Now that you're all interested...

Why do Lubavitchers like the Rambam for halacha/nigleh? Isn't their general derech nistar, while the Rambam is very rational?

I'm pretty ignorant on the whole issue, but very curious, so please explain all references that aren't googlable.

1. For purposes of practical halachah, the Mishne Torah is more or less devoid of philosophy (the initial portions are an exception to this)

2. Mystical leanings, or even a complete mystical bent do not preclude an approach to practical halachah that is not based on Qabbalistic teachings.

Keep in mind that the above was said by someone who is not part of Lubavitch and is not overly familiar with Lubavitch philosophy or theology.

1. The Rebbe instituted the practice of daily Rambam study because the MT covers kol haTorah Kula unlike other codes of law.
2. Halacha does not contradict nistar, and the MT has nothing to do with the Rambam's general "philosophy" and supposed "rationality". He was poskening halacha...
3. The L Rebbe and many other Kabbalistically inclined folk, hold that the Rambam was well versed in "nistar" and even based many of his ideas on Kaballah. (such as Hilchos Yesodie HaTorah, and even the More Nevuchim). As far back at the Alter Rebbe in Tanya, there were great lengths made to show how the Rambam fits in nicely with Kaballah....
4. The Rambam is not NEARLY as "rational" as the so called "rationalists" try to make him out to be... They are hijacking the Rambam to suit their own agenda.....

No, the Yad has quite a bit of philosophy in it. Besides, what do you mean "does not contradict"? There's a big debate of how to pasken when nigleh and nistar are in contradiction.

The Rambamisten are idiots, but this is a red herring argument. There's a reason even some of our gedolim (R. Yaakov Emden, for example) have claimed the Moreh was written by a separate person.

True, but with the exception of a few places his "rationalism" doesn't really stand out in the MT... And regardless of how one reconciles the apparent differences between nigleh and nistar, there is no havamina not to first LEARN the nigleh before being machriah... To my knowledge there is no work of the depth and scope of the Rambam that is written al pi nistar....


Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that there are "Kabbalists" who hold by the MN and don't see it as a sterah. The Lubavitcher Rebbe quotes it all the time, and sometimes even brings it as a RIYAH... So if he can do that, there is certainly no peleh when he advocates learning Mishne Torah....

I've heard of at least a couple, b"n tomorrow I could post that information if you want to go digging. By the way, I'm not picking on Lubavitchers here. The Litvakes- especially Brisk- similarly try and put a claim on him, it's merely an interesting historical note.

The fact that I would have to go "digging", proves my point.... EVERYONE knows who the Rambam is, and his prominence in the Halachic world is probably unparalleled. (How much of the Shulchan Aruch is quoted verbatim from the Rambam??)

This reply makes no sense, what are you talking about? You asked if there are books which try to explain the Rambam al pi nistar.

R"YY Sofrin zts"l wrote a lot of material reconciling Rambam with nistar in a concrete way, halachic, hashkafic and philosophical. Most of it is rather hard to come by, especially the Emes veEmunah where he explains 13 Ikkarim al pi sod. I find this scarcity to be a blessing.

Thanks. I've also seen R. Hillel Lichtenstein zt"l dabble in that a bit, but mainly for mussar purposes, as opposed to constructing a whole derech out of it.

Well, consider who authored Kesef Mishne, probably the most significant commentary on Rambam next to Raavad. I don't know if it's Rambam verbatim in the Sh"A, consider how much of Sh"A is actually verbatim Tur.

Even the verbatim Rambams in SA aren't always intended to be read the same way. The Drisha in hilchos talmud torah points out that many err in their understanding of one that the Rema brings down, specifically what is the definition of 'talmud'.

No, that's not what I asked. (at least that's not what I meant).

I meant that there is nothing equivalent to the Mishne Torah for "Halacha al pi Nistar". No one "Kabbalistically inclined posek" ever wrote such a Magnum Opus on Halacha, or at least not one that is commonly learned.... So even those who might poskin according to Nistar at the end of the day would gain greatly from learning the Rambam as well.....

Well, all this depends on how you define "posek", "halacha" and "kabbalistically inclined".

This thread rhymes so well with "Chemodan-Vokzal-Izrail'" ....

Rabbi Reuvein Margolies has a whole article titled "Harmbam Vehazohar" it was reprinted in the sefer from Mossad harav Kook called "pninim umargoliyos" which is a collection of articles by Rabbi Reuvein Margolies that were not printed in a sefer.

this that the Rambam supposedly learned and new kabala, comes from the Chida in his shem Hagedolim , citing R dovid hanogid (a grandson of the Rambam).


(ftr this whole issue has been discussed before on h.com)

ok

thanks.

What does that mean?

interesting (link?)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. For general Halachah for day to day life the Rambam is not used for Halachah. The Rambam is the only one who writes leHalachah on those things that are Hilchesa LeMeshicha and have to do with the Bais Hamikdosh and Tuma and Tahara, thus he is often brought as the authority on those issues.

The derech of Nistar is not separate from nigleh, it's entire purpose is to reveal the nistar (elokus) within the nigleh. Many of the Rebbe's talks on the Rambam focused on showing the inner meaning of a Halachah in the Rambam (and similar with Rashi).

As far as Rambam being called rational, I wouldn't call the opening of Mishne Torah in Maase Merkavah rational, nor the discussions in More Nevuchim about prophecy. The most that can factually be said is that the Rambam defended Torah from a rationalist point of view. Anything more definitive than that is conjecture, and usually based on the person's natural bias.

I did not know that. Why is it such a popular daily study (not only hilchos melachim?)

Because of the directive of the Rebbe in 5744 to set up a study schedule and everyone should finish the entire Mishne Torah every year. The main reason given that we each have a Mitvzah to study Kol Hatorah Kulo, and the Rambam, having paskened on Kol HaTorah Kulo, fills that criteria.

Obviously, there is no end to this, and does not replace studying all of Shas etc. The idea is that it fits the criteria minimally.

The directives of the Rebbe for the daily study of a Chossid were: Chumash (the Aliya of the day), Tanya, Rambam. There were other items to study given on a weekly basis, less often or just temporary.

Where does the Rambam pasken regarding not saying scriptural verses off by heart as per the Shulchan Aruch OC 49?


You don't think those who claim the Rambam was some sort of secret kabbalist, who concealed his kabbalism through the metaphor of Greek wisdom or who renounced rationalist thought in his old age and became a kabbalist, are hijacking the Rambam to suit their own agenda?

Perhaps it can be taken to the opposite extreme as well, but to contend that the Rambam was knowledgable of Kaballah and even included some Kabbalistic ideas in his works is not so outlandish IMHO. I'm not saying the Rambam should be turned into the Arizal, but he was a Godol and it makes sense that he was at least somewhat versed in this wisdom. In fact, to say he was completely ignorant or rejected it seems tenuous at best.....

Fair enough. I can live with that. After all, kabbalah didn't materialize out of thin air in 13th century CE Guadalajara. It's just that if we call the Rambam a closet kabbalist because he has writings not inconsistent with kabbalistic thought and ideas and motifs, then we can call most of Chazal closet kabbalists as well if we are comfortable with anachronisms.

No Gemora, no Mishnayos - are you sure ?

It's not tenuous, it's well-known what his contemporaries and those in the following generations (cf. Shu"t Rivash) thought of him and his rationalism. The "Rambam learned nistar" stories didn't show up until much later on, sorry.

Those who can learn more, learn more. That is the minimum requirement for Perek Echod Shacharis Perek Echod Arvis for your average working stiff.

As far as Rambam and Kabbalah, we are discussing two separate things here. One is giving absolute names to the Rambam, that of rationalist or Mekubal, which is what you are debating, and the other is viewing the Rambam from what he himself writes. Learning only Moreh Nevuchim will give only one flat picture of the Rambam. Learning his books on medicine yet another. Mishne Torah another. Pirush Hamishnayos another. His ShuT another. The Rambam writes each as if completely unaware that he was written the others.

That Rambam supercedes a relevant Halocha seifer (Sh"A harav or M"B), a blatt Gemora or some Mishnayos for a desperate working stiff making such tough decisions (like which child to keep) is hard to comprehend.

You are welcome to study or read or listen to the talks of the Rebbe discussing this when he implemented this study.

I'm not the first to say this, but the reasons why almost *everyone* likes the Rambam's Mishneh Sorah is because 1) it's beautifully written and 2) you can project yourself very easily onto it, since he did not source his views. And the stirahs are positively mannah from heaven for anyone who wishes to rewrite the Rambam.

It precedes Shem ha-Gedolim. I don't remember when and where, but I believe the meme that the Rambam was a kabbalist was floating around in a concrete way in the 16th century, and perhaps earlier. I've got an article somewhere (in one of those Harvard red-covered 'Jewish Thought' books), which documents the kabbalistic appropriation of the Rambam. I'll try to update when I get the chance.

It's not just the Lubavitchers. Pretty much all Kabbalistically inclined movements, and their lemmings, have had to deal with the fact that the Rambam just wasn't one of them. In general, the solution to this seems to have been to embrace the Rambam and sort of integrate their ideas into him, so that with the right mistranslating and obfuscation, the Rambam would seem to be agreeing with them.

Another thing is that philosophy and kabbalah are related. It's not so surprising that speculators are attracted to speculators.

There is information from respectable sources on the kabbalism of Spinoza.