In Chabad, it is viewed that each successive Rebbe brought the teachings of Hasidic philosophy into successively greater explanation and grasp. Additionally, the 7th Rebbe describes each Chabad leader as a general soul, connected both to the Outer "Nigleh-Revealed" dimensions of Jewish thought, and the Inner "Nistar-Hidden" aspects. While other Hasidic dynastic Rebbes may be either more mystical (even anti-Rationalist Philosophy) or more Talmudic, the intellectual approach of Chabad to Medieval Jewish philosophy is, I guess, best articulated in this work of the third Rebbe. Perhaps, even though it approaches Jewish philosophy from a "higher" position of intellectual mystical synthesis, maybe this work for example can also be seen as a contribution within Hakira-Medieval style Jewish philosophy.

Additionally, I have also seen a translation of two combined Likkutei Sichos talks of the 7th Chabad Rebbe explaining the intellectual Hasidic explanation of the classic question in Hakira of Free will in theology#In Jewish thought Divine foreknowledge vs. Man's freewill. It gives the Chabad Hasidic interpretation of the Kabbalistic Tzimtzum, involving two levels of God's knowledge of existence that are paradoxically both true. These are called the "Higher Knowledge" of God knowing Creation through knowing Himself, and the contadictory "Lower Knowledge" of God knowing the events of Creation through knowing the creation as an observer.

This structure of dialectic paradox is similarly found in the Chabad Hasidic explanation of Divine providence (Judaism), that I explained on that page recently. See also the English translated talks of the 7th Chabad Rebbe, reconciling the Baal Shem Tov's conception of individual Divine providence with Maimonides' view, that I cited on the Divine providence (Judaism)#Integration of Providence in Hasidism with Maimonides page.

In the Free Will question, the philosophical Hasidic Chabad approach differs from the Izbicher Hasidic Rebbe's exegesis. He radically denies that theological free will exists. Once the 7th Rebbe has explained the two levels of Divine knowledge of Creation, he integrates within this mystical explanation the different classic Hakirah explanations that he bagan the Talk with - The Talk opened, characteristically, with questions examining apparent contradictions and ommisions from the variety of Classic commentators and philosophers cited. The Rebbe then introduces the Hasidic explanation to reconcile everything. In this mystical synthesis, the philosophical explanations of the Ravaad and Maimonides amongst others, regarding the Free Will problem, are seen to reflect aspects of the intellectual Hasidic explanation.

Internet cafe closing now. This post is from April8. I hope I didn't make too many typo mistakes in my haste! Will check it tomorrow! Best Wishes April8 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph to Jewish philosophy page

I made second attempted historical clarification of introductory paragraph to the page just now, after first attempt two days ago. I think it's now better. Is it O.K.? I hope it's an improvement! Edits made anonymously as reluctant to click "keep me logged in for 30 days" in internet cafe! April8 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello April8, your upgrades are definitely an improvement over previous text- to be certain. I had avoided any segmentation of cultures, but clearly that is an important facet of Jewish Philosophy. What would you say to the following edit of your text?

Aprli8's text

The Medieval discovery of Greek thought brought Rationalist Philosophy into Biblical-Talmudic Judaism, and competed for the mainstream with the personifications of emerging mysticism. Both schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature, though the 15th-century Expulsion from Spain and subsequent developments, brought decline to scholastic Rationalism and co-option of its rigour in traditional Judaism by renewed mystical theology. For European Jews, emancipation and encounter with secular thought from the 18th-century onwards altered again how philosophy was viewed. Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secular culture than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments could be seen as either continuations or breaks with the cannonic Rabbinic Philosophy of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought, and resulted in diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

My suggested edits-

The medieval re-discovery of Greek thought, combined with the influences of intellectual inquiry by Averroes and Avicenna, brought Rationalist Philosophy into Biblical-Talmudic Judaism, and competed for the mainstream with the personifications of strictly Tanach/Talmudic scholarship and emerging Kabbalah. All three schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature, though the 13th-century Maimonidean Controversy, and resultant splits within Jewish Communities, brought decline to scholastic Rationalism since too few understood its scholarly, and often abstract, basis. Mystical theology, and esoteric interpretation of Jewish texts, proved a uniformly simpler means of conveying foundational tenets of Judaism to communities who were not, in general, as well-educated as their Rabbis. For European Jews, emancipation and encounters with secular thought from the 18th-century onwards altered again how philosophy was viewed; this re-invigorated philosophic exploration. Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secular culture than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments could be seen as either continuations of, or breaks with, the canonic Rabbinic Philosophy of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought, and resulted in diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

Whatcha think April8? --Jimharlow99 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My new combination of versions

I think that your new version is maybe a little too detailed for the introductory header. It's fuller information could perhaps be alluded to, rather than spelled out, in the introduction, with the fuller narrative being hilighted prominently in the main article text, if it has not already been given sufficient hilighted prominence there. I haven't looked through the main article enough, but initially wonder whether the developing chronological-historical evolution narrative of Jewish philosophy has enough prominence. The evolving current(s) of thought, and their interplay, should ideally jump out to the reader in the main article text, from amidst the listing of philosophical names - (maybe it already does so!). For the introduction, I'll now try simplifying your version, with its fuller information alluded to. I'm guided by the same sort of succinct defining philosophical/historical summary that I recently added to the pages Haskalah and Mitnagdim - there I added the top-right images with their captions to intellectually-descriptively (and intuitively-visually) define the philosophies of both movements.

My suggested simplified synthesis:

Jewish Philosophy includes all philosophical activity carried out by Jews, or, in relation to the religion of Judaism. Jewish Philosophy, until modern Enlightenment and Emancipation, was pre-occupied with attempts to reconcile coherent new ideas into the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism; thus organizing emergent ideas, that are not necessarily Jewish, into a uniquely Jewish scholastic framework and world-view. With their acceptance into modern society, Jews with secular educations embraced, or developed, entirely new philosophies to meet the demands of a world in which they now found themselves.

The Medieval rediscovery of Greek thought, within cosmopolitan scholarly society, brought Rationalist philosophical method into Judaism from the 10th-century. Mainstream Jewish life was embodied in Talmudic and Biblical thought. Elite philosophical investigation offered the first system to Jewish theology, while its rigour inspired codification of Jewish beliefs and precepts. From the 12th-century Philosophy competed with an alternative emerging mystical Divinity. Both schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature, though controversy over the abstract effect of Philosophy on popular devotion, intensified after the later traumatic Expulsion from Spain, brought decline to scholastic Rationalism. Philosophical method was replaced in traditional Jewish theology by the 16th-century development in mysticism, extending its offer of potent non-philosophical answers to the questions of Philosophy, and offering contrasting wide appeal beyond its elite circles. For European Jews, encounter with secular thought, culture and Modern philosophy from the 18th-century onwards altered attitudes again, and reinvigorated philosophical methods. Mediterranean, Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secularism than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments could be seen as either continuations, or breaks, with the canonic Rabbinic Philosophy of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought, and resulted in diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

WAIT!-I've got to move internet cafes now-this save-page is my first draft!
OK, how's that? Post your reply here if you like. If you like it, perhaps with modifications, then list the modifications below, and I'll incorporate them into the text, all ready to paste onto Jewish philosophy page - unless your changes are substantial!
WAIT AGAIN! (Next day-14th April) - I'm having another look at it, to give the synthesis text above further clarification. I'll tell you when I'm more satisfied!
April8 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello April8

I've been attempting to stay away from citing any single event as determinant of acceptance of any stream of reasoning (i.e. Alhambra Decree) because the counter-weight to that notion would be the "Shabbatai Tzvi Controversy" which illustrates, according to many researchers, a Messianic undercurrent in Kabbalistic cloisters; such messianic undercurrents have manifested themselves many times thoughout the last 1,000 years. I cannot agree that that Kabbalah has replaced Rationalism or mitnagdische Talmudic dedication....perhaps in Orthodox Chassidic Communities that is true but there are many other manifestations of Orthodoxy.

I was hoping we could stay away from promoting, or diminishing, any single stream of Orthodoxy since this page is dedicated to "Jewish Philosophy" which evolves from intellectual conflict, between Rabbinites, Muslims and Karaites, into numerous streams of Judaism. Having chatted with Chassidic/Lubavitcher, Messianist Lubavitcher, Satmar, Conservative and Reform Rabbis I've received a good audit of the under-current of their respective leadership groups as well as their respective views on Halachot, Mitzvot and Kashrut. Speaking in gross generalizations, non-Orthodox Jews pick and choose from all three streams as they necessary to meet their respective needs - that's not a bad thing, it's what they do. However, non-Orthodox Jews "generally" lean towards Rationalism due to their overwhelming participation in a secular culture which borrows from the work of early Islamic and Jewish Rationalists - those non-Orthodox Jews represent 80% of world Jewry and cannot be ignored.

Personally, I am Spanish-Portuguese Sephardi (Rambamist) so my generalizations reflect little day-to-day interaction with Conservative, Reform, Humanist, and many other groups; and very little interaction with Chassidim. Our views, you and I, reflect two very different aspects of Jewish textual interpretation which may not necessarily be shared by the greater body of world Jewry so I hope the "Jewish Philosophy" wikipedia page provides a fair and accurate representation of your world view, my world view and the views of other streams of Judaism who may stumble upon this page. I also want to make it clear to all non-Jews, who read the "Jewish Philosophy" page, that myriad contemporary Jewish Philosophies emerged from a need to survive in the face of belligerence from two off-shoots of Judaism - Christianity and Islam. Therefore, pointing out the interactions between Christians, Muslims and Jews is intended to provide a fair and reasonable representation of the mosaic of cultures, languages, creeds and ethos which frequently exchanged intellectual components in order to formulate more harmonious co-existence....albeit not very well.

All of the foregoing being said, I am puzzled by the characterization of Islamic Philosophy as "cosmopolitan"; my research shows that many of these "Islamic Philosophers" came from Jewish Families who were forcibly converted, or capitulated under duress to Islam. In many respects "Islamic Philosophy" is a continuation of familial Jewish intellectual traditions (Kaballah) that are neither esoteric nor strictly Jewish since they also leverage the works of Aristotle and Plato among others. Jewish Kalam was not an epiphany but more a part of the iterative process of intellectual exploration, in response to external challenges, endemic to "cosmopolitan education" of its day.

What would you say to reducing the number of words as follows?

Jewish Philosophy includes all philosophical activity carried out by Jews, or, in relation to the religion of Judaism. Jewish Philosophy, until modern Enlightenment and Emancipation, was pre-occupied with attempts to reconcile coherent new ideas into the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism; thus organizing emergent ideas, that are not necessarily Jewish, into a uniquely Jewish scholastic framework and world-view. With their acceptance into modern society, Jews with secular educations embraced, or developed, entirely new philosophies to meet the demands of a world in which they now found themselves.

Medieval rediscovery of Greek thought, within the framework of pluralistic society in North Africa and al-Andalus, brought Rationalist philosophical method into mainstream Biblical-Talmudic Jewish spirituality from the 10th-century. It's elite study offered the first system to Jewish theology, and would go on to compete with the Divine personifications in alternative emerging mysticism. Both schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature. For European Jews, encounters with secular thought, culture and Modern philosophy from the 18th-century onwards altered attitudes of most communities. Reinvigorated philosophical methods correlated to increased literacy rates, among Jews, who attended secular public education which had heretofore been banned by most governments prior to emancipation. Mediterranean, Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secularism than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments can be viewed as either continuations or breaks with the Rabbinic practices of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought; this accounts for the diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

Thanks for taking the time to get involved and providing coherent assistance April8. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

From April8

Thanks for your response. In the meantime I made some last changes to my synthesis text from yesterday, above. I'll need to shortly change internet cafes again, so in the meantime, here's my first initial reply-after briefly reading your response for now!

I certainly don't want to advance one interpretation of Judaism on Wikipedia. Even though I'm a Lubavitch Baal Teshuvah, I have a strong aversion to any Lubavitch (or Hasidic) tribalism or philosophical narrow mindedness (Some other Lubavitch editors on Wikipedia unfortunately don't!) I don't like uniforms, or even sincere bigotry! A true Lubavitch (and Hasidic) perspective would see deeper than this into sincerity and humility. Likewise, I don't want to advance Kabbalistic interpretations of Judaism at any expense to Philosophical interpretations. If I seem to do this, its rather due to poor writing/knowledge on my part - I philosophically like a holistic Rational Mysticism that fully respects and incorporates Rationalism into it, even though I do believe Kabbalah sees deeper than Hakirah.

If I make biased mistakes, it's rather due to my large lack of knowledge! My aim in any Philosophical (and philosophical) summarisation of historical Jewish movements is only to offer what I intend to be the most concise and philosophically accurate survey, to precisely pinpoint their philosophical location on the wide map of Jewish thought. If I have an agenda that influences and biases my edits, it's only to offer additional context to a subject from any wide, possible Orthodox view/interpretation in Judaism. I always intend to check this bias by strict scholarly and historical accuracy, as I only like sincere scholarship, rather than unencyclopedic (and boring) polemics! I think any such scholarly attempt to locate a subject in wider Orthodox context, without sacrificing the integrity of any non-religious or anti-religious view, is legitimate, as the perspective of most Jews today, wanting to read up a Jewish topic on wikipedia would likely be biased in favour of secular thought, and they might not realise the wider philosophical implications of the various Orthodox responses.

E.g. On the Haskalah image and caption, I hope I succeeded in giving sincere credit to the non-traditionally Orthodox idealism within the early movement, and the idealism within later, more secular Haskalah offshoots, while simultaneously pointing out the philosophical integrity of the traditional Eastern European forms of Judaism that it faught in the 19th century. I like such a sympathetic approach, both from a caring practical wikipedia expediency, as well as from a philosophical perspective-even when I disagree with a non/anti-Jewish religious view, such as with the Haskalah, nonetheless, I really appreciate and agree with some aspects of their criticism. Though I tend to follow the Biblical literalism inherent in Hasidic Kabbalah, within that I try to seek the most pluralist philosophy of secular thought (above all Yitzchak Ginsburgh's more holistic approach to secular sciences and thought-probably minus his overtendency to Jewish supremacy! Eg. Torah and Science Main Index-Converting the Wisdom of the Nations I haven't found another Jewish approach as interesting as this). So, in the case of Haskalah, I like many insights from Wissenschaft des Judentums, and I'm also interested in Conservative Judaism's philosophical approaches to resolving these issues of modernity, even when I disagree with them.

That's my rushed general overview reply-before this internet cafe closes very soon! A second response will look at the Jewish philosophy intoductory text issues, and your thoughts above. In the meantime, have a look at my final amendments to the synthsis text, done today, and see whether you like any of their points! RUSHING TO NEXT LOCATION April8 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello April8, your contributions are terrific and serve to enhance the content for readers - if I left you with a contrary impression I apologize and will refrain from repeating it - I hope my criticisms weren't too harsh. As you have experienced, removing our personal biases is a conscious endeavor requiring repeated checking. You raise some interesting points and have illuminated a text I have not read (but intend to do so based upon your recommendation). Some friends of ours are inviting a local Egyptian Karaite family to Shabbat dinner in a few weeks so that I can ask some questions with regards to Karaism's approach to modernity and their embrace of Jewish Kalam (if at all) - I'll fill you in on the salient points after that particular dinner :)

travel safely - I look forward to your Introductory text...we're close to being finished. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction text

I've just realised that my final draft "suggested simplified synthesis", above, is rather complicated! Perhaps a number of its blue redirect links would need to be de-linked, to improve simplified visual attraction. Some responses:

• I didn't mean to call Islamic philosophy itself "cosmoplitan". Rather, I should have alluded to the Jewish-Islamic cosmopolitan exchange by saying, "within cosmopitan scholarly exchange." However, I like your reason for openly mentioning the Islamic (and perhaps Christian) cross fertilisation
• Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that within all 3 forms (Hasidic, Mitnagdic, and Sephardi/Mizrachi) of Haredi Judaism today, Lurianic Kabbalah is the accepted deep belief theology, even where, as in contemporary Litvish Talmudic Judaism, Kabbalistic study is only reserved for the elite/over 40/Talmudically proficient.

Hi April8 - I know many Spanish Jews who prefer the study of Cordoveran methods over Lurianic; there are streams of Judaism who do not give any credence to Lurianic esoteric methods at all. I am not an expert in Lurianic methods nor am I proficient in the Minhagim of age-delimited study thereof - for that reason I cannot contribute a cohenrent thoght on the Kabbalah Wiki page. I owe you a big thanks for educating me in that facet of Lurianic methods. Often times people confuse "Spanish Jews" with "Spanish-Portuguese Rite"; many Jews are not even aware that there were Jews in Iberian peninsula before the destruction of the second temple...who give no favor to Lurianic methods...and in some cases give only scholastic service to Talmud study; imagine the horror of Iberian Jews at learning that the 2nd Temple was destroyed because of the cricifixion of a Jew! Perhaps you'll recall that it was not until Natronai Ibn Habibi wrote the Talmud down, in 733 CE, (from memory) that Kairouan, Fez and al-Andalus got access to Talmud study of their own volition without being forced to consult with Pumbeditha or Sura for insights. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I cite the new book by Joseph Dan, Kabbalah-A very short introduction, Oxford University Press - the best overview of Kabbalah I have seen. In the chapter on Hasidism contradicts the misconception that the Mitnagdim were more "Rationalist", while the Hasidim were more mystical. Rather, he says that Lurianic Kabbalah remains the final system of theological belief in both camps, nothing having replaced it.

April8, Clearly you are well studied in the realm of Lurianic Kabbalah and all those who would argue that it is the end-of-all-ends in religious observance and study. As to the commentary "that Lurianic Kabbalah remains the final system of theological belief in both camps" is a volatile assertion to which the overwhelming body of Jewry might register a dispute. There are some streams of Judaism who subscribe to the notion that religious dogma is for those who cannot grasp philosophic concepts...preferring "faith without reason" to "subjecting their faith to reasoned exploration"...one man's sugar is another man's vinegar. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Norman Lamm in Torah Lishmah: Torah for Torah's sake in the works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin and his contemporaries, Ktav Pub, investigates the roots of the Hasidic-Mitnagdic schism. He cites Schneur Zalman of Liadi and Chaim Volozhin as the two main theoreticians of each camp, studied in the book. He identifies the schism to alternate Mitnagdic-transcendent and Hasidic-immanent interpretations of the Lurianic Tzimtzum. Therefore, while Kabbalah is discouraged by Lithuanian-Yeshivah Judaism, it remains their ultimate belief system; Hakirah study by them is even more discouraged! Talmud is their main focus, but not the ultimate underlying theology. See also the quote of Adin Steinsaltz regarding Mitnagdim and the contemporary theological universality of Lurianic Kabbalah, that I cited at the bottom of my User:April8#Some interpretations of Inner Torah page. Doesn't the same apply to greater degree in traditional Sephardi/Mizrachi Haredi Kabbalistic veneration (even if not, maybe amongst Spanish exiles Rambamists!), such as the common popular Israeli veneration of Kabbalists, and the traditional continual study of Kabbalah in their circles, such as in the Beit El Synagogue?

April8 - Norman Lamm is a smart guy - former head of REITS - but he understood very well that the schism within the Volozhin Yeshiva (Briskers) did not originate in talmud-vs-Kabbalah arguments. The root of the split among Briskers (Soloveitchiks family on both sides of the issue of veneration)...at what point does veneration become idolatry? Neturei Karta has a well-reasoned, if peculiar, argument against the existence of the State of Israel. Your last sentence is emblematic of common misconceptions of Sephardi and Mizrachi nusachot and minhagim...but since these cultures represent a very small percentage of world Jewry it is not surprising that their cultural uniqueness is often lumped into labels which opaque their lovely uniqueness. To directly answer the question posed in your last sentence - Lurianic Kabbalah, in the opinion of many non-Kabbalists, is one of many methods of textual interpretation of Jewish religious texts - it is part of a continuum of intellectual and religious evolution endemic to Jews. One can be an Orthodox Jew without giving a second thought to esoteric methods. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To use the Syrian Community as an example, their leadership doesn't even listen to Hachamim of Israel (HaRav Ovadiah Yosef) insofar as community standards or recognition of Jews. Leaders of the Syrian Community have a very sensible attitude towards Kabbalah, Philosophy and Talmudic study - "take what you need and leave the rest...but do not expect everyone to share what you take"; this contrasts with the gross generalization that Ashkenazim seek all members of a community behave and dress identically. The Syrian Community leaders readily recognize that the purpose of religion is to give us a common fabric of individual, familial and community expectations of all Jews. Members of the Syrian Jewish community know what is expected of them and they do not allow outsiders to impose their views as dogma or capricious halachic interpretation, nor do they encourage outsiders to join their community. Now shift to Crown heights and look at the dispute between Messianist Chabadniks and non-Messianist Chabadniks...how has Kabbalah enhanced community cohesiveness through veneration of the dead? Why can't Chabad leadership heal the schism between the two groups using esoteric methods? --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They remained unaffected by European Rabbinic limitation to Kabbalistic study only amongst the elite, enacted after the mystical heresy of Shabbetai Zvi and Jacob Frank amongst Ahkenazim. (The Baal Shem Tov cited these Sabbatean heresies as the danger of misunderstanding by laymen of Kabbalah. He instructed that historical Kabbalah should only be deeply studied by scholars, while Hasidic philosophy could bring Kabbalah safely to even common folk, as it's new internalised articulation of Kabbalah prevented its misunderstanding.

April8, the Rambam thought little of people who claim to possess secret knowledge...which arguably was his reasoning behind codifying the Mishnah Torah. According to the Rambam satisfaction, as a Jew, can be readily found in doing what is expected as clearly proscribed in Jewish texts. This is a view consistent within the Yemenite Baladi and Dor Daim communities. Personally, I cannot find any references in Tanach, Talmud or mishnah that compel me to internalise anything at all. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This quote of the Baal Shem Tov is cited in The Great Maggid: The Life and Teachings of Rabbi Dovber of Mezhirech by Jacob Immanuel Schochet, Kehot pub.) Oriental Jewish communal veneration of Kabbalah was also less affected by Haskalah. Finally, see Yitzchak Ginsburgh's explanation of three successively higher stages in the historical evolution of Kabbalistic thought, each one progressively deeper, more paradoxical and perceptive of Divinity: Cordoveran Kabbalah-Worlds, Lurianic Kabbalah-Souls, Hasidic philosophy-Divinity, explained in The Development of Kabbalah in Three Stages.

April8, if you read Sefer Yohassin, Shalshelet HaKabbalah, Sefer HaKabbalah, Sefer Olam Zuta (to name a few) you will discover that each of those Rabbis had unique religious and intellectual traditions...some scientific, some Lurianic in nature, some philosophical and others rooted in study of Tosafot. These men found Hashem's beautiful creations best described in terms that meant something to each of them...though not to all of them. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I now realise I may have been overly generalising when I used the words "Philosophical method was replaced in traditional Jewish theology by the 16th-century development in mysticism..", as I conflate "traditional Judaism" with the historic origins of Haredi Judaism.

April8, There are Rambamist Haredi, Chassidic Haredi, Mitnagdim Haredi, Neturei Karta Haredi, Sephardic Haredim, ...sometimes I squint when I look into the mirror and I see a Haredi Jew...if but for a fleeting moment :) In all seriousness, Haredi is a term we are all familiar with - it is a term used by some, to distincly define themselves as being different from others...sometimes appearing more machmir than others...sometimes appearing to pander to "chumrot of the week"...for what?

I have little demographic knowledge of Non-mystical traditional Sephardim etc. I hope you don't think I was being partisan, or trying to promote only one mystical interpretation of Judaism.

April8, that's what is sounded like...that's why I raised to point. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather, I thought that almost all traditional religious Jews believed in Kabbalah.

April8, "Traditional Jews" have have their own unique religious and intellectual Tradition (Kabbalah)...but it need not include Lurianic, Cordoveran or other methods. I consider myself, and others with whom I affiliate, as traditional Orthodox Sephardic Jews - but we are Sephardic Ramabamists who, along with Strict Mitnagdim and Baladi Yemenites who eschew esoteric methods. We do not wear black hats, nor to we wear beards...in fact you would not picks us out of a crowd except for the Kippah. It's OK to be an observant Orthodox Jew who does not embrace esoteric methods and dress like a Chassidic Jew. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to summarise the large features on the historical and contemporary map of all Jewish interpretations and denominations. Perhaps, therefore, "Philosophical method was replaced in most traditional Jewish theology by the 16th-century development in mysticism.." would have been better!

April8 - on this point we agree :) --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The (sometimes underlying) universality of Kabbalah in Haredi Judaism - I don't yet know enough about Modern Orthodox Judaism's views of Kabbalah - is related to its nature as the second of the only two systems of theology produced by Judaism: Firstly Rationalist Hakirah; secondly mystical Kabbalah. The Mitnagdic focus on Talmud is something different; the mainstream Jewish spiritual, intellectual and Halachic culture, central to all Jewish interpretation, rather than being itself a philosophical belief system. Therefore, I used the words, "Mainstream Jewish life was embodied in Talmudic and Biblical thought. Elite philosophical investigation offered the first system to Jewish theology...From the 12th-century Philosophy competed with an alternative emerging mystical Divinity". I used these words, as Philosophy and mysticism may have practically competed with time taken in Talmudic learning, but as far as I know, the philosophical competion of theology was fundamentally a choice between its two systems, even if Talmudic opposition emerged to both schools.

April8, your views are consistent with an Ashkenaz-centric view of Judaism. "Modern Orthodox" is another name for "Briskers who follow Rav Josef Soloveitchik". I would argue that if you go Casablanca, Morocco, you will find Kabbalists who follow Baba Sali...but if you go to Meknes you will find Moroccan Jews who give no favor to Esoteric methods or Baba Sali and his "miracles". Is one "superior" to the other? No. Do they build community cohesion and political unity through their Nusachot and Minhagim? yes. Do they dispute each other's means of serving Hashem? rarely. What is "mainstream Jewish life" outside of an Ashkenaz-centric defition of Judaism? It's called being Jewish but not necessarily sharing someone else's culture, menu, fashion and Kabbalah. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The naming of the particular event of the Alhambra Decree was similarly not intended to be partisan, but, as the extra-uncited-footnote I added today describes, was only to give historic context to the large philosophical change of 16th-century displacement of Rationalism with Cordoveran and, even more, Lurianic Kabbalah. Although, as I say above, this may have been slightly too generalising, I was attempting to describe the fundamental large features on the historic map of philosophical development across all Jewish interpretations. The citing of Shabbetai Zvi against mysticism, was practical-restrictions on Kabbalah, rather than theological-abandonment of Kabbalah.

GOT TO GO IMMEDIATELY NOW. See you tommorrow! April8 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A philosophical breather

The original office water cooler

Due to exhaustion, April8 is going today to the Wikipedia:Village pump to take the waters. He will resume the clarification of the introductory text and its issues tommorrow, or on Sunday. Here's today's departing manuscript he has pinned to the door:

1. Please make sure to keep all our present correspondence, without changes, on your talk page for future reference, as its so helpful and informative.

OK - but keep in mind that this correspondence simply reflects my researched personal views - I do not presume to speak for anyone else and I reserve the right to alter my views as new information comes available :) . --Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1. My intermittent contributions to wikipedia, begun in Jan 2008 (actually on the Jewish philosophy page itself - I added the bad edit about Schneur Zalman of Liadi's work bridging Philosophy and Mysticism! I have made a number of bad edits, fortunately mostly anonymously-I hope I'm getting better at editing) are real emergency hack work. At that moment I had an epiphany that Jewish articles on Wikipedia were in real need of working on, and no one else was doing it (the topics I could add to). I'm the least qualified person to try to write up Hasidism, Kabbalah and Everything Else in Jewish thought in its historical contexts, but for some perverse reason the responsiblity to fill in all the glaring gaps falls to me! My aim is to show the depths and significant implications of Jewish mysticism and all other Orthodox Jewish thought, on all questions of Jewish thought, in order to stimulate secular Jews to reexamine any preconceaved assumptions of belief. This would hopefully awaken deeper study of Judaism, Jewish identity and feeling in intellectual-oriented secular Jews. My main hope is to open up Jewish mysticism to them, as I think that they have absorbed the assumptions of sophisticated secular thought, and in order to awaken dormant Jewish life, Jewish mysticism can reach deeper than more external aspects of Torah, and may be the only way to break through intellectually constructed spiritual barriers: In Hasidic parlace, "to awaken the inner Jewish soul, one may need the most effective way: to reveal the inner dimensions of Torah". All this emergency editing is not helped by the rest of my life being total organised chaos - As I describe on the personal pychychological description on my User page, the coincidence of the two facts is psychologically based. My yearning for transcendence motivates my search for depth, as well as the rather large inability to cope with daily life! So, consequently, my emergency editing to bring Wikipedia up to minimal sufficiency, since Jan 2008, has been grabbed at intermittent intervals, at the expense of other activities! Once it has reached this minimum (almost there!), I can stop panicking, and when I have future time, I can move into second-level gradual reasearched contributions. Then scholarly reading up and improvement of Wikipedia would be a lifelong task. In the meantime, I'm rather likely to make bad edits - the Sciences and Arts on Wikipedia are so well written, while much of deeper Jewish thought has been lacking. It's not fair - too much pressure and responsibility on me!
2. Before we complete our tentative clarification of the introductory text issues, I have some philosophical questions. I'm facinated by the idea of non/anti-(Lurianic/All) Kabbalah Orthodox traditional Jews. This rases interesting philosophical issues. If you could reply for yourself, or if appropriate, on behalf of the views of others, this would bring understanding to the issue. Some thoughts on the matter now conclude this post: (if you reply, wait a while to do so, as I'll have to move internet cafes in 45 minutes or so, and may need to continue the philosophical questions investigating the issue and its ramifications in the next place!)

To illuminate the issue of Lurianic Kabbalah, I was recently staying away in January, and evocatively walked past a snow covered church. As I did so, I pondered with vivid reflection on the ultimate nature of the Jewish-Christian split. I thought that when St. Paul argued for antinomianism-against the need for the new church to follow the (Mosaic) "Law" of the mitzvot-from the ultimate (Lurianic) Jewish Divine perspective (not to be revealed until 15 centuries later) what he was (unknowingly) really arguing agaist was Lurianic Kabbalah.

When you refer to St Paul, I presume you are referring to Saul (Paul of Tarsus). Paul argued for antinomianism due to his acute understanding of Pharisaic Judaism of that time - Paul seems to have sought a fusion among Helenized Jews, Essenes and Nazirites as a counter-weight to what he viewed as Pharisaic hegemony within the Jewish world. Paul seems to have take issue with adherence to Jewish Law and he successfully argued that converts to his newly defined religion did not need to become Jews, under circumcision nor follow Jewish dietary restrictions...in other words his adherents need not observe Mosaic Law. In the backdrop of internecine twists in Judea, Paul seized upon a demographic which would allow him to gain momentum quickly - Paul was a good marketing agent - little more. To pursue the notion that that Paul was arguing against Pharisees who practiced esoteric methods is not consistent with the historic record. If there was anyone, in early christianity, who illustrated esoteric interpretation of daily events it was Paul - recall he was "knocked off his horse and temporarily blinded and inspired to change his name"...or so the story goes. I think the stories of Paul being an ardent Pharisee are incorrect. There are some scholars who suggest that Paul was distracted by Gnosticism and preferred non-canon texts over prevailing Pharisaic texts, thereby leading to peculiar notions of Judaism and it's budding offshoot - Christianity. Paul was an opportunist, nothing more.

There is an interesting aspect to the emergence of Pauline Christianity as it correlates to intra-Kahal arguments over "who is a Jew"; many people don;t realize that Pharisaic arguments and capricious halachah condemning Geirim fomented an atmosphere that was polarizing within the Jewish World of that time. Even jews became sickened by these disputes over "who is a real Jew" (Apostles)...thus the disputes among Nazarites, Essenes, Boethusians, Sadducees, Pharisees, ad nauseum. History demonstrates that that the Jewish World starts seeking card-carrying members of a particular "movement" as "Real Jews", it tends to alienate large swaths of World Jewry leading to ambivalence, indifference, and tribal behaviors, which are exclusionary and counter-productive - we see that occurring today within the Orthodox World. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's, to me, whether one accepts it or not, the most astonishing and movingly profound idea in Judaism, as it cosmically, mystically transfigures the mundane, wandering travels of each Jew. Here each individual takes on Divine significance. I don't know of a similarly revolutionary empowering idea of each individual person in any other religion. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the whole purpose, fulfilled by each Jew knowingly or unknowingly, of the physical Mitzvot is the redemptive elevation of the cosmic sparks of holiness that fell from the broken vessels of the Primordial World of Tohu. Once each person in their hidden ways elevates their share of the sparks, to a new higher source, healing the Divine origin itself ("healing God"), then Mashiach comes. The beauty of the whitened church just added to the emotional vividness of the conclusion. This conclusion got its power by seeing the unparalleled beauty of this mythic idea all around me in each Christian. My concealed (surpressed) emotions awoken by the profound or poetic ideas in Christianity (just read the Gospels critically from a Jewish perspective, but open to their beauty, and open to the poetic architectural beauty of Early and Medieval European Christendom. Separate also the philosophical and aesthetic aversion to the idolatrous aspect of Christianity) added to the emotional resonance of this Lurianic conclusion. Here are mundane Christians, thinking that their rejection of Christianity

(Sorry-typo error: I meant "their rejection of Judaism"!) April8 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

is due to Christian theological view of "Love fulfilling the Law" etc.- which is true historically. However, to the Lurianist, what the Christian is really, unknowingly rejecting is the true meaning of the Mitzvot - the scheme of Lurianic Tikkun.

April8, Do not lump all Christians into the same pile. There are many sects, such as Chaldean Catholics, who do not accept the divinity of "that guy" nor do they view him as divine or accept the notion of his miracles...they simply view him as another man who had a good idea which works for some. On the other hand, there are Opus Dei Catholics who "speak in tongues" and "interpret them" - if you've never seen this it can be truly bewildering. Christians, in general, reject all things religiously Jewish...they even renamed Jewish Holidays ((i.e. Groundhog Day); never forget this point. In my opinion, Christians of today are only "one good reason" away from a Pogrom against Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists or anyone else they can cast as evil and worthy of vigilante pursuit...this is one of Osama bin Laden's points and it is historically accurate.

Here is an excellent link to a story that asccurately reflects the sentiments of most non-European Jews who live in an overwhelmingly Ashkenaz-centric Jewish world:

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/arab_jew.html

I hope you find this link helpful.

The profundity of this idea implies that if Christians were to realise what they were really arguing against (from God's perspective), they would not have been so quick to reject the Law. This conclusion attatches the most moving and beautiful idea in Judaism to my living in a (post-) Christian non-Jewish society. This moment of reflection emotionally brought home to me the ultimate, mystical Jewish Meaning of Life in the most poetically and aesthetic way. This reflective memory now goes on to emotionally illuminate the following philosophical question(s): WAIT-MOVING LOCATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by April8 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delay!

Sorry for my delay in continuing our clarification! Because of other big chaos in my life, sometimes whole months can go by before I get back to Wikipedia editing. Therefore, I have made sure to reserve these present immediate weeks for Wikipedia, until the topics/pages I'm currently hoping to improve are fully resolved up to a minimum acceptable level for now. There are a few other miscellaneous edits still to do in this editing session, plus the big one of our Philosophy-Mysticism talk! I'd like to finish the miscellaneous details first, and then later this week, I'll be fully back here! This is better, to allow me to settle all other tasks, and especially as I'll show you that some of these other tasks directly relate to our talk issues, one of which I'll ask your opinion about!

I didn't mean to imply that Saul of Tarsus chose antinomianism for established Christianity because of any dealings with early Tannaic forms of Jewish mysticism ("Merkavah/Haichalot" mysticism). I think theologians and historians trace his rejection of the need for the Church to keep the Mosaic Law to his succesful theological defeat of other factions in the Church who remained religious Jews, I think centred around James the brother of Jesus. The New Testament reason for this antinomianism is entirely exoteric:

1. They saw Jesus-Messiah as Divine. Silly idea!-but see Tzadik for the radical Kabbalistic-Hasidic interpretation that select supreme Tzaddikim are embodied Divinity. The Tanya, based on Chaim Vital, calls the second soul of a Jew in its essence, "truely a part of God above." The difference of a Tzaddik, and the Tanya distinguishes between Incomplete Tzaddikim and Complete Tzaddikim, and even among them there are innumerable possible aspects/gradations, is that the second Jewish soul becomes revealed and completely dominant in a Tzaddik. This explains the Kabbalistic embodiment in the "7 Shephards" of the 7 emotional Sephirot: Abraham is the archetype of Divine Kindness-Kindness in the World of Atzilut, Isaac-Severity, Jacob-Beauty, Moses-Victory, Aaron-Glory, Joseph-Foundation, David-Kingship. Accordingly, each of these 7 is a "Son of God", but the idea that one person could embody all 7 emotional Sephirot together, would give him a 7-way split personality! Similarly, Abraham, Issac and Jacob are called part of the Chariot (Merkavah) of God, etc etc.
2. The Messianic age was delayed, yet something must have changed, or Jesus was not the (Divine) Messiah.

Therefore, to resolve this they decided that the "Law" was now fulfilled and unnecessary, replaced and superceeded instead by believing in the Divinity of Jesus (Jesus' martyred "Love fulfilling the Law"). To reach this conclusion, they had to argue that the Law could never be perfectly fulfilled by anyone, contradicting the Jewish ideal of Teshuva, let alone the notion of a Tzadik. This line was possible by finding this antinomianism, and all new Christian theology, in previous oral teachings and words of Jesus, particularly his opposition to Pharasee legalism at the expense of spirituality. In this, it was historically more likely that Jesus was another Jewish spiritual reformer, in the same tradition of the Prophets, and later Hasidic Judaism, seeking to restore spirituality to the Law. The book "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" argues for radical Christ myth theory, tracing Divinity, Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, December 25th to their identical parallels in Pagan fictional Gnostic mystery myths. Alternatively, the leading Géza Vermes argues for "Jesus the Jew". When I described my poetic moment of reflection above, I only meant that from the perspective of the Lurianist, what Paul was unknowingly rejecting was the ultimate meaning for the Mitzvot, explained by Isaac Luria. This "Lurianic moment" of mine just offered intuitive vivid evocation and background emotional insight, that compounds the fascinating philosophical issue of a contemporary Orthodox Jew who avoids/alternatively rejects Lurianic (or earlier) Kabbalah. I'll list any philosophical questions about this later this week!

P.S. In my overabundant yearning, excitement and enthusiasm, I have spent the last few years collecting a groaning mass of books, that I long to read. Actually reading them is another matter, not yet accomplished! I've become expert at collecting knowledge from the most cursory flick-skim read through books, from television and radio documentaries, newspapers, talks, joining the dots . ' . '.. etc. I just hope I haven't made any error in source citation on Wikipedia. That's why I described the responsibility on improving parts of Wikipedia, falling to me, as perverse! However it is nonetheless welcome, as my yearning unavoidably forces the task on me. I hope in the future to find time and ability to do proper reading for Wikipedia, but presently anxiety psychological based chaos takes up all my attention! My Wikipedia User page is about my redeemed "Inner World". I alluded to my imprisoned "Outer World" in the quotes section! Therefore, don't take my book citations as actual cleverness! My User page distinguishes between Cleverness (Mental breadth, agility, creativity, lucidity, memory, etc: emotional strength of character essential) and Depth (Only analysing ability, and emotional nullification and sincerity to transcendence needed). I'm emotionally a weak chaos, mental ablity restricted in parallel! However, this conversely helps me become sincerely nullified to every concept, and what I like to think, emotionally more perceptive to its depths - depth as the opposite direction to cleverness. Therefore, I hope all the "knowledge" I've put on this page is correct: It is only as far as I know. BACK SOON, once I've attended to the other little Wikipedia tasks April8 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

---

New Posts:

Jewish philosophy template

Hello Jimharlow99! How are you doing!? I sent a copy of the following post concerning the recent collapse and redesign of Template:Kabbalah to User talk:IZAK#Kabbalah template and User talk:Debresser#Kabbalah template, to see their opinions. It has direct relation to the future design of Template:Jewish philosophy and your opinion. I would far prefer both templates to remain in their previous extended format and general design, but I guess this is unlikely, as it may be against general wikipedia policy:

I worked on the Kabbalah template, to its previous full format, but notice it has recently been collapsed and redesigned. What is your opinion of these last changes? I'm not necessarily fully against the collapsed format, especially if that is wikipedia policy, but have the following concerns:

1. I designed the Jewish philosophy template to be the same dimensions as the Kabbalah template, in order to hilight the alternative parallel between the two tradition systems of Mysticism and Rationalism in Judaism. If Kabbalah template is to be collapsed, then it would be preferable for Jewish philosophy template to also be collapsed - without compromising its present design.
2. I think the additional redesign of the Kabbalah template does greatly compromise its ease of use and appeal: The text in the collapsed sections has been reformatted to extend down over a greater length, with only one or two items per line. Compare this with the previous continual text sections, and I think it is clearly harder to scan and absorb the information, and less appealing. Also, I think the small images could be reinstated within each collapsed section. Therefore, it's less informatively-visually helpfull, potentially longer, and less attractive.

Alternatively, if you think the non-collapsed format was better in principle, then tell me. I am automatically open to that view - a similar format, for example, to the Chabad template. If one can get away with it, I would actually far prefer it - I mainly go along with collapsing it, as I guess it's unlikely others would leave it like that, in view of likely wikipedia policy. However, I do wonder why the wikipedia community (rightly) leaves the Chabad template uncollapsed!

Whether or not all the entries merit inclusion within the template is a separate issue, but I notice that the Jewish philosophy template has a similar number of direct and contextualising entries.

What do you think? It's also a warning of any possible future changes to the Jewish philosophy template made by others! (unless you pursuade people differently - in which case, I think the two templates should ultimately be alligned in parallel design formats) With best wishes April8 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello April8 - good to hear from you. If you had not mentioned it, I would not have explored the pros and cons of each template. I'll trust your judgment on this as I have confidence our wishes are aligned. I will only comment that portable devices (Droid, iPhone, iPad) make it difficult to leverage the templates...it's easier to simply scroll the pages with the swipe of a thumb than to pore through a template collapsed or otherwise.

April8, why the Kabbalah page omits exploration of Cordoveran Kabbalah which builds upon the Toledano Tradition? Is it a foregone conclusion that Lurianic methods of textual interpretation supersede and replace the Toledano tradition? I'm curious from a scholarly standpoint since my reasearch leads me to the conclusion they are two (2) unique methods of textual interpretation.

I have further updates to the Jewish Philosophy pending which will include more detail regarding events following Baruch Spinoza.

Be well, April8

--Jimharlow99 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous:

A few things you might be interested in, that I've encountered:

1. RAMBAM: I recently watched the DVD "Rambam-The Story of Maimonides", from Berel Wein, the "Official Film of the "Maimonides 800th Anniversary Festival". It was moving and inspiring to see the Rambam's life and works and how he almost saved Judaism in the Middle Ages! I notice also that he is called "The Great Eagle" (mentioned only on the back cover). I thought this very fitting for Judaism's greatest Rationalist, as the only other similar title is the Lion for Isaac Luria, Judaism's greatest Kabbalist - both metaphors taken from the four faces of Ezekial's vision of the Divine Merkabah chariot. I have also heard (though this may not appeal to a Rambamist, to put it mildly! - I was reading the references on Dor Daim) that Isaac Luria described the souls of the Rambam and the Ramban as deriving from the two peyot of Adam (Where all Jewish souls derive from the metaphorical sephirotic soul counterparts to the structure of his body, as his was the univeral soul. In this, the scholars and leaders of Israel derive from Adam's soul faculties of thought, and the concept of hair represents restricted tzimtzum of that Light into finite vessels - thereby tzimtzum is paradoxically revelation, as without it the light would be infinite. This gives the Kabbalistic reason why the first account of Creation in Genesis uses the name Elokim, representing restriction, rather than the power of Creation, the Tetragrammaton. Accordingly, the Rambam represents the left peyah - Understanding, Rationalism, and the Ramban represents the right peyah - Wisdom, Mysticism from above intellect. Such esoteric structures are characteristic of historical Kabbalah, and shunned in Hasidism, as I described on the pages Gilgul and Jewish meditation)
2. MODERN ORTHODOXY AND KABBALAH: "Mysticism and Modern Orthodoxy. Is there any place for mysticism as well as rationalism within modern Orthodoxy?" - one of 6 talks on Modern Orthodoxy ("An embattled ideology") given by a leading community Rabbi in London. (I went to another of the 6) This helps investigate the contemporary influence of Lurianic Kabbalah, as we discussed before.
3. LOUIS JACOBS: I mentioned previously interest in Conservative Judaism theology and philosophy. In Britain the founder of Masorti-Conservative Judaism was Louis Jacobs. In 2005 the secular Jewish newspaper of Britain, the Jewish Chronicle, conducted a vote to find the greatest Jew since the readmission of Jews back into Britain 350 years previously. At no. 3 came a recent Reform Rabbi, at 2 came Moses Montefiore, and at 1 came Louis Jacobs. He was.................................(Important extra word missed out!) - Britain's -....................................greatest academic scholar of Judaism - writing many books on all historical and contemporary aspects of Jewish thought (Here is his Amazon.com page). In the 1960s he was the leading candidate to replace Rabbi Brodie as the next Chief Rabbi. The stepping stone to this was traditionally Principle head of Jews College Modern Orthodox Semicha and academic collage. A previously unnoticed book of his "We Have Reason To Believe", defending Rational Faith, but questioning Orthodox Biblical belief, accepting Bible Criticism, was dug out and his appintment as Principle was blocked. He left Jews College and later the Orthodox United Synagogue, founding Masorti. Two "Jacobs Affairs" brought Jewish theology into wide public discussion, with letters sent to The Times newspaper debating "Torah from Heaven". As far as I know, this could be the preeminnent public case of Orthodox vs. Secular discussion of Jewish theological belief in any country! The non-religious editor of the Jewish Chronicle came vigourously in defence and publicity of Jacobs, challenging the Orthodox establishment to counter-argue. It seems they did not meet the challenge, either for communal reasons, so as not to dissenfranchise the majority members of the United Synagogue who lack tradititional belief, or for scholarly reasons as perhaps no one could quite match Jacobs in academic analysis. Jacobs' congregation set up a new synagogue in Abbey Road, Saint John's Wood, London - at the same time as the Beatles were recording their eponymous album in the studio there. Jacobs' new shul in a former United synagogue Gothic building can almost be seen behind the 4 Beatles on the Zebra Crossing! Jacobs remained attatched all his life to a love of the Lithuanian Yeshiva and Hasidic worlds and learning, tempered with his fundamental advocacy of necessary introduction of Modern critical scholarly attitudes and conclusions. He also studied, followed and published on the Medieval and Modern Jewish Rationalists, such as the Non-Orthodox Existentialists - he personally did not particularly wish to set up a new movement, but inspired his more modern style Rabbinic followers. He maintained belief in "Torah from Heaven", but reinterpreted "from" in the manner of the great theologians of the Conservative American Jewish Theological Seminary in New York such as A. J. Heschel and Neil Gilman and all contemporary Conservative Rabbis - the Torah was from G-d, but crucially through Man's inspiration and the secular view of Bible Criticism. Consequently, he remained Halachically observant, with Conservative changes. This irony was lost on the secular anti-Haredi editor of the Jewish chronicle, and some present anti-religious Jews, who used the opportunity to attack narrow minded Haredi Biblical literalism, and his perception that the right wing London Beth Din had taken over the moderate English theological compromising United Synagogue ("Minhag Anglia"). To this day some commentators think that some other United Synagogue Modern Orthodox Rabbis privately agree with Jacobs, but keep it hidden - not true from my experience of asking some left leaning U. S. Rabbis in London! The leading heavyweight Talmudist (Ger-Hasidic) of Jews College later was dismissed, going to new post in Israel, for his differences taken to Beth Din with Chief Rabbi Jakobovits over the young Jonathan Sacks reviewing another Jacobs book in a Jews College publication.
4. MY VIEW OF JACOBS: My view is interest and love of Jacobs' amazing scholarship (including his leading contributions to Hasidic academic study), even when I disagree with his fundamental Non-Orthodox view of "Torah Min Hashamayim". Jacobs died in 2006, but I saw him speak twice, including at this "Jacobs Affair" anniversary debate at London Jewish Book Week in 2004 - Archive audio recording here. At the end of the talk I sheepishly approached the podium to speak with another of the pannelists, and Jacobs saw me. I gave him a sincere smile, and he seemed touched, smiling back! (Jacobs had a special appreciation for early Chabad thought, on which he published scholarship. In an interview with the secular Jewish Chronicle after he won the vote in 2005, he said that he rated the theological insight of the early Chabad thinkers - i.e. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Dovber Schneuri, Aaron of Strashelye etc. as higher than Maimonides (apologies!). He was also asked for his Jewish hero, humbly finding his own nomination absurd. He replied the esoteric choice of the Talmudist Rogatchover Gaon)
5. BIBLE CRITICISM: In this audio transcript, linked above, Jacob's said that his argument was not with the Haredim, "who go their merry way", but with the Modern Orthodox, who accept secular studies when it suits them (eg. Scientific Age of Universe), but reject it when it comes to Biblical Criticism. In the audience were two (Modern Orthodox) United Synagogue Rabbis who challenged Jacob's assertion that Orthodoxy ignores Bible Criticism. In their question, at the end, they said that Yeshivah University has the "Orthodox Forum" that convenes academic conferences on issues relevant to Modern Orthodox ideology, publishing books of the papers presented. (This book: "Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah" is the proceedings from one such conference, directly confronting the issues, including the approach to Bible Criticism on the Chumash of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer) I guess that Jacobs held that this attempt was apologetics that didn't measure up, and his reply to the question was to insist on his position that Modern Orthodoxy doesn't (properly) address Bible Criticism when it comes to the Chumash. It seems to me that there are two possible Orthodox approaches to Bible Criticism on the Chumash, broadly Charedi and Modern Orthodox. In my view the Haredi rejection can become a fully structured approach from my view of mysticism - the book "On the Essence of Chassidus" by the last Lubavitcher Rebbe that I badly summarised on Hasidic philosophy includes, to my view, the first demonstration of the 5-part methadological Divine structure G-d put into the Torah. This essential principle, added to by the mystical Torah-secular sytheses of Yitzchak Ginsburgh from his website, I cited on a previous occasion, can justify in principle the rejectionist approach, from a Divine perspective "Above". The Modern Orthodox approach seems to tackle the problem on its own terms "below", and may possibly give fresh insights and interpretations of Torah from an Orthodox perspective, befitting our generation. The best overall summary of the historical development of the problem of Bible Criticism (on the Chumash) on its own terms, from an Orthodox perspective that I have seen was given by the amazing Spanish and Portuguese Jews#Prominent rabbis Nathan Lopes Cardozo, whom I have also heard speak. This book: "The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction" has a chapter amazingly covering the scholarly history of the subject, including recent figures like the secular literary critic Robert Alter. I think this is a similar summary, perhaps with less coverage: "On Bible Criticism and Its Counterarguments-A Short History, By Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo".
6. REFERENCE BOOK TO JUDAISM: The most helpful and informative overall introduction I have seen to Judaism is Louis Jacobs book "The Jewish Religion: A Companion". It is generally fair overall, as fair as his non-Orthodox point of view could allow, though it does present his own critical Conservative scholarly view. It is helpfull as it both presents encyclopedical classical Orthodox (Talmudic, Rationalist, Kabbalistic, Hasidic perspectives etc.) and modern critical and philosophical perspectives and thinkers. It is the most helpful handbook-background reference book to Judaism, though I inevitably find myself disagreeing with inherent philosophical perspectives. The book is amazing and crucial for reference, and has the double bonus of presenting all the modern challenging problems for Orthodox viewpoints. Regarding the Conservative Judaism view, I'm interested in it especially as it challenges my own Orthodoxy. I like such scholarly questions, though remain trusting in Orthodox solutions. At another talk I attended, actually in Jacobs' synagogue in 2007, delivered by Neil Gilman on speaking tour visit, the Rationalist Philosophy of believing in G-d today was presented. It explained, for instance the alternative Existential philosophies of Buber and Heschel, the former only keeping jewish observance on the occasions he felt inspired, the later, citing Hasidic deveikut, keeping mitzvot to substain him through the uninspired times. To both G-d was a prior Existential acceptance, though Heschel naturally believed in bible Criticism. afterward, I also asked Gilman whether Modern Orthodox thinkers addressed Bible Criticism on the Chumash. He said neither Lamm, nor Soloveitchik, but James Kugel does in his book "How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now". I also asked him about Richard Dawkins' challenge, citing Biblical genocide, that "the Hebrew G-d is the most cruel, racist, misogenist...figure in all fiction"!. To Gilman, the reconcilliation is easier than for Orthodoxy (who probably have to cite the Oral Torah halacha and Aggadah, with possible additional mystical perspectives, to attenuate the harsh deceptively misleading Written Word), as the Torah is both Divine and Human, given through inspiration to man through evolutionary social history. I also asked the new Rabbi of the synagogue how Reform Rabbis think, as both Conservative and Reform accept Bible Criticism, but Conservative theologically accept a general Halachic historical binding (sanctified through the evolutionary process of ongoing Divine inspiration through time), but Reform do not. he said that he doesn't understand the Reform theological view, so is not Reform!...............extra: He recommended the writings of Eugene Borowitz to explain Reform theology - especially "Renewing the Covenant".
7. KABBALAH AND HERESY: From my view, there is one problem with Kabbalah, and that is its fundamental dogma, gradually receiving more and greater emphasis through the historical evolution of Jewish mysticism, reaching its culmination in Chabad Hasidut (Tanya), and that is its fundamental emphasis on Jewish soul superiority. To you, I guess this is only one of various problems with it, also including the heresy/plurality in classic Kabbalistic structures (from the Medieval Sephirot, and even more in Luria's explanation of the Partsufim) - though to me this isn't a problem, as I trust in the philosophical adeptness of Kabbalistic probing of the mythological structures, to eliminate philosophical heresy, by stressing differentiation between G-d and his emanations, the watershed of the Tzimtzum, the subtle delicacy of Kabbalah. The Baal Shem Tov forbade Hasidism from studying classical Kabbalah (except for the traditional elite), citing the danger of gross anthrapomorphism by common people as the reason for the Heresies of Shabbetai Zvi and Jacob Frank. This quote is cited in the scholarly footnotes of the book on the Maggid of Mezeritch, "The Great Maggid"-Kehot Pub. by the Lubavitch academic Jacob Immanuel Schochet. It is fundamental in Hasidism that Hasidic thought, even in its more intricate quoting of Kabbalistic terminology, is a new phase in the nature of Jewish mysticism. By expressing Kabbalah in terms of its psychological inner correspondence in man's innate emotional (Deveikut) and intellectual (especially in Chabad-rationally investigated mysicism) experience, the Hasidic masters explained that the danger of gross, anthrapomorphic literalist-physical interpretations of Kabbalah was eliminated. (Nonetheless, contemporary critics of the excesses of Chabad Messianism would see a diminished version of Sabbateanism - though the view of the safety of Hasidut is generally evident from the innevitable adherence of Hasidism to Halachah) The best explanation of the philosophical Monotheistic rigour of Kabbalists to stress against heresy, that I have seen is recounted in the definitive text and footnotes of "Mystical Concepts in Chassidism" by Jacob Immanuel Schochet. It is also printed in the back of the Bilinguel English Tanya, though without hisorical development introduction. Its chapters define the nature of the basic Kabbalistic concepts, hilighting Hasidic interpretation of the structures.
8. SCHOLEM, SECULARISM AND SPINOZA: Additionally, as I mentioned previously, Gershom Scholem saw the progressive philosophical investment of these dangerous, pluralistic, broadening ideas into Jewish monotheism as the most valuable historical trend in Judaism, one that for him (though secular), saved Judaism from Halachic intricacies, and the remote Divine transcendence of the Rationalists. The explanation of the previously overlooked theological contribution of the historian Scholem to contemporary Judaism is given in the definitive "Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History" by David Biale. I met the secular American author last year, as his sister's family are my closest Lubavitch host-friends in my multi-sect Haredi community. She sadly died last year and I talked to David Biale in the Shivah (about wikipedia amongst other things!). It was only belatedly, after I had bought some one of his other books, did I find out he was my friends' relation! The book explains the inheritance by Scholem of the modern critical Wissenschaft des Judentums methodology, and his diversion from it by rejecting its dogmatic Haskalah Rationalism in evaluating Jewish history and rejecting the mystical as a historical factor. Rather, Scholem's historiography identified Irrationalism-mysticism as the dialectical source of Judaism's historical renewal. The theological relevance of this to a secular Jew, like Biale today, is to identify a third way between the twin, opposite dogmas of Haskalah Rationalism and Orthodox belief. Scholem's historical, political and idealogical views are then assesed in light of this: eg. his identification of anarchic Messianism of Sabbateanism as the watershed origin of Jewish Modernity, by weakening Orthodox Rabbinic hold. His consequent appreciation of Zionism as the constructive chanelling of Messianism. His less sentimental view of Hasidism in his debates with Buber's Existentialism. I discussed with Biale his version of Secularism, compared with a recent (Felix Posen-Humanistic Judaism) benefactor of his. He was quick to differentiate his secularism, as lacking ideological disbelief. The discussion helped me add the top-right philosophical-definition image caption to the page Haskalah. I intend to largen it to differtiate between Haskalah and Reform, and between "Science of Judaism" dogmatically rational historiography and Scholem's mystical historiography, also citing his new theology of secularism, attenuating the legacy of the Haskalah today. In the meantime, I cite the two amazing audio-recorded talks, both of which I attended in person, at London Jewish Book Week 2008, that I added in footnote to the image box on Haskalah. They should help you in your forthcoming wikipedia writing about Spinoza and his contemporary relevance: "The Unique Case of Jewish Secularism" by Menahem Brinkner, and "Spinoza and Secular Jewish Culture" by Yirmiyahu Yovel. Once I've extended the image-caption box on Haskalah, have a look at it, to see if I've got the difference between Haskalah and Reform correct. I'll have to relisten to the two talks, to inform myself! (I've noticed elsewhere that there were distinctive Haskalah synagogues, as differentiated from Reform)
9. JEWISH RATIONALISM AND SECULARISM TODAY: I've been thinking that one reason for the diminishment of Rationalist method in Traditional (Orthodox) Judaism after the Rennaisance (while paradoxically a reason for its increase among historically, increasingly secular Judaism) is the divergence between (Formal) Philosophy and empiric Science after Newton (and the increasing Humanistic division between G-d and Man, inspired in Art, such as Shakespeare and the interest in visual self-portraits, after the Rennaisance revival of Greco-Roman Humanism). With the rise of mechanistic Science, the challenge to Religion came from the laboratory, rather than the fireside chair! Consequently, Rationalism was less able to solve the religious challenge from Modernity than more transcendent Mystical, encompassing approaches. The Mechanistic hold in Science holds today, despite its 20th century esoteric demolishment in Physics' Relativity and Quantum Physics, and Mathematics' Chaos Theory and Godel's paradoxical illogic - Mechanistic Humanism reigns supreme in the rest of Science, while many Quantum Physicists reject philosophical speculation of Science. While the founders of Modern Physics, such as Einstein and Heisenberg, were often interested in the philosophical meanings of their discoveries, many Scientists today, such as Steven Weinberg and Dawkins, dismiss Philosophy of Science. (For the best critique of Scientism I've seen, whether from Scientists like Dawkins, or Philosophers like Daniel Dennet, see the British Philosopher Mary Midgley, and her advocacy to "bring in the Philosophical "intellectual plumber". eg her book "Science and Poetry").......sorry, I cite all this out of sincere nullification, overabundant yearning, excitement and delight, rather than pretentious ego! I love the ideas too much, and insist I hardly know anything! - just the most basic outlines! (Physics was my passion before becoming Religious, though because of psychological turmoil in becoming religious and entering chaotic adulthood, I innevitably failed my first year at University-Physics..............................................................(missed out: "and left the whole course, which I couldn't cope with at the time!").................................................................Only recently are the crippling psychological problems and chaos just beginning to receed! I only alluded to my disaster in Real Life - the "Outer World" on my User page........The most interesting, captivating and vivid history I have seen of the roots of contemporary Atheism is "God's Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilization", about the Victorian Era, by A. N. Wilson. I think Jewish mysticism has offered more allure to resolving the challenges of Science within Orthodoxy than Rationalism, as one tempting approach it can suggest, unique to it, is its potential to include all the problematic challenges within a claimed encompasing higher reality. As Yitzchak Ginsburgh says on his website, one might think that the reconcilliation of Torah and Science would take place in "Revealed" Torah, as both describe physical entities and Rationalist perspectives. However, in our realm of fallen multiplicity and Divisions, true unity of any opposites can only take place in the context of a higher Divine scource that unites both perspectives, expressed into Human grasp through mystical articulations. Accordingly, union takes place from "Hidden"-Inner Torah and the inner dimensions of Science (already clarified in Quantum Physics etc).
10. PROBLEM WITH KABBALAH: My only difficulty with Kabbalah (and Hasidism) is its increasing emphasis, essential to it, on Jewish soul superiority. While the Rationalist Judah Halevi also ascribes to a form of it, its expression in Jewish mysticism becomes more radical. This is innevitable, as Kabbalah seeks to offer a Cosmic metaphysics, where the Mitzvot of each individual Jew affect the Divine plan, successively expressed with ascending profundity in the historical development of Jewish mysticism - Mitzvot affect: the Divine Ohr-flow of emanations down to this Realm (Medieval Kabbalah), Divine rectification itself (Lurianic Kabbalah), only the heartfelt sincerity of the simple artless Jew (emphasised by the Baal Shem Tov, intellectually internalised by the advanced Chabad scholar - see Jewish meditation, deriving from the Jewish soul being a "literal part of G-d Above" - the Tanya) reflects "Atzmut" itself (Hasidic term for Divine essence - beyond Kabbalah's Ein Sof - as Atzmut can relate to the Finite, while Ein Sof-"Infinite" is beyond expression) GOT TO GO ...MORE NEXT WEEK........ April8 (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello April8 - you left me a great deal to read and think about.

As far as I am concerned, Rambam has no equal; the flexibility and adaptability of Halachah he espoused was viewed as heresy by many - but may represent the only way of rescuing the loss of our children through assimilation and marriage out of their comm.

I agree with Jacob's assessment of Mordern Orthodoxy's views of critical examination of the texts. you noted:

"In this audio transcript, linked above, Jacob's said that his argument was not with the Haredim, "who go their merry way", but with the Modern Orthodox, who accept secular studies when it suits them (eg. Scientific Age of Universe), but reject it when it comes to Biblical Criticism. In the audience were two (Modern Orthodox) United Synagogue Rabbis who challenged Jacob's assertion that Orthodoxy ignores Bible Criticism."

However,please note that many Sephardim hole the views of Jacobs...or rather, Jacobs arrived at a viewpoint held by most Sephardim for a very long time. The problem with these different Ashkenazic movements is they pigeonhole and debase the greater body of our intellectual, theological and philosophical traditions (in my opinion). This might explain why you understand Rabbi Natan Cardoso's views.

Yehudah HaLevi was a Platonist, not Aristotlean.

I think the diminishment of Rationalism as a primary thrust in Contemporary Orthodoxy has a great deal to do with the demographics of North American and European Jewry which is overwhelmingly Ashkenazim. You will find that most Sephardim hold the Rambam to be of high authority yet adopting many Ashkenazic customs as a result of the overwhelming numbers of Ashekanzi Esnoga.

--Jimharlow99 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Sorry if all the foregoing was a bit overbearing! I wanted to outline my general philosophical position in all Jewish matters, so that in future I can hopefully be more constructive in hopefully contributing to Jewish Philosophy page and related matters with you! (As my previous attempts were especially chaotic/rushed/bad/embarrasing/biased! - opening salvos "across the bows"!) The constructive contribution would hopefully begin next wikipedia session! In the meantime, to briefly conclude 2 topics left from the previous listing:

1 - As someone who believes in the Kabbalistic-Hasidic fundamental belief in Jewish soul superiority, mentioned above, I think the only way to personally resolve the issue philosophically is radical bittul (Hasidic negation of ego). Once a person truely values all other people, Jewish or Gentile more than oneself, then the issue loses its philosophical difficulty. The tension-duality between particularism and universalism in Biblical-Talmudic Judaism is also found in Kabbalah, as Kabbalah interprets man being made in the "image of G-d" to mean all people, Jewish and Gentile, reflecting the sephirotic structure in their soul. Yitzchak Ginsburgh's book "Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations" brings out the holy potential of non-Jews through the 7 Laws of Noah. References in the Chumash to "Adam" are exegetically interpreted in Jewish mysticism to mean all peoples, while the term "HaAdam" in the Chumash, is interpreted exegetically to refer just to Israel. The same tension is found in Rabbi Akiva's statement in Ethics of the Fathers that "Beloved is Man.., Beloved is Israel.." I also personally speculate that future eschatological redemption may further reduce the problem. Perhaps, Saul of Tarsus' attempt to bring all the Gentiles into the Biblical Covenant with G-d, was an early, mistaken attempt at this. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the attempt to bring down very high Light into unprepared vessels is the World of Tohu-Chaos, overspilling into the realms of impurity, if the vessels are not yet mature enough to hold the transcendent light. I'm not saying that in Kabbalistic-Hasidic eschatology, the difference between Jew and Gentile would be eliminated, but rather the complete loss of ego into Messianic Divinity, and the end of all the realms of Impurity, would further resolve the objectionability of innate Jewish soul superiority. In this context, the directive of Israel to be "A light to the Nations", is understood in Kabbalah to mean that the Gentile Nations receive their substaining Divine Light-lifeforce only through Israel's channel. When the Jews sin, the channel is dimminished, and the Gentiles increase antisemitic hostility to their vitalising souce. The antisemitism then brings Israel back to Divine channeling through Teshuvah. I speculate that while Israel remains innately superior in this equation, there is nonetheless a hidden quality to the Nations, as in this context alone, the purpose is for their sake. Hasidism above all brings out the ultimate mystical purpose of redemption in the lowest levels. This still applies just to Israel, where Hasidism specifies that sincerity of the Jewish soul alone, is the true reflection of the innermost Divine simplicity-Atzmut-Essence. However, perhaps this emphasis on the simple Jews' ultimate advantage, redemption ultimately only for the sake of the lowest levels, perhaps it is a foreshaddowing of the inclusion of all Nations into the Covenant with G-d in the Messianic Era, even if Isarel would still remain essential. SECOND, FINAL POINT TO FOLLOW NOW IN NEXT LOCATION.....! April8 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

2 - Your question why the Kabbalah page omits exploration of Cordoveran Kabbalah, which builds upon the Toledano tradition: I didn't write the page! I just added the pictures, and clarified some of the "Concepts" section text! The page and template itself needs clarification that the term "Kabbalah" itself, academically applies specifically just to the 2 different full theosophical doctrinal systems:

1. "Medieval Kabbalah", the 11-12th Century circles of Provence and Spain, centred around Nachmanides -is that the Toledano Tradition?- culminating in the Zohar, giving the definining "Kabbalistic" theosophy of 10 Sephorot, Gnostic inclusion of Masculine-Feminine and Holy-Impure dualities, Neo-Platonic downward Shefa-flow of Light through the chain of Worlds...all Medieval schools receiving their first full systemisation in the 16th Century by Moshe Cordovero. I think the "Prophetic-Ecstatic Kabbalah" of 13th century Abraham Abulafia, while marginal, is still technically "Kabbalah".
2. "Lurianic Kabbalah", presenting the second, new formulation of Kabbalah

Differentiation needs to be made, as far as my presently limited reading knows! that the 1st - 10th Century Merkavah-Heichalot mysticism is therefore not technically "Kabbalah", nor perhaps? is the 12-13th Century Chassidei Ashkenaz. Subsequent Modern Hasidic Judaism, while Kabbalistically based, focuses instead on the inner, psychological correspondence of Kabbalah, and so is a new phase of Jewish mysticism. (Scholem also debates whether the Prophetic traditions of Biblical times can be considered Jewish "mysticism", coming down against labeling them as such. Yitzchak Ginsburgh discusses that Kabbalah is a theosophical conceptual doctrine, while Nevuah is intuitive vision higher than intellect. He therefore etymologically describes Kabbalah as deriving from the union of Wisdom and Prophecy - I added this excerpt on Jewish meditation page - reflecting the Talmudic "advantage of the scholar over the prophet"). Academics therefore define Kabbalah as these 2 alternative systems, as "Kabbalah" refers to the full emergence of its theosophical schemes. The earlier Sefer Yetzirah describes 10 powers with which G-d created the World, but to the academics this is not yet full formal Kabbalah doctrine, as these 10 powers are described in nascent form. The view of Kabbalists is to describe all these preceeding mysticical texts and stages as "Kabbalah", as they believe their doctines to be part of Oral Torah, and earlier proto-Kabbalistic references, such as Sefer Yetzirah, variously attributed to Abraham via Rabbi Akivah, were early hints at full Kabbalistic doctine, or perhaps as above the slow emergence of Kabbalah from origins in Prophecy. I personally have no problem with modern syncretic views that Kabbalah assimilated foreign Gnostic and Neo-Platonic elements into Judaism, either seeing these as parallel teachings, or more radically as the exiled sparks of holiness waiting to be redeemed from among the Nations. Similarly, though undecided, I don't particularly have a problem with attributing the Zohar to Moses of Leon, either seing his role as publiciser in his own language of earlier documents, or more critically complier of traditions stretching back to Shimon bar Yochai, or perhaps, as the direct author under the influence of a Heavely Maggid/teacher/Prophecy Holy Spirit. Tradition says that Joseph Karo received a Heavenly Maggid, The Vilna Gaon conversed with the Arizal and Elijah the Prophet in Kabbalistic debate, and special to Hasidism, tradition records Ahijah the Shilonite as the Baal Shem Tov's mentor.

Your question of whether Kabbalists subsequent to Luria, disregarded Cordoveran Kabbalah in favour of Lurianic: In the "Companion to the Jewish Religion", entries "Kabbalah, Moses Cordovero, Isaac Luria", Louis Jacobs describes the Lurianic school as reading Medieval-Cordoveran Kabbalah through the new Lurianic theosophy, seing both systems as simultaneously true: I think he says that Cordovero describes the pre-Tikkun World (I guess "before" the Shattering of the Vessels of the World of Tohu-Chaos, when the Sephirot were 10 simple points in the three columns of the "tree" structure), Luria the world of Tikkun-our reality (When the Sephirot reconfigured in 2 stages, as I added to page Sephirot: firstly interinclusion, secondly Parsufim-Personas, allowing for harmony and cooperation between the vessels of the Sephirot in our realm, to allow the Tikkun-Fixing to take place). A more encompasing description of the simultaneous truth, as Kabbalists see it, of both Meieval-Cordoveran and Lurianic Kabbalah is given by Yitzchak Ginsburgh in two articles here: "The development of Kabbalah in three stages" Cordoveran-Lurianic-Hasidic, and "The development of Kabbalah in light of its (5) main texts" Sefer Yetzirah-Zohar-Pardes Rimonim-Eitz Chaim-Tanya. In particular, "The development of Kabbalah in Three Stages" gives a more encompasing paradigm for relating Cordoveran, Lurianic and Hasidic interpretations together: Cordovero describes the "Worlds"-outer Vessels, Luria their inner "Souls"-Lights, the Baal Shem Tov their "Divinity"-Essence. For example Cordovero lists Keter as the first Sephirah, omiting Daat, because he describes the Sephirot in terms of their Vessel-pupose in creating the Worlds. Luria lists Chochma as the first Sephirah, as he describes the Sephirot in terms of their souls-lights, the soul of Keter being included in the Ein Sof, too high for the sephirot. The Baal Shem Tov relates the Sephirot to their inner psychological motivation, as I added to Sephirot page. Similarly, Medieval-Cordoveran Kabbalah focuses on the chain of descending 4 (5) Worlds, listing also the corresponding 5 (4) vessel levels of the soul. Lurianic Kabbalah focuses on the crisis and Fixing in the Divine soul, paralleled in the microcosmic process of Gilgul human soul rectification - which is why he brings reincarnation to central prominence in his scheme for the first time, as I outlined on gilgul page. The Baal Shem Tov leaves aside transcendent meditation on metaphysical Kabbalah, to focus instead on how Kabbalah inwardly is perceived by Man in this World - the Upper Worlds being only Ohr Light manifestations of Divinity, while the Divine Atzmut Essence Ultimate purpose is only in this World, in the inward sincerity of the Jew in performing the Mitzvot. Therefore, while academically Hasidism is seen outside the technical framework of esoteric Kabbalah, Yitzchak Ginsburgh instead describes it as the 3rd, and culminatory stage of Kabbalistic development. Hasidism's new stage of interpretation of Kabbalah is first brought out by DovBer of Mezerich, and philosophically investigated in the evolving school of Habad, which fully explains its new contribution stage to Kabbalistic tradition. I referenced these 3 stages especially, on the page Yeridat ha-dorot#Generational ascent in Kabbalah, linking them to related pages (Ein Sof doesn't quite do for "Atzmut").

I think that apparent conflict between Cordoveran and Lurianic Kabbalah only arises from a too anthopomorphic-physical interpretation of subtle Kabbalistic metaphors and categorisations. For such reason was Kabbalistic teaching restricted to elite circles until popularisation subsequent to 16th-century Safed Kabbalah, and the under 40 - Talmudically proficient Rabbinic ban on Kabbalah enacted after Shabbetai Zevi. Eg. for instance, I think perhaps the whole concept of Time may be a false anthopomorphism - In Lurianic Kabbalah the Tzimtzum, subsequent new emanation, subsequent collapse of vessels of Tohu, subsequent reallignment of Tikkun, may perhaps not be so temporally consecutaive, time itself being a creation. I'm not sure. But, removal of false temporal evolution certainly helps align both Cordoveran and Lurianic Kabbalah as both "simultaneously" true. Such discussion of the false attribution of time is mentioned in the definitions given by Schochet in his "Mystical Concepts in Chassidism". April8 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Last philosophical word:

I've just now slightly modified my description of Louis Jacobs' book "The Jewish Religion-A Companion", #6 above in the miscellaneous listing. It's the best available, most informative, Reference-Handbook to Judaism, both classical and modern-critical. While I find myself disagreeing with its inherent philosophical perspectives-deeper philosophical aspects of topics for Orthodox Judaism, this non-Orthodox encycloedia and viewpoint has the bonus of raising all the challenges-questions Orthodoxy needs to find different approaches to dealing with.

• Here lies in essential point, my particular advocacy of Jewish mysticism. While I'm emotionally attracted to Jewish mysticism, the emotional attraction only stands on its intellectual-philosophical possibilities for me. Paradoxically, with all the challenges posed to Biblical-Talmudic traditional Jewish Orthodoxy by Modern Critical methods, for this reason lies the fundamental reason for my mystical approach. This philosophically works in drawing from the most rational mystical articulations (Cordoveran and Lurianic systemisations in Kabbalah, and Habad in Hasidism). If, for example, all Jewish mystical thought is left out, then traditional Orthodox Judaism is left with Peshat, Remez and Drush commentary, and Rationalist Philosophical development of this. The trouble with this, in my view, is that it may not be able adequately to answer the Modern-Critical scholarship challenges to Judaism presented in recent times. In essence, in my view, the intellectual case for Conservative Judaism acceptance of a human element to Biblical and Rabbinic development may become stronger than the case for an Orthodoxy that elimites all Kabbalah. This human element then limits the numinous reverence for the Divine in Rabbinic thought. Eg. the Agadic elements of the Talmud and Midrash become only imaginative true-moralistic lessons, with their legendary form relegated to myth. In my view, as demonstrated in Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentary on Aggadah and Midrash, this challenge can be repelled by demonstrating the true hidden mystical meanings within the legends, of which their mythic garment is only an outer, concealing form. Similarly, the discourse "On the Essence of Chassidus" by the last Lubavitcher Rebbe outlined above, to my view can answer the challenge against all levels of traditional Jewish though, by demonstrating the unity between the exoteric and esoteric aspects. This is why I was eager to present this on the page Hasidic philosophy as the "Philosophical view from within the Hasidic movement of the relationship btween Hasidus and previous Biblical, Rabbinic (and Rationalist) and Kabbalistic aspects of Jewish thought". In essence, to my view, paradoxically, while Rationalism defended traditional Jewish thought in the Medieval era from the intellectual challenges of the day, now I personally think honest, reductionalist Rationalism that excludes Mysticism, could lead one out of Orthodoxy into Conservative Judaism. A philosophical and scholarly case for traditional Rationalist Orthodoxy that excludes Mysticism today, can still be made and it may be convincing, but I personally think without rationalist Kabbalah and rationalist Hasidism, the case is week. Especially in Habad rationalist mystical investigation, is the case made for the first time in Jewish thought for the inherent holy intellectual unity of all aspects of Jewish thought. This unity between previous Rabbinic, Medieval Rationalist, and Kabbalistic interpretations in Habad, is made by uniting them in a higher rationalised Hasidic Divine source. In previous Kabbalistic rationalistic systemisations (eg. by Cordovero and Vital), true unity between Rabbinic, Rationalist and Kabbalistic interpretations cannot be made - the best that can be made is philosophical development of Kabbalah to answer any Rabbinic criticisms - the avoidance of contradictions, rather than true unity. In rationalised Hasidism, eg. the analytical talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe reconciling Maimonides' conception of Divine providence with the Baal Shem Tov's, I think a true unity is demonstrated in light of Divine essence. As I mentioned previously, I added this book citation to the page Divine providence (Judaism)#Particular Divine Providence in Hasidic philosophy: "Led By G-d's Hand: The Baal Shem Tov`s Conception of Divine Providence". Kehot Publications. "Presents several analytical treatises by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, which clarify the Baal Shem Tov's conception on the subject of Hashgacha Pratis, Divine Providence".

Right, that really is everything! I felt the need to outline all the above to form the background to future work with you in helping to clarify Jewish philosophy page and related issues - I hope my input will be less embarasing than previous chaotic attempts! :) Best wishes April8 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal Philosophy vs. Theology-Theosophy on Jewish philosophy page

From April8: After thinking about it, I think the picture of Schneur Zalman of Liadi should be removed from the page. (My early embarassing edit in Sept/Oct 2009 just looked to match any images with names already on the page) While I like the idea of the page outlining rationalised wider Jewish theology beyond formal Philosophy-Rationalism - I think helpful to locate the parameters of Jewish Rationalism within their contexts and interpretations in wider Jewish thought - such a policy would need to clearly differentiate between Rationalism and Theosophies, so as not to confuse the issue. I therefore like the mention of Hasidic Theosophy, if it is clearly differentiated from Rationalist Philosophy - rationalist Hasidism gives a unique interpretation system to formal Jewish Medieval Rationalism within all other strands of Jewish thought. However, accordingly, I think the images on the page should only be of Rationalist Jewish Philosophers.

(NB. One can be an anti-Rationalist Philosopher - the religious Existentialists argued for belief as a prior faith presumption. But, nonetheless, they argued for this leap of faith using Rationalist Philosophical reference and argument to Western Philosophical tradition) Louis Jacobs defines Jewish Philosophy ("Companion to Jewish Religion", entry "Philosophy") as "Philosophical Theologians", rather than Pure Philosophers. The Medieval Jewish Rationalists, and the Modern Jewish Philosophers who worked more or less within the faith, are not Pure Philosophers like Socrates, whose conclusions are reached independent of religion. Rather, Sadia, Maimonides, Gersonides, Crescas.....(Spinoza to the extent he worked within Jewish thought), Mendelssohn, Hirsch, Rosensweig etc are "Philosophical Theologians", using Rationalism-Philosophy in support and interpretation of an already accepted Jewish faith. Their work references Western Philosophy figures like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Kiekegaard. Schneur Zalman is a mystic, albeit the founder of the school of the innermost rationalism within Jewish mysticism. Therefore, I think that the section "Hasidic theosophy" crucially needs to stay (it needs big improvement though - next wikipedia session!), but the image of Schneur Zalman should be removed, and more images of Modern Jewish Philosophers put up instead.

Certainly, the map of the Ukraine showing the Baal Shem Tov's location should go! His founding Hasidic mysticism didn't become Kabbalistically systemised until DovBer of Mezeritch, and didn't become progressively investigated philosophically, in relation to all previous traditional Jewish thought, until the Habad school.

What the page really needs is for the modern Jewish Philosophers to be written up in the same amazing way as you have done for the Medieval Jewish Philosophers, descriptively explaining the main figures. (Mendelssohn, Hirsch, Geiger?, Rosensweig, Buber...etc Soloveitchik, Heschel..) NB. Other figures like Salomon Maimon and Herman Cohen? might be mentioned as Jews who pursued Western Philosophy independent of Jewish faith (Philosophers who happened to be Jews. Maybe Spinoza stradles both categories). In this context, are all the figures in the modern section of the page, Philosophers ("Philosophical Theologians"), or are some just theologians or scholars of Judaism? I like an inclusive reference approach to wider Jewish thought for the page, where explained and if justified, as long as the differentiation is made explicit!

One question in particular: Isn't Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm whom you descriptively listed, a Kabbalist rather than a Philosopher? Again, I like an inclusive approach, where appropriate, as long as clear differentation and explanation is made between Philosophy and Theosophy!

What do you think?
Until next wikipedia session in a few more months! April8 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

NEW (SHORT) POSTS - AUGUST 2011:

Update and apologies

From April8 Hello! I just checked your user contributions and notice you haven't been around for a while. Nonetheless, I'll take this opportunity to list a few short update points, and to give an apology that I have wanted to say from way back:

1. JACOBS BOOK: The really helpful Louis Jacobs book I mentioned was "The Jewish Religion: A Companion", rather than his short, not helpful version, "Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion (Abridged)"
2. BIALE BOOK: "Not in the Heavens: The Tradition of Jewish Secular Thought" - New book by David Biale, the one he was working on when I saw him in 2009. The first academic survey of Jewish as its own philosophical tradition. This book is more relevant to understanding Jewish than the book I sighted earlier, "G-d's Funeral" by A. N. Wilson
3. BRENNER BOOK: "Prophets of the Past: Interpreters of Jewish History" by Michael Brenner - New book, the first academic survey of Jewish historiography, revealing through its uses of Jewish history for ideological viewpoints, that "the writing of history has been the dominant medium of modern Jewish thought". The other book, rather than Wilson's, to understand Jewish secularism
4. DEFAULT SCEPTICISM OF ACADEMISM UNTIL "PROVEN" OTHERWISE: New section on User Page: User:April8#Some interpretations of Inner Torah about the academic study of Jewish mysticism, has quoted section from Joseph Weiss describing the difference between the roles of theologian and historian. The theologian's task, and possibly obligation, is to find unified theories, the historian's is to emphasise pluralistic lack of unity. This gives helful counterpoint to the other, quoted section of Adain Steinsaltz, and the like, that offer theoretical structures for describing the relationship and difference between Jewish Philosophy and Mysticism etc, or for seeking to define the difference between Kabbalah and Hasidism etc.
5. HASIDIC "THOUGHT": A new correspondence of mine to User talk:Debresser#Developments from April8, dated today 4 August 2011 (in case he'll have archived it when you see this post), describes the future need for renaming Hasidic philosophy page as "Hasidic thought", though note the reasons, parameters, and coloquial exception to this - Habad thought as uncategorisable exception incorporating other aspects of traditional Judaism in their source. Offers a particular viewpoint background to our previous corresondence
6. KELLNER BOOKS: Apology 1: Two Books - a) "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism" by Menachem Kellner (preface by Moshe Idel); b) "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" by Menachem Kellner - Two very interesting books that offer a dialectical counterpoint view to my earlier words in corresondence to you, "In the Jewish Chronicle interview Louis Jacobs says that in his view the early Habad thinkers give greater spiritual insight (even) than Maimonides". In correspondence, as in conversation, I tend to advocate viewpoints I share, or argue counterviews I may not for the sake of "Devil's Advocate", according to my enthusiastic personality nature. Afterwards, I can regret that I left such statements unqualified. In this case, while I do share the viewpoint, notice that Maimonides of course is the benchmark against which all must compare, and on whose fundamental foundations all can only build atop. Louis Jacobs statement can be seen as the inclination of an academic to advocate their chosen field, as he specialised in Hasidism amongst other things. Menachem Kellner alternatively advocates strict Maimonidean rationalism as his greatest insight in Judaism, and I guess that the prolific [[]] holds Talmudic Judaism as the greatest spiritual insight into Judaism (interestingly, in one book he posits the Mishnah as, I think, a hidden Aristotelian structure). While I disagree with these 2 companion books of Kellner, they are very interesting and challenging counterpoints to my view, essential reading. In his interpretation of Maimonides, which may not represent the diversity of academic Maimonidean scholarship, he sees Maimonides' "disenchantment of Creation", opposing Jewish soul superiority, also holy objects and places, and other things. (See my above mentioned correspondence with Debresser to the help that Hasidic Atzmus - page under development - offers me to helping deal with the difficulty of contemporary Jewish hierachical elevation that I mentioned earlier). So, sorry for not qualifying my earlier advocating quote of Jacobs. Apology 2 to follow in next location.... April8 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello April8 - You've gone to great lengths to reply so I am going to amend yesterday's reply and embed my responses within the text of your reply. apologies are not necessary. I applaud your idea of changing the name of Hasidic philosophy; your idea reflects intellectual integrity. Your comments regarding "the historian's [task] is to emphasise pluralistic lack of unity". May not be entirely true - I would argue that the historian's overriding task is to divorce themselves of personal bias, with narrowly scoped sources, and seek the truth...unfalsifiable truth. Anything less is simply flawed research feeding flawed conclusions to people who don't know any better...a lack of unity in sources, yes, a lack of unity in the mosaic formed?; no.

As far as I am concerned, you find joy and meaning in adopting a Chassidic viewpoint inculcated by Chabad. You are not the only one - just as I am not the only Jew who finds joy & meaning in a Rambamist viewpoint. There is no need to explain yourself to me. I find personal joy and comfort in a Fuarian viewpoint to explain why Maimonidean Rationalism is so different from Esoteric Chassidut - yet both are still Judaism. The point at which I part ways with my co-religionists concerns the Messianist inclinations of certain Chassidic groups...groups seemingly immersed in Esoteric Kabbalah, and its study, over Jewish Canon.

Neusner has a very balanced outlook regarding Maimonides; Neusner would never accuse Rambam of being superstitious. I have read all of the works of Nahmanides as well as those who subscribed to his esoteric interpretations...I understand it...but do not subscribe to it. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. EARLY KABBALAH ADVOCACY: Apology 2 - the big one! You wrote: "There has been a protracted attempt by many posters of varying creeds, and streams, to render Jewish Philosophers no voice in the context of contemporary and historic Jewish events. There is ample room in Wikipedia for Jewish Philosophers who subscribe to Maimonmidean Rationalism." - on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael Kühntopf deletion discussion. I hope you weren't intending me in that! As I described before, I was forced to begin trying to contribute to wikipedia long before I would have been ideally positioned to do so, (still fighting chaos in my life!) and only because more qualified people weren't adding the topics I saught to improve. In the process of this, I made some mistakes of editing procedure, and underwent a sharp learning curve. I debate to myself whether I would have been able to edit in a differnent manner than I did at the time, and the answer may have been no. Nonetheless, such considerations don't eliminate my embarassment and regret if I caused upset to others. So, I'm sorry for the 2 times I made "contributions" to Jewish philosophy mainpage that may not have been constructive:.................1) Anonymously adding section on the communal dominance of 16th century Kabbalistic systemisations from Safed in early modern Judaism, especially embarassingly adding Kabbalah template to side of page, when I also added images of Philosophers and others already listed on page....................2) The later advocacy of mysticism over rationalism in our correspondence about the wording of the introductory paragraph

Hello April8 - too often, adherents of esoteric Lurianic Kabbalistic methods forget that many others have studied it, and set it aside. One need not be a Sephardi Rambamist to set esoteric Kabbalah aside. Yesheyahu Leibowitz comes to mind - few would argue he wasn't a rigidly observant Jew in an Orthodox manner. He wrote "the sole purpose of religious commandments is to obey God, and not to receive any kind of reward in this world or the world to come. Leibowitz stated that "the reasons for religious commandments were beyond man's understanding, as well as irrelevant, and any attempt to attribute emotional significance to the performance of mitzvot was misguided and akin to idolatry"....and I agree. For Leibowitz, religious observance of Kabbalat Halachot, Kabbalat Mitzvot, and Kashrut is not an explanation of life, nature or history, or a promise of a future in this world or another, but a demand of Hashem as passed on by Moshe Rabbeinu...and I agree. Why do I agree? I am commanded to...m'Har Siani..to be a member of the chosen people is to be chosen to undertake Kabbalat Halachot, Kabbalat Mitzvot, and Kashrut...in the course of doing doing so, we perfect human intellect.

Perhaps we can agree that our obligations, as Jews, are at a minimum found in Kabbalat Halachot, Kabbalat Mitzvot, and Kashrut according to Jewish Canonical texts; in contemporary Orthodoxy Rambam's Jewish principles of faith, derived from his commentary on Mishneh (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), are appended to the requriement of being a religious Jew.

1. HASIDIC ADVOCACY: These 2 Kabbalah themed contributions contrast in theme from the different topic of Habad Hasidic intellectual structure offering a union of Philosophy and Kabbalah in an "essence" thought system. Though, even there I should have made it clearer that my use of the term Hasidic was qualified just to Habad, as most Hasidic thought is regrettably anti-Rationalist, emotional-faith, Romantic movement etc. (Louis Jacobs describes Habad as "a separate offshoot of Hasidism", and "too close to philosophy for the liking of other groups", and "presenting Kabbalah as a thought system to be comprehended rather than merely apprehended" etc.) My identification of Hasidism with Habad was because (as Atzmus page will hopefully make clear when I have the time) the nature of Hasidism is only examined in Habad, where it is seen as an essence relating to Atzmus, but permeating everything else. Consequently, other aspects of Torah are viewed within their source. My Habad Rabbi said that the page Hasidic philosophy should be renamed "Hasidic thought", as the philosophy within Habad Hasidism is a higher form of philosophy, as likewise the Mussar is a higher form of Mussar (embodying shame of independent-Yeshut-Ego before the Divine Awe rather than lower forms of regular Mussar) - in the case of Rationalism, the Rationalism in Habad Hasidism is not from first principles (Louis Jacobs says "Habad is in no way Rationalist, seeing no need to prove the existence of G-d"), but rather, the grasp of Atzmus is such that spirituality that transcends intellect is able to descend into intellect. Joseph Weiss mentions the common characterisations of Habad as "the philosophical tendency in Hasidism" and "mind over heart" etc. as unhelpful generalisations to the academic student of religion who needs more clarified terminology. So, I should have been clearer regarding Hasidism-Habad

Hello April8 - "Thought as a System" is not a new concept unique to Chabad. David Bohm was a Jewish polymath chagrined that people have been trained in the tacit assumption that thought is telling you the way things are as a silent observer - that you are consciously deciding what to do with the info derived from thoughts - that is fallacy. You don't decide what to do with the info...thought controls you. Thought gives false signals that you are controlling it, that you are the one who controls thought. in this scenario, thought controls each one of us (yetzer haTob-vs-).

A noted Kabbalist, Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, wrote in Derech Hashem (The Way of God)"

"Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to God. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will...Man's inclinations are therefore balanced between good (Yetzer HaTov) and evil [], and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly..."

Getting back to Bohm, our thoughts synthesize divisions in sensual and intellectual info then signals us that that such thoughts are naturally our own creation. This is a major feature of thought that is often overlooked by people who propose they are part of a thought system superior to others - our thoughts are random abstractions formulated by sensual and experiential artifacts; this triggers a cascade of new thoughts which compels us to struggle against those very same thoughts which triggered them. Our brain doesn't know which thoughts are true and which are false, good from bad - that's where rational reasoning steps in. There is empirical evidence to prove that if we forego rational reasoning methods, and apply esoteric kabbalistic methods, we can arrive at delusional conclusions. Luzzatto, is an excellent example of this when at the age of twenty, he claimed to have received direct instruction from a mystical being known as the maggid. His peers were enthralled by his written accounts of these "Divine lessons", but the leading Italian rabbinical authorities were highly suspicious and threatened to excommunicate him. Just one hundred years earlier another young mystic, Shabbatai Zevi rocked the Jewish world by claiming to be the Messiah; converting to Islam amidst his delusions, taking 300 families with him. There are no rationalists among the long list of claimants of the title of Mashiach.

By their own admission, Hasidic Jews have a particularly strong and passionate belief in the immediacy of the Messiah's coming, and in the ability of their individual actions to hasten his arrival. Because of the self-described piousness, wisdom, and leadership abilities of Hasidic Masters, members of Hasidic communities are sometimes inclined to regard their dynastic rebbes who are descended from him as potential candidates for Messiah. Esoteric Kabbalistic methods only fuel the fire of breathless messianism.

Many Jews, especially Hasidim, adhere to the belief that there is a person born each generation with the potential to become Messiah; this candidate is known as the Tzadik Ha-Dor, meaning Tzaddik. But let's be honest, Tzaddik is a term literally meaning "righteous one" yet re-defined by Hasidim to refer to holy men who can perform miracles or act as an intermediary between man and God) of the Generation. Notably, among a majority of Chabad Hasidim, strong opinions continue to abound regarding the messianic status of the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Aside from the fact that this position among Hasidim is contrary to Rambam's 12th Principle of Faith, we are also confronted with a near-idolatrous implication that man needs an intermediary to confer with Hashem- this is an issue which clearly distinguishes Judaism from other Abrahamic religions; one of the first principles of Judaism is the propostion that Jews do not require an intermediary to commune with Hashem.

Bohm held that any thought system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault throughout the system. Simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But my thought is part of the system; harboring the same faults as the fault I'm looking at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. Rational reasoning would allow us to recognize when we have arrived at coherence of thought...Esoteric methods, subjective by their very nature, empowers adherents to avoid unpleasant coherence while keeping on with thoughts unbounded by reason...that is called "sustained incoherence".

Aside from the sterile academic discussion above, in my opinion, "Thought systems" is another term for "political organization"; orderly thought systems develop their own lexicon, and practices, placing themselves outside of conventional lexical understanding; implying control of those adherents to the thought system rather than control of thoughts within the system. Which brings us to the age-old debate between free-will and pre-destination. In my personal observance of Judaism I subscribe to a quote from Rambam which is complimented by Luzzatto -

"The creation of man (in the image of God) is meant metaphorically. God created man as an expression of free will; we are granted the ability to reason, and a free-will of our own, but there is no "family resemblance." - Maimonides

From this quote of Maimonides, I am drawn to the conclusion that religious observance of Kabbalat Halachot, Kabbalat Mitzvot, and Kashrut, (of my own free-will) according to Jewish Canonical texts, represents all that is expected of me as a Jew. Many Hasidim argue that there are other texts, outside Jewish canon (Zohar for example), which are as important as our canon when looking for joy and comfort in this world - that such texts are essential to realizing greater joy and comfort in this world. In response, I suggest that joy and comfort are as subjective as those esoteric texts - as such I am satisfied with the joy and comfort of Jewish Canon. Further, when pilpul is applied to esoteric textual interpretation, it becomes easy to spin off into irrational conclusions. I'd like to take a moment and plagiarize an article written by David Sasha - an article in which I find erudite understanding.

According to Professor Daniel Jacob Elazar (1934-1999), there is a deeply rooted contrast between Sephardic and Ashkenazic traditions. He called the Sephardi culture "Classical Judaism" while the Ashkenazi variants were marked "Romantic Judaism". In order to understand the difference, it is necessary to come to an understanding of perhaps the most significant religious schism in the history of Judaism -- the Maimonidean Controversy.

In his article "The Legal Thinking of the Tosafot," Rabbi Dr. Jose Faur examines the religious understanding of the most important rabbinic school in the Ashkenazi world. In his analysis he discusses the impact of Christian thinking on the Jews of Ashkenaz:

"Aristotelian thought and philosophical speculations reached France from Moslem Spain. This type of speculation provoked very strong opposition. Undoubtedly, some of the opposition was grounded on the fact that this branch of rationalism came from Islam. However, the roots of this form of anti-rationalism were deeply entrenched in the institutional values of France. Theologians in France and Teutonic lands were deeply divided as to whether or not one may rationalize the content of the faith"...

Maimonides composed an encyclopedic code of law entitled the Mishneh Torah; a 14-volume opus whose opening book, the Book of Knowledge, situated Jewish ethics in a rational, Aristotelian framework. The rest of the Code offered, in digest form, a complete recounting of the entire Jewish law. The Code lacked a critical apparatus and any overt citation of its Talmudic sources.

The Ashkenazi school, from which Asher ben Yehiel originated, was cognizant of Maimonides' use of science and philosophy, rejected not only his philosophical opus, the Guide of the Perplexed, which was banned in many rabbinical schools in Spain and Europe, but placed the entire Code under a harsh examination. The Moreh sought to undermine the abuse of casuistry, Pilpul, of the Ashkenazi rabbinical tradition. This casuistry was a form of rabbinic rhetoric that asserted the prerogative of the interpreter to make his legal rulings subjectively.

Contrary to the Maimonidean system, the anti-rational, anti-scientific Pilpul method, as Faur emphasizes, gives great power to the interpreter and to the rabbinical class generally. Individual opinion based on rational-critical examination of the legal texts would be eliminated. Authoritarian rabbinical authority would emerge as the central factor in Jewish life.

Throughout Jewish history, it was the Sephardic rabbis who were consistently able to navigate new trends and scientific advances. Framing the law in an objective manner, Maimonidean Judaism was successful in balancing tradition with the needs of the present. Ashkenazi rabbis were consistently behind the curve as they continually rejected scientific progress in the name of the absolute authority of the past over the present. This casuistry led to an intolerant Judaism. Factionalism and reform movements increased in the modern period as rabbis could not find common ground in the welter of their different rulings. Competing groups from all viewpoints would adopt extremist positions and do battle with one another.

Maimonides permitted Jews to interpret tradition with a more critical flexibility - so long as they adhered to the Moreh. Ashkenazi rabbis who rejected rationalism were left with a purely subjective Jewish tradition that elevated rabbinical authority, Chasidut, and esoteric textual interpretation, leading to what we now know today as Jewish fundamentalism.

Maimonides' works were given by the Ashkenazi rabbis to the Dominican friars. In 1232 the friars burned the contentious texts. As the German Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz writes in his History of the Jews: "With these murderers [the Dominicans], Rabbi Solomon ben Aderet, the upholder of the Talmud and of the literal interpretation of the Holy Writ, associated himself. He and his disciple Jonah al-Gerondi said to the Dominicans: "You burn your heretics, persecute ours also. The majority of Jews of Provence are perverted by the heretical writings of Maimuni. If you cause these writings to be publicly and solemnly burnt, your action will have the effect of frightening the Jews away from them."

We see the results of the victory of the anti-Maimonidean forces. The spread of a popular New-Age version of Jewish Kabbalah has brought political and religious extremism to the larger religious world in the guise of an Ayn Rand-style self-help philosophy. Most Sephardim have abandoned the classic Maimonidean tradition under the weight of Ashkenazi hegemony in Israel and the Galut and are frequently seen there at the forefront of political controversy and religious fundamentalism. Settler messianism permeates Jewish nationalism.

1. KABBALAH AND RATIONALISM VS SECULARISM: Regarding advocating Kabbalah over Rationalism, which I'm most sorry about for the way I went about it - I hope my edit didn't contribute to the unfair criticism and attempted blocks you received while you were improving the Jewish Philosophy mainpage. In the case of my two Kabbalah "contributions", my style of advocacy, especially in the first one, was a chaotic attempt to see how my bad edit might eventually affect your final text version. This anarchic method is not proper editing, though at the time I might not have been able to do otherwise. Sorry if it was intrusive. It was motivated because the page on Jewish Philosophy and the page on Kabbalah had/have lots of criticisms of Kabbalah from other authors (without the reverse).

Hello April8 - criticism of esoteric kabbalistic methods should be expected by its adherents just as adherents of Maimonidean Rationalism should expect criticism - that's how ideas are improved or discarded. How we respond to those criticisms gives us clues to their efficacy. If we respond emotionally to the criticisms, then perhaps that's a clue that our understanding lacks the depth of coherent rationale that it demands. On the other hand, to be intellectually honest and recognize that esoteric Kabbalistic methods are not philosophy, as you have done, reflects recognition of a gap in understanding, and compensatory adjustment.

I also didn't wish as much to disparage Philosophy, as to encourage Kabbalah. This view derives, as I alluded in my last post last year, to my personal view-understanding of Jewish secularism, that unfortunately Medieval Jewish Philosophy is abused by seeing later secular Jewish Philosophy as its more advanced development: eg the reference on Jewish philosophy page to Moses Mendelssohn being the "3rd great Moses" (completing the supposedly secularising trend hidden within Maimonides), or Spinoza and Salomon Maimon completing the valuable anti-superstition project of Maimonides. An Orthodox Maimonidean Rationalism would of course reject such views, but my advocacy of Kabbalah arises from my estimation that Rationalism is most liable to this abuse over Kabbalah:

Hello April8 - your comment "my estimation that Rationalism is most liable to this abuse over Kabbalah" got my attention. I want to illustrate how incorrect your estimation can be. I get many emails from people claiming that my minhag to posken Rambam, as a Sephardi, is counter to Orthodox Judaism's embrace of the Shulchan Aruch as primary authoritative text on Halacha. It would appear that too few Jews really understand the Shulchan Aruch and it's place in Jewish history. A rational exploration of the Shulcahan Aruch leaves most Orthodox Jews apoplectic that they so gravely misunderstand their own texts and the motives which underly those texts.

The Shulchan Aruch is not a codification of the Mishnah of Yehudah HaNasi nor the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides. The Shulchan Aruch is a supercommentary on Yosef Karo's own prior book titled "Beit Yosef". The Beit Yosef, in turn, is a commentary upon the Arba'ah Turim written by Yakob ben Asher (1270-1340). Yakob ben Asher is the son of Asher ben Yehiel (The "Rosh"); Asher ben Yehiel is the same Rabbi who instigated the anti-Maimonidean campaign which enlisted Dominican Christians in pogroms against Jews and instigated the burning of Talmud in Spain.

The Arba'ah Turim borrows heavily from Nachmanides' interpretation of the texts of "the Rif" and Maimonides; but not directly from the texts of the "Rif" or Rambam. It also reflects the bias of Yakob ben Asher and Nahmanides' against the Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, and Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nebukim). According to Karo himself, his method for constructing the Shulchan Aruch was to decide the Law by “taking a vote,” among the three opinions of Nahmanides, Asher ben Yehiel and Maimonides, and “the Law” would be in accordance with two out of the three opinions. The deck was stacked - naturally this infused the Shulchan Aruch with an overwhelming body of Ashkenaz Chasidut coupled with esoteric textual interpretation (Esoteric Kabbalah) of Nahmanides. Unlike Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, the Yaakob ben Asher is not limited to normative positions, but compares the various opinions on any disputed point. (In most instances of debate, he follows the opinion of his father, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, the Rosh.)

The Rosh (Asher ben Yehiel) was not pleased by the Spanish approach to Torah learning, which he saw as attributing excessive value to philosophy and secular studies. He felt that the unavoidable consequence of the Spanish approach would be the “watering down” of the focus on the Talmud; what he viewed as the true source and repository of Jewish wisdom. Through the Rosh, a Tosafist, the influence of Ashkenaz began to penetrate the Spanish Torah world. The halachic opinions of the Rosh were binding upon Ashkenazic Jewry. Spanish Jewry began to take into account his opinions in their formulation of Jewish Law rather than engage in potentially explosive antagonism which would engage Christians to harm Jews as already had happened.

How did the Rosh get to Toledo? In 1286, Emperor Rudolf I had instituted a new persecution of the Jews, and Rabbi Meir left Germany, but was captured and imprisoned. The Rosh raised a ransom for Rabbi Meir's release, but Rabbi Meir refused it, for fear of encouraging the imprisonment of other rabbis. Thereafter, the Rosh assumed Rabbi Meir's position as Chief Rabbi of Worms. Shortly thereafter he was forced to emigrate due to extortion attempts by Germany Monarchy. After leaving Germany, the Rosh first settled in southern France, and then in Toledo, Spain, where he became Chief Rabbi on the recommendation of Rabbi Solomon ben Aderet (RaShBA) The Rashba was the star pupil of Nahmanides. – he took the place of Nahmanides after Nahmanides' disputation in Barcelona. By appointing Asher ben Yehiel as Chief Rabbi, this allowed the Rashba to focus his angst upon Maimonides' works.

The Rosh took the place of the Rashba...and in turn the children of the Rosh continued the Rashba's Anti-Maimonidean campaign....which, in turn reflects Nahmanides' anti-Maimonidean proclivities. The development of Esoteric Kabbala, which was to dominate Jewish thought for the next five centuries, is directly rooted in the Nahmanides' writings. The interaction, friction, and clash of Aristotelian rationalism (Maimonidean Judaism), and Tosafist Chasidut (Ashkenazi Chasidut) thought, a process in which the influence of the Ramban was decisive, was at its height in those years.

The intellectual pedigree of S&P Jewry is multi-dimensional – There are many texts that prescribe Halacha – most notably the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides. Once we understand that the Shulchan Aruch was written in a troubled time, rife with bias, we can better appreciate the fact that Maimonides' works should be scrupulously studied FIRST – then study the Shulchan Aruch for what it is.

According to Rabbi Dr. Jose Faur: "...the anti-Maimonideans brought about the spiritual, intellectual and material collapse of Iberian Jewry. Erroneously, some, particularly “the best and the wisest” that could not accept pretentious and incoherent blathering as a substitute for “Torah,” chose to defect to escape the madness reigning in the Juderías. This is how R. Moses Arragel described the situation in Spain in 1422, about one hundred and fifteen years after the anti-Maimonideans succeeded in installing the inerrantly pious disciples of Yehudah heHAsid in the rabbinate of Toledo" -

The Jews of Castile in the past prospered and were the crown and garland of all the Jewish diaspora. Now our best and wisest children have left us. Nothing remains of our science... and at the riverbed whose waters once carried ships, there cannot be found today even small brooks. Our science has thus vanished.

"The final unfolding of the ministry of the inerrantly pious Ashkenaz Hasidim took place in 1492, when the last Chief Rabbi of Spain chose to convert to Christianity rather than to join his brethren in the Expulsion under the stifling influence of Chasidut-infused Esoteric Kabbalistic methods and Halachic interpretation".

so, as we see, the Shulchan Aruch is NOT a canonical text; in fact one could argue that it is an audit of "practices du jour" in Medieval Spain, Germany and France rather than a methodical exploration of Talmud and Tanach. Since there are no movements in Sephardi Judaism, Sephardim are free to use the texts determined by Hachamim of their respective communities...reflecting a rich heritage and diversity within Sephardic Judaism which does not require divisions.

The new David Biale book is divided into 3 sections, G-d, Torah, Israel. For each he shows how modern Jewish secularism reread traditional religious sources "against their grain" to establish a new tradition with historical precedents. The first chapter, G-d, divides into the secular heirs of Rationalism and Maimonides - the Athiests, versus the secular heirs of Kabbalah - the Pantheists, comprising Scholem, Bialik and Kafka. While in the 17th century, pre-Hasidic Kabbalah posed the greatest danger of heresy in Judaism, today I estimate that Rationalism poses the greatest danger of heresy. I feel that Kabbalah-Hasidism is less likely to lead to secularism, and if it does, there is more hope of return. Both calculations are sharpened by my view that if Kabbalah is understood through Habad Hasidism (and to lesser degree by Nachman of Breslav's amazing imaginative 13 Tales) the possibility of unfairly reaching secular conclusions is reduced - as much as is possible in our time. Some will always err. (Therefore my "ideal model of thinking" on my User page)

Hello April8 - It is a peculiar phenomenon of religious orthodoxy to equivocate secularism with assimilation. I think Orthodox Jewry have forgotten what Secularism means:

In the Galut secularism means: separation of a government, organisation or institution from religion and/or religious beliefs - a position which affords Religious Jews much freedom and protection from antagonistic religious majorities.

In Israel it means: Conflict over the definition of "Who is a Jew" and no protection of Jews from others Jews. Is it possible to be a Religious Jew in Israel who recognizes the need for separation if church and state...and not be a Zionist? Yesheyahu Leibowitz is a great example of an Orthodox Jew who called for separation of Religion and State. One need not be anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist, to recognize a sensible path in Israel.

Some Religious Orthodox Jews beat the drum that Secularism is the same as atheism or assimilation - this is a position of dogmatic ignorance. Ben-Gurion, who was not religious, loved to challenge religious delegates in Beit Knesset with his knowledge of the Bible. He was wont to quote from Psalm 24: "Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? Those who have clean hands and pure hearts." After reciting this passage, he would turn to the Orthodox members of parliament and say with a smirk, "According to these criteria, you're no more religious than I or my party colleagues are!"

It is an imaginary polemic to equate secularism to atheism or assimilation. Its principal proponents are a group of thinkers who have been active since the 1970s. This group includes the historians Yehuda Bauer and Amos Funkenstein, the writers Amos Oz and S. Yizhar, thinkers such as Menachem Brinker and Gershon Weiler, and the politicians and former government ministers Yair Tzaban and Shulamit Aloni. These Israelis present the views of "Humanistic Judaism".

These intellectuals share a common view of secularism, defining it in opposition to religious practices and practitioners. Their secularism consequently finds expression in a confrontation with what they perceive to be the values and ways of life of Orthodox Jews. This antagonism gives their discourse a strong polemical character, despite the fact that they rarely initiate an actual exchange of ideas with the religious public.

This imaginary polemic has narrowed the terms of debate and discussion regarding secularism in Israel, so much so that some infer it has actually prevented the development of a serious discourse over this critical aspect of Jewish life and Jewish identity, both for secular Jews and for Israeli society in general. Does secularism require a rejection of religion and of a way of life based on Jewish tradition, as numerous post Zionist thinkers suggest? Alternatively, is its purpose, instead, a renewal of the relationship with Jewish tradition? If it aspires to such a renewal, what will be the content of this relationship? will is be an insistence upon a Religious state rivaling it's heavy handed Islamic neighbors? Or will it remain as it is?

1. KABBALAH AND HASIDISM VS SECULARISM: I may be acused in the balance of this estimation of Kabbalah over Philosophy versus contemporary secularism of not having learned Medieval Jewish Philosophy. However, its not for lack of wanting to! I wish I had your knowledge! I've got a number of academic books on Jewish philosophy, both Medieval and Modern, including the History of Jewish Philosophy - Routledge History of World Philosophies by Daniel Frank and Oliver Leaman - all so far unread! I think Kabbalah offers 1 strong rebuttal of Jewish secularism and Hasidism another 1:

A) KABBALAH: Kabbalah's exegesis of a 4th PaRDeS level in each Torah verse argues intellectually convincingly for the Divine perfection of all verses, including the seeminigly mythological, and a less apologetic view of Mitzvot ritual than the Rationalists could - since each detail of each Mitzvah in Lurianic Kabbalah has a systematic Divine effect in elevating the exiled sparks. The exegetical Torah verse hermeneutics of Tamudic and Midrashic thought is more vulnerable without fortification from Kabbalah to demolishment in the face of the critical studies of Biblical and Rabbinic texts (Conservative and Reform movements). The claim of validity for Kabbalah textual exegesis emerges analogously like a theory in Physics, through the "empirical" beauty and comprehensive self-consistency of its textual claims. This claim strengthens with progressive depth of consistency in a person's appreciation of its mystical gematriot, letter permutations etc. as evidence supporting its grand metatheories, and denying human authorship of Torah

Hello April8 - I want to register my disappointment with your comparison of esoteric textual interpretation with the Rational science of Physics - The claim of validity for Kabbalah textual exegesis emerges analogously like a theory in Physics, through the "empirical" beauty and comprehensive self-consistency of its textual claims. I have studied esoteric methods of many flavors I want to be blunt in my response to your comparison of Kabbalah to Physics.

Anthropocentric theology (like anthropocentric science) is guides by human projecting human attributed upon the inanimate and/or unexplainable; it pertains to the realm of human imagination rather than the Divine. Within esoteric Lurianic Kabbalistic methods is a nuanced goal of demolition of a person;s ego to arrive at an anthropocentric form of mystical experience filled with effusive imagery yet lacking roots in Jewish Canon. In certain cases, arguably extreme cases, this leads to what some Kabbalists describe as a mystical union with Hashem! Before I launch into a polemic about that proposition, I want to elucidate my position even more clearly.

The natural outcome of the journey, whereby a person seeks demolition of the ego by claiming their ego was absorbed into a divine entity, is conversely explainable as the claiming that aspects the Divine entity was absorbed by their ego. Regardless of how you look at it, both examples are extreme forms of dissolution and the self and unbridled omnipotence of thought - and we already discussed the fallacy of thought. Therefore, I will go so far as to assert that both actions are endemic to the same narcissistic experience...an experience which demonstrably leads people to describe themselves as Mashiach, or someone in league with Mashiach.

Now here is a fact often overlooked by Jews, regardless of stream, who subscribe to the supremacy of their thoughts and use of esoteric Kabbalistic methods. 1260-1327 was a German Dominican Gnostic Mystic (Catholic Kabbalist) whose theology followed that of another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas, but it also incorporated a heavy dose of Neoplatonic thought. His teachings on the union of the soul with God led to accusations of pantheism, a charge also made against the Rhineland mystics who followed him. In 1327 the Avignon Pope John XXII summoned Eckhart to defend himself against accusations of heresy. Eckhart recanted on some 26 articles (or propositions), but a papal bull issued in 1329 to condemn Eckhart's teaching named 28. What was his Heresy?

"If therefore I am changed into G-d and He makes me one with myself, then, by the living G-d the is no distinction between us". He went even further to explain - "By knowing G-d, I take him into myself; by loving G-d I penetrate him."

As you can see, anthropocentric theology is readily errant - regardless of creed (See ); if you cannot explain the difference between esoteric Kabbalistic methods of the Zohar compared to the Kabbalistic methods of Sufis based upon Sirr al-asrar then perhaps studying what differentiates Jewish Mysitcism from other forms is a better rational pursuit than beating your head against the wall of Maimonidean Judaism.

The views of Christian Gnostics, Gnostic Sufi, and Jewish Gnostics are not that far from each other in a subjective comparison...in order to arrive at knowledge on the subject you'll have to apply rational methods of exegesis. You may find that Judaism, Islam and Christian mystics shared a common Gnostic roots in Spain - where they formulated their methods using different lexicons...but arriving at the same outcome in pursuit of demolition of the ego and claims of communion with the holy spirit, Allah or Hashem, respectively..

B) HASIDISM: Hasidism's location of esoteric Kabbalistic metaphysics in a more encompassing Divine Omnipresence, as the Atzmus page I hope (if I have time) will explain, gives a different, strong intellectual case against contemporary secular readings of Jewish texts. The strength of this case builds on top of the foundation of Kabbalah's case, but differs in that it changes the perspective from the human viewpoint to the Divine viewpoint. This is termed in Habad thought Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton - (the new page is hopelesly bad at the moment!) Where Kabbalah argues a hopefully convincing intellectual evidence based on the strength of demonstration of its exegesis, for a transcendent (theoretical) esoteric significance to every verse of Torah, and in theory each person's life, the shift in Hasidism to Divine Perspective in this material immanent World changes the whole landscape of religion-secularism debate to one where the secular (Human perspective - Daat Tachton) is less convincing. This is argued for through mystical faith in the embodiment of Daat Elyon in the Hasidic doctrine of the Tzadik, who demonstates a faith case in the Lurianic significance of every wandering common Jew through the countiside (the Hasidic view of particular Divine Providence in Judaism). Mainstream Hasidism requires the presence of the Tzadik by his miraculous powers and foresight (as exemplified in Hasidic stories) to demonstate the truth of Divine Omnipresence and the unreality of Daat Tachton. Consequently, with the decline of great leadership, the dynamic era of Mainstream Hasidism began declining from the early 19th century. Habad intellectual systemisation, embodied in its Maamarim (Chabad) (New underveloped page. Hopefully will eventually present the intellectual and spiritual nature of Habad Maamarim - man's intellectual faculty demonstating convincingly the hyper-reality of spirituality) demonstates Daat Elyon, and against secular thought, with an intellectual case within accessable Torah exegesis, from each Habad Rebbe's exegetical Maamarim. If Daat Elyon is able to be demonstated as the Atzmus-Yechidah level of each Torah verse exegesis (the 5th source essence level - Four Worlds#Correspondences - only refered to in Kabbalah as "Sod she'b' Sod"), then there is a hopefully convincing intellectual case for the Divinity of Torah and Rabbinic Judaism

1. TALMUDISM, RATIONALISM AND WISSENSCHAFT VS SECULARISM: In summation, I hope that I've layed out that my advocacy of a) Kabbalah and b) Hasidism derives from philosophical-intellectual consideration of Jewish religion vs secularism, and my fear is that Philosophical Orthodox Rationalism, as well as mainstream Talmudism, is more vulnerable to intellectual attack - though it still has a certain strength of case: eg. I was recently reading the Artscroll biography of Samson Raphael Hirsh and his 2 battles against a) Reform, and b) Wissenschaft des Judentums, Zakarias Frankel's Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau, and the emergence of future Conservative Judaism. He gave a vigorous case, though other Orthodox figures embraced a qualified Wissenschaft des Judentums within Orthodoxy, Azriel Hildesheimer and the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary. Personally I prefer their qualified synthesis approach. Notice I've added two image boxes to my User:April8 page section Judaism, on Torah im Derech Eretz and Modern Orthodoxy. WAIT....LAST BIT.... April8 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read your words with careful and thoughtful examination. By reading your summation, I understand your reasons for asserting that "Philosophic Orthodox Rationalism as well as mainstream Talmudism, is more vulnerable to intellectual attack".

To be clear, by their very definition, esoteric Kabbalistic methods will not draw rational intellectual attacks. You fail to note that the Vilna Gaon was a rationalist whose sphere of learning was Jewish Canon within a wholly Jewish realm - he differs from Maimonides, in this regard, because Maimonides moved freely among Muslim and Christian worlds of Spain...Maimonides studied Galen, and changed forever the practice of Medicine, he studied Averroes and changed forever the practice of Religous Judaism.

In closing, I want to thank you for your colorful and interesting posts. It helps me understand better how we can both be Jews yet be gravely divided by a common heritage, language, religion, Musar, and world-view. Shabbat Shalom, April8, may your fast be easy; Hayyim Yermiyahu --Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for your replies...I'll conclude next week, perhaps after Tishah B'Av. There is one thing I've realised I must emphasise now: my aim in our helpful, lengthy correspondences before, and now, is not to proselytise (that would be naive and arrogant amongst other things). Rather, also like my ideosyncratic method of early anarchic advocacy editing (not good!), it is a (perhaps O.K. - temporarily) ideosyncratic method of contributing to the topics of Jewish mysticism and philosophy. I'll make these present posts the last such between us, as I'll have explained my advocacy of mysticism completely. Any future correspondence after that, if the need would arise, would therefore only need to briefly suggest ways forward, to the point - no more analysis! I add this comment today, because I realised that I'm really sorry for this ideosyncratic, philosophical-analytical, intrusive, exhaustive (and probably exhausting to you!) correspondence approach, but it too seems to me the only faulty way I can presently "contribute" as I lack your expertise in Philosophy, and also lack psychological strength of character to contribute in a more direct-editing "normal" method! So, I really wanted to explain today, perhaps despite initial appearances, why my intrusive correspondence method is not out of proselytising arrogance! (not that you suggested it was! - I just realised my embarassment that my method could mistakenly appear as such! - since it involves obsessive repetition of the themes of Kabbalah, Hasidism and Habad, each time my intended aim being to articulate a different philosophical-nuanced point) So, I promise (beli neder), these analytical posts will be the last substantive correspondence of this sort from me for the future! Also, I've got a nice surprise for you at the end....next week! Best wishes Shabbat Shalom! April8 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to other-languages' wikipedia articles

Great new content on Oldest synagogues in the world! Instead of using a full URL to, for example, fr.wikipedia.org, you can use the automatic interwiki syntax. Makes the articles more portable and easier for third-party parsers to handle. See for example [1]. Alternately, if you do use full URLs, you definitely should not use a vertical bar to separate the link from the visible text (vertical bar is for wikilinks, a simple space is for external links). Otherwise the bar is included in the link, and "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue_d%27Avignon|" is not the correct target. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, Thank you for the help posting links to wiki pages of different languages. I am happy to help with this page - I'm going through my notes and adding all of the early medieval and late antiquity Synagogues from my notes. I have more to add on Narbonne, Septimania, and the Atlantic coasts of Spain, France and Africa. Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Temporary correspondence conclusion for now

Sorry for the delay - enormous problems in real life! My aim to make the current correspondence a completing overview conclusion of all apects of Philosophy-Kabbalah issues and relevances will have to be put on hold until I have more time! Then I hope to cover the rest of the topic, including responses to your helpful comments. That would just leave one more correspondence topic to possibly cover, clarification of Philosophy-Hasidic thought (ie. Habad alone), on a further occasion. The aim of these discussions (as I intended all our previous correspondence to ultimately lead to) would be clarification and resulting contribution to the textual content on the two mainpages Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah, plus additionally the side benefit of understanding your interesting and helpful viewpoint. In the meantime, I'll briefly summarise some other things, including above all the "nice surprise" to begin with instead!

Hello April8, good to see you back - I trust your fast was easy.

I will respond thoughtfully to each of your points. You've typed many words here and I need to sort it out. Look for responses to begin in a few days; as before, my responses will be embedded within the body of your commentary.

Jimharlow99 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1. THE (HOPEFULLY!) "NICE SURPRISE": In 2009, when I suggested your inclusion of tables on the Jewish philosophy page listing the Medieval philosophers acording to school etc, I had in mind a particular such table I have seen. The book "Back To The Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts" edited by Barry W. Holtz (1986) is "the first (only) complete modern guide to the great books of the Jewish tradition, what they are and how to read them - written by today's leading scholars." Each chapter, by a leading academic in the respective field, covers a different part of the traditional classic library of Judaism: Individual chapters on Biblical law, Biblical narrative, Biblical poetry, Talmud, Midrash, Halacha, Medieval Jewish philosophy, Medieval Bible commentaries, Kabbalah, Hasidic texts, Liturgy. The chapter on Medieval Jewish Philosophy by (I think) Norbert Samuelson is divided into two parts: first a full chronological overview of the historical development of Medieval Jewish philosophy, its nature, and its background; second are textual examples with commentary of representative topics in Medieval Jewish philosophy. The first half contains the table - a comprehensive, elaborate and elegant summation listing the major figures and their major work, lined up chronologically, grouped according to geographical location (Eastern Caliphate, Western Caliphate etc), and grouped according to philosophical-scientific background (Kalam, Neoplatonism and Aristotle - whether in support or opposition eg. Crescas). To put it on wikipedia would require a more advanced code than the standard table feature, as while the verticle lines continue without interruption, the horizontal lines don't all align. I have wanted for a long time to send it to you, but probably won't have the time for...a few years! It could either be incorporated into the main Jewish philosophy page, or become the centrepiece of a new Medieval Jewish philosophy: Primary Texts page, paralleling Kabbalah: Primary Texts. I had intended in sending it to you, to list afterwards a distillation of relevant points from the first chronological section of the chapter. These helpful additional words include the authors' singling out of one/two works from each geographical location/school as having been the most influential, the addition outside the table of one/two extra figures of historical importance, careful distinguishment in historical context of terms like "philosophy", "theology" and "science" from their later/contemporary connotations, etc...Due to lack of time, I'm now describing it to you instead, though if you don't take up the suggestion, I'll.......eventually (don't wait for it) do so myself! The clarity and concision of the chapter would likely offer insight to even the most seasoned student of Jewish philosophy - analogous to Negative theology: what a master scholar includes or excludes is itself insightful! So the text itself might offer suggestions for further improvement/clarification of Medieval Jewish philosophy text.
2. BBC RADIO "IN OUR TIME" ARCHIVE: You may be interested in Melvyn Bragg's topical discussions with academics "In Our Time" Audio Archive of past programs, 45 minutes each, including Maimonides and Spinoza.
3. "TOLEDANO TRADITION": An earlier question of yours referenced the page link Toledano tradition as a term for early Kabbalah, and as I incorporated in the Template:Kabbalah history section. I saw - either on that page's talk page or Kabbalah's talk page that it seems this term is not recognised academically, but is the reference term used by Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi in his New Age popularisation of early Medieval Kabbalah. N.B. similarly, the Kabbalah template history section doesn't yet distinguish between the academic definition of Kabbalah (beginning with the Bahir in the 11-12th centuries) from pre-Kabbalah mysticism, or later modern-contemporary Hasidism.
4. JEWISH PHILOSOPHY TEMPLATE: I recently (anonymously) shortened the two descriptive sections, particularly the cumbersome and ill-defined first one. Now it seems to me to be more inclusive of all definitions of "Jewish philosophy", whether religious or merely carried out by non-religious Jews (strictly not "Jewish philosophy", but some such figures, such as Spinoza, seem to me to fall under the category of "Jewish philosophy" as some of his work also discusses Judaism in rejection, and influenced later more religious Jewish philosophers). The new caption also defines Jewish philosophy as use of Western philosophy methodology, as some Eastern religions' philosophies may have looser definitions of the term "Philosophy". Also, each of the template's three sections are now linked and shortened. I also added a comment on Template talk:Jewish philosophy that the template could be reformatted by someone in a collapsing design.
5. MAIMONIDES ON KABBALAH PAGE: My contribution to the text of Kabbalah page has been minimal. I did previously try to add commentary about the anachronistic quote of Rambam on the page, "The foundation of all foundations, and the pillar of all wisdom..", to point out its contrasting historical context in relation to Kabbalah, as there was little reason for its confusing inclusion on the page. My attempt led to someone sending me the Chabad.org link I sent you earlier about Chabad's minority view of Rambam studying Kabbalah. That led my attempt at commentary to remain anachronistic and less helpful for the page's overview section. I've noticed that Talk:Kabbalah had previously discussed a better solution: replacing the quote with a classic passage from Kabbalah outlining its conception of G-d (eg "Patach Eliyah" from the Zohar: 10 Sefirot etc). I don't have the time to follow up on this minefield. Regarding the minority view of Rambam secretly being a student of Kabbalah, and only adopting Rationalism as a means to an end, outlined in the Chabad link and also held by some other mystics (eg. statements like Creation flowing "from the truth of His Being", eg. more involved commentary by Chabad Rebbes), I know that Gershom Scholem wrote a Hebrew paper (innaccessable to me) on "the Kabbalistic legend of the Rambam as a student of Kabbalah. I notice also that the Chapter in Back to the Sources on Medieval Jewish philosophy mentions the diversity of academic opinions about Rambam's enigmatic philosophical work. It says that "of those who see a difference between the Rambam as a Rabbinic jurist and as a philosopher, some see him as really an Aristotelian purist, and others as really a Rabbinic devotee, while some have suggested he was a mystic in a particular tradition - I can't remember the exact words - perhaps Sufi? However, most see no contradiction."
6. VILNA GAON, MITNAGDIM AND RATIONALISM: You said "you fail to note that the Vilna Gaon was a rationalist whose sphere of learning was Jewish Canon within a wholly Jewish realm - he differs from Maimonides, in this regard.." As far as I currently understand, I think the term "Rationalist" (with a big R) here is strictly misplaced, as Mitnagdim and contemporary Litvish Jews believe in and revere Kabbalah (up to and including Luria, but excluding Hasidism), and their elite publish Kabbalistic commentaries, according to the pre-Hasidic view of Kabbalah for the over 40, Talmudically expert etc. They are remote from Medieval Jewish philosophy (excluding the popular Duties of the Heart for its pietistic mussar), without opposing it as Romantic-Emotional Mainstream Hasidism does (excluding Habad's intellectualist theosophical inclusivity and Ger's emphasis on non-mystical texts). I personally am disinclined and upset by Mainstream Hasidism's anti-philosophical trend, which reached its zenith in Nachman of Breslav (though I love his artistic imagination). I think Mitnagdim-Litvish are better described as "Talmudic" and "sceptical". They dismissed and scorned Hasidism's grand mystical claims of Tzadik worship, its shifting deveikut to become the central principle of Judaism, its celebration of non-scholars for their piety (rooted in the Hasidic focus on Divine soul essence equal to all but more accessible to the simple), its emphasis on perceived panentheism - though the main Mitnagdic theorist Chaim Volozhin didn't disagree with this panentheism absolutely as the Norman Lamm book (Torah Lishmah, also summarised in his Faith and Doubt) I quoted earlier explains - my paraphrase:

Both Chaim Volozhin (main Mitnagdic theorist) and Shneur Zalman of Liadi (main Hasidic theorist) retain a Judaism with both polarities of Monism-Pluralism in Creation, and Immanence-Transcendence of G-d. The difference between them lies in where they put the emphasis, rooted in different subtle interpretations of Lurianic Kabbalah. To Schneur Zalman and Hasidism, Divine Immanence is Pluralistic (the "Lower Unity")-this World, allowing joyful emphasis on the immanent nearness of G-d to all and in all things, in daily Jewish life. Divine Transcendence is Monistic (the "Upper Unity") acosmically nullifying Creation within G-d into non-existence (Ein Od Milvado-"There is nothing outside of Him"). The paradox of both polarities is upheld.

Chaim Volozhin and Mitnagdism, reverses the equation. To Chaim Volozhin, Divine Immanence ("the way G-d looks at the World") is Monistic, acosmically nullifying Creation into non existence in the true-absolute Divine perspective. Divine Transcendence ("the way man looks at-relates to G-d") is Pluralistic, relating to all the different, separate individual objects of this World. Consequently, the danger of mystical blurring of boundaries, possible (but not legitimised/allowed) in Hasidism, is "kicked upstairs" in Mitnagdism. Halachic rules of pure and impure retain their direct perceived relevance. Man relates to the sober remoteness-transcendence of G-d. Halachic Judaism predominates. Only in one instance does Chaim Volozhin allow the Upper perspective to encroach, and that is in prayer, when the elite, through Kabbalah, attempt to perceive Creation's absolute nullification into non-existence from G-d's persective.

Associated with this difference are their different interptetations of Lurianic Kabbalah. I think: To Schneur Zalman, Teshuvah is rooted higher than Torah, before the Tzimtzum (this relates to the Hasidic theology of Atzmus and the Divine Soul of the Jew "Part of G-d", a central explicit Hasidic theology, only implicit in Kabbalah). Prayer can predominate over Torah study in Hasidism - in some aspects. Chaim Volozhin extends pre-Hasidic Talmudism and Kabbalah to the greatest historical mystical emphasis on Torah study as an end in itself. He roots Torah above all, before the Tzimtzum. Consequently, Talmudic study reaches supreme ideological emphasis in the history of Judaism. His Yeshivah and the Lithuanian Yeshivah movement it began left Kabbalah out of the regular curriculum. Likewise he opposed pre-Mussar movement Mussar focus as it detracted time from Talmud, causing the later Mussar movement opposition in being accepted, which it became, due instead more to the threat of Haskalah. In Beshtian Hasidism onwards, "Torah Lishmah" - for its own sake - became learning Torah for the sake of deveikut ("seeing the light in the letters" in the Baal Shem Tov's words). To Chaim Volozhin, Torah Lishmah means learning Torah for the sake of the Mitzvah of intellectual understanding itself.

This difference is in Lurianic Kabbalah. From the Habad view (rooted in Atzmus)-Yechidah-Hasidut is the fifth level, above Kabbalah. Maamarim (Chabad) only utilise Kabbalistic (and Philosophical) terminology when they want to explain them "in light of Hasidut". Many discourses, and Habad Hasidic thought in essence, transcends Kabbalah and avoids refering to its terminology. Instead they describe aspects of the soul/Divine relation to Creation, directly in relation to man - "with pilpul" in Habad discourse learning of Hasidut according to the aim of the 5th Rebbe in founding the Lubavitch yeshivah system. According to the theology of Yechidah, "essence permeates all while remaining distinct". Consequently, due to the higher Divine source of Hasidut in essential Yechidah-Will/Delight (as opposed to Kabbalah-Chayah-Chochmah Wisdom), it can descend lower into human emotions (Mainstream Hasidic faith) and intellect (Habad), into immanent pereception (Hasidism's stress on Divine immanence), while Kabbalah (Mitnagdic Lurianism's stress on Divine transcendence) remains transcendent.

Chaim Volozhin, the main pupil of the Vilna Gaon, brought the Gaon's more practical opposition to Hasidism into this systemised mystical theology in his Nefesh Hachaim (the response to the Tanya). His opposition was more ideologically principled, but at the same time also less vociferous. Both Chaim Volozhin and Schneur Zalman were theorising their camps and principles, while also seeking healing of the rift. In Kabbalah: A very short introduction, Joseph Dan says that "there is no truth to the popular notion that Mitnagdism was more Rationalist (strict Medieval Philosophical definition of the term eg. proving G-d from first principles). Instead, the Hasidic-Mitnagdic schism can be seen as a conflict raging within Lurianic Kabbalah. The Mitnagdim were faithful to the former version, while Hasidism introduced new notions in its interpretation of Kabbalah, particularly new notions of mystical leadership (Hasidic doctrine of the Tzadik as Divine "intermediarry who connects" all to G-d rather than idolatrous "intermediarry who separates" becoming an end in himself), which was indeed foreign to all other Jewish streams." In The Jewish Religion: A Companion (entry on Vilna Gaon), Louis Jacobs describes the Gaon as opposed to Medieval Philosophical Rationalism, while supporting Scientific study within Torah. "The Vilna Gaon had no use for philosophy. In a comment on the Shulchan Aruch he attacks the Rambam for his denial of demons, incantations and amulets. It quotes him describing the Rambam as being "misled by the accursed philosophy". The Vilna Gaon, rather, was squarely a Kabbalist, with all the possible conflicts with Medieval Philosophical speculation that might engender. Paradoxically, the Habad Rebbes became more pro-Rationalist than him (if interpreted "in light of Hasidic thought"), as through Habad intellectual systemisation of the Yechidah-fifth level, Medieval Jewish Philosophy can be united, together with the other aspects of historical Judaism, as one necessary aspect of Hasidic thought (a manifestation that comments on the essence).

1. MODERN ORTHODOXY AND RATIONALISM: Nonetheless, all the foregoing does not compromise the colloquial definition of the term "rationalist". As sceptics, sober intellectual dismissers of Hasidism, judging all in light of Talmud (rather than Philosophy, whether Medieval or Modern), Mitnagdic/Litvish Judaism is rationalist. The strict term "Rationalist" instead applies to Modern Orthodox Judaism, and even more to Conservative Judaism, which is fully open to secular versions of Modern Rationalism.
2. CRITICISM OF KABBALAH AND DIVERSITY OF JUDAISM: Sorry, I didnt mean to imply earlier that the criticism sections of Kabbalah on the pages Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah were "unfair" in an absolute sense. They are necessary, helpful and informative (covering such basic problems as Jewish soul superiority). I only meant that they lacked either balance, context, or perhaps point of view style. I hope my own writing is improving in style! eg. I recently changed the introduction paragraphs to Moshe Cordovero and Isaac Luria pages, replacing my former biased, poor style with, I hope, better descriptive summarisation. What I meant rather, was that an uninformed reader might summise from these two pages that Kabbalah alone engendered criticism, and was necessarily deeply problematic, dangerously heretical, or marginalised in historical Judaism, rather than becoming the normative traditional mainstream in the plural diversity of the Jewish mind and spirit. I personally think that the diversity of Judaism causes new dimensions of Jewish depth to emerge. In every controversy for the sake of Heaven, as a general principle I think that the full expression of both sides, perhaps with some qualifications, causes the genius of Judaism to become enriched. Eg. Mitnagdism gave birth to the Mussar Movement with its unique subdivisions; eg. Modern Orthodoxy opens up new possibilities of scholarship and unity with Non-Jewish Wisdom; eg. the rebellion of Przysucha from Mainstream Hasidic Tzadikism and mystical focus gave birth to the differing Kotzk, Ishbitz and Ger. In each case unique genius emerged. I would extend this, with greater and more cautious qualification (Abraham Joshua Heschel steering the Jewish Theological Seminary towards greater Halachic traditionalism), to Conservative Judaism, if it could (possible only in theory) avoid Halachic Status matters (Kiddushin, Get and Conversion). Nontheless, I think new Jewish spiritual depths emerge there too, mixed with the problems.
3. BALANCE OF CRITICISM SECTIONS: Next corresondence session, I'll suggest a section surveying the historical Jewish criticism of Rationalism for the Jewish philosophy page, as there is presently no indication that the criticism was not only one way, towards Kabbalah. This would parallel the adjacent Criticism section on Kabbalah mainpage. I have in mind a particular text which I'll send you, to see what you think. You'll notice that it will be descriptive in nature, rather than polemical, as I personally have little appetite for criticism of Philosophy per se. Rather, it summarises the different grounds for opposition. My aim in this would be to balance out the Kabbalah criticism for historical context and comparison, to avoid the previously described mistaken notions of one-way historical criticism. It would also align with my perception of the danger of contemporary Rationalism devoid of Jewish mysticism, and my view of the issues of Secularism (much more development of that, and responses to the previous correspondence next time). It would be more advocacy of Kabbalah, than necessary opposition to philosophy, as I personally am very interested in philosophy (whether Jewish or Non-Jewish). I just love Jewish Mysticism more! And I love a Rationalised Jewish Mysticism most of all!............................................................LAST NOTE: Though, sometimes - just sometimes! - I'm envious of Mainstream Hasidism's emotional exhuberance, Popular Tzadikism, Hitlahavut ("Enthusiam" as opposed to Habad Hitpa'alut "Ecstasy" and Bittul "Self anihilation"), Breslav tales' imagination etc. Habad's "fiery (rather than cold) intellect" still engenders some limitations, as when everything is explained, the Hasidic soul permeates the inner being through being intellectually internalised, but sometimes the heart can yearn to break free a bit! (the heart knows its own poetic secrets) I was talking to a non-Habad Hasid about this, proposing the internalised intellectual advantage of Habad mysticism. Yes, he replied, but in Kabbalah the emotions, while lower, are rooted in a higher soul/Divine source than intellect ("The beginning is wedged in the end, the end is wedged in the beginning"-Sefer Yetzirah). Consequently, they can perceive (like Art) higher truths in an external-encompassing soul manner (Faith, Intuition etc.)

April8 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction

I added a few last wording adjustments and clarifications to the foregoing, including adding the word "very interested in philosophy" at the end! Every field of enquirey in general, and in Torah in particular, engenders its own distinct type-form of beauty and inner emotional content to its ideas. Unfortunately, due to present lack of knowledge of Medieval Jewish philosophy, my emotional appreciation of the particular beauty of Medieval philosophy hasn't yet had a chance to grow - though I have intuitively sensed it's unique flavour: "G-d as the knowledge, the known, and the knower", the expansion and greatness of man's intellectual nobility, the culture of medieval Cordoba, the intellectual and aesthetic history of the time...etc. I hope to seek a plural intellectual and emotional appreciation of Judaism in its variegated disciplines, streams and forms. In one account I read, the last Lubavitcher rebbe in his youth in Dnepopetrovsk grew up with his two brothers, and his father the Chief Rabbi of the city. They were related more distantly to the Lubavitch dynasty: descended from the 3rd Lubavitcher rebbe. In the account, they were discussing at length a Torah concept from three positions: the future Rebbe's father Levi Yitzchak Schneerson was debating the perspective of Kabbalah, the Rebbe's brother the perspective of Hakirah, the future Rebbe the perpective of Hasidut. (In Heaven On Earth: Reflections on the Theology of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe by Faitel Levin, the last Rebbe's theology is contrasted with the 6 preceding Habad Rebbes' Hasidic thought. His Atzmus "Dirah BeTachtonim" theology forms a new, more essential ultimate purpose, cumulatively implicit within previous Habad thought. As an altergether new essence-paradigm, it relates Hasidut to Mashiach and ultimate Atzmus, represented in the last Rebbe's central motto "the main thing is action". - the cumulation of Hasidic immanent focus vs. esoteric Kabbalah's transcendence.) GOT TO GO IMMIDIATELY...I THINK THAT'S APPROX. EVERYTHING. Shabbat Shalom April8 (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jimharlow99. You have new messages at Lukep913's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Luke (Talk) 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very short update!

Hello! How are you doing?! I was sorting through long lost boxes, and found the book "The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy", collecting essays on various topics across different academic perspectives. In paricular, the chapters "Philosophy and Kabbalah 1200-1600", "Judaism and Sufism", and "The end and aftereffects of Medieval Jewish Philosophy" will be essential to help me prepare, in my wish to offer some balance to the criticism of Kabbalah sections on Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah pages. This will take some time...! (especially, as I only get the opportunity to read on Shabbat at the moment!) I'll also really need to read - at least quickly (if philosophy can be read quickly! - ie. to tentatively survey what I'm initially looking for) - the "Routledge History of Jewish Philosophy". Flicking through the former book reinforced the comparable intellectual elitism of Philosophy and Kabbalah, their parallel systematic depth, and - most helpful to me - also those philosophers and kabbalists who saw synthesis and mutual fruition between both disciplines. I tentatively aim to offer 2 future sections on the Jewish philosophy page, when I am minimally learned enough to show them to you:

1. A non-polemical survey of criticism of Philosophical method in Judaism, to counter balance the criticism section of Kabbalah on Kabbalah page - its different reasons for opposition, as well as their parameters, with minimally illustrative examples (I personally exclude myself from most grounds for opposition, as I really desire to study philosophy on its own terms, and to synthesise it with Kabbalah, on Kabbalah's terms). As I mentioned previously, I have a text in mind for this section.
2. Even better for my aims, a second section compiling and illustrating all those philosophers and kabbalists who saw and sought mutual appreciation and synthesis of both methodologies - the Cambridge Companion chapters are essential here. This would refute and counterbalance the dualistic depiction shown by both criticism sections, that philosophy and kabbalah are necessarily opposed.

So, this will take some time...! In the meanwhile - next time - I should be able to find time to reply to our previous correspondence, including my previous comparison of Kabbalah with Physics, involving comparison of methods of knowledge in Philosophy, Physics and Kabbalah (beyond just the exegetical claims of Kabbalists). This would clarify the basis of my advocacy of Kabbalah (and Hasidism), and be the basis of some questions that I don't yet understand about non/anti-Kabbalists!

I've exchanged the image of Spinoza on Template:Jewish philosophy with a different modern Jewish philosopher (Buber, as Rozensweig image unavailable), because Spinoza accurately not Jewish philosophy, but Jewish practitioner of General philosophy.

Best wishes - April8 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dearest April8 - Criticism of esoteric textual interpretation is part-and-parcel of philosophical discourse...it need not be limited to any creed. Esoteric textual interpretations of Gnostic texts of Xtianity are no less peculiar to xtians than esoteric textual interpretations of Jewish Mesora to Jews. That you insist upon pushing your views upon others, by altering the text of "Jewish Philosophy" to suit your desires is especially vexing. Perhaps you can focus your expertise upon the Kabbalah article and leave this article to the consensus of people who study Jewish Philosophers and their concomitant philosophies?

You seemly conflate "Shalshelet haQabbalah" - our unbroken chain of tradition with a gnostic influence textual interpretation...they are not the same. Regardless, the wikipedia page is not the forum to debate your views...or thrust them upon others. The title of the article is "Jewish Philosophy" - Lurianic Kabbalah is not Jewish Philosophy, nor is it a replacement for it. They are two equally valid traditions by which people derive joy in this world. Your sugar is my salt, and vice-versa. There is ample room in the Jewish community for us to exist without being antagonistic.

As regards, Spinoza, you are boldly wrong. Spinoza was born a Jew and died a Jew - an exceptionally brilliant Jew at that. 'Cherem' is the set of Jewish laws that deal with excommunication, although it would be better to understand Cherem as 'shunning' rather than exclusion from membership in the religion. According to the laws of Cherem, a Beit Din can impose a variety of levels of punishment that involve the social and commercial exclusion of an individual from the community. There are specific actions that justify imposition of such punishments, and the details can be found below, but it is interesting to note that Cherem is justified in cases where a person publicly acts in a way that undermines Jewish values. The important point, however, is that a Jew who is subject to even the most severe form of Cherem is still a Jew. Others will be forbidden from interacting with this individual for specified periods of time depending on the seriousness of the offense, but the subject of the punishment is still considered Jewish. It is possible for a Jewish community to exclude an individual from membership in the social organization of its society, and it is even be possible for the State of Israel to withhold the right of return from that individual, but the individual himself would still be considered Jewish. To be clear - a Jew-by-birth who converts to Mormonism is still a Jew-by-birth - this is no less meaningful in the case of Cherem.

Baruch Spinoza is a Jew who expressed a Jewish Philosophy before being declared 'Cherem'; his wiki article will continue to reflect he is a Jew.

Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply from April8

Thanks for swift reply! Sorry if my intention seemed to you of seeking to impose my views on wikipedia. I really don't want the magnificent encyclopedia Wikipedia to reflect limited positions, especially if they are forced! Jewish philosophy page should most certainly be about Jewish Rationalism, not Kabbalah! I welcome the criticism of Kabbalah sections on Kabbalah page - they are most interesting, informative, and helpful. Anything that adds information, context that helps learning, is precisely what improves wikipedia - the most incisive and broadly concise information for a reader coming across the topic! My only concern about the criticism of Kabbalah section (as long as it is written in a non-polemical style) is that it is unbalanced, as there is no comparable criticism of Jewish Philosophy section available to the reader, so he/she may erroneously conclude that criticism goes only one way.

April8 - I dom't presume to speak for Wikipedia, only the page titled "Jewish Philosophy". A wikipedia page focused upon "Jewish Philosophy" is not called "unbalanced", it's called "focused". This is not the arena to equivocate between Rationalistic Jewish Philosophy and esoteric textual interpretation of Jewish texts. If you want to comparison-contrast of these two streams then I would suggest you opoen up a new Wikipedia pagge to promote an oranges-to-apples dialog. You will find yourself being the only contributor because the cognitive dissonance of debating esoteric (arguably subjective) interpretation of Jewish texts with people trained in structured analysis of our Mesora as follows:

Talmud study taking place on any of three levels.

1) The most basic level consists of literary analysis of the text without the help of commentaries, designed to bring out the tzurata d'shema'ta (the logical and narrative structure of the passage).

2) The intermediate level, 'iyyun (concentration), consists of study with the help of commentaries such as Rambam, Rashi, R. Kalonymus, Campanton and the Tosafot.

3) The highest level, halachah (law), consists of collating the opinions set out in the Talmud with those of the halachic codes such as the Mishneh Torah so as to study the Talmud as a source of law.

PROPOSED CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD IN JUDAISM SECTION: For the same reason, surely, adding a criticism of philosophical method in Judaism section would help improve wikipedia (like criticism of Kabbalah section does). The text I have in mind on which to base this is found in the Norman Lamm book "Hasidic Thought: Text and Commentary", in the introductory overview to the section, I think, about faith/reason - he gives a historical (pre-Hasidic) list of some 5 categories/grounds that Medieval and Early-Modern Rabbis from both Talmudic and Kabbalistic backgrounds opposed Philosophy (eg. "Ontological basis", "Practical basis" etc.) Surely, such a non-polemical overview adds crucial, necessary, missing information context to Jewish philosophy page? My particular motivation was initially inspired by the wish to counter-balance the Kabbalah criticism, but after this, the general necessity of including such an important strand in historical Jewish thought seems to me to be helpful and informative in its own right.

Firstly, given the breadth of the field of Jewish Philosophy, it is incumbent upon you to provide narrowly focused criticism of specific aspects. Generalized polemics are not helpful. If you have a problem with Buber, then add it to your NEW wiki page devoted to comparison-contrast between Rationalistic Philosophy and Esoteric textual interpretation.

Secondly, Promoting of one view over another is best handled on your Kabbalah page where people have already "drunk the koolaid"; it has no place in the Jewish Philosophy page.

NECESSARY DUALISM DILEMMA OF COUTER-CRITICISM SECTIONS: However, once I considered the need to include a survey section of criticism of Rationalism in Judaism, this left me with the dilemma that it implies to the reader that the two traditions of Philosophy in Judaism and Kabbalah are necessarily opposed - the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish philosophy chapters show that this was not the case, but that many philosophers and kabbalists saw and sought mutual fruition and synthesis (particularly in latter Rennaisance Jewish philosophy, and in Cordoverian Rennaisance Kabbalah). Sure some interpretations of both traditions saw only opposition between philosophy and Kabbalah (eg. Maimonides' pre-Kabbalistic oppoition to mysticism, latter Rambamists, Dor Daim etc in philosophy, and eg. Mainstream -non Habad- Hasidism, especially Breslav), and Wikipedia should also fully reflect their oppositional understandings and the reasons for them. I felt this dilemma particularly as I personally really desire (yearning for depth, logic, rationalism, investigation of everything) to learn Medieval (and Modern) Jewish philosophy, both on its own terms, and in relation to Jewish mysticism! - so the necessary conflict between philosophy and Kabbalah implied by 2 alternate criticism sections would be overly dualistic on their own. Here I was considering the need to add a criticism of Philosophy section, when it is the opposite of my yearning to learn Jewish philosophy! This then lead to the perceived solution to the dilemma: as well as the criticism of Kabbalah section on Kabbalah page, and as well as the proposed criticism of philosophical method in Judaism section on Jewish philosophy page, so too a 3rd section describing mutual synthesis, interaction and fruition by both philosophers and Kabbalists. Whether this should be put on Jewish philosophy page, or on Kabbalah page is uncertain to me - I would have to read the 3 chapters I mentioned in the Cambridge companion to Medieval Jewish philosophy, I mentioned (it initially seems upon briefly flicking through those chapters that the synthesis takes place in philosophical language and terms, eg. by Rennaisance Jewish philosophers, and so would be most appropriate on Jewish philosophy page.

April8, I am sympathetic to your desires to be academically picayune in exposition of your views - but I think your NEW page dedicated to a comparison-contract would be the best venue for your energies.

SUMMARY: So, this was my reasoning for a) proposing a corresponding criticism of philosophical method in Judaism section, and b) counterbalancing the necessarliy dualism of this oppositional description with the 3rd section of synthesis and harmony. Surely, such a 3rd section would be helpful, necessary and informative to the reader? I just want all historical strands of Jewish thought to be represented, including the crucial criticism of Kabbalah and those philosophers who do not see the possibility of synthesis with Kabbalah, as well as those who do! I want to emphasise that I really do welcome the different criticisms of Kabbalah on Wikipedia - most interesting, informative and helpful for me and others! My objection is only that it is presently unfair/unbalaced/misleading/unhelpful/uninformative by no parallel criticism of Rationalism section (and perhaps by point of view polemical tone).

April8, I think you can be fully expositional in your NEW comparison-contrast page.

SPINOZA - A GREAT JEWISH THINKER IN GENERAL PHILOSOPHY: Regarding Spinoza, I wasn't implying that he ceased to be Jewish! As the Talmud unequivecally rules "Even if a Jew sins, he is still (100%) Jewish" - no question. (Habad thought especially - defiantly?! - relates to the most secular or even anti-religious Jews with loving inclusivism. I get upset by eg. Satmar loosely using the terms Apikoras and Goy to apply to Jews! I get upset by their religion of zealous hostility - especially as they are in the nominative "Hasidic camp" - rather than a religion of love - the ideal especially of the Baal Shem Tov, as well as wider Midrashic and Talmudic examples such as Aaron, Hillel etc.) He also was a great and deep philosopher! Non-Jewish, "General Philosophy" is the subject I most yearn to learn - from Socrates to Neitzche and beyond! It's fascinating, even when its exponents (eg. Hume, Neitzche) oppose theistic belief - I still really desire to understand their depth - crucial insights in even the most anti-religious thinkers! General-Western philosophy is also crucial to understanding every other subject more deeply, eg. the influence of the German Idealists on the English Romantic poets, eg. philosophical implications of Quantum Mechanics, eg. the philosophical foundations of different models in Literary Criticism, eg. relationship betweeen Atheism and modern Philosophy of Biology etc. Regarding Spinoza, I found a paragraph in the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish philosophy citing an academic who excluded Spinoza's thought from the category of "Jewish philosophy", but, instead, includes his thought in the wider category of "General-Non Jewish- Western Philosophical thought". I'll be able to find more academic citations for this view, as I guess it is broadly correct, or at least is the concesus in academia (I remember Louis Jacobs in his Oxford Companion to Judaism, excludes Spinoza's thought in his entry on "Jewish philosophy", but includes him instead under his own entry). April8 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

April8, Spinoza is a Jew, a Jew who articulated a Jewish Philosophy embraced my large streams of contemporary Judaism. Spinoza is a Jew, that is the final word - he remains on the page...regardless of your personal resentment.

Jimharlow99 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding: I don't want Spinoza removed from Jewish philosophy page! I was just explaining why I exchanged his picture with an alternative modernist on the Template:Jewish philosophy. As Spinoza's thought is not accurately in the narrower academic consesus definition of "Jewish philosophy", I merely exchanged his image on the template (but not his listing there!) As a broader loose member of the category "Jewish philosophy", he should be mentioned on the Jewish philosophy page absolutely (perhaps even with image). It's just that I thought the Template:Jewish philosophy should not prominately advertise his thought as "Jewish philosophy" with an image, when the academic consesus excludes his thought from this strict category! I seem to have a curious lack of emotional antagonism when it comes to heresy - no resentment, but plenty of enjoyment, fascination and interest! April8 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kabbalah and Jewish tradition

KABBALAH AND SHALSHELET HAQABBALAH: I fully agree that "Shalshelet haQabbalah" - our unbroken chain of tradition (Written Torah, Oral Torah transmission, Mishnah, Talmud, Geonim, Rishonim, Achronim) is not the same as the Medieval emergence of mystical, gnostic influenced textual interpretation "Kabbalah". Mystical "Kabbalists" appropriated the name from eg. Abraham Ibn Daud's "Sefer Ha-Qabbalah"-"Book of our Tradition". While Haredi Kabbalists and Hasidim would regard mystical Kabbalah as the concealed part of the Oral Torah from Sinai, I'm open to scepticism about this:

HASIDIC MODERN ORTHODOX, NOT HAREDI: I regard myself as Hasidic (Lubavitch) Modern-Orthodox, and as non-Haredi (I think Lubavitch should be wide enough to include full members who are also Modern Orthodox in valuing the study of secular thought for its own sake and the insights of modern academic Jewish studies). I don't share the values of Haredim, but believe in "Torah UMaddah" (Norman Lamm), seeking synthesis with the findings of Jewish secular academia as much as is possible ("qualified synthesis").

ORIGINS OF ZOHAR: I'm open to the academic concesus from Scholem onwards that the Zohar originated with Moses of Leon. Nonetheless, I like the idea that this, I suspect, intellectually pursuasive view can also be reconciled in a mystical way with the traditional attribution of the Zohar to Shimon Bar Yochai: eg. Shimon bar Yochai could be a spiritual mentor "Maggid" to Moses of Leon, in the same way that tradition ascribes the Vilna Gaon debating with the Ari, and the Baal Shem Tov beeing taught by Achiyah Hashiloni. Or, perhaps, Moses of Leon could be a reincarnation of Shimon bar Yochai....etc this sort of imaginative approach. Fully open to academic evidence, but seeking to transcend conflicting views in mystical possibilities.

April8 - Various branches of Christianity and Islam have precisely the same brand of mysticism derived from Jews converting to other creeds and taking their key learnings with them. Judaism is not unique in this regard. The only thing that differs is vernacular and subtle differences in their proposed affect upon the human being. Jews finding mystical inspiration, as in the case of Moses deLeon and Lurianic Kabbalists, is no less, or more, rewarding than a Rationalist finding inspiration in Parmenides, Maimonides, Gersonides or Karl Popper. Sholem's technical arguments regarding origin of the Zohar are inspirational to people such as I for the following reason - our Mesora can and should be able to withstand critical, rational, exegesis and exploration. I refuse to engage in discussions of "Reincarnation" - this concept is not in the Tanakh, Mishnah and Talmud, or Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith - I do not view it as a component of Shalshelet haQabbalah. It is an innovation, alien to the first principles of normative Judaism.

LURIANIC PARALLEL THAT THE TORAH IS EXILED AMONG NATIONS: Therefore, while I identify Medieval and Lurianic Kabbalah with the "concealed part of the Oral Torah from Sinai", this formula would mean just that I regard its esoteric exegesis of Torah verses as authoritative, while the evolutionary intellectual origins of Kabbalah could derive from Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and the new developments of the Kabbalists, particularly Luria. The Kabbalists have a fluid conception of the meaning of the Torah - eg. parallel to Luria's conception that the exile of Shattering took place in G-d's own Persona-Will (in Medieval Kabbalah exile only applies to the Shechinah, Creation's lower perception of false dualism between G-d and the Divine presence), is the parallel Kabbalistic conception that the Torah is also in exile - it needs redeeming from superficial interpretation and the Kelipot. Accordingly, Lurianic sparks of holiness are found exiled in everything, and so too, true ideas of Torah are exiled away from the Jewish people in concealment amongst the Nations. So, eg. when reincarnation was dismissed in pre-Kabbalistic Judaism, its holy spark was exiled in distorted fatalistic form among Eastern religions. Therefore, I like the approach of being fully open to academic Jewish studies findings, while retaining traditionalism through mystical fluidity of possibilities. So, the origins of Kabbalah could draw from Gnosticsm, Neoplatonism, Babelonian angeology etc. while retaining validity. I like the expression of Scholem that one finds in Kabbalah both crude primitive thinking and elevated spiritual conceptions. (The Hasidic Master Mordechai Joseph Leiner of Ishbitz, the most radical of thinkers, develops the concept of redeeming the Torah's understanding from exile, to its limits in personal autonomy of conduct rather than Halachah, and absolute Divine determinism of all affairs of man).

April8 - Gnosticism and Babylonian angelology are not a part of Shalshelet haQabbalah. Neoplatonism was rejected because it conflicted with creation ex-nihilo, therefore not a part of Shalshelet haQabbalah.

LIMITATIONS OF SYNTHESIS APPROACH: I seek this sythesis of academia with traditionalism because I desire so much the intellectual depths of modern Jewish studies and secular disciplines! This then leaves open the whole question of Conservative Jewish theology versus Modern Orthodox Jewish theology - fascinating questions around which ultimately all else in Judaism revolves. How open can I be to applying this openess to secular Jewish studies when it applies to the Written Torah versus Biblical Criticism - which is why I covered Louis Jacobs, the Yeshivah University Orthodox Forum seminar on "Modern studies in the study of Torah" book, James Kugel's synthesis, Yitzchak Ginsburgh's Science in Kabbalah etc. in our previous corresondence citations. And, if I'm not so open to synthesis here, on what intellectual grounds do I justify myself! I suspect, rightly, that I'll always retain absolute belief in the Divine authority of Written Torah through Moses, through a fluid Kabbalistic synthesis approach where necessary (which is why I advocate Kabbalah), but I do enjoy entertaining the most heretical lines of enquirey! SECULAR JUDAISM AND TRUTH: Some of my favourite thoughts presently are the hidden good within the Haskalah, anti-Rabbinism, secular Jewish culture, Yiddish literature, Kafka, Mahler, Wissenschaft des Judentums, Zionism, Anarchism, Bundism. I reject Haredi narrow thinking through the fluid possibilites of radical Hasidic thought. The heretical thoughts in secular Jewish thought could contain the exiled depths of artistic, philosophic, academic, intellectual redemption.

April8 - synthesis of Academia and Tradition has been a component of our tradition since Moshe was tutored by Yitro and Pharaoh's teachers - perhaps even before those times. It is sufficient, as espoused by Rabbi Dr Jose Faur and Rabbi Dr Yeshiyahu Liebowitz, to simply accept the Yoke of Halacha because Torah l'Moshe m'Sinai commands us to do so. It is enough to accept the Halachot without expectation of changing any other part of the world except that which is found in our own minds...there is no payoff; there is no magical insight as reward for being an observant Jew. We are Jews, "Chosen" to observe Torah l'Moshe m'Sinai...there is nothing special about us beyond the fact that we are commanded to be a light among the nations by our example using Torat l'Moshe m'Sinai as a Charter for Mankind's role in this world.

We need not justify anything - Hakira has always been with us. There is no heresy until it draws Jews to ignore, or compels them to flee, Torat l'Moshe m'Sinai and compels them to shed their obligations under Torah observance.

Therefore, for sure, Kabbalists appropriated their name from Talmudic chain of transmission, but perhaps this approbation was necessary to redeem Torah from constrained exile and reveal the hidden depths of the Divine Will into progressive philosophical treatment. Surely this places a constrained view of Philosophical Rationalism at a disadvantage, as it presupposes the inability of G-d to reveal hidden dimensions into man's intellectual grasp. Whatever limitations one applies to G-d constrain the field of enquirey. When Einstein told Bohr, "G-d does not play dice with the Universe", Bohr replied, "don't tell G-d what to do". April8 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

April8 - I caught myself giggle when I read this portion of your last paragraph "perhaps this approbation was necessary to redeem Torah from constrained exile and reveal the hidden depths of the Divine Will into progressive philosophical treatment. Surely this places a constrained view of Philosophical Rationalism at a disadvantage, as it presupposes the inability of G-d to reveal hidden dimensions into man's intellectual grasp."

On these pointa you and I could not be further apart. Your assume your premise is correct, you assume there are "hidden depths of the Divine Will", then proceed to conflate that with "philosophical treatment". I would argue that you chase a mirage by assuming there are "hidden depths of Divine will" and that there are secret techniques for ferreting out a better understanding of secret depths. You presume to know that there are depths to begin with - what if those depths are simply in your head and no one else's...then what is the quantitative or qualitative sum of that knowledge? Yourself? Maimonides once wrote something to the effect that "The creation of man is meant metaphorically. G-d created man as an expression of free will; we are granted the ability to reason, and a free-will of our own, but there is no "family resemblance" or familiarity. I do not presume to know of "depths of Divine will" (how deep is it?), and I cannot pretend to tap into any secret knowledge about myself or others without fully understanding that human thought, as a system, is flawed from the outset. I follow David Bohm in this regard, we are not perfected creatures - and we have no control over our thoughts, only how we deal with them. As we learn in Shalshelet haQabbalah, our Mesora teaches us techniques and processes to constrain our primal impulses and separate ourselves from beasts of the field. Perhaps the ret is up to us?

Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of kabbalah and philosophy on their pages, or on new page

I would sympathise with your suggestion to collate criticism of Rationalist method in Judaism on a new Philosophy-Kabbalah comparison page, if there were no criticism of Kabbalah section on the Kabbalah page (as well as briefer criticism on Jewish philosophy page). Unless they were also moved to the new page, then relegating criticism of Philosophy to a sub-page would be unfair/unbalanced/misleading/unhelpful/uninformative!

I suggested the Norman Lamm background text of criticism of philosophy in Judaism, because it is non-polemical, balanced-detached academic survey of grounds for criticism, focused into some 5 precise terminological categories - the most helpful survey I have seen, on which to base a section.

The suggested 3rd synthesis section of those philosophers and kabbalists who saw mutual fruition between the two traditions, is based upon inherent academic essays to understanding Medieval Jewish philosophy by leading authorities in the Cambridge Companion. The editor evidently thought that understanding Medieval Jewish philosophy is incomplete without survey of its parameters and sharing with Kabbalah.

So, I suggest either moving all criticisms of Kabbalah from Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah pages to the new proposed page you suggest, or alternatively following my initial suggested added sections on the Jewish philosophy page. A third way could be to make the new page, but include brief summary reference sections of both criticism and synthesis on both Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah pages. Is this really being "academically picayune in exposition of your views"? Picayune means "petty, trivial, of little consequence, small and of little importance..etc" Is this to promote my views? Rather, the motivation is the opposite: so that wikipedia informatively shows the full range of all views, and not just criticism of Kabbalah! April8 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, these suggestions are premature now - lots of research to do first, lots of other chaos to sort out, and very little time! But tell me what you think! The last thing I want to do is upset you or other editors! (past anarchic experiments in adverse time constraints understandably aplogised for!) I just want to be as encyclopedially faithful as possible to the fullest range of academic and theological perspectives, in good balance, and maturely averse in extreme to pushing particular agendas! This extreme, mature aversion to polemics is now sincerely held - if I think Kabbalah and Hasidism offer the best philosophical hope against intellectual Jewish secularism, then they must display their positions in the fair marketplace of ideas of wikipedia, with all other views equally and helpfully explained.......................................................................................................................................................................Indeed if alternative views are not equally shown, it would defeat the purpose - Kabbalah/Hasidism would need to offer their possibilities at the highest level of secular intellectual alternative depth....This then leads me to want to write up other Jewish subjects on wikipedia in their own right (including Jewish philosophy in its own right too! - such as wishing to include the previously mentioned chronological table of Medieval Jewish Philosophy from 8th century Kalam, through 11th century Neoplatonism, to 14th century Aristotelianism on wikipedia somewhere - most informative and helpful)....................................................................................................................................................................................And, besides, I'm just too damn fascinated in ruminating about other intellectual views, secular and religious, philosophical and artistic, heretical and conservative, to want to push any narrower agenda! This is why my psychology is so drawn to wikipedia, as well as obsessive hoarding of the widest range of books (my floor was just rebuilt from collapsing onto my landlady's kitchen in December - I really meant chaos in my life, when I said it!). Only wikipedia offers the chance to equally display the broadest range of fascinating views in Judaism on any subject! Best wishes April8 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief reply!

April8 typed: You wrote: "On these points you and I could not be further apart. Your assume your premise is correct, you assume there are 'hidden depths of the Divine Will', then proceed to conflate that with 'philosophical treatment'. I would argue that you chase a mirage by assuming there are 'hidden depths of Divine will' and that there are secret techniques for ferreting out a better understanding of secret depths. You presume to know that there are depths to begin with - what if those depths are simply in your head and no one else's...then what is the quantitative or qualitative sum of that knowledge? Yourself?.."

April8 typed: TAKING THE RATIONAL ENTERPRISE TO ITS CONCLUSIONS: That's just the same argument I heard Richard Dawkins use on the radio, in a discussion with the Chief Rabbi, regarding the whole concept of belief in G-d at all! How would you make a fully convincing intellectual fence between your argument, and applying it further to the fascinating issue of Torah vs Bible Criticism, Orthodoxy vs Conservative theology. If you see no problem between rationalist Judaism and secular challenges, then take up Louis Jacobs' (I just happened to visit his grave for the first time this week! - despite my Orthodox disagreement with him, he is still an intellectual academic hero of mine!) challenge to the modern Orthodox to apply secular evidence challenges to the whole Chumash, and not just metaphorical readings of the Genesis Creation narrative.

April8 - I want to set the groundwork for my reply.

Firstly, The Syrians Community clearly expressed their position on being influenced by contemporary Rabbis who call themselves "Chief Rabbi of Eretz Israel"...I understand and agree with their reasoning. When HaRav Ovadia Yosef issued an edict suggesting all Sephardim eat Gefilte Fish on Shabbat, most, if not all, Sephardim ignored it. When HaRav Ovadia Yosef issued a ban against nose-picking on Shabbat many ignored that one too…and each of his picayune Halachic rulings have only diminished his influence with Sephardim.

Secondly, aligning my discourse with an atheist newscaster is below your station - perhaps we can keep the discussion elevated above that sort of back-handed rhetoric? As to your distinctions of Orthodoxy-vs-Conservative theology - I would argue that this incessant creation of "the other" is the only thing by which Orthodoxy (Ashkenazi Chassidic and Mitnagdische) can identify itself...Sephardim who are kabbalt halachot u'mitzvot would prefer that the broader community was observant, but ignores the warts of the less observant in order to maintain "shalom haKahal"; how do we become a bigger people by frenetically searching for "the other"?

This notion that essential characteristics of being a Jew are possessed by one group, "the other" who lacks them is almost always seen as a lesser, or inferior, being to be treated treated accordingly. "The Other" may be characterized as less intelligent or as immoral, and may even be regarded as Goyim/'Goy Gemur' by certain groups of Jews. But even more insidious is the proposition that a group of Jews, who presume themselves to define the essential characteristics of being a Jew, may even go so far as to suggest that the possibility of being accepted as "our kind of Jew" is wholly dependent upon exacting adherence to the essential characteristics of the group. This contrasts with "The Other", however, who is perceived as different in kind, as lacking in some essential trait or traits that the group has; that their offspring will inherit the same deficient nature and be "the Other" anyway. Therefore the Other, and the offspring of "the Other", may be doomed forever to remain separate, never to become part of the group--in other words, to be "the Other" forever. So perhaps birth-right or picayune adherence to particular humrot, prevents any embrace of "the other" or outsiders under all conditions?

Islam and Xtianity have the very same problems…in no less vexing dilemmas.

In light of the foregoing correction to your asserted premise, let's begin. When I use the term "Belief" I am using it in the context of a commendatory type of belief "an expression of confidence in a person or entity". However I want to be very clear about an important aspect of belief - existential claims to the existence of phenomenon, in order to justify a commendatory belief conflates "belief in something" with "belief in that". An example of the foregoing is the requirement that "believing Lurianic Kabbalistic interpretation is an essential characteristic of being a Jew who believes in G-d". Generally speaking, this includes belief in G-d according to non-canonical texts and innovations which have heretofore resulted in Cherem - including reincarnation, heaven, hell, immortality of souls, etc. Luzzato (Ramchal) expounded upon these at great length

What does it mean to harbor "belief", to "believe in something"? I've read countless arguments spanning 3,300 years - with no consensus among Chazal. Perhaps exploring how we view G-d's engagement with mankind is a sensible point-of-beginning. In my studies, and travels, I have noticed that the manner in which Jews, Muslims and Xtians view engagement with their creator is diverse at best. Why must anyone believe in anything at all?

1. There are some Jews (and Muslims and Xtians) who BELIEVE-THAT their moment-to-moment breathing, actions and thoughts are expressly controlled by their Creator - that everything they do is controlled by a G-d which is intimately interested and engaged in their every quanta of existence. In other words, "Belief-that" Mankind is wholly dependent upon G-d for every aspect of their existence is equivalent to "Belief-in" G-d being in every person at every moment controlling every aspect of their lives; they are controlled by the hand of G-d.

2. There are some Jews (and Muslims and Xtians) who BELIEVE_IN a G-d which doesn't necessarily control every breath or action - they prefer to view themselves living out a pre-ordained plan laid out for them by G-d In this instance, "Belief-in" G-d harbors a pre-requisite belief-that we are actors in a plan over which we have little, if any control, control…that we a re on auto-pilot; they are living out G-d's plan.

3. Still other Jews (and some Xtians) REASON-THAT G-d has nothing to do with any of us in our lives. That G-d gave mankind the gift of free-will, and concomitant reasoning as an expression of free-will, along with the "Torat "Moshe m'Sinai" to live our lives according to "Torat "Moshe m'Sinai". That engagement with G-d is accomplished by living according to canonical texts, ignoring innovations outside of Shalshelet haQabbala; they are living their lives according to their reasoned adherence to "Torat l'Moshe m'Sinai" (Karaites); Rabbinic Jews, of course, concatenate Talmud (one tradition being Yerushalmi, the other being Bavli).

4. Still, Other Jews REASON-THAT that there is no G-d. That mankind has no engagement with what they view as a "mythical entity". Some members of this group, however, view "Torat "Moshe m'Sinai" as an artifice written by many authors throughout the millennia and accept it's laws and commandments as a charter for mankind's existence upon this earth. As such, the perform Halachot and Mitzvot without embracing Rambam's 13 Principles.

So what are we to make of "belief"?

1. A Model based adherence to Rambam's "13 Principles of Faith", Halacha according to Rambam, and Mitzvot,

2. A model which ranges from Panenteistic Messianism to Mitnagdische-Chassidic

3. A model based on praxis,

4. Loyalty to a civilization rooted in a halachic system and legal exegesis from Talmud,

Judaism, as a religion, is based upon many different permutations of "belief". While countless Torah scholars have discussed what those beliefs should be, we have never really cared that much either about the precise parameters of these beliefs, or about what actually goes on inside a given person's head. That is between man and God; we have never grilled people and nor would we ever administer a lie-detector test to people. Instead, what Judaism demands is loyalty to Halacha, Mitzvot, members of the community and not undermining it. If a Jew expresses beliefs (or lack thereof) in such a way as to undermine the community in which they live, they are ostracized via Cherem. Otherwise, no matter what the person believes privately, he remains a Jew in good standing. Perhaps behavior, rather than belief, is the better expression of belief in G-d, than the rigid definitions of "belief"; that excluding people based on their being "public enemies" due to the way they think is inconsistent with "Shalshelet haQabbalah".

More to follow shortly.....

Jimharlow99 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

April8 typed: In Maimonides' time this challenge wasn't a problem, and only Greek philosophy was. However, first Spinoza "updated" Maimonides philosophy (Bertrand Russell in his "History of Western Philosophy" describes the influence of Maimonides on Spinoza, and David Beale in "Not in the Heavens" lays out how Spinoza took Maimonides Knowledge, Knower, Known to its logical conclusion in denying traditional theism) and also began the linguistic enterprise of Bible Criticism on the Chumash. Then the rise of Science after Newton progressively diminished the role of G-d as prime mover, becoming just a "G-d of the Gaps". Then Hume and Kant demolished Medieval philosophic metaphysics. Then Geology, Darwin, Archeology, Genetics, Higher Criticism...raised new successive challenges to accepting anything in the Torah literally. Then Cosmology demonstrated the age of the Universe..etc.

I differ with you regarding your assessment of Maimonides' time as well as vehemently disagreeing with your characterization of Spinoza updating Maimonides' philosophy - and you cite Hume out of context. Medieval philosophical metaphysic is not more dead than you can provide a coherent explanation of metaphysics to begin with. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was like chemistry or astrology (to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.”)

It is no longer possible to define metaphysics in this fashion for two (2) foundational reasons:

1) a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion,

2) there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

How, then is metaphysics to be defined? Is metaphysics simply a compendium of philosophical problems that cannot be assigned to epistemology or logic or ethics or aesthetics or to any of the parts of philosophy that have relatively clear definitions? There is no good answer to this question. At least since the time of Hume, there have been those who have presented arguments for the impossibility of metaphysics. The conclusion that the human mind is incapable of coherent treatment of a broad range of philosophical questions (a range that includes all metaphysical questions), however, depends on speculative factual theses about human cognitive capacities that are in principle subject to empirical refutation and which are empirical support; your assertions concerning Hume and Kant are commonly known to be baseless.

But before I get into that, I want to clarify a gap in understanding you seemingly display. Logic arose from a concern with correctness of argumentation - in the context of a Physician (Maimonides) he argued with other physicians in order to arrive at a diagnosis and remedy. Logic, however, does not offer good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of rationality - inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, whether linguistic, mental, or other physical representations.

Maimonides studied Aristotle for three (3) key reasons

1) Aristolte's books (Organon) were available in the early Arab Imperial period, after 750 CE Muslims had most of them, including the Organon, translated into Arabic, sometimes via earlier Syriac translations. They were studied by Islamic and Jewish scholars, including Rambam, and Muslim polymath Ibn Rushd (Averroes). There were no extant Hebrew texts which elucidated organized reasoning in the context of "correctness of an argument"; Galen's Medical texts were littered with superstition and poor reasoning. Maimonides was able to update the entire corpus of Medical understanding by updating Galen with the Arabic Medical texts …using the Aristotlean tools of his education.

2) Rabbi Yosef bin Migas, taught Rambam's father that it was part of Shalshelet haQabbalah, and Rambam's father taught Rambam that it was part of Shalshelet haQabbalah…we can trace this unbroken chain of tradition to the Exilarchs of Eretz Israel beginning in 520 CE with Guriya (Mar Sutra I) who was the son of Sa'adyah (Mar Zutra III) who was the son of Mar Zutra II….etc, etc, etc….

3) and this is the most important reason - The first major translator of Galen into Arabic was the Syrian Christian Hunayn ibn Ishaq. Hunayn translated 129 works of Galen into Arabic. One of these Arabic translations, ‘Kitab ila Aglooqan fi Shifa al Amraz’, extant in the Library of Avicenna Academy of Medieval Medicine & Sciences, is THE master piece of all literary works of Galen. It is a part of the Alexandrian compendium of Galen’s work. This manuscript of the 10th century comprises two parts that include details regarding various types of fevers (Humyat) and different inflammatory conditions of the body. More importantly, it includes details of more than 150 single and compound formulations of both herbal and animal origin. The book provides an insight into understanding the traditions and methods of treatment in Greek (Unani) and Roman era. In addition, this book provides a direct source for the study of more than 150 single and compound drugs used during the Greco-Roman period.

Galen's insistence on a rational systematic approach to medicine set the template for Islamic medicine, which rapidly spread throughout the Arab Empire. Arabic sources, such as Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes), continue to be the source of discovery of new or relatively inaccessible Galen works. As the title, Doubts on Galen by Rhazes implies, as well as the writings of physicians such as Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) and Ibn al-Nafis, the works of Galen were not taken on unquestioningly, but as a challengeable basis for further inquiry.

A strong emphasis on experimentation and empiricism led to new results and new observations, which were contrasted and combined with those of Galen by writers such as Rhazes, Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Zuhr and Ibn al-Nafis. For example, the experiments carried out by Rāzi and Ibn Zuhr contradicted Galen's theory of humorism, while Ibn al-Nafis' discovery of the pulmonary circulation contradicted Galen's theories regarding the human heart.

So to be clear - Maimonides was a trained Physician - Rationalist approaches to his hereditary traditions as well as his parnasa was taught to him to be Shalshelet haQabbalah of the Jewish People who had become debased, without a holy tongue, since the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

Regarding you assertion regarding Spinoza - Spinoza once wrote in a letter:

"…when you say that you do not see what sort of God I have if I deny in him the actions of seeing, hearing, attending, willing, etc. and that he possesses those faculties in an eminent degree, I suspect that you believe there is no greater perfection than can be explicated by the aforementioned attributes. I am not surprised, for I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would likewise say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that God’s nature is eminently circular. In this way, each would ascribe to God its own attributes, assuming itself to be like God and regarding all else as ill-formed. [1674 letter to Hugo Boxel.]

To Spinoza, the first cause, the ontologically 'first being', is none other than Being itself or, as he more commonly refers to it, substance or God. Spinoza’s God is the only entity to which it can be said that it is the ultimate cause of itself, or truly independent. Ontologically, there is nothing outside of or prior to God. But all other entities owe their existence to God, and are therefore merely dependent entities. It is only through God that earthly beings come to exist and conceived.

Spinoza’s willingness to use the term God for substance, or to affirm human immortality in the face of his own parallelism, Pragmatic-Rationalism. This is a principle that Spinoza certainly did not enunciate, and might not admit to holding. But it appears nevertheless to describe his approach. Pragmatic rationalism combines two concepts that are arguably inconsistent with the other. The rationalist seeks a philosophy that complies with the dictates of reason, and to the extent possible, pure reason. Pragmatists, by contrast, adopt beliefs because they prove useful in their lives, producing tangible benefits or at least a more meaningful existence. Spinoza is the quintessential rationalist; few would deny that. And that is why the “rationalism” in this principle is expressed as the noun, rather than the adjective. But what should happen when Spinoza hits a fork in the road? When two competing approaches equally well harmonize with the dictates of reason, and with any PU that Spinoza associates with rationalism? In those instances, and there are no small number of them, Spinoza gravitates to the pragmatic alternative. Perhaps this is why he finds unity underlying the world. Perhaps this is why he affirms the “intellectual love of God” above all other values, despite his disdain for the concept of God as it is taught in churches or synagogues.

There is no denying that Spinoza, above all else, adopted rationalism, and adapted it to his philosophy of life. He demanded a world view that in all fundamental respects was more reasoned than any alternative. Consequences be damned; the will to truth must be obeyed! Yet any rationalist thinker, be s/he a mature one or merely an intellectual youth, will encounter situations where there is no compelling way to resolve a philosophical issue. Sometimes one answer will appear, at least to the intuition, to be more reasonable than any alternative. Commonly, however, two alternatives present themselves as equally reasonable perspectives. These are the "forks in the road" alluded to above. And in dealing with these forks, I argue, Spinoza instinctively gravitated toward pragmatic paths.

Spinoza was educated in metaphysics by his father when they sojourned in Nantes, Bretagne, enroute to Amsterdam. For Spinoza, as for all other philosophers, certain first principles lay the foundation for his metaphysical system. Firstly, ontological unity — the sense that all earthly beings are ultimately structurally connected, or unified. To adopt such a principle is to hold that there exists in all of reality merely a single substance, not separate substances for mind and body, and certainly not separate substances composing each earthly organism. In contemporary physics we would refer to such a unity as Unified field theory. In Spinoza’s Short Treatise on "God, Man and His Well-Being", he asks whether “all these attributes which are in Nature are only one, single being, and by no means different ones (though we can clearly and distinctly understand the one without the other).” [See Section I, 23] The answer provided was “because of the unity which we see everywhere in Nature, if there were different beings in Nature, the one could not possibly unite with the other.” In other words, the ontological unity Spinoza inserted at the heart of his philosophy, expounded in adulthood, was consistent with what he observed as a younger man studying nature.

While Spinoza was declared Cherem for what might be commonly associated with the belief in a single great ground of being, he was not concerned solely with the great and powerful visions of the astronomer but also with the tiny, microscopic visions of the biologist. Armed with this latter perspective, this lens-crafter viewed nature as being composed at one, very profound level of infinitely divisible microscopic bodies, fundamentally cut from the same living, unified cloth. Now, 350+ years and numerous scientific discoveries later, nobody would scoff at a chemist or microbiologist who shared the same perspective in affirming such unity.

Spinoza’s 2nd 'first principle' is "Ultimacy". When considering Unity we must consider the smallest of the small, whereas ultimacy requires that we consider 'a Being' on the grandest possible scale. In formulating his philosophical system, Spinoza did not rest on the notion that all of reality is a single, unified substance. He also contemplated what concepts could be used to characterize this substance in terms of its scope or power. And he fixed upon the notion of substance’s ultimacy in the sense of it being as great and powerful as it could possibly be. No other perspective would seem properly respectful. Nor would any alternative be consistent with Spinoza’s humility as a merely human expression of unified substance or Being — one whose perspective is way too limited to justify positing limitations upon G-d.

The third 'First Principle' is today known as 'Occam's Razor' - in Spinoza's time it was known as 'Parsimony'. This principle states that "from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false". Spinoza did away with fundamental reliance on assumptions that are grounded in myth, and he refused to posit the existence of any being or beings that are metaphysically separate from the world of nature, since he found such beings unnecessary for constructing a working hypothesis as to "why the world exists as we know it". He couldn’t, for example, assume that a world as physical, as material, as this one could have resulted from a being that in no respect shares in materiality. Using Occam's Razor, there is no need to make such an assumption, so it was unacceptable, to Spinoza,e to do so. To Spinoza it was an issue of intellectual honesty rather than bucking Dogma.

Spinoza could not accept creationism or emenationism. He could not tolerate the plot lines proposed by the creationists (ex nihilo). Similarly, he saw no reason to adopt the emenationist belief in incorporeal divine intermediaries (angels or souls). Instead, Spinoza arrived at the economical principle of immanence. All that exists is either an expression of a single, unified substance, or is the substance itself. And to return to Spinoza's principle of ultimacy, this substance, the ground of all earthly beings, may aptly be regarded both as omniscient and omnipotent. In other words, not only is this unified substance aware of literally everything that exists, but substance also expresses in (physical and mental) reality all that resides in its absolutely ultimate intelligence.

To Spinoza, the belief in the God of immanence is required not only by the principle of parsimony but also by that of ultimacy. He discusses the God of the Bible who creates the world from outside Himself as an incomplete God, who turned to creation as a way of completing Himself. But to Spinoza, substance, being ultimate, is not incomplete, but possesses all. Similarly, Spinoza discusses the Biblical God as employing a human-like will to create a world of terrible suffering. How, Spinoza asks, is that possible, without giving up God’s omnipotence, and therefore God's ultimacy? To the Spinozist, rather than viewing all that exists as the expression of a human-like will who creates from the outside, it would be far more sensible toview the world as the expression from the inside of one who is knowledgeable about what is expressed but who expresses in a manner that transcends will. Consistent with ultimacy, with ultimate power, God’s nature is to express all things in God’s intellect. And Spinoza adds that God must express all such things, for nothing else could be consistent with the principle of ultimacy, with the notion of God’s perfection and completeness. In Spinoza's own words:

To those who ask why God did not so create all men, that they should be governed only by reason, I give no answer but this: because matter was not lacking to him for the creation of every degree of perfection from highest to lowest; or, more strictly, because the laws of his nature are so vast, as to suffice for the production of everything conceivable by an infinite intelligence... [Ethics, Appendix to Part I.]

In Spinoza's view, the entire world that is knowable to human beings may be viewed as but a single day dream of an infinite God. The true God, Spinoza would contend, is capable of expressing all that can be expressed and, in fact, God does so, albeit in ways that we humans can barely understand. Spinoza writes from the perspective of someone who might happen to be human residing here on Earth, but who wishes to philosophize in a frame of reference devoid of species specificity, an expression of God that views God as much as possible from the standpoint of the universe as a whole. Armed with this perspective, Spinoza disdains the extent to which theologians have clothed their ontological principles in human garb. It is commonly said that God must be viewed as acting with a humanlike will, for how else would we as humans find Him meaningful as an exemplary entity? And what is more important, a theologian might add, than framing a philosophy of God that maximizes God's potential to generate meaning in our lives and inspire us to good acts and worthy emotions? To Spinoza, philosophers ought no more decry the value of meaning than that of apple pies or moms. But that doesn’t mean philosophers need to espouse views that distort the fundamental nature of God, which would not only disrespect God but demean our own potential as semi-rational entities.

This is not an apology on behalf of Spinoza, nor is it an attempt to rehabilitate his name; such would be immodest. I simply intend to fill gaps in your knowledge of Spinoza and the underpinnings of his philosophy as compared to the Cherem letter whihc declares something much different from Spinoza's philosophy.

Spinoza did not update anything that Maimonides offered - in fact, I would argue that Spinoza's Panentheism is not unlike Lubavitcher Panenteism as originally taught by "Baal Shem Tob" and elucidated in "Tanya" by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi.

Shabbat Shalom, April8, I'll respond further motzei Shabbat.

Jimharlow99 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

April8 typed: MODERN CHALLENGES VS MEDIEVAL CHALLENGES: Your words, "synthesis of Academia and Tradition has been a component of our tradition since Moshe was tutored by Yitro and Pharaoh's teachers - perhaps even before those times. It is sufficient, as espoused by Rabbi Dr Jose Faur and Rabbi Dr Yeshiyahu Liebowitz, to simply accept the Yoke of Halacha because Torah l'Moshe m'Sinai commands us to do so..." surely raise the giggle! The Medieval philosophic enterprise, eg. Maimonides in his "Guide for the Perplexed", was amazing and advanced, reconciling Judaism with the intellectual challenges of the day in breathtaking fashion. The same problem in modern times, with entirely new, more diverse, and more advanced challenges to Judaism, was addressed with intellectual honesty by Salomon "Maimon" and Nachman Krochmal's "Guide for the Perplexed of the Time" in Philosophy; Wissenshaft des Judentums, Mordechai Kaplan, Louis Jacobs etc. in Jewish academic studies and theology; etc...in most cases writing the authors out of traditional Jewish belief and observance! The whole reason (apart from emotionally sublime faith and its democratic appeal to all Jews) I advocate a) Kabbalah, b) Hasidism, and c) Habad philosophical investigation of Hasidic thought, is because I see it as the only intellectually-philosophically hopeful valid way, ultimately, of either rejecting heresies, or (through my personal Torah UMaddah Modern-Orthodox approach - "qualified synthesis") accepting challenges into Orthodox Halachic Judaism in qualified ways....(More about that next time, in my comparison of methods of knowledge in Philosophy, Physics and Kabbalah).

I have read and studied Nachman of Krochmal's treatise. I find it an authoritative study of 'Moreh Nebuchim' by in the same authoritative manner that Yosef Karo offers 'Shulchan Aruch' as an authoritative study of 'Mishneh Torah haRambam'; neither texts are, in fact, what they claim to be. Krochmal died before his book was published - and Krochmal never titled the book…the tittle was given by the publisher - and if Krochmal knew what had been done he'd have surely changed the title. If Karo had, in fact, followed Rambam's methods in his expose, there would have been no need for Moses Isserles to write HaMapah (המפה) as a gloss to 'Shulchan Aruch', discussing cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differ. This says nothing of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruc, or the Aruch haShulchan…all of which further divide Mishneh according to Rabbinic rulings.

To remind the reader, [[Shulchan Aruch] is a super-commentary upon Karo's own prior book titled Beit Yosef (book). Beit Yosef (book), in turn, is a commentary upon the works of a well-known anti-maimonidean titled Arba'ah Turim citing and analyzing Kabbalistic, Talmudic sources while deferring to the opinion of Yaakov ben Asher wherever Rambam and Yitzhak al-Fasi conflict with Yaakov ben Asher. The primary motive for Yosef Karo was to connect his work with the Arba'ah Turim, instead of Maimonides' code. Although the Arba'ah Turim was not considered as great an authority as Maimonides' code, which Karo saw as authoritative among Spanish-Portuguese Jews only; Rambam's works had broad reach and adoption threatening the authority of Rabbis in Ashkenaz. Karo hoped that he could usurp Maimonides' authority with this new text which was a mix of esoteric textual interpretation, Talmud and Mishneh; he wanted a new text to become authoritative among Ashkenazim and Italik Jews; thus splitting the Mishneh among communities.

To be certain, Karo deferred to the Arba'ah Turim (אַרְבַּעָה טוּרִים‎), written by Yaakov ben Asher (Cologne, 1270 - Toledo c.1340, also referred to as "Ba'al ha-Turim". In the event the reader of this section is unaware, Yaakov ben Asher was the son of Asher ben Jehiel, the leader of the "Anti-Maimonidean Jews" who enlisted Christian Dominican monks to burn Maimonides works wherever they were found. He went so far as to ban all study of Aristotlean works, issued a ḥerem on July 26, 1305, against "any member of the community who, being under the age of 25 years, shall study the works of the Greeks on natural science or metaphysics, whether in the original language or in translation." To remind you, Asher ben Jehiel's alignment with the Dominicans against his fellow Jews - resulting in the brining of 12,000 volumes of Talmud throughout France, by Dominican Christians, who took the acquiescence of Asher ben Jehiel to signal an overall purging of texts that Jews AND Dominican's found offensive…unintended consequences to be certain.

In an excerpt from Rabbi Dr. Yosef Faur's "Anti-Maimonidean we find this excellent description of Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel's attitude towards the Jews of Sepharad:

In 1305, heaven rewarded the anti-Maimonideans and they succeeded in installing him as the rabbi of Toledo, Castile, and as such, as the supreme spiritual authority of all Jews in Christian Spain. Throughout their ministry he and his children brought to bear “the spirit of inerrant piety”—commonly known as “hasidut”—into Spain. He was Torah incarnate. “As long as I am alive,” he wrote, “there is Torah in Israel.” Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel was aware of his excellence. No one could vie with him either in wisdom or humility: “Thanks to God, God had graced me, and I possess all that pertains to the true reasoning of the Law of Moses our Teacher, as [good] as all the present sages of Sefarad today.” The Rabbinic authorities preceding him in Toledo were, in his view, illegitimate, because their authority derived from “the authority invested on them by the king.” The scribes and notaries, too, were untrustworthy, since they did their work “to increase their profit.” This meant, that for all practical purposes, one could refer neither to the early decisions of the court nor check with community clerks about legal practices and procedures. It stands without saying that he would not recognize the right to cite Maimonides to any one “who is not thorough with the Mishnah and Talmud”

this meant to exclude anyone that was not approved by him. “Damned be (tippah ruham) those who judge on the basis of the books and writings of great [scholars] and do not know Mishnah and Talmud at all.” Differing with him constituted an affront to the Law of Moses and formal apostasy.

The anti-Maimonidean movement was the effect of assimilation to Christian patterns of thought and feeling, whereby the persecuted adopts the spiritual and psychological apparatus of the persecutor. Persecution creates the “others,” in religious terminology, “heretics”— not the other way around. Responding to a mimetic impulse, the anti-Maimonideans went on a witch-hunt in the pursuit of Jewish “heretics,” precisely as Christians had engaged in the persecution of men of the stature of Peter Abelard (1079-1153) and Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274). Their source of inspiration were men like Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)—described as the “great detective of heresy” and “the Father of Mysticism”—not the sages of Israel. Take note of the reason given by R. Solomon ibn Adrete (ca. 1235-ca. 1310) for the ban against the Maimonideans. On July 26, 1305, he wrote:

Go into the far away lands inhabited by Canaanites [a code term for “Christians”] and all gentiles! They would condemn them [the Maimonideans] as heretics, even for a single heresy and abomination that they had written in their books . . . and they would tie them up in vine branches and incinerate them till they turn into ashes!

A mark of the anti-Maimonidean ideology (whereby zeal displaces halakhah) is the sanction of violence as a legitimate means for the implementation of “religion.” A strategic decision—with horrendous consequences as of yet not fully explored by historians—was to approach the ecclesiastical authorities to Žfight Jewish “heretics.” The anti-Maimonideans argued that in their endeavor to stamp out heresy, the ecclesiastical authorities should also incinerate the works of Jewish heretics.

Consequently, they went on “crying and begging” the ecclesiastical authorities, “to pass judgment” also on “other works [of Maimonides].” The anti-Maimonideans succeeded “and on their command they made a large Žreplace” and burned Maimonides’ works. Rabbi Jonah Gerondi (c. 1200-1263)—one of the most venerated men in Jewish pietistic circles—went Žfirst to the Franciscans and then to the Dominicans, imploring them:

"Look! Most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by R. Moses of Egypt [Maimonides] who wrote heretical books! You exterminate your heretics, exterminate ours, too!” [see Iggerot Qena'ot, in Qobes Teshubot ha-Rambam (Leipzig, 1859), III, 4c. Cf., History of the Jews, vol. 3, pp. 542-544.]

Rabbi Solomon ibn Adrete, who had the privilege to study under the saintly R. Jonah, applauded the spirit of ecumenicalism exhibited by the Church, and penned these golden lines:

Could I blame people who are not of the covenant [i.e., Christians] if they would stretch their hands against this corruption and blaspheme by the people of our Law, and they [i.e. Christians] just like us, would open their mouths [against them]?

Violence became the earmark of “devotion,” both religious and intellectual. Jewish authorities saw nothing wrong with Rabbi Jonah Gerondi’s brand of devotion. In appreciation, the community in Toledo awarded him the position of preacher, which he kept until his death.

Popular wisdom notwithstanding, the anti-Maimonideans were not motivated by concern for the preservation and promotion of “the Talmud.” Their alleged zeal should be carefully reviewed in light of the fact that they were directly responsible for bringing about the burning of the Talmud, beginning in 1242. One need not be particularly bright to have realized that requesting from the Dominicans to burn Maimonides’ works established an extremely dangerous precedent. It should be a matter of some interest to note that those instigating the ecclesiastic authorities were apostates like Donin and Pablo Christiani, who obtained their spiritual formation at Yeshivas reflecting anti-Maimonidean ideology. More alarming was the disappearance of the famous library of Lucena. It contained the oldest and most valuable collection of Talmud and Rabbinic literature in Spain, going all the way back to the Geonic period. After the collapse of the Jewish communities in Andalusia, the library was transported in its entirety to Toledo. It seems, that the last known scholar to have had access to it was R. Meir Abulafya (c. 1170- 1244) the chief Rabbi of Toledo.

As a result of the triumph of the anti-Maimonideans, it totally vanished: “Andalusian” copies of the Talmud became a rarity. The library had been the depository of works re ecting the long and rich literary and intellectual traditions of the Golden Age of Sepharad—values that were not necessarily congruent with the new ideologies. In addition, the copies of the Talmud and Rabbinical works it contained were at variance with the “improved” editions being circulated by the anti-Maimonideans.[The incunabula fragments of the Talmud printed in Spain, collected and edited H.Z. Dimitrovski, S’ridei Talmud, 2 vols. (New York, 1977) need to be carefully examined. I have studied the fragments of Erubin; although there were many significant readings, they were not consistent with what are known as “Andalusian” readings.].

Furthermore, the fact that the text of both Talmuds (Babli and Yerushalmi) were sloppily edited (it is hardly possible to Ž nfid a single page free from error!) by two apostates, Felix Pratensis and Jacob ibn Adoniah (c. 1470-c. 1538) and printed by a Christian, Daniel Bomberg (d. ca. 1549/53), should cast some doubt as to the earnestness of these self-appointed “guardians” of “Talmud.” If we consider as well the pilpul methodology—precluding any intelligent comprehension of the subject at hand—one might wonder what their true motivation really was. [Traditionally, Rabbinic scholarship focused on what was said. In the footsteps of the scholastics, the anti-Maimonidean concern is on who said this or that about the text, thus degenerating into a hierarchical system of auctores majores ad minores. Concerning the value of the pilpul methodology of these Yeshivas, see Ludwig Blau, “Methods of Teaching Talmud,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1903), pp. 121-134. Cf., José Faur, “The Legal Thinking of Tosafot,” in Dine Israel 6 (1975), pp. 43-72. Concerning the pilpul in modern Yeshivas, see William B. Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva (Hoboken, 2000), pp. 108-113. A corollary of this methodology is belief in reincarnation. Since no one could ever Ž finish studying the whole Talmud according to the pilpul method, of necessity one must believe in a long series of successive transmigrations to Žfinish just the Babli, let alone the Yerushalmi! Cf., below nn. 159, 161.].

Enough about the deliberate abuses of our mesora. Let's now focus upon Nachman of Krochmal.

1785 was a time of upheaval for Ashkenazim; Nachman of Krochmal was concerned with responding to two (2) primary concerns of his day:

1. the Haskalah movement which was gaining momentum at the very same time that Emancipation of European Jewry was compelling young people to flee Shtetl life for the secular comforts of fewer strictures in the big cities of Europe. Ashkenazi Jews could now pursue secular studies, in Universities, that were wholly denied them for centuries…their cloistered living conditions were to be viewed in their read-view mirror - never to return. Some students of Krochmal’s work believe that, in his opinion, the period of the Emancipation and the emergence of the Jews into Western Society heralded, though Krochmal does not state this explicitly, a new episode of growth after decline for Judaism.

2. Moses Isserles and Krochmal were championing a cause which was leading to assimilation and abandonment of esoteric textual interpretation because they no longer offered a competitive advantage when living among Goyim. In a Shtetl, mastering esoteric textual interpretation was as much a qualified for marriage as it was status within the Stetl...but things were changing...and fast.

Krochmal never titled his book "Moreh Nebucheh Ha-Zeman"; that title was assigned after his death in 1851 by his friend Leopold Zunz. Krochmal was too smart a man to presume to append to Maimonides. At the beginning of his book, Krochmal quotes from Talmud Yerushalmi - that the Jew is confronted with two paths in life, one of fire, the other of ice. If he proceeds along the path of fire he will be burned. It he proceeds along the path of ice he will be frozen. What should the wise man do? He should walk in the middle. This became Krochmal’s elevator-pitch. The path of fire, of uncritical and unreasoning enthusiasm typical of Hasidism, a movement of which Krochmal was less than enamored, encourages ignorance and leads to all kinds of vagaries and superstitions. The path of ice, on the other hand, the path of cold reason uninspired by true religious feeling, leads to a rejection of Judaism and total assimilation. The wise man, for Krochmal, the informed Maskil, follower of the Haskalah, knows how to walk in the middle. Such a Jew allows both his reason and his emotions to control his life.

So, to be clear, Hassidim focused upon Krochmal's work because he was an advocate of Haskala movement. These Hassidim, who do not study Maimonides, then confused Krochmal's work to be an addendum to "Moreh Nebuchim"…when, in fact, it was not an attended but a confused blend of Maimonidean streams littered with Kant, Herder, and Hege and promotion of Haskalah - a movement in which he was a leader. What Krochmal AND Zunz failed to recognize, was that Maimonideans had undergone Haskalah as a natural outcome of Shalshelet haQabbalah since the 10th century….a notion too often overlooked by those who presume to attach Krochmal's work to Maimonides.

Finally, Krochmal's book was never published during his lifetime. It was published by Zunz to used the title to exact profit, not truth.

Insofar as your use of the word "Heresy"; I find no small amount of solace in knowing that Hassidim have so abused the use of this word as to render it ineffectual.

Let's be clear, I am well-versed in the methods of esoteric Kabbalistic textual interpretation. I frequently turn to Zohar tio find out what the esotericists have to say about certain topics. Personally, I find nothing there to warrant practice of casuistic abuse, but I study them to understand how my co-religionists respond to the world around them. I want to turn to Rabbi Dr Jose Faur, again, to summarize my general views of esoteric textual interpretation as espoused in Lurianic Kabbalistic practices:

….Qabbala. It originated in Gerona and Barcelona, among the same circles leading the anti-Maimonidean campaigns. “The rise of this secret lore,” noted Graetz, “coincides with the time of the Maimonistic controversy, through which it was launched into existence.”

Strategically, the anti-Maimonidean movement may be seen as a rouse designed to discredit the standard interpretations of Judaism, in order to promote their own brand of theological mysticism (see below). A major objective of the anti-Maimonidean Esoteric Qabbala movement was to undermine central authority and Rabbinic tradition. Originally, the term qabbala designated the traditions received by way of an uninterrupted chain by the national institutions of the Jewish people: the two Talmudic Yeshibot (academies) in Babylonia and their Bet Din (court). Later on this term was extended to include the academies and courts of the Geonim in quality of their expertise knowledge. By appropriating the term Qabbala to designate the new theological teachings, the anti-Maimonideans simultaneously awarded a mantle of respectability to their doctrines in the eyes of the unlettered and vacated authentic Rabbinic tradition.

Displacement of Rabbinic Shalshalet haQabbala came about in subtle ways, so as not to arouse the ire of the public. Let me offer the following illuminating example. In a question addressed to R. Solomon ibn Adrete, concerning a Rabbinic haggadah that the world will last six thousand years and in the seventh thousandth it will lay “wrecked” (harob), he formulated the principle that although one may interpret some passages of the Scripture allegorically, what “has been received in our hands” (mequbbal be-yadenu) must be accepted in its literal sense.

For reasons that will become evident in the course of our discussion, he omitted the fact that there were other conflicting Rabbinic views on this matter. More seriously, he failed to mention the Shalshelet haQqabbala of the Geonim and sages of old Sepharad. From Se’adya Gaon (882-942) down the chain of tradition, the Geonim—including Sherira (c. 906-1006), Hayye (939-1038), and their disciples R. Hanan"el (d. 1055/6) and R. Nissim (ca. 990-1062)—upheld the principle that haggadot may be explained figuratively and could even be dismissed altogether (en somkhin ‘al dibre aggadah).

This has been the consensus of all legal experts of old Sepharad, including R. Isaac Alfasi (1013-1103) and R. Judah al-Bargeloni (late eleven century), as well as the renowned poet R. Judah ha-Levi (ca. 1075-1141).

In a letter addressed to the chief anti-Maimonidean in Toledo, R. David Qamhi reminded him that the principle stipulating that haggadot may be interpreted Ž figuratively was not established by a group of trouble rousers, but by the highest authorities of Israel! From the hands of these sages the Jewish people received the entire Rabbinic apparatus, including the text of the Talmud and its interpretation.

Concerning the haggadot we explain them in accordance with the laws and [rational] evidence, since they are bonded to reason and allude to wisdom, as we were taught by our predecessors the Geonim, such as our teachers Sherira, Hayye, Isaac Alfasi, and the rest of the Geonim, pillars of the world and the foundations of the earth! Concerning the [interpretation] of haggadot, we depend and rely on their teachings and words, not on others!

...in summation, April8, I do not view "replacement theology" rooted in non-canonical texts, and casuistic abuse, helpful in a world of engagement with non-Jews. We are a small minority among very large theological majorities - my task is to preserve "Shalshelet haQabbalah" (as is our tradition)...all the while accepting that it is not the only tradition some Jews follow.

More to follow soon.... Jimharlow99 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

April8 typed: "LUBAVITCH MODERN-ORTHODOX": Indeed, I don't see "Lubavitch Modern-Orthodox" as a contradiction, even though other regular Lubavitchers are unanimously Haredi, dismissing the intellectual challenges of modernity, and uninterseted in the problems, - because it is precicely my being Lubavitch in belief, that gives me the intellectual conviction in Orthodox Judaism to be able to investigate with facination, and without threat, the most heretical challenges to Orthodox Judaism. In short, intellectually, it is inconceivable to me (although I am intellectually interested in challenging it!) that the Habad Hasidic leaders and their mystical-rationalised thought are not what they spiritually explain and claim to be. (And as Carl Sagan said, "large claims require large proof") Through that, I become intellecually convinced that General Hasidism is what they claim it to be. In turn, I become convinced that Lurianic Kabbalah is similarly authoritative. And through that, the whole, general Medieval Kabbalistic enterprise becomes intellectually convincing to me (minus perhaps valid challenges to its occult/primitive/simplistic parts). However, I remain fascinated in purposely challenging every belief, in order to understand everything more deeply. Therefore, my desire to synthesise all the challenges of modern academia through the mystical fluidity of possibilities mentioned before.

I must first make it quite clear that I am Sephardi of the Andalusian Tradition of Shalshelet haQabbalah. I do not know any hardcore Lubavitchers who would ever consider themselves to simultaneously be Modern Orthodox. In my mind, if "Modern Orthodox" stream of Ashkenazi Judaism has anything to offer Lubavitchers it is to de-emphasize messianist centrism - this comes at the isk of a Modern Orthodox adherent expressing the view that Lubavitchers are patronizing and intellectually-stunted fanatics. If the Lubavitchers have anything to offer "Modern Orthodoxy", I would view it to be found in Kiruv - while running the risk of confessing the belief that Modern Orthodoxy represents less religious Jews who must be brought back into Yiddishkeit, How does one deal with Messianist leanings of Lubavitchers in the Brisker pilpul framework expounded by Rav Soloveitchik?

This incessant partitioning of the Jewish People along dogmatic lines was never a part of our chain of tradition….and it is dark comedy that the two groups proposing themselves to be scions of Judaism ignore Shalshelet haQabbalah in favor of innovation to our traditions found in non-canonical texts. Are both groups so blinded by their Chumrot that they forget we've been here before? Do you really think Sephardim haven't struggle with this in the last 1500 years? We see no reason to narrow the scope of authorities (mystical or otherwise) in order to help us make sense of this world….nor is there any reason to narrowly scope our sources so as to millet all of our answers to ONLY those sources; nothing short of a man who manufactures hammers looking at screws, bolts, spikes and nails through the lens of "Nails…all of them are nails".

From the perspective of my fellow Sephardim, self-identity as "Lubavitch-Modern-Orthodox" is more a peculiar political alignment than a theological alignment. Tell me:

1. Do Messianist Lubavitcher's qualify as Haredi?

2. Does a closeted Gay Lubavitcher male qualify as Haredi?

3. Neturei Karta are Haredi, do they view you, or ALL Lubavitchers as Haredi?

4. Does a Lubavitcher pedophile remain Haredi if 20 victims step forward?

5. What of Lubavitcher pedophile's victims contacted inside Chabad's Yeshiva?

6. Are male victims of homosexual predation excluded from communal membership for engaging in such contact after bar-mitzvah?

I've posed your assertion regarding "Lubavitchers are unanimously Haredi" to some Sephardim who all think you place too much value upon the status of Haredi and too little on the value of behavior consistent with Torah Observance. The formation of the Haredi stream of Orthodox Judaism is attributed to Rabbi Moses Sofer ("the Chasam Sofer"), Rabbi Elija Kramer (Vilna Gaon), Baal Shem Tov and their disciples. It is a term historically foreign to Sephardim viewed as an attempt to appear machmir thus adopting chumrot du-jour.

A good example - around 1000 C.E., Rabbi Gershom Me'or haGolah instituted a taqanah prohibiting polygyny although it is permitted according to Torah and the Talmud. This taqanah was accepted by Ashkenazic Jews, who lived in Christian countries where polygyny was not permitted, but was not accepted by Sephardic Jews, who lived in Islamic countries where men were permitted up to four wives until Sephardim started living among monogamist populations. To be certain the State of Israel, made polygamy illegal. In practice, however, the law is only loosely enforced, primarily so as not to interfere with Bedouin culture, where polygyny is practiced. Pre-existing polygynous unions among Jews from Arab countries (or other countries where the practice was not prohibited by their tradition and was not illegal in the local law) are also not subject to this Israeli law, although a similar cultural concession to the Bedouin is not extended to Mizrahi Jews, and they are not permitted to enter into new polygamous marriages in Israel - but if they leave israel, add a wife, then return to Israel, they remain within the strictures of Torah Judaism. What goes through a Lubavitcher's mind? How does a person, who views themselves as a scion of Torah Judaism, come to terms with people who remain Torah observant though in ways they think deviant? Does modifying Halacha regarding multiple wives represent a transgression of Torah l'Moshe m'Sinai?

One of the greatest hurdles you face, April8, is coming to terms with conflicts of esoteric textual interpretation and Rational exegesis. How does one view the three (3) visitors to Abraham Aveinu in Parshat Vayeria (Breishit 18:1)? Are they literally corporeal manifestations of attributes of Hashem, OR, are they figments of Abraham Aveinu's imagination? Does a "Lubavitch Modern Orthodox Jew" reach for 'Tanya' first in order to sort out which subjective path they'll take? Do you refuse to recognize free-will without recognizing that arbitrarily choosing an esoteric interpretation over a rational interpretation is, by definition, an expression of freewill?

I have had the great joy of traveling this world to listen to people in at least 18 different languages tell me "I become convinced…" in topics of G-d, money, business and war. To date, I remain unswayed by such emotive declarations. I could care less what you think you know, I care what you can prove you know. Thus far all of your arguments have lacked any foundation in Torah, Talmud or Mishneh - do you defer to non-canonical texts instead of our canonical mesora? I remain curious because from my view, if it isn't found in Tanach, Talmud, or Mishneh Torah haRambam, then it's not Jewish in origin.

More to follow....

Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

THE MIND OF G-D, FAITH VS REASON, REVELATION: A restricted Rationalist sceptical view of Judaism, rather, limits G-d into the Human mind's unaided capacity! - Trying to fit G-d into a tight box! If you don't take the rationalist project to its ultimate conclusions, by disallowing challenges to Torah min Hashamayim, the challenges of modernity, then you would need equally profound intellectual responses to the challenges to be justified. That is what I look for, and find intellectual-philosophical hope only through rationalised mysticism. Without it, I think an honest rationalism would take one out of Orthodoxy, maybe to Conservative Judaism at best. However, alternatively, if the Torah of Moses is accepted as a faith revelation, then the rationalist project could stop at Sinai - on faith. Louis Jacobs describes the Medieval Jewish philosophers as " philosophical theologians", rather than pure philosophers. They don't investigate "is Judaism true?", but investigate the contradiction between philosophical reason and faith. What I am most interested in, in Judaism, is the faith claim of Torah min Hashamayim itself. I seek the strongest, most honest intellectual basis for Orthodoxy, and not just to rely on faith. Since you accept the limits of rationalism in original Sinaic revelation, then why cannot the process of revelation continue through history, from the visions of the Prophets, to the intellectual conceptualisation of the Kabbalists? After all, "in every generation, a new understanding of the Torah descends" (Talmud I think), "G-d makes perfect everything in its time", "G-d makes (ie reveals here) the (intellectual) cure before the (heretical) illness (of modern secular challenges to Torah)" etc. If the prophets saw the Divine throne, why cannot the Kabbalists see the 10 sephirot?

April8, there are many misconceptions in this paragraph. First you type this:

"A restricted Rationalist sceptical view of Judaism, rather, limits G-d into the Human mind's unaided capacity! - Trying to fit G-d into a tight box! "

Actually, you wholly misconstrue my meaning. You seemingly conflate "belief" with "observance" - and I view them as two separate aspects of being a Jew. The first, "belief" is a wholly private engagement with G-d, the second, observance, is a wholly public display of Shalshelet haQabbalah. One can have belief without an unbroken chain of tradition, and one can practice Shalshalet haQabbalah without belief; union of both is yaffe…neither is not acceptable.

I fit torah observance into a tight box of Mishneh Torah haRambam - if it is not in Tanach, Talmud or Mishneh, then it's not a Jewish issue and we am free to find Jewish sources outside our canon. If I find an extant non-canonical text by Acharonim or Rishonim, within the intellectual pedigree of my tradition, then we use it…otherwise I look outside the corpus of Jewish texts. This is what was taught by Maimonides - seek truth wherever it is found. A Jew, looking at non-Jewish problems without a text, is just as dumb as the next guy.

Today, even among Haredim, the widely held view that science and religion have no inherent conflict in their respective form emptied of claims about the other. As Stephen Jay Gould is quoted, science and religion represent "non-overlapping magisteria." Science addresses the composition of the universe and how it works; religion examines questions of ultimate meaning and moral value of this knowledge. As Gould puts it: "These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry.

Biblical criticism has unearthed a mass of evidence that Pentateuch is a composite document reflecting prevailing ideas of other cultures contemporaneous with ancient Israel. How, in the light of such claims, can one adhere to the belief, required by Maimonides in his eighth principle of faith, that the Torah we have in our hands today is the very same Torah that was handed down by Moses, and that it is all of divine origin? Moses, according to Maimonides, acted like a scribe taking down a dictation thus insisting there is no difference in holiness or authority between verses such as, "And the sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim, Phut and Canaan" and verses such as, "I am the Lord thy God" or "Hear, O Israel."

Not all Orthodox Jews accept these extreme formulations of Torah min haShamayim. Genuine evidence of small differences between the Masoretic text and earlier manuscripts makes it hard to sustain confidence in the perfect reliability of the Torah's transmission. When we raise the Torah in synagogue and declare veZot haTorah asher sam Mosheh-this is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel-few of us interpret the phrase literally. Moreover, the view of Moses as copyist of the entire Torah was challenged long before modern biblical criticism; Ibn Ezra's cryptic comment about the secret of the final twelve verses of the Torah is usually assumed to be an allusion to his belief that Moses did not record the events of his own death. Many Jews have absorbed the sensibilities of Mesora criticism, even while rejecting its broader claims, and are skeptical of theories with origins whose historicity is dubious. We treat traditional attributions of authorship-that David wrote the psalms, or that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes-as rhetorical, no different from the Gemara's statement that Moses himself instituted the first paragraph of Birkat haMazon.

I incline to Sol Shimmel's view that, in summary, many Orthodox Jews (Chassidic or otherwise) adhere to irrational beliefs because of the high emotional cost of giving them up, and they create a series of justifications and selective interpretations to bolster positions that, in their heart of hearts, they know to be false. They also employ "selective attention," avoiding the conflict that arises from considering hard questions, even professing a lack of interest in the historical and literary analysis of a book for which in other respects they have boundless fascination. Schimmel notes that sometimes believers will even articulate the social, religious, and psychological consequences of skepticism as explicit reason for maintaining belief. Concern that not believing in Torah min haShamayim might undermine observance of mitzvot is a strange justification for making empirical claims. If that is true, then what are we to make of Sephardim who carry forward Shalshelet haQabbalah? Are we then the anti-thesis of Ashkenazi Orthodox Judaism as it currently characterizes itself?

April8, you then pose a couple of questions:

1. "Since you accept the limits of rationalism in original Sinaic revelation, then why cannot the process of revelation continue through history, from the visions of the Prophets, to the intellectual conceptualisation of the Kabbalists?", and,

2. "If the prophets saw the Divine throne, why cannot the Kabbalists see the 10 sephirot?"

My answer to Question #1:

Rabbinic Judaism holds that the Pentateuch extant today is essentially the same one that the whole of the Jewish people received on Mount Sinai, from God, upon their Exodus from Egypt. Beliefs that

a. God gave a "Torah of truth" to Moses (and the rest of the people),

b. that Moses was the greatest of the prophets, and that

c. the Law given to Moses will never be changed,

…these are three of Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith. Maimonides explains:

"We do not know exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. But when it was transmitted, Moses merely wrote it down like a secretary taking dictation…(Thus) every verse in the Torah is equally holy, as they all originate from God, and are all part of God's Torah, which is perfect, holy and true." Rabbinic Judaism holds that in addition to the written Torah, God also revealed to Moses a set of oral teachings, called the Oral Torah. In addition to this revealed law, Jewish law contains decrees and enactments made by prophets, rabbis, and sages over the course of Jewish history. Rabbinic Judaism tends to regard Oral Torah being more potentially subject to human error, although due to the Biblical verse "Do not stray from their words" ("Deuteronomy 17:11) Talmud is still accepted as binding law.

Again, April8, if it is not in our canon (Tanach, Talmud or Mishneh Torah haRambam), and it is not part of Shalshelet haQabbalah then it is not intrinsically Jewish in nature. Non-canonical texts (Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar), used to derive innovations in Torah observance, Talmudic interpretation and Mishneh exegesis would be outside of normative Judaism.

My answer to Question #2:

The Jewish view of the Bible is through Tanach, Judaism's oral law, Mishneh and Talmud. The "age of prophecy" actually ended about 400 years or more before the Roman empire destroyed the 2nd Temple. The age of prophets ended with the deaths of Malachi, Zechariah, and Chaggai. They were all believed to be members of Ezra's "Great Assembly" that marked the beginning of the Rabbinic age of which the foundation has been law, not prophecy. In a sense, the end of prophecy marks the maturity of the Jewish people, just as the gradual reduction in Divine intervention and miracles recorded in the Bible. By the time of the Second Commonwealth, we had learned everything we need to know about how to build and maintain a society based on Torah -- it's up to us now to put that knowledge to use. We do not rely any more on signs or prophecies but on the laws that have been given to us (the classic illustration of this being the case of Achnai's oven).

Ezra is credited with making the Written Torah publicly available and instituting the still-followed practice of reading one portion of the scroll every Sabbath, completing a full reading each year. This also marked the origin of "rabbis" as we know them and the beginning of the creation and codification of what came to be known as "halakhah" or Jewish law. Prior to this, the law was essentially determined by the dialectic between the King and the priests with prophets arising from time to time when things went awry and needed to be set back into order.

If the rationalization of Kabbalists using sephirot, is based upon an equivocation between themselves and Prophets, then perhaps the issue if not Judaism at all….but Hubris.

More to follow tomorrow....

Jimharlow99 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MYSTICISM VS THEOSOPHY: In academia, "mysticism" has strict definitions. In this, the theosophy of Kabbalah - its main component - is not included. Rather, the meditative tradition in Kabbalah is termed mysticism, when it intuitively/prophetical envisions Divinity through direct experience. This meditative/mystical stream is therefore the part of Kabbalah I am least interested in, for my intellectual quest to base Torah Min Hashamayim on convincing intellectual grounds. Instead, it is the theosophy that interests me, as well as the Rationalist Philosophical tradition, Science and Secular studies encountering Torah etc. It can be said that the theosophical part of Kabbalah follows on from the meditative/mystical part: First a mystic envisioned meditavely the 10 sephirot, as a prophet might envision the Throne of G-d etc. Afterwards, this teaching becomes systemised in a rigorous edifice of internal theology and external exegesis of texts. It is this stage that can be tested intellectually by me - to some degree. More on this in the next discussion comparing Kabbalah with Physics... Shabbat Shalom April8 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

April8 - For purposes of this discussion I will avoid getting into a debate over mysticism - I am no expert in it. However, I do want to make certain our views of the history of Kabbalistic methods are methods are congruent. I don't think you are fully aware of the Pedigree of Lurianic Textual interpretation in the context of post-expulsion Jewish life.

Mysticism, in a Jewish framework (ergo Jewish Mysticism) is the gnostic-influenced interpretation of personal experiences, according to practitioners, whereby states of consciousness beyond normal human perception, including experience of, and even communion with, a non-corporeal supreme being is described. Such gnostic-influenced interpretation of experiences include sense-perceptual, somatosensory, or introspective opinion; some argue that a good example of this is described by experiencing God's presence when gazing at a snowflake.

There is a textual distinction which separates theistic experiences, which are purportedly of God, and non-theistic ones which are described to allegedly be "an ultimate reality other than God" or of no reality at all. Numinous theistic experiences are dualistic, where God and the subject remain clearly distinct, while theistic mysticism pertains to some sort of union or else identity with God. Theistic mystics sometimes speak as though they have esoteric, or intuitive knowledge - declaring that such gnosticism is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world.

Rabbi Isaac of Acre was active in the last decades of the thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth. We really know very little about him. We assume he was born in Palestine and left the town of Acre in 1291. In his writing he relates that he left the town of Estella in the kingdom of Navarre in the year 1305, and traveled to Castile in order to investigate the appearance of Sefer Ha-Zohar (the book of Splendor). His report of his meeting with Rabbi Moshe de Leon is of great importance to the question of the authorship of the Zohar.

In his travels, Rabbi Isaac encountered several intellectual and mystical schools, including the three (3) major kabbalistic trends that flourished in Spain at the end of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century:

1, The prophetic/ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia and his disciples (in a form seemingly influenced by Sufism). Abulafia’s prophetic and messianic pretensions prompted a sharp reaction on the part of Shelomoh ben Avraham Adret, a famous legal authority who succeeded in annihilating the influence of Abulafia’s ecstatic Qabbalah in Spain. According to Besserman's The Shambhala Guide to Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism, Abulafia's "prophetic approach to meditation included manipulating the Hebrew letters in a nondenominational context that brought him into conflict with the Jewish establishment and provoked the Inquisition."

In Italy, however, his works were translated into Latin and contributed substantially to the formation of Christian Qabbalah. In the Middle East, ecstatic Qabbalah was accepted without reservation. Clear traces of Abulafian doctrine are evident in the works of Yitzhak ben Shmuel of Acre, Yehudah Albotini and Hayyim Vital. In Israel, Abulafia’s ideas were combined with Sufi elements, apparently stemming from the school of Ibn Arabi; thus Sufi views were introduced into European Qabbalah. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Spanish theurgical Qabbalah, which had developed without any significant impact from ecstatic Qabbalah, was integrated with the latter; this combination became, through the book Pardes Rimonim by Mosheh Cordovero, part of mainstream Qabbalah.

Hayyim Vital brought Abulafian views into the fourth unpublished part of his Shaarei Qedushah, and the eighteenth-century qabbalists of the Beit El Academy in Jerusalem perused Abulafia’s mystical manuals. Later on, mystical and psychological conceptions of Qabbalah found their way directly and indirectly to the Polish Hasidic masters. The influence of ecstatic Qabbalah is to be seen in isolated groups today, and traces of it can be found in modern literature (e.g., the poetry of Yvan Goll), mainly since the publication of Gershom Scholem’s researches.

2. Catalan Kabbalah (a/k/a "Kabbalah of Gerona") is spread by students of "Isaac the Blind". for the first time, books were written to bring his ideas to a larger audience, The acceptance of the teaching of Isaac the Blind, by Nahmanides, was essential for the legitimization of this form of textual interpretation.

3. Castilian Kabbalah, including the major work produced in that school, the Zohar, by Moshe deLeon. Castilian Kabbalah took shape during and immediately following the reign of Alfonso X, famous for supporting an intellectual renaissance in which Jews played an important role. This period in Castilian culture also witnessed an increasing interest in esoteric texts and ideas, forming a confused mosaic of Neoplatonic, Gnostic, Hermetic, Pythagorean ideas and formulations.

Moshe Cordovero had fused Abulafia's "Ecstatic Kabbalah" with ideas of Rabbi Abraham Maimon - one of Cordovero's students. Special note to the reader - whenever we read a text that stipulates "Cordovero merged Abulafia's Kabbalah with Sufi ideas", this is really a back-handed attempt to slur the descendants of Maimonides' who were characterized as Sufi by Tosafot and Hassidim.

According to tradition, Isaac Luria (known as "Ari" or "Arizal") arrived in Safed on the exact day of the funeral of Moshe Cordovero in 1570. In later years of his life, Luria recounts the story of him joining in Cordovero's funeral procession, he claims to have realized (at that very moment) realized that only he saw a pillar of fire following the Ramak's presence. The Zohar describes this mystical revelation as a sign to the individual who sees it, that he is meant to inherit the succession of leadership from the departed person.

Hayyim Vital provides us with the names of thirty-eight individuals who according to him, made up Luria's disciples. According to Vital, the fellowship was divided into four, hierarchically ordered groups. The first and most important, was composed of eleven men, listed in this order:

- Hayyim Vital,

- Jonathan Sagis,

- Joseph Arzin,

- Isaac Kohen, Gedaliah ha-Levi,

- Samuel Uceda,

- Judah Mishan,

- Abraham Gavriel,

- Shabbatai Menashe,

- Joseph ibn Tabul, and

- Elijah Falko (or Falkon).

The order in which these names are presented is significant. Vital regarded himself as the leading disciple and thus placed himself at the head of the list. Joseph ibn Tabul, who was actually an exceedingly important disciple, perhaps second only to Vital in influence, is placed at the end of the list. Undoubtedly, Vital regarded ibn Tabul as a rival and thus sought to relegate him to a relatively insignificant place in the hierarchy of disciples." Despite this rivalry, it is largely accepted that within a year Hayyim Vital emerged as the leading student, so that when the Arizal died in 1572, at the age of thirty-eight, Vital succeeded him. Since the Arizal had left almost none of his teachings in writing, Vital began to write down everything he had learned from his master in those two (2) years.

Menachem Lonzano, a personal friend of Gedalieh Cordoveiro (son of Moshe Cordovero) was a staunch opponent of Hayyim Vital and Hayyim Vital's teachings - publicly denouncing Hayyim Vital in his work Imrei Emet. Lonzano was an aggressive opponent of Lurianic Kabbalistic methods because he viewed them as blasphemous illustrations and expressions.

Moshe Cordovero was the teacher of a relatively loose knit circle of disciples. The most important were

- Elijah de Vidas,

- Abraham Galante,

- Moses Galante,

- Hayyim Vital,

- Abraham ben Eliezer ha-Levi Berukhim,

- Elazar ben Moshe Azikri,

- Samuel Gallico,

- Mordechai Dato.

However, as Luria claims to have been instructed to find his chosen disciple in Safed, Hayyim Vital, (to whom he was mystically commanded to reveal his new teachings) Luria avoided accepting Kabbalistic leadership in Safed until six months later, when Rabbi Hayyim Vital approached him and asked to study onder him. The Ari only lived for two years after this, until 1572, but in those few months he cooked up a system of Kabbalah, with doctrines which were wholly divorced from Cordoveran methods. To recap - Luria never studied under Cordovero, nor did Luria ever write any of his teachings down - we are left to rely upon Hayyim Vital's transcription which ostensibly result from two (2) years of study with Luria.

What is important for the reader to know is that a former student of Cordovero, Abraham ben Eliezer HaLevi Berukhim, joined the lowest group, a lesser known 4th school, of Isaac Luria's. Berukhim was born in Morocco, he immigrated to Palestine probably before 1565. In Safed he joined Moses *Cordovero’s circle and became a friend of Elijah de *Vidas. When Isaac *Luria arrived in Safed, Abraham joined his school and was a member of its "fourth group." Hayyim *Vital thought highly of him him and in several places quotes kabbalistic sayings of Isaac Luria which he had heard from Abraham. Vital quotes Luria as saying that in the "origins of the souls of the Safed kabbalists," Abraham derived from the patriarch Jacob. Abraham was a visionary and ascetic, who preached piety and morality, and called for repentance. He was called the "great patron of the Sabbath" and he went out on Friday mornings to the markets and streets to urge the householders to hurry with the preparations for the Sabbath meals and close their shops early so that they would have time to purify themselves for the Sabbath.

The two schools of Cordoveran and Lurianic Kabbalah give two very diverse accounts and synthesis of the theology of Kabbalah until then, based on their interpretation of the Zohar. Subsequent followers of the Ari saw their teachings as harmonious with, and a deeper interpretation of the Zohar and the Ramak's system, but the entirely new system of Isaac Luria. But let's be clear - there is little overlap between gnostic-influenced theistic mysticism of "Lurianinc Kabbalah" and Esoteric Textual interpretation a la Cordoveran techniques

Esoteric textual interpretation was primarily a Spanish development. Moses Cordovero (1522-1570) formulated the finest summation of Kabbalah until his time in his book tiled "Pardes Rimonim" (Garden of Pomegranates). He founded an academy for the study of Kabbalah that included two influential pupils, Isaac Luria (1534-1572) and Hayyim Vital (1543-1620).

By the end of the fifteenth century the Zohar was already 200 years old ... but it had never been printed. There were "Kabbalists" in many parts of Europe and the Middle East, but not in large numbers, and its phase of primary innovation was over. The literature of Neoplatonism had become more accessible, and there was a temptation to systemize the Zohar with Jewish Philosophy of its time. In contrast, as "Kabbalah" became broadly accepted means of textual interpretation, the political situation for Jews throughout Europe had become tentative and pressured by murderous pogroms; there was a growing climate of outright hostility against Spanish Jews. Spanish Expulsion resulted in an influx of Spanish Jews into the Ottoman Empire. They brought books and traditions. Safed, a in Galilee, had a wool industry, and soon had a large and thriving community. At its peak the town contained a number of Talmudists and Kabbalists, including Solomon Alkabetz, Joseph Karo, Moses Cordovero, Isaac Luria, and Hayyim Vital to name a few.

It was Isaac Luria who transformed Moshe Cordovero's "Kabbalah" (as expounded in "Pardes Rimonim") with a darkly gnostic vision littered with the imagery which Chazal elected to omit from our Mesora. Devoid of neoplatonism, with dependent chains of "being harmoniously and providentially supported by the One (Ein Sof)". Luria's view of Cordoveran methods harbored a fundamental premise that was very dark and outside the boundaries of normative Judaism of it day. Latching onto a verse in the Zohar claiming that God had created many universes and destroyed them, Luria placed human existence upon the trash-pile of "a failed creation".

In Luria's view, God behaved like a mad chemist blowing up the laboratory, divine powers unable to find a stable configuration, and shattered. God made mistakes, things slipped out of place and small splinters of Hashem were carried into the abyss of darkness. The physical world of Luria's vision is a place of essential and intrinsic impurity, a mixture of the divine splinters and the dead husks (klipot). Stringencies of Rabbinic Judaism relating to the pure and impure gained a deep metaphysical significance in Luria's system. However, according to Luria. even though the universe is fractured, it can be restored by mystical unifications, and divine splinters (some say sparks) can be liberated from the cesspool of impurity (Tikkun Olam).

Although Luria's views are described by practitioners to come from the Zohar, his readings are darker - synonymous with the gnostic myths of late antiquity which were expressly omitted from Jewish Canon by Chazal. It was tempting to believe that Luria's descriptions of broken cosmos appealed to so many Jews because of their everyday social experience of being exiled in a broken universe filled with debasement, exclusion, suffering and malevolence. Messianism was intrinsic to Luria's worldview of catastrophe and repair. A consequence of the political and social hostility towards Jews in Europe was the belief that a Messiah would come and liberate the Jewish people from their precarious existence at the mercy of hostile powers. There were various claimants for the title of messiah, but the most important was Sabbatai Zvi (1626-1676).

Sabbatai Zevi was a charismatic personality. He was subject to extreme swings of mood and behavior, oscillating between severe asceticism and piety to shocking acts that transgressed Halacha; resulting in his expulsion from several communities. That was until he met 'Nathan of Gaza'.

Abraham Nathan ben Elisha Hayyim Ashkenazi (a/k/a "Nathan Benjamin ben Elisha ha-Levi Ghazzati" and "Nathan of Gaza"), was a young Kabbalist heavily influenced by the Zohar. Nathan's father Elisha Hayyim ben Jacob, was a Rabbinic Jew who served as an envoy of Jerusalem collecting donations for impoverished Jews. During his travels, Elisha Hayyim ben Jacob would distribute Lurianic Kabbalistic texts which he had obtained in Jerusalem. Upon settling in Ottoman Palestine, Elisha Hayyim ben Jacob took on the surname “Ashkenazi” as a means of differentiating his family and himself from the largely Sephardic inhabitants of the Ottoman province - Nathan of Gaza was born and educated in Germany as a youth, later moving to Jerusalem when his father moved the family there. Prior to the death of Nathan's father, Elisha Hayyim ben Jacob, Nathan studied under Jacob Hagiz in Jerusalem. Jacob Hagiz is an interesting figure in the history of Cordoveran methods of textual interpretation - not Lurianic methods.

Born in Fez in 1620, to a Sephardi Family of Fez, Morocco, Yakob Hagiz (Jacob) married a woman named Miriam Galante while studying under his father-in-law - Moshe ben Yonatan Galante. Like the Hagiz Family, the Galantes were originally from Spain. Mordechai (Angello) Galante left Spain in 1492 for Rome, Italy. Yonatan Mordechai Galante had two (2) sons named Abraham and Moshe - both migrated to Safed. Abraham became known as "Abraham haQodesh" - a direct disciple of Moshe Cordovero as was his brother Moshe. Moshe ben Yonatan Galante was chosen to participate in the revival of Smichah in Safed - re-instituted by Yosef Karo whose chain of tradition includes the anti-maimonidean instigator Rabbi Asher ben Jehial. Moshe ben Yonatan Galante succeeded Moshe de-Trani as 'Ab Beit Din' of the Safed Beit Din.

In 1646 Jacob Ḥagiz traveled to Livorni, Italy, to find a publisher for his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. In 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Leghorn had founded a Beit haMidrash for him and this is where he became a member of the rabbinical college . In Jerusalem he attracted a large group of students including Moses ibn Ḥabib, who later became his son-in-law, and Joseph Almosnino, later rabbi of Belgrade, of present-day Serbia..and Nathan of Gaza. in 1665, Jacob Hagiz, and his circle of Rabbinic scholars in Jerusalem, excommunicated Sabatai Zvi.

While Jacob Hagiz opposed Sabatai Zvi due to personal experience with him, Rabbi Yakob Zemah thought Sabatai Zvi had perverted Lurianic Kabbalah as memorialized by Hayyim Vital.

Jacob Hagiz had a son named Moshe. Moshe Hagiz was a great Talmudic scholar AND a man of secular learning. According to people who knew him personally, Moshe understood several languages and was somewhat familiar with modern history- he advocated the study of secular sciences , and admitted that his father informed him that the Zohar has been interpolated by later scribes…that there was no ancient origin to esoteric Lurianic methods.

To be clear, the apostasy of Sabatai Zvi was, seemingly, the result of using Hayyim Vital's texts without a teacher to guide. On another note we are left to explain why Cordoveran Kabbalists have never harbored this Lurianic frenetic search for a "Messianic deliverance from suffering" supported by Sabatai Zvi; perhaps the stipend being paid to Sabatai Zvi, by Nathan of Gaza and elements of the Diaspora, enticed otherwise impoverished Rabbis to seek improved conditions for themselves…literally having nothing to do with support of the madness of Sabatai Zvi. Let's take a look at the pedigree of Moshe Codovero's Students, as compared to Isaac Luria, and see what this shows:

-Moshe Cordovero Tradition

-Hayyim Vital

-Elijah de Vidas,

-Abraham Galante,

-Abraham ben Eliezer ha-Levi Berukhim,

-Elazar ben Moshe Azikri,

-Samuel Gallico,

-Mordechai Dato,

-Moshe ben Yonatan Galante - broke with Cordoveran methods to support Sabatai Zvi.

-* Nathan of Gaza - broke with Cordoveran methods to support Sabatai Zvi.

-* Yosef Almosnino- broke with Cordoveran methods to support Sabatai Zvi.

-Moshe bin Habibi

-Yakob HaLevi Beruchim

-Samuel di-Pam -

-Yakob Hagiz- stayed with Cordoveran methods and broke with his father-in-law Moshe Galante.

-Moshe Hagiz - stayed with Cordoveran methods and broke with his grandfather Moshe Galante.

-Isaac Luria Tradition (Never studied under Cordovero)

-Hayyim Vital (wrote down Luria's teaching but we have no evidence that it matches Luria's teaching)

-Sabatai Zvi - (studied Mesora under Isaac diAlba; Sabatai Zvi studied the texts of Hayyim Vital alone, without a mentor)

-Nathan of Gaza - broke with Cordoveran methods to support Sabatai Zvi.

-Yosef Almosnino- broke with Cordoveran methods to support Sabatai Zvi.

Rabbi Joseph Karo is said to have paid special attention to Hayyim Vital's early talents and in 1557 requested that Moshe Alshich take special care in his education as he was destined to succeed his teacher in the world of Torah study. That same year (1570), Vital first became acquainted with the kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Ashkenazi (Isaac ben Solomon Luria).

Other examples of Mysticism, Jewish or otherwise, include Islamic Sufi mystic al-Husayn al-Hallaj (858-922) proclaiming, “I am God” (see Sol Schimmel, 1975, Chapter 2), and the Jewish kabbalist, Isaac of Acre (b. 1291?), who wrote of the soul being absorbed into God “as a jug of water into a running well.” Lurianic Kabbalah is the most prominent form of theurgic mysticism. In it, the mystic claims to bring about a modification in the inner life of the Godhead (see Idel, 1988). However, it is questionable whether in its theurgic forms kabbalah is mysticism, even on the wide definition of mysticism, although it is clearly mysticism with regard to its teaching of union with the Godhead and the Ein sof, or Infinite. “ineffability” or indescribability are seemingly essential aspects of mysticism. It is not always clear, however, whether it is the experience or its alleged object, or both, that are ineffable. A logical problem with ineffability was noted long ago by Augustine, “God should not be said to be ineffable, for when this is said something is said. And a contradiction in terms is created, since if that is ineffable which cannot be spoken, then that is not ineffable which is called ineffable” (Augustine, 1958, pp. 10–11). To say that X is ineffable is to say something about X, which contravenes ineffability.

Some philosophers think that a stress on ineffability signifies an attempt to consign mysticism to the “irrational,” thus excluding it from more sensible human pursuits. Grace Jantzen has advanced a critique of the emphasis on ineffability as an attempt to remove mystical experiences from the realm of rational discourse, placing them instead into the realm of the emotions (Jantzen, 1995, p. 344). Others have staunchly defended the “rationality” of mysticism against charges of irrationalism (Staal, 1975). The issue of ineffability is thus tied into questions of the epistemological value of mystical experiences.

Some philosophers have argued that there could never be evidence for thinking a person had perceived God (Gale, 1994 and 1995, and Byrne, 2001). For there to be evidence that a person experienced an object O, and did not have just an “O-ish-impression,” it would have to be possible for there to be evidence that O was the common object of different perceptions (not necessarily simultaneous with one another). This, in turn, would be possible only if it were possible to distinguish perceptions of O, specifically, from possible perceptions of other objects that might be perceptually similar to O. This latter requirement is possible only if O exists in both space and time. Space-time coordinates make it possible to distinguish O from objects of similar appearance existing in other space-time coordinates. God, however, does not exist in both space and time. Therefore, there could never be evidence that a person had experienced God.

Some philosophers have argued that because the “modern inquirer” assumes everything ultimately explicable in naturalistic terms, in principle we should reject any supernatural explanation of mystical and religious experience (see Bagger, 1999). Invoking God to explain mystical experiences is like invoking miracles to explain natural phenomena. We should match our elimination of miracles from our explanatory vocabulary with an elimination of a supernatural explanation of mystical experiences of God. Hence, we do not have to wait until we discover a live alternative explanation to the theistic explanation of mystical experiences of God. We should resist a theistic explanation in the name of our epistemic standards. Hence, we should reject both the doxastic practice approach and the Argument from Perception.

This argument raises the important question of the relationship between theistic explanation and a naturalistic program of explanation. Various theistic philosophers have attempted to fuse special divine activity with a modern scientific understanding of the world; no successes have yet been claimed. Of course, a person for whom supernatural explanation is not an option would have reason to reject the Argument from Perception and refuse to engage in a doxastic practice of identifying "God experiences". However, most defenders of the Argument from Perception advance it at best as a defensible line of reasoning, rather than as a proof of valid experiences of God that should convince anyone, and the doxastic practice approach is not meant to convince everybody to participate in a theistic doxastic practice (see Gellman, 2001b).

April8 - that's all I have to say about the history of Jewish Mysticism-vs-theosophy. Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply!

Thanks for the interesting, informative and helpful reply! I'm sorry if I implied any moral/spiritual/patronising equivalence between rationalistic Orthodox Judaism and extreme rationalism-atheism. That wasn't my intention! Rather, I find Rambamist Judaism's etc. spiritual/intellectual integrity, inspiring, honourable and interesting from your descriptions - though I don't personally share it (though I have books eg. by Menachem Kelner reflecting that sort of approach). Instead my comparison was methodological/epistemological in nature: questioning the validity of a strictly rational approach to Orthodox Judaism in the face of the diverse multi-disciplinary and enormous challenges of rationalist modernity against Orthodox Jewish belief - my contention being that only an Orthodox Judaism combining rationalism and mysticism can intellectually withstand the onslaught against Judaism! More on that next time...

Psychologically, my personality combines some internal intellectual strengths, enclothed within a very weak outer emotional character - anxiety/personality disorder/problems/chaos etc. I mention this because it means that I live my life in the gap between what I yearn for/desire intellectually, and what I end up practically capable of coping with! That's a very large gap/struggle/exile, so consequently I plan things that take years to hopefully come to fruition! Therefore, any resolution between us of the issue of balance/sections between criticisms of Kabbalah and Jewish philosophy on wikipedia may be a long time................premature. At least, I think, the weakness character problem also has a spiritual benefit, in that it causes me to become emotionally nullified within the subjects I contemplate, as there is no sense of self/ego that might block emotional perception. This causes, I like to think, more sensitive receptivity to the emotional transcendent yearning within the intellectual concepts - a "contemplative"/meditative nature, but through intellectual analysis from my stong side, rather than the strong, clever, sharp, factual-memorising-filing academic type mind that is easily able to cope with learning and memorising details, facts and figures. Over half of the academic/professorial/wikipedia ideal-suited mind is built on emotional stength and dominance of character - the very opposite of my weak-handicapped half!

I think that my next correspondence/reply would need to be more structured than my previous method spontaneous approach, because of your longer, more involved answer (though it'll still have to be in the internet cafe on my part!). Also, I've got enormous upcoming lifechaos tasks to sort out! So, it might be a long time before I can reply to your interesting points - though I'll make sure to respond to each question etc. With best wishes and esteem (and no patronisation/offence previously intended!)

Mustela putorius furo "ferret" out the hidden meanings of things. Wild Boar similarly snuffle out truffles

April8 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.

As it may be a year before I can reply to your post, I'll leave here a text example for now, that I hope demonstrates the intellectual viability for me of Jewish mysticism - and uniting Jewish mysticism (particularly Lurianist Tzimtzum in this example) and Medieval Jewish philosophy (particularly Rambam here), through Habad thought, in their Divine source. (I had this text already on my sandbox page). It comes from adapted English translations of analytical Likkutei Sichos talks from the last-7th-Lubavitcher Rebbe. Among Habad leadership the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th Rebbes emerge as progressive intellectual systemisers, articulating Habad thought successively in greater exposition unity and grasp. The 2nd, 4th and 6th Rebbes focus on progressive emotional-transformation inwardness and application of the intellectual teaching. Broadly these two complimentary trends comprise in Habad terminology "Haskalah" (in the Hasidic sense only, of intellectual focus) and "Avodah" (application). The celebrated figures among the Habad following are also categorised broadly as "Maskilim" and "Ovdim" in their pesonality focus use of Habad thought. Among the leadership:

[Application: 2nd Rebbe (definition of Habad contemplation method in Divine service), 4th Rebbe (outward focus in Hasidic social consolidation), 6th Rebbe (self-sacrifice through underground leadership in Soviet Russia and begining of Western outreach)].

Systemisation: 1st Rebbe (Schneur Zalman-Habad philosophical-Hasidism system founder), 3rd (Menachem Mendel I-unity of Habad Hasidut with the exoteric parts of Judaism, including Hakirah in his Sefer Hakirah which was written to present Habad mystical thought to the Tzarist authorities), 5th (Sholom DovBer-called in Habad the "Maimonides" of Hasidut due to his being the Habad systemiser among systemisers), and the last-7th Lubavitcher Rebbe (Menachem Mendel II-unity of all parts of traditional Jewish thought through Hasidut in G-d, through fullest public articulation - his use for the first time in Habad of the analytical talk rather than the esoteric discourse - and the application of this for Messianism, outreach and action).

Typically, the last Rebbe's method presents questions, initial solutions, rejection of initial solutions, and finally unifying solutions that resolve each question along the way. In other examples, in this process, his analysis might successively consider Talmudic, philosophical or Kabbalistic answers, each time needing to analytically probe deeper to reach the Hasidic answer, as previous resolutions were still partial - each stage being motivated by apparent contradictions between the classic texts and the attempted unifying solutions, even as each deeper partial answer might be more complete. This approach, therefore, validates for me both the legitimacy of each dimension of traditional Jewish thought (including Lurianic Kabbalah) considered along the way, as well as the conclusive location of all approaches through Hasidut in the Divine Torah min Hashamayim (against modern secular challenges). The suggested example text I have at hand now, for this methodology:

Example text

Adapted from Likkutei Sichot-Talks of the 7th Rebbe on the classic problem of Divine foreknowledge:

THE PROBLEM
Many of our sages have expounded on two cornerstones of Jewish faith: G-d's all-encompassing knowledge and man's alleged freedom of choice. Much has been written on the apparent contradiction between the two. We are told that "All is foreseen, and freedom of choice is granted" (Ethics of the Fathers, 3:15). But how can this be? If there are no limits to G-d's knowledge, how can man have real choice? If G-d already knows what I will do tomorrow, is not my freedom to choose an illusion?

Maimonides (1135-1204) writes:

• "Freedom of choice has been granted to every man...As it is written: "See, I have set before you life (and good, and death and evil)" (Deut. 30:15)...Were G-d to decree that a person be righteous or wicked...what place would His Torah have? By what measure of justice would G-d punish the wicked and reward the righteous...?"

• "One may ask: "G-d certainly knows all that will transpire...so if He knew that a person would be righteous, then it would be impossible for that person not to be. And if you say that He knew that the person would be righteous but it was nevertheless possible that he might be wicked, then G-d's knowledge was not complete!"... Understand well what I am going to say. We have already explained in the second chapter of Laws of the Torah's Foundations that G-d does not know with a "mind" that is distinct from His being, as is the case with man whose being and mind are two distinct entities. Rather, He and His "mind" are one and the same - a concept that is impossible for the human mind to fully comprehend... We lack the capacity to know the nature of G-d's knowledge of all creations and all events. But this we know without doubt: the deeds of man are in his hands, and G-d does not compel him to do anything..."

The Raavad (Rabbi Abraham ben Dovid 1120-1198) takes issue with Maimonides' approach:

• "Maimonides did not act in the manner of the wise: one ought not to begin something that he is incapable of concluding. He poses a difficult question, then remains with the difficulty and reverts to faith. It would have been better for him to have left it as a matter of faith, instead of making the innocent aware of the contradiction and leaving their minds in doubt."

Raavad concludes by offering at least "something of an answer." He argues that G-d knows what man will choose, but that this knowledge has no effect on the nature of man's choice. He compare it to "the predictions of stargazers, who know by some other means what the behaviour of an individual will be" but in no way determine it.

The Tosfos Yom Tov (Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, 1579-1654) cites an answer offered by the Midrash Shmuel (Rabbi Shmuel Uceda, circa 1575):

• "There is no contradiction. G-d's knowledge of the future is the result of His observing the deed that the person is doing. Just as a person's observation of the deeds of his fellow in no way compels his fellow's actions, so too is it with G-d's observation of one's deeds. One cannot argue that because G-d knows the future actions of man He therefore compels them, since He is not governed by the laws of time... There is no "future" in G-d's reality - the whole of time is "present" to Him."

Tosfos Yom Tov concludes, "indeed, this is consistent with the conclusion of Raavad, who compares G-d's knowledge to that of a stargazer."

SOME QUESTIONS
So why would Maimonides begin a philosophical discussion of an issue to which there is no philosophical answer?

The Midrash Shmuel's contention appears to be well substantiated. G-d is the Creator of time and space. From His vantage point, the whole of time is an poen book. To say that He "already" knows the future "before" we mortals have reached that juncture is to speak of His reality in limited terms.

Why doesn't Maimonides offer this answer? Why does Raavad, who seems to offer this explanation, refer to it only as "something of an answer" and concede that there is no definitive solution? And if there is a flaw in Midrash Shmuel's answer, was he unaware of it?

ANOTHER KIND OF KNOWLEDGE
The key to all this lies in Maimonides' "non-answer." Instead of simply saying that we cannot grasp the nature of G-d's "mind," Maimonides refers to his earlier point that G-d and "His mind" are one. Let us examine his detailed formulation of this point in Chapter Two of his Laws of the Torah's Foundations:

• "All existences aside from the Creator, from the highest spiritual form to a tiny gnat in the belly of the earth, exist by virtue of His reality. So in knowing His own reality, He knows everything..."

• "He does not "know" with a mind that is distinct from Him, as we know. We and our minds are not one; but the Creator - He, His mind, and His life, are one from every side and from every angle and in every manner of unity. For were He to...know with a "mind" that is distinct of His being, there would exist several "gods" - He, His mind, etc..."

• "Thus, He does not know the creations by perceiving them, as we perceive them; rather, He knows them through His perception of Himself."

In other words, the very attribution of "knowledge" to G-d is problematic. Our definition of "knowing" presupposes several components to the knower - the "I" that possess the knowledge, the "information" I possess, and the "mind" by which I possess it. True, these components become fused into a single entity, but G-d is a pure singularity, not a composite entity. Maimonides therefore states that G-d's knowledge of the intricacies that comprise our existence are, in truth, but a single knowing. G-d does not know Himself via a "mind" that is a distinct from Him; He, His knowledge, and His "mind" are a single unit.

Hasidic teaching takes this a step further. The world was created through G-d's knowledge. In choosing to "know" Himself as the source of the created existence, the Almighty grants creation its validity and being.

In the words of Shneur Zalman of Liadi:

• "G-d's knowledge itself is its very life and being and that which brings it into existence from nothingness into actuality."

According to this, one obviously cannot describe G-d's knowledge of the future as resulting from the facts and events of our existence. Actually, the very opposite is true: the facts and events of our existence result from G-d's knowledge of them.

THE TZIMTZUM
In addition to this singular, all-embracing, creating knowledge, there exists another level of Divine knowledge.

In essence, G-d is wholly untouched by the deeds of man: "if you are righteous, what do you give Him? What can He possibly receive from you?" (Job 35:6-7). Yet G-d chose to be "affected" by what we do: to take "pleasure" in our accomplishments and to be "angered" by our transgressions. He chose to give Himself these traits in order to enable us to relate to Him in a way that is meaningful to us.

(N.B. This is the Kabbalistic/Hasidic answer why G-d created the Physical World through the esoteric Kabbalistic descending Spiritual Chain of Worlds, with all their Sephirot, levels, angels and souls - as well as through the Lurianic scheme of Shattering-Rectification etc. G-d could have created the Physical World alone in one Omnipotent leap. However, in that case, we would have no way of relating or conceptualising Divinity as the gap would be unbridgable. Through the innumerable intermediate manifestations of G-d, now the Infinite and finite can relate and interfuse. This explains the contemplative use of the whole Lurianic and Kabbalistic scheme in Habad meditative prayer (other Hasidic groups shun Kabbalah proper). While classic Lurianic prayer focused on theurgic esoteric combinations of Divine names, Habad Hasidic method uses Kabbalah's theosophy to gain personal intellectual understanding of Divinity in order to awaken internal emotional self-nullification and ecstasy (Mainstream Hasidic emotional enthusism is shunned as superficial self-love).

This phenomenon is referred to by the Kabbalists as the tzimtzum (Lurianic primordial "contraction") - G-d is projecting Himself in ways that are "confining" to His essence, assuming definitive attributes so He can relate to us on our terms.

On this "tzimtzum" level, G-d knows us in a way that is comparable to the workings of the human mind - with a knowledge that results from what we do. At the same time, He also knows us with a higher "pre-tzimtzum" knowledge: a knowledge that is not caused by but is the cause of its contents. Hasidic teaching refers to these two levels as G-d's "higher knowledge" and His "lower knowledge."

KNOWING THE UNKNOWABLE
With this in mind, we can begin to understand the various approaches to the issue of Divine knowledge and human choice.

G-d's effect upon our existence is confined to tzimtzum contraction. So on the most basic level, there is no contradiction in the first place, since G-d's "lower knowledge," although unbounded by time, space or other limits, otherwise resembles knowledge as we know it.

Ultimately, however, G-d does not know things because they occur. He knows them by knowing Himself, and His knowledge of them is the souce of their very existence.

This "higher knowledge" is part of the pre-tzimtzum reality and, as such, has no perceptible effect on our choices. This is why the Midrash Shmuel and others feel that it is sufficient to deal with the issue of "Divine knowledge and human choice" on the level of "lower knowledge."

Nevertheless, the Raavad considers the "stargazer" explanation as only "something of an answer," for it fails to resolve the contradiction as it pertains to the essence of G-d's knowledge. The Raavad, therefore, feels that Maimonides ought not to have begun discussion of an issue that ultimately extends beyond the parameters of logic.

Maimonides disagrees. He chooses specifically to address the higher level of Divine knowledge. For man must not only believe that the Almighty's reality extends beyond what is rationally accessible to the human mind - he must also understand and appreciate the depth of the supra-rationality of the Divine.

Indeed, if we are not bothered by the question of how G-d's knowledge is to be reconciled with the freedom granted to man, then our perception of G-d's knowledge is limited to its "lower" aspect. To grasp the truly super-logical nature of G-d's "mind" is to understand that it, as His essence, is affected by nothing and is the ultimate effector of all.

Yanki Tauber is a noted translator and publisher of the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The forgoing is based on two addresses by the Rebbe, delivered on May 16, 1984 and March 8, 1986 April8 (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra Note:

I've just reformated the above text example and added some clarifications.

This small Habad text example is Philosophically rather than Kabbalistically orientated - other examples of Habad thought are often more Kabbalistic in content, especially the involved exegetical texts that include Kabbalah, sometimes Medieval Philosophy and Hasidut - in each case Kabbalah and Hasidut being separate disciplines. Yet other texts are Talmudic or mystical-psychological or Halachic or intellectual-devotional in focus, each time though, looking at topics through Hasidic thought, as in the Habad intellectual view Hasidism permeates and vivifies the whole diversity of other dimensions in Torah. Nonetheless, in this text, the Lurianic tzimtzum is synthesised, as well as the extension of Kabbalah in Hasidic panentheism. As the direct Kabbalistic content here was minimal, I added the extra note to describe further how Kabbalah fits in with Philosophy through Hasidut - the mediationary fusion between the Infinite and the finite. Habad thought elaborates extensively on the Hasidic exploration and explanation of this.

I hope this brief example offers an idea of where I am coming from in my view, the indispensibility of both rationalism and mysticism in Judaism for me (as well as confirmation that Rambam is the deepest perception in philosophy!), as it may be a while before I can reply to your points.....With best wishes April8 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Kahal Kadosh Beth Shalome

Your addition to Kahal Kadosh Beth Shalome has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Erik - You've gone too far by deleting the page. You did not respond to my demand of proof nor did you ask a single question to explore it - you unilaterally deleted it without discussion which bespeaks a motive other than Wikiipedia Contribution. I have reported your behavior to Wiki Admin as Vandalism. IF you are an admin, and if you are not under the influence of alcohol, you might have gone one step towards reconciling this without escalation. I am not impressed.

@ErikHaugen: Jimharlow99 asked me if I could give a second opinion on whether the page was copyvio or not. To make it easier, could you tell me which document was being copied in the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon if I missed a "demand of proof"; I don't think I noticed that anywhere. My apologies! Most of the copyrighted text that was pasted into the article is from bethahabah.org. The pages have copyright notices, eg "All content Copyright ©2001-2006 Congregation Beth Ahabah". For example, "Jews were already doing business in the Virginia Territory as early as 1650" is copied verbatim from this page. This page contains the text "Confederate War Bonds, bearing the signature of Judah P. Benjamin, Secretary of State", the article had "Confederate War Bonds, bearing the signature of Judah P. Benjamin, Secretary of State of the Confederacy," etc. And so on. It's true; regretfully, copyright infringement is generally deleted immediately upon discovery, without discussion, due to the potential legal issues involved. I did not escalate anything beyond that; you were not reported or blocked or anything of that nature. If you'd like, please feel more than free to recreate this article, or I can (I think) restore the first sentence or maybe two and some of the references; please let me know if you'd like me to do anything along those lines. But if you move forward with this (and I hope you do!), please keep in mind that it is totally essential that you completely reword everything; even close paraphrasing may cause your contribution to run afoul of US copyright law. It must be completely in your own words. Please, also, try to remember if there were times in the past that you previously pasted in copyrighted material; if there were any it would be great if you could help find those yourself so we can get them fixed. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems at Oldest synagogues in the world

Your addition to Oldest synagogues in the world has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Erik - You've gone too far by deleting the page. You did not respond to my demand of proof nor did you ask a single question to explore it - you unilaterally deleted it without discussion which bespeaks a motive other than Wikiipedia Contribution. I have reported your behavior to Wiki Admin as Vandalism. IF you are an admin, and if you are not under the influence of alcohol, you might have gone one step towards reconciling this without escalation. I am not impressed. Jaim Harlow 22:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't delete this page. The section you added to this article appears to be copied from this article in the Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. "Copyright © 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV". Also see the terms and conditions; Brill seems to clearly be claiming ownership here. Am I misunderstanding the copyright claims/status of the text you've added in either this or the case discussed above? If so please set me straight; it wouldn't be the first time! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One unique guy

Perhaps it isn't entirely relevant to editing Wikipedia, but you are one of the most interesting individuals I remember encountering on here. Good luck with pursuing the language and history of as many peoples as you can! MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, MezzoMezzo. Jaim Harlow 22:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sephardi Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn Yahya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember basic policies

Please remember the basic polies of Wikipedia: WP:RS and WP:V. You should also be aware of WP:3RR. You cannot describe as "vandalism" edits that are based on Wilipedia policies. Paul B (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember you are not a Jew - you have no voice in Jewish topics. Yours is an attempot to distort and misinform through censorship. I have reported your actions as vandalism. Jaim Harlow 00:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that I am a Wikipedian. I have as much voice in Jewish topics as I choose to have. Jewish editoirs are not inviolable voices of truth on the topic of Judaism any more thn Christian editors are on the topic of Christianity. Paul B (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

HA! I am a Wikipedian too...I've written a boat-load more articles and content than you....and the rest of your censors on the "Golden Rule" page. What you are doing is unconscionable. You are out of your depth opining on topics in which you have no expertise. Remember - you are an editor, not a gate-keeper. Bebave like one and recuse yourself when you lack subject matter expertise. I've contacted some of the Wiki "Old Gang" to mediate; you clearly aren;t getting the message. Jaim Harlow 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)