Any hasbarah, questions or comments?
Do you start going ooh aah with your mouth every year when you learn this?
If the concept of letters coming from beyond sechel is so poshut, why does it take the Alter Rebbe 4 lines to say how poshut it is?
Always been fascinated by this Iggeres. And never really 'got it'.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
king? - comment
Beautiful.
It is difficult to explain the beauty and richness of a relationship to G-d as a king. A king demands total nullification that does not appeal to a enlightened society that wants understanding and feeling to be the foundation of any relationship.
The analogy of a king can be appreciated only when we realize that G-d has absolutely nothing in comparison to us. Our relationship to him therefore is totally unique and is based on nullification – again a very difficult sell.
By the way I believe that there are GEDOLEI YISRAEL who explain that a monarchy is not the best system of government for the Jewish people.
I believe that the Abarbenel explains that the Jewish people's request of Shmuel to appoint a king was inherently negative, as can be seen by Shmuel’s reaction. The commandment in the Torah – according to him - is only that if the Jewish people want a king they should appoint him from amongst themselves.
This leads me to the next point. Throughout biblical history the kings were overwhelmingly corrupt and wicked. Prior to the era of the kings the Judges who led the people were all righteous. The judges were spiritual as well as political leaders – they led the people to war etc..
Perhaps the fundamental difference between the judges and the kings was that while the king had a right to tax the people for their own needs, the judges did not have any monetary gain from their position. Shmuel said to the people that he did not even take a single donkey from them.
Was this a separation of powers?
It is difficult to explain the beauty and richness of a relationship to G-d as a king. A king demands total nullification that does not appeal to a enlightened society that wants understanding and feeling to be the foundation of any relationship.
The analogy of a king can be appreciated only when we realize that G-d has absolutely nothing in comparison to us. Our relationship to him therefore is totally unique and is based on nullification – again a very difficult sell.
By the way I believe that there are GEDOLEI YISRAEL who explain that a monarchy is not the best system of government for the Jewish people.
I believe that the Abarbenel explains that the Jewish people's request of Shmuel to appoint a king was inherently negative, as can be seen by Shmuel’s reaction. The commandment in the Torah – according to him - is only that if the Jewish people want a king they should appoint him from amongst themselves.
This leads me to the next point. Throughout biblical history the kings were overwhelmingly corrupt and wicked. Prior to the era of the kings the Judges who led the people were all righteous. The judges were spiritual as well as political leaders – they led the people to war etc..
Perhaps the fundamental difference between the judges and the kings was that while the king had a right to tax the people for their own needs, the judges did not have any monetary gain from their position. Shmuel said to the people that he did not even take a single donkey from them.
Was this a separation of powers?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Are you a king?
The previous post probably had more to do with Tiferes. When he asks you to be his mashpia or mentor would be more like Malchus. Or if he asks you to lead a project you really don't want to do. Then he tells you how no other person can or is willing do it. We need you and we're ready to do anything you say. It's not flattery it's arousing your Malchus.
What do you think? Is this correct?
What do you think? Is this correct?
Are you a king?
A king doesn't want to rule. So the people have to crown him. The crowning is when the people totally subjugate themselves to the king. Then, he wants to rule.
To me this always sounded not from this world. Take our politicians for instance. Or all those stories about kings.
You know someone. You're not close with him. Actually you don't really go for his type. You wouldn't talk to him more than a good morning. Then one day he comes over to you and just opens up. He lays down all his issues. He needs your help. At that moment you give him your all. You listen and empathize. You just became a king.
This also made me understand. A king is really for the people.
To me this always sounded not from this world. Take our politicians for instance. Or all those stories about kings.
You know someone. You're not close with him. Actually you don't really go for his type. You wouldn't talk to him more than a good morning. Then one day he comes over to you and just opens up. He lays down all his issues. He needs your help. At that moment you give him your all. You listen and empathize. You just became a king.
This also made me understand. A king is really for the people.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Ascend
“If it will ascend on your mind that he does not exist – then nothing else can exist” - Rambam
what is the meaning of this statement? is it possible that G-d does not exist?
There is a mistaken way of thinking that says that G-d is too lofty and undefined to be linked to existence as we know it. If there is a G-d who is the ultimate and true existence then he must be removed and must not have any connection to our reality.
Says the Rambam: no reality can exist that is independent from G-d's realty. if “he does not exist” – in our reality then “nothing else can exist” – we would have no reality at all.
G-d is unlimited and undefined yet he chose to limit himself and relate to us in our limits reality.
This is why the Rambam uses the expression “Ascend onto the mind” that is to say that this taught can only come when ones mind grows and he “ascends” to understand the greatness of G-d, only then can one reach this realization and opinion that he "does not exist" however he limited himself to exist in our realm of existence.
what is the meaning of this statement? is it possible that G-d does not exist?
There is a mistaken way of thinking that says that G-d is too lofty and undefined to be linked to existence as we know it. If there is a G-d who is the ultimate and true existence then he must be removed and must not have any connection to our reality.
Says the Rambam: no reality can exist that is independent from G-d's realty. if “he does not exist” – in our reality then “nothing else can exist” – we would have no reality at all.
G-d is unlimited and undefined yet he chose to limit himself and relate to us in our limits reality.
This is why the Rambam uses the expression “Ascend onto the mind” that is to say that this taught can only come when ones mind grows and he “ascends” to understand the greatness of G-d, only then can one reach this realization and opinion that he "does not exist" however he limited himself to exist in our realm of existence.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
What do you think?
The last post gives a new insight into the two perspectives we learn about in chassidus.
Our perspective. we are and what created us is not, because we don't comprehend it.
Hashem's perspective. He Is. And we are not.
Now, what does it mean that He Is? Could it mean that the true is, is when He's not?
And by the way, I think this might be completely wrong. The He Is, could very well be the Motzui Rishon, not the Einoi Motzui. I'd like to know what you think.
Our perspective. we are and what created us is not, because we don't comprehend it.
Hashem's perspective. He Is. And we are not.
Now, what does it mean that He Is? Could it mean that the true is, is when He's not?
And by the way, I think this might be completely wrong. The He Is, could very well be the Motzui Rishon, not the Einoi Motzui. I'd like to know what you think.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Hadran Al Harambam 5735
Every mitzvah has 2 parts. What you do and what it is not. For instance, Teffilin. Making and putting on Teffilin and not being just a piece of leather.
The most important Mitzvah also has to parts. Believing in Hashem and believing that He cannot not be.
That is why we heard the first 2 of the Aseres Hadibros and it was not enough to hear just the first, which seemingly includes the second. Because in the main mitzvah we need to stress both points.
This is also the reason why the Rambam says: "To know there is a first existence" and in the second halacha "And if it will arise in your mind that He doesn't exist, then nothing else could have existed". He points out both aspects of the mitzvah.
Now being that in the mitzvah of believing there are 2 parts, in reality there are as well these 2 'parts' by Hashem Himself. He exists and He doesn't exist. In the words of the Rambam elsewhere "He exists not in existence".
[The Rebbe clarifies that we have no other way of defining that which is not 'not', that which is not 'he'eder'.]
This explains why the Rambam uses the expression "And if it will arise in your mind...", it is actually a higher understanding. But yet if that where the only 'way' Hashem 'is', that He doesn't exist, than nothing else could have existed either. So Hashem has to exist in order for everything else to exist. By the way that's why the Rambam calls Hashem the First existence, even though that first means there is a second and why would he imply that there is a second to Hashem? Because that's exactly his point. His existing is the first for other existences.
At the end of Rambam when he talks about Melech HaMoshiach, he ends the final chapter with: "In that time there will no longer be any hunger... For good will be poured plentifully and delicacies will be found like dust". And he concludes "We will not occupy ourselves except in the knowledge of Hashem..."
Here we also see 2 parts.
1. The not. No hunger, war, strife etc. For the good will be abundant. We will not occupy ourselves...
2. "(We will occupy ourselves) in the knowledge of Hashem..."
Also in knowing Hashem there are 2 aspects:
1. "Knowing hidden things (devarim setumim)".
2. "Understand the knowledge of their Creator, according to human ability".
We will understand the most hidden of things, Hashem's nonexistence. Yet it will be combined and unified with knowing Hashem's existence. And therefore we will still be able to exist even though we know Hashem's nonexistence.
How can we combine both these 'things'? Why of course, from where He is higher than both.
The most important Mitzvah also has to parts. Believing in Hashem and believing that He cannot not be.
That is why we heard the first 2 of the Aseres Hadibros and it was not enough to hear just the first, which seemingly includes the second. Because in the main mitzvah we need to stress both points.
This is also the reason why the Rambam says: "To know there is a first existence" and in the second halacha "And if it will arise in your mind that He doesn't exist, then nothing else could have existed". He points out both aspects of the mitzvah.
Now being that in the mitzvah of believing there are 2 parts, in reality there are as well these 2 'parts' by Hashem Himself. He exists and He doesn't exist. In the words of the Rambam elsewhere "He exists not in existence".
[The Rebbe clarifies that we have no other way of defining that which is not 'not', that which is not 'he'eder'.]
This explains why the Rambam uses the expression "And if it will arise in your mind...", it is actually a higher understanding. But yet if that where the only 'way' Hashem 'is', that He doesn't exist, than nothing else could have existed either. So Hashem has to exist in order for everything else to exist. By the way that's why the Rambam calls Hashem the First existence, even though that first means there is a second and why would he imply that there is a second to Hashem? Because that's exactly his point. His existing is the first for other existences.
At the end of Rambam when he talks about Melech HaMoshiach, he ends the final chapter with: "In that time there will no longer be any hunger... For good will be poured plentifully and delicacies will be found like dust". And he concludes "We will not occupy ourselves except in the knowledge of Hashem..."
Here we also see 2 parts.
1. The not. No hunger, war, strife etc. For the good will be abundant. We will not occupy ourselves...
2. "(We will occupy ourselves) in the knowledge of Hashem..."
Also in knowing Hashem there are 2 aspects:
1. "Knowing hidden things (devarim setumim)".
2. "Understand the knowledge of their Creator, according to human ability".
We will understand the most hidden of things, Hashem's nonexistence. Yet it will be combined and unified with knowing Hashem's existence. And therefore we will still be able to exist even though we know Hashem's nonexistence.
How can we combine both these 'things'? Why of course, from where He is higher than both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)