Timeline for Is there positive proof that the Rambam did not accept Kabbalah?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 | comment | added | hazoriz | @Yishai (footnote 38) chabadlibrary.org/books/admur/tm/9/13/index.htm#_ftnref_630 | |
| Oct 21, 2018 at 21:57 | comment | added | Alex | @Matt He might be referring to the teshuvah of R. Hai Gaon, #22 in Teshuvot Hageonim (Horowitz). | |
| May 23, 2017 at 0:50 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | i.imgur.com/hDdPzVL.png i.imgur.com/Rl5mc50.png Moses Narboni‘s “Epistle on Shi‘ur Qomā” by alexander altmann | |
| May 23, 2017 at 0:41 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | 21 ‘For only foreign gods have ‘stature’ [= qomah] (Maimonides Responsa, 117, ed.Blau, p. 201). See Lieberman, 1939, 12, 89–98; Lieberman apud Scholem, 1960, 124; Cohen, 1985, 230. ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND ITS ERADICATION by shamma friedman | |
| May 23, 2017 at 0:40 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | All these things are great abominations and blasphemies/cursed is he who believes it and cursed is he who composed it/by the numerical value of every letter in it/for the Lord is a true God/He has no image or measure/neither breadth nor length / as it says, ‘To whom then can you liken God etc. [What form does compare to Him?]’ (Isaiah 40, 18), ‘To whom then can you liken me, to whom can I be compared?’ (ibid., 40, 25).22 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 0:39 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @Yishai Apropos, Maimonides originally accepted Shiur Qomah as an authentic and legitimate Jewish treatise, but eventually rejected it as equivalent to idolatry.21 It may have been the Rambam himself who penned, in substitution for the laudatory original, the following closing lines to Shiur Qomah found in a medieval quotation: ‘ | |
| May 19, 2017 at 12:52 | history | edited | הנער הזה | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 55 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2015 at 0:05 | comment | added | mevaqesh | It should be noted (I think R. Dr. Twersky makes this point in Rabad of Posquieres) that the kabbalists insisted that kishuf had actual power whereas Rambam (following R. Saadya Gaon, et al.) insists that it is mere slight of hand. | |
| Jan 25, 2015 at 16:16 | comment | added | הנער הזה | @YeZ I recently renewed my efforts to find this teshuvah that you mentioned about the Geonim refusing to speak about kabbalah and instead give alternative explanations, but I'm coming up short. Do you remember where you saw it? I don't think that it's in the Otzar HaGeonim to Sukkah, and I've looked through several studies of the Geonim's approach to aggadah without seeing even a passing reference to this idea | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 17:57 | comment | added | Y e z | Your edit actually does address the question in a roundabout way - if those claims were correct, it would mean that up until then he had not heard of it, not just that he was being secret about it. | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 14:54 | history | edited | הנער הזה | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 510 characters in body
|
| Jul 6, 2014 at 16:34 | comment | added | Tamir Evan | @Yishai In Shlomoh ben Yosef's translation of Rambam's opening to his commentary on Sanhedrin Ch. 10 (Pereq Cheleq), in the section on the seventh foundation, it says "ויכנס בזה שיעור קומה ועניינו" ( see here, five lines before the end of the page). In Yosef Qafih's translation it doesn't appear, but in the footnotes he says that it was in the first edition of Rambam's manuscript, but was later erased from it. (See also here, s.v. "Earlier I noted ...") | |
| Jun 25, 2014 at 2:06 | comment | added | Yishai | @MoriDoweedhYaa3qob, what is your source for that statement (that he liked it at the beginning of his life)? In the Teshuva quoted by Matt, he writes לא חשבתי מעולם שהוא מחיבורי החכמים ז"ל. | |
| Jun 25, 2014 at 0:00 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @Yishai rambam liked sheeu3r qoma in the beginning of his life, but as he learned philosophy and the sciences, he rejected it and said it is kafeero. it is also mentioned by rabbeinu abrohom ban ha rambam zl in his meel7omoth hashem that some rabbis were mistaken in taken it as actual fact and that it is kafeero | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 15:28 | comment | added | Yishai | @Matt, do you know of any dating (what year it was written) of that Teshuva from the Rambam? | |
| S Jun 24, 2014 at 15:23 | history | suggested | Tamir Evan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Link for Rambam's _Teshuvah_ on _Shi'ur Qomah_.
|
| Jun 24, 2014 at 14:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 24, 2014 at 15:23 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 | comment | added | Y e z | @Matt I don't have a link, but it's brought in Otzar HaGe'onim on maseches Sukka. | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 2:23 | comment | added | Y e z | @Matt There is a specific teshuva which I think is from R' Sherira about how kevutzas haderech works, in which he had given a very rational explanation, someone wrote him asking "doesn't it work like this" with a "kabbalistic" explanation, and he essentially responded "we don't talk about those things" | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 2:21 | comment | added | הנער הזה | @YEZ true, but the geonim never say that their explanations of aggada are to be considered 'maaseh beraishis' and 'maaseh merkava' (Truth is though that I don't think that's right about the geonim, if we're talking about rav sheriara and rav hai, but that's another topic) | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 2:20 | comment | added | Y e z | Re Shiur Komah, that isn't conclusive because specific kabbalistic ideas in the book could have been problematic to him. I don't know what it says in the book, or which parts he called heretical, so I can't really judge, but it's certainly incomplete. | |
| Jun 24, 2014 at 0:39 | history | edited | WAF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Untypo
|
| Jun 23, 2014 at 23:54 | comment | added | Y e z | The problem that I have is, the Gaonim also gave rational explanations which could be taken as alternatives to Kabbala, and yet there exist teshuvos where the Gaonim "hushed" people who espoused Kabbalistic views - didn't correct them, but hushed them. That is why I want positive proof, not proof in abstentia. Rejecting Shiur Komah is closer, but still not really conclusive. | |
| Jun 23, 2014 at 23:36 | history | edited | WAF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typos
|
| Jun 23, 2014 at 23:06 | history | answered | הנער הזה | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
