- Hirhurim writes a review, discussing whether philosophy harm, or builds, faith.
- OnTheMainLine has a great post discussing a censored letter, among other things. Written there, regarding R' Yonasan Eibeschutz,
"By my life, I heard in my youth from the mouth of the great kabbalist, who knew the Zohar and all the works of the Ari by heart, the rabbi, my master, Rabbi Jonathan Eybeshutz ZZ"L, that he used to say to his audience when they were hesitant to accept a kabbalistic teaching, 'if you don't believe it, it's no matter, because it isn't from the fundamentals of faith.' So he used to say to those who brought kabbalistic teachings to explain a piece of Gemara or Midrash, 'I don't desire this. What's the use? According to kabbalah you can explain anything you want to; just tell me the simple meaning via "niglah"' -- it's completely true!"This is very interesting for multiple reasons. One: What value is there in learning Kabbalah if there's no defined rules of logic? Also, what would this make of the "proof" found more recently regarding the kamei'ah he wrote?
I'm no expert, but is it possible that he had a reason for writing this even if not true?
- An online EXIF extractor, useful for uncovering a hidden thumbnail in cropped pictures posted online. Can be quite fun.
- Unpious posted a nice piece on Moshiach. Not their norm, I guess.
- OnTheMainLine has an excellent list of resources for online research of Jewish text.
- An interesting series from the NYTimes; relearning mathematics.
3 comments:
He didn't write it; he's quoted as saying this when people tried to explain Gemara al pi kabbalah. It has to be seen in the local context. By analogy, Brisker limmud is also something which anyone can learn to do, albeit not everyone can learn to do it well. I could easily see someone trying to answer a simple kashya with elaborate chilukim and so forth getting shot down and asked to deal with it simply.
I don't know if this means that he meant there's no value to it. He was a mekubal, just as the rebbe who shoots down the bachur with the sloppy teyrutz is probably a Brisker himself -- why else would the bachur try to speak to him in such a fashion?
In other words, he was saying that the student didn't know what kind of terutz is justified. But there *might* be a mystical pshat.
Sort of like I can *feel8 when I hear bad pshat, without having the need to empirically prove why its wrong.
It would make a lot more sense this way too. (And I'm still looking for that elusive sefer where I can learn the fundamentals of kabalah, in a *logical* way.)
I don't know if he felt that mysticism is an appropriate way to interpret the Gemara, period. His reason? Anyone can say anything. It isn't as if some kind of authoritative mystical interpretation of the Gemara exists, like a kabbalistic Rashi.
Post a Comment