 |
| The Rav, learning with the Arizal |
From Divrei Yaakov, by R' Yaakov Edes:
א. בספר פרי עץ חיים שער ט״ז שער קריאת שמע שעל המטה פרק א [דף ע״ה טור ד ] כתב וז״ל מעשה שהיה ישן מורי ז״ל ונכנס רבי אברהם הלוי ומצאו שהיה מרחש בשפתיו בין כך ובין כך נתעורר הרב אמר לו ומה היה אדוני מרחיש בשנתו אמר לו עסקתי עכשיו בישיבה של מעלה בפרשת בלק ובלעם דברים נפלאים ואמר לו יאמר מעלת כבוד תורתו מהני מילי מעלייתא מאר[=אמר] לו אם הייתי דורש פ' שנים רצופים יומם ולילה מה ששמעתי עתה אינו יכול להשלים וכן היה מנהגו ז״ל כשהיה ישן היה מביאים אותו לפני וכו [כתוב שם שמו של מלאך] שר הפנים והיה שואלו באיזה ישיבה הוא רוצה לילך והיה מוליכין אותו ופעמים היה בוחר בישיבתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ולפעמים בישיבת רבי עקיבא ולפעמים בישיבת משה רבינו ולפעמים בישיבת רבי מאיר וכן על דרך זה בכל מקום שהיה רוצה עכ״ל
"In sefer Pri Etz Chaim{I think from Rav Chaim Vital; see here for a different printing}, gate 16, gate Kriat Shema she'al haMitta, perek 1 [page 75 line 4], he wrote:
"There was an incident in which my teacher, zal {=the Arizal} was sleeping and Rabbi Avraham HaLevi entered and found that he was moving his lips. After a while, the rav awoke. [He {=Rabbi Avraham} said to him, 'may my master forgive me for waking him from his slumber.] He {=Rabbi Avraham} asked him, 'what was my master mumbling in his sleep?' He {=the Arizal} said to him, 'I was just now engaged in the yeshiva above in parashat Balak and Bilaam, wondrous things.' And he said to him, 'let the loftiness of the honor of his Torah say from these lofty words. He said to him, 'If I were to expound for 80 consecutive years, day and night, that which I just now heard, I would not be able to complete it.' And so was his custom, za"l, that when he would sleep they would bring him before etc. [it is written there the name of the angel {J: Surya}] the Sar HaPanim, and he would ask him which yeshiva he wished to go to, and they would convey him. And sometimes he would choose the yeshiva of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, sometimes the yeshiva of Rabbi Akiva, sometimes the yeshiva of Moshe Rabbenu, and sometimes the yeshiva of Rabbi Meir. And so, in this manner, in any place he would want to go."
ב. ועיין מש״כ בביאורים לעיל בפרשת שלח פרק י״ג פסוק י״ז מהגר״א שגילו לו בשינה אלפיים מאתיים ושישים פירושים על פסוק אחד ועיין בביאורים לביאור הגר״א לספר משלי פרק י״ט פסוק כ״ג מה שהובא שם באריכות בענין הדברים שיכול האדם לזכות בתורה בשינה ובענין ריבוי הפירושים שיש בתורה
"And see what I wrote in the explanations above in parashat Shelach, chapter verse 17, from the Gra, that 1260 explanations on one verse were revealed to him; and see in the commentaries to the commentary of the Gra on sefer Mishlei, chapter 19, pasuk 23, that which is brought there at length in the matter of things which a person is able to attain in Torah in sleep, and in the manner of the multitude of explanations that there are in the Torah."
I would suggest that perhaps the Arizal was basing himself on the maamar Chazal in Bava Metzia 23b going on to 24a:
דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בהני תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו במסכת ובפוריא ובאושפיזאThis is surely both masechet and purya! And if Rabbi Avraham HaLevi has the status of a guest, then indeed we have all three!
Seriously, though, I've also sometimes spoken words of Torah in my sleep. If that is what you are engaged in during the day, then your mind can keep running through the ideas at night.
(And indeed, I too learned all sorts of wondrous things at night. But I can't reveal them to you -- not even to give you a small sample -- because it would just take too darn long. I wonder, though, why Yaakov Avinu didn't merit the same, such that he didn't sleep all 14 years in yeshivat Sheim veEiver in order to maximize his learning time.)
To connect this with other topics recently discussed on parshablog,
On the other hand, one could theoretically flip this proof around, and question the genuineness of the Arizal's ruach hakodesh. As the guest says in Vikuach al Chochmas Hakabbalah:
The guest: But this does harm the holiness of the kaballah in general, a lot, for still the great mekubalim, such as Rabbi Yitzchak Luria {=the Arizal} and his students, who are boasted of as having ruach hakodesh -- how was it hidden from them this matter, and how did they establish and accept upon themselves that all the words of the Zohar are true and holy, and all of them are the words of the Tannaim and Amoraim? And how was it not revealed to them via ruach hakodesh that which was revealed to the Rav Yabetz, that there is in the sefer haZohar 280 additions which were added in later generations?Tzarich Iyun Gadol. What, for example, would the Chasam Sofer say about the ruach hakodesh of the Arizal?
And besides this, behold the Gaon Yabeitz, with the spirit of his understanding, made clear that the Ra'aya Mehemna and the Tikkunim, there are recognized from within them that they are entirely forgeries, and there is not in them even a single thing which was to Rabbi Shimon and his colleages. And how was this not revealed to the Arizal, who built also upon them the upper stories of his kabbalah? Is this not a clear sign that he and all his cubs are glorifying themselves in a false giving, in their saying that ruach hakodesh rested upon them?
18 comments:
So now you're motzi la'az on the Arizal? When apparently you don't even know the difference between Etz Chaim and Pri Etz Chaim? Zil G'mor! Then you will know that the Arizal was no stranger to text criticism either: he explained that the Ashkenazi minhag to stand up for kaddish was based on an interpolated Yerushalmi. You will also understand that for someone who says he learns with Tannaim and angels the notion that Rashbi is the sole author of the Zohar might have to be understand in a spiritual, and not historical sense. After all, when Eliyahu haNavi and Moshe Rabbeinu speak with Rashbi in Tikkunei haZohar and Raya Mehemna, do you think this means the three of them lived at the same time?
Once again, please, zil g'mor. Be humble, admit that you might not know enough to be sar ve-shofet on this subject. Consider that every chakham in every generation revered the Arizal, from the Rema mi-Fano and the Beis Yosef to the Magen Avraham, the Gra, the Chida, the Ktzos, all the way up to RMF, RSZA, name them all, even the Yaabetz and the CS... I'm not putting this forth as an argument of authority, but as a methodological advice: is it sound to assume that you are better informed than they were? Should you not presume that they found teirutzim to your kushios?
But implying that the Arizal was a quack... It's not like we was witholding his Toros either: he taught all day long, gave for every sugya in the Shas that they learned six mehalechim in pshat plus one reading in sod (you might remember that he was the nephew of R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, and is considered by some to have authored some parts of the Shita Mekubetzes), all the while teaching a revolutionary system of kabbala that is so rich and complex that it has all but superseded all other kabbalistic studies - all this in only two years, from 1570 to 1572.
Yes, I absolutely didn't know the difference between Etz Chaim and Pri Etz Chaim, such that if Rav Chaim Vital laid out the Arizal's statement about the authorship of the Zohar in the other, and if you mentioned the other as the source, I worked from memory. So?
"Consider that every chakham in every generation revered the Arizal, from the Rema mi-Fano and the Beis Yosef to the Magen Avraham, the Gra"
The Gra, IIRC, was 'slandered' by people who said he did not highly regard the Arizal, in that he argued with him all the time.
"all the while teaching a revolutionary system of kabbala that is so rich and complex that it has all but superseded all other kabbalistic studies"
indeed, because that is what happens in kabbalah, received tradition. you supersede previous systems and traditions via 'interpretations'.
After all, when Eliyahu haNavi and Moshe Rabbeinu speak with Rashbi in Tikkunei haZohar and Raya Mehemna, do you think this means the three of them lived at the same time?
Obviously not. There is an already established tradition of Eliyahu Hanavi continuing to speak with people, and interacting with people, and it would be overt that the same is true of Moshe Rabbenu if they communicated. But if the gemara which spoke of Eliyahu hanavi communicating with people had Rav Ashi speaking with Resh Lakish, meforshim would notice and comment.
Should you not presume that they found teirutzim to your kushios?
assuming that they ALL were exposed to the kushyot in the first place. Given the suppression of the contrary position as kefira -- note that Chasam Sofer was *not* free to state the Zohar was a forgery openly, but had to speak in code -- is it not possible that Rav Moshe Feinstein, for instance, did not even HEAR the contrary position, such that he should be brought as proof?
if the Arizal was not working beruach hakodesh, then it is important to know. for example, many of the kevarim of Tannaim and Amoraim in Eretz Yisrael are identified by the Arizal / Rav Chaim Vital.
Yet we hear the following "impressive" story about Rav Chaim Vital:
A legend states that, when Vital was in Jerusalem, the Ottoman governor, Abu Saifia, requested that he use his powers to locate the aqueduct leading from the River Gihon to the city, which had been built in the days of King Hezekiah. Unwilling to fulfill this request, he fled to Damascus using the power of practical Kabbalah, where his master appeared to him and told him that he had had a chance to bring the final redemption by releasing the waters of Gihon, and now the chance was lost.[citation needed] This grieved Vital greatly.
kol tuv,
josh
i don't know, btw, why you are so surprised that i am being 'motzi laaz' on the Arizal? if kabbalah is not authentic theology, then what other conclusion is there regarding the ruach hakodesh of those putting forth kabbalistic innovations?
it is Lewis' Trilemma: Lord, Liar, Lunatic. Yes, there are other possibilities I am willing to consider.
I'll add one more point. Of course I am a relative ignoramus when it comes to kabbalah. This I freely admit.
But on the other hand, those who will be in the know also (in most instances) grew up with it as their theology, and will be biased to see forced teirutzim as more convincing than they really are. Teirutzim are incredibly easy to come by, because that it what the brain is expert at -- it a rationalization machine. And most people from outside would not want to take the time and effort (years and years) to learn nonsense. This has the effect of preventing much of criticism, whether it is legitimate or not. (Yes, I freely grant there is a valid counterpoint to this.)
(Shadal, though, knew much more of kabbalistic concepts and sefarim than I do, yet wrote what I cited him as saying, above.)
It may, meanwhile, be possible, to evaluate it without having absolute knowledge of all details of kabbalah. For instance, if someone talks to sheidim, and I know that sheidim are superstition; or if the Zohar speaks of physiognomy, when I know it is a pseudoscience, then I might evaluate based on that.
Yes, I absolutely didn't know the difference between Etz Chaim and Pri Etz Chaim, such that if Rav Chaim Vital laid out the Arizal's statement about the authorship of the Zohar in the other, and if you mentioned the other as the source, I worked from memory. So?
So, would you listen what someone has to say on the Talmud when he doesn't know the difference between maseches Brachos and maseches Bechoros? Same thing here. You're talking about something of which you don't know neither the basic texts nor the basic notions.
The Gra, IIRC, was 'slandered' by people who said he did not highly regard the Arizal, in that he argued with him all the time.
He was sometimes cholek on the Arizal regarding the understanding of such and such Zoharic sugyos, such as whether one should wear RT tefillin or whether mocha sesimaa is Chochma or Bina de-Arikh. In other words, he does exactly the same thing than in nigleh: he argues on a "Rishon"'s reading of "Chazal". All this is very well known by anyone who has studied such a basic text as Pischei Shearim knows this.
indeed, because that is what happens in kabbalah, received tradition. you supersede previous systems and traditions via 'interpretations'.
Is it not the same with all Torah shebeal peh?
if the gemara which spoke of Eliyahu hanavi communicating with people had Rav Ashi speaking with Resh Lakish, meforshim would notice and comment
And still we learn halachos from Rav Ashi's dream encounter with Menashe ha-Melech... Anyway, all I am saying is that kabbalistic tradition has a different understanding of what is "historical" than Shadal, and that understanding has been received as valid by many representatives of our tradition.
assuming that they ALL were exposed to the kushyot in the first place. Given the suppression of the contrary position as kefira -- note that Chasam Sofer was *not* free to state the Zohar was a forgery openly, but had to speak in code -- is it not possible that Rav Moshe Feinstein, for instance, did not even HEAR the contrary position, such that he should be brought as proof?
Surely you would not think that pre-Safed kabbalists did not know of R. Isaac of Acco's inquiry regarding Moshe de Leon? Or that the Acharonim were oblivious to the critiques of Arieh de Modena and Delmedigo? Or that the Gra didn't know about Mitpachas Seforim? Do you really think that RMF was unaware of books such as Magen ve-Tzina, or Kadmus ha-Zohar, written by talmidei ha-Gra (in a broad sense) precisely to answer these critiques? Please do not think that these objections are "new" and "advanced scholarship". They are as old as kabbala itself, are nothing but the repetition of a handful of arguments that are blown out of proportion (e. g., the Zohar is not "full of Spanish words": esnoga is about the only occurrence), and that have never bothered neither the kabbalists nor the other talmidei chachomim that continued to lend credence to kabbala, because everyone understood that these anecdotes have no bearing on what is really at stake in kabbala.
if the Arizal was not working beruach hakodesh, then it is important to know. for example, many of the kevarim of Tannaim and Amoraim in Eretz Yisrael are identified by the Arizal / Rav Chaim Vital.
His revolutionary approach to Zoharic interpretation is nothing but the result of years of hard work; he says so himself. Ruach ha-kodesh is "bonus", it's not the foundation of his knowledge. Learning with Eliyahu, which came much later, is not the same as ruach ha-kodesh (see Shut Chasam Sofer VI, likkutim, teshuva 98). And identifying kevarim has got nothing to do with Torah: it's about metzius, "sod Hashem lireav". And it's totally incidental.
Regarding RCV's ruach ha-kodesh: the talmid is far from being at the level of the rav, even more after the latter's petira, as the talmid himself testifies. He was still a tremendous talmid chacham. But even the greatest of prophets can be wrong. Ever heard of Mei Meriva? Doesn't the story you present as ridiculous ring a familiar bell?
Neither lord, nor liar or lunatic. Tremendous talmidei chachomim that mastered a legitimate knowledge of which you don't even know the alef-beis and still intend on ridiculing. I say, Zil G'mor. If you don't want to read these texts, at least give your Wissenschaft insights an update by reading Daniel Abrams' latest book which is all about how "texts" and "authorship" were constructed in the first ages of kabbala.
I'm not an astrophysician. But at least I don't write about how these people believe that there are "black holes" and "worms" in space, then try to make themselves important by clouding all this nonsense with mathematical formulas...
It may, meanwhile, be possible, to evaluate it without having absolute knowledge of all details of kabbalah. For instance, if someone talks to sheidim, and I know that sheidim are superstition; or if the Zohar speaks of physiognomy, when I know it is a pseudoscience, then I might evaluate based on that.
You're right, it's not like the Shas speaks about these things... Or the Tanach, for the matter.
"So, would you listen what someone has to say on the Talmud when he doesn't know the difference between maseches Brachos and maseches Bechoros?"
indeed. but I don't think that the non-allegorical interpretation of Rashbi's authorship is my own chiddush.
and i am extremely unimpressed with stories in which someone claims X but cannot demonstrate it because of its deepness.
"He was sometimes cholek on the Arizal..."
I recall also hearing that in terms of debating chassidus, he would accept Zohar as a source but not Arizal as an axiomatic source, such that the debate never came to fruition.
"Is it not the same with all Torah shebeal peh?"
i should hope not! certainly not in the same way. and if you think that it is so, then it may be equally false. (gemara is made to work with Mishnayos. and a brayta, a tradition from a Tanna, demonstrates that an interpretation by an Amora is incorrect. but lurianic kabbalah does not work with cordoverian kabbalah.)
"And still we learn halachos from Rav Ashi's dream encounter with Menashe ha-Melech"
yes, because that is clearly a dream encounter with a Biblical figure. it is not the same as Tannaim / Amoraim which might be understood to be contemporaries due to a misunderstanding of Tannaitic history physically going to places outside Eretz Yisrael, described as inside Eretz Yisrael -- which an accidental misreading of a gemara or two might lead one to think is in Eretz Yisrael -- all while speaking in a language which one might think is Aramaic but is really misderived false Aramaic.
"You're right, it's not like the Shas speaks about these things... Or the Tanach, for the matter."
The Tanach speaks of shedim, perhaps, but not necessarily as a true belief. The gemara talks about it, but it is an incorrect belief (or, as some rationalists would have it, allegorical). In kabbalah, it is firmly embedded in the purportedly true theology. Gilgul, dybbuk, ibbur, and sheidim. And black magic, and physiognomy.
"Do you really think that RMF was unaware of books such as Magen ve-Tzina, or Kadmus ha-Zohar, written by talmidei ha-Gra (in a broad sense) precisely to answer these critiques?"
Is there evidence that he was aware of it? And this is presenting one side, without giving the other side the opportunity to respond.
"Or that the Acharonim were oblivious to the critiques of..."
And how do we know which Acharonim were convinced, if those who did take the time to read the critiques and were convinced would have been afraid of being branded a heretic. where rav tzadok hakohen wrote:
עתה שנתפרסמה חכמת האמת בעולם מוסכם בפי חכמי ישראל האמיתים וכל הכופר בה הוא מכלל האפיקורסים
where anyone who was convinced of it and voiced his opinion would have effectively NOT have been an acharon. I suspect that had the Chasam Sofer voiced his opinion openly, he would not have been the Chasam Sofer, such that no one would have cared nowadays what he said.
"And identifying kevarim has got nothing to do with Torah: it's about metzius, "sod Hashem lireav". And it's totally incidental."
it has to do with being a 'liar' or 'lunatic'. it detracts from the credence one would grant them. if they are quacks in the practical kabbalah realm, i will grant them much less credence in the theoretical kabbalistic realm.
"Ever heard of Mei Meriva? Doesn't the story you present as ridiculous ring a familiar bell?"
The waters DID come out at Mei Meriva.
"I'm not an astrophysician..."
nor a Christian, nor a Buddhist, nor a Mormon. but you need not be an expert in Mormon theology to see it is ridiculous. just a bit of sechel.
kt,
josh
"at least give your Wissenschaft insights an update by reading Daniel Abrams' latest book which is all about how "texts" and "authorship" were constructed in the first ages of kabbala."
can you summarize? as i've said previously, i am entirely willing to grant the idea that these were pseudonyms of kabbalistic figures in a kabbalistic school, where it was known to other kabbalists that these were not true attributions.
Is it possible that the arizal was lying, but for good intentions. No different than the original author who was relying on הרוצה ליחנק יתלה באילן גדול.
Shadal presents that as an option for the beis Yoseph and his maggid. Is it possible that is CS's view, since he presumably still believed in the truth of Kabbala?
Do you mean how Chasam Sofer regarded the Arizal, or how he regarded the Zohar?
In terms of Zohar, I think he could regard it as a legitimate expression of kabbalah as it existed at the time, by a great kabbalist who was a Rishon. And kabbalah had meanwhile been passed down, and discussed, from earlier generations. There are earlier sifrei kabbalah such as sefer ha-Bahir and sefer Yetzirah.
In terms of the Arizal, "The Chasam Sofer’s son, Rav Shimon Sofer, the Michtav Sofer, reported that the Chasam Sofer did not say the zemiros of the Arizal אסדר לסעודתא, אזמר בשבחין, ובני היכלא because “עס איסט צו פיעל ארויסגעזאגט” it expresses too much openly of matters that should be more hidden (brought in באר מרים introduction to מכתב סופר). Esoteric, Kabbalistic manners are not for every person. One should be on a high level, a holy person to get involved with such things." If we take this straightforwardly, then he had high regard for the Arizal. He did not necessarily ask the same question as Shadal asked.
kol tuv,
josh
I meant in regards to the arizal. Since he had high regard for the arizal, yet also held like the yaavetz in terms of the authenticity of the Zohar, then how did he explain the ruach hakodesh of the arizal regarding the Zohar. That was your question in the post.
So, is it possible he would say like Shadal, that he was fibbing for good intentions - to promote yiras shamaim, no different than the intention of the original author.
ah. yachol lihyot.
I doubt he really thought about it, to contrast it. but if he did, I would favor an answer based on what Chanokh wrote above. That is, (I think) he never stated the authorship by Rashbi was something he knew specifically via ruach hakodesh. (I still haven't seen it inside.) And all those kabbalistic constructions were done based on sevara, not ruach hakodesh.
It is then just a question about the force of the Arizal's ruach hakodesh in the general case, and how come he did not intuit or was not informed about this authorship, which would have prevented him from making these elaborate constructions out of non-Rashbi material.
(Chanokh would also say that the Arizal didn't mean it literally, which entirely obviates the question. He meant it in a spiritual, metaphysical sense. But here I am volunteering answers on Chanokh's behalf, something I should not really due for fear of accidental misrepresentation.)
where does R' Tzodok right that?
in sefer zichronos, citing a teshuva of the Bach. it continues:
...דהמלעיג על דברי חכמים ומדבר דופי על דברי הקבלה שהיא מקור התורה ועיקרה וכולה יראת שמים פשיטא שאין לך מזלזל בדברי חכמים גדול מזה
see here.
kt,
josh
Post a Comment