For the sake of the uniqueness of the Holy One, blessed be He and His Shekinah. 7 And incest.

I personally don't see any difference between physical and spiritual pairings, why did you bring examples from the world of porn that are required by reality (???) It's a shame that the "Kabbalists" didn't keep a clean tongue.

If you see these examples as clients from the world of porn, it only speaks to you (dismissed in Momo). To each his own. The Song of Songs is also from the world of porn according to this.

It is not written in the Torah that it depends on interpretation. It is written: You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any form
“and any image” including spiritual things. There is no difference between spiritual and physical.
“and anything” including any metaphorical or non-metaphorical interpretation. This is idolatry, literally.
To the same extent, they interpreted the powers of heaven as metaphorical forces that the sun influences the earth.
And the things are clear.
Even when they bowed to the sun, it was God's appearances to the world. There is no difference.

In my opinion, it is the opposite. The interpretation that things are “metaphorical” is childish and stems from the fear of recognizing that things really are so that there is a male and a female in God. This is according to Kabbalah. Cowardly children are explained differently, that it is just a metaphor.

Rabbi Michi, I still haven't received an answer regarding euphemism, do the ”Kabbalist” disagree with Chazal and the like?
Beitî” (Tractate Shabbat, page 128, page 2). And instead of having sexual relations, they said: “Tashmish HaMita” (Tractate Moed Katan, page 24, page 1), “Davar Zeh” (Tractate Sanhedrin, page 19, page 2), “Milta” (Word) (Tractate Nedarim, page 21, page 1), “Davar Mitzvah” (Tractate Eruvin, page 10, page 2), “Derech Eretz” (Tractate Yoma, page 44, page 2), “Daver Acher” (Tractate Berakhot, page 8, page 2), “Hergel Daver” (Tractate Avoda Zara, page 17, page 1), “Esyiat Melacha” (Tractate Shabbat, page 49, page 2), “Esyiat Necessarii” (Tractate Sanhedrin, leaf 52, page 2), as well as “to tell” (Tractate Nedarim, leaf 22, page 1) and ”to speak” (Tractate Ketubot, leaf 13, page 1). We also found alternative expressions related to eating and drinking as euphemisms for sexual relations: “אכל” (Tractate Ketubot, leaf 13, page 1), “סעד” (Tractate Shabbat, leaf 62, page 2), “נהמא” (bread) (Tractate Nida, page 17, page 1), “hidden bread” (Tractate Sanhedrin, page 85, page 1), “tasting a dish” (Tractate Hagiga, page 5, page 2), “drinking in a cup” (Tractate Nedarim, page 20, page 2), “setting a table” (ibid.). Instead of menstruation it is said “the way of women” (Tractate Avoda Zara, page 24, page 2), and instead of the sin of fornication – “Offense” Just, without detail (Tractate Avoda Zara, leaf 3, page 1).
“Panim” (Tractate Gittin, leaf 6, page 2), “Otho Mokum” (Tractate Nedarim, leaf 2, page 1), “Beshar” (Tractate Sanhedrin, leaf 19, page 2), “Givrothu” (Tractate Bava Metzia, leaf 4, page 1), “Pa” (Tractate Yoma, page 85, page 1), “Ebed” (Tractate Tmura, page 33, page 1), “Shemesh” (Tractate Nida, page 41, page 1), “Ekeb” (Tractate Nedarim, page 22, page 1), “Toref” (Tractate Berakhot, page 24, page 1). Instead of a womb – “Am” (Tractate Sanhedrin, leaf 33, page 1), and grave (Tractate Sanhedrin, leaf 52, page 2).

And I still haven't received an answer from you on how the sages get along with the Song of Songs.
Kabbalistic literature also uses euphemisms. Pairing is like coming. Talking about a brush in a tube is euphemisms? So what is not euphemistic in Kabbalah? And of course the context also matters in this matter. When it is clear that spiritual matters are involved, then more explicit expressions can be used.

Not that I justify his words, but in the Rambam it is written: “And so he always disqualifies others” [Hilkot Issurei Be’a, Chapter 19, Halacha 17]. Meaning in a way that is habitual and not in a one-time manner like here. It is worth studying the Rambam, because I see that this is the second time you have disqualified in this manner. And along the way, learn what ad hominem is, because you do this on the right and on the left. And finally, there is an incident about the sage Shoshani who gave a lecture on the Song of Songs and he told him that he was single! And it is not for him.

Rabbi Michi, there is a big difference between breasts and reproductive organs, and likewise between a brush in a pipe that teaches us Halacha and Din and a description of intercourse that is attributed to God in His own person and in the words of the bard: "Her husband will embrace her, and in essence he will touch her (with his member), David will comfort her (make her happy), he will be like a shard of stone (Yidush Dishu)."

Dilla is hers.

A.
I usually like riddles quite a bit. I don't know why I connect less with yours.

Benjamin,
There are topics that you can't talk to me about because even when you get an explanation, you'll close your ears (Harites and Kabbalists). So I'll save myself time and energy and write to Millie.

In the same way, any pagan, idolatrous, or delusional belief can be presented. Greek mythology can also be presented this way. The gods are manifestations of God in the world or different aspects of Him, and everything is spiritual and mental processes. In fact, many stories there are structured and present mental phenomena.

Hinduism is also presented in the same way today. How is it different from Kabbalah? Is Hinduism today not idolatry? In the ancient world, there were also philosophers who interpreted the various beliefs differently, and they also did not worship idols? And what about Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox)? Even there, the Trinity and the patron saints are presented as representing spiritual processes.

Maybe because I'm slapping the truth in the face? Some cling to lies and some cling to the truth. And here I wasn't being enigmatic.

The one who errs in Aramaic and seeks reward like a precious Pinchas, who is cursed

The explanation of the riddle is that it cannot be said that the one who sees the examples as coming from a world of invalidity is himself invalid on the part of the “dismisser in his mother”, because according to the law, the one who accuses others of invalidity (a bastard slave, etc.) is himself suspected of being invalid, that is, the one who permanently dismisses. Whereas in Benjamin Didan n=1.
And hes A. To comment since he has already found twice (n=2) that the principle of “dismissing in his mother” has been applied to someone who dismissed once.
[However, for the KM, it is not strange that someone who dismisses others once, and perhaps indeed discovered that they are invalid. But if he dismisses a lot, he probably has something bothering him about the matter and therefore sees white elephants everywhere and seeks to lower others to his level. And he who interprets something in a certain way precisely when there is another logical and reasonable interpretation and then further complicates the issues, one must feel that perhaps the problem lies in his own eyes. The disqualifier in Momo is a reasonable explanation when there is a strange phenomenon]
Rabbi A. Punta, have I reached your end of the bargain?

I did not understand the accusation of ad hominem (there was a reference to a person here, but the acceptance or rejection of a claim/argument was not linked to this reference).
And whether A. Punta meant that he did not justify Benjamin's words or that he did not justify Maimonides' words - I do not know.

Gabriel, you can present everything in any form. The question is what really happens there, not how things are presented. Anyone who perceives Hinduism as a metaphor for some kind of spiritual philosophy - this is of course not idolatry.
I can't insist until tomorrow to present Kabbalah as it is, since everything can be presented in any form. Therefore, whoever chooses a certain form of presentation, this testifies mainly to himself. And that is what I said.

On the 4th of Iyar 5721

In my youth, I heard a lecture by R. Chanan Porat (before the participants of the annual conference of the Society for Biblical Research who visited Gush Etzion). He spoke about the Song of Songs, which is a parable about God's love for the Knesset of Israel, but the fact that the love of a man and a woman is the parable shows that the parable is also a positive thing.

This was emphasized by the Kabbalists. The Ramban in his Eger HaKodesh (Holy Letter) takes the Rambam's approach that the sense of touch is a disgrace to us, and says that the connection out of love between a man and a woman is a thing of holiness. And we will examine further the introduction to the Song of Songs (in the siddur ‘Olat Rai”a).

The complexity of the Torah's relationship to sexuality stems from the power with which it can, in its proper form, be the pinnacle of goodness, and the peak of love between a man and his wife. But on the other hand, it can degenerate a person to the peak of addiction to the instinctive lust of incest.

The boundaries of modesty are intended to create a clear distinction, to deny the fulfillment of sexual desire when it is not in the right place at the right time and under the right conditions. For the connection of love between a man and his wife. Just as the prohibition of idolatry requires that religious emotion be directed solely toward the Creator and not toward any other entity - so the boundaries of modesty require that all sexuality be focused solely on the relationship between the man and his wife.

Engaging in the secrets of Torah is conditioned by mental and intellectual maturity. Those in whom the parables arouse a "foreign fire" of instinct or fulfillment must understand that they have not yet reached the proper maturity, and should act according to the parable of the Maimonides (at the end of Chapter 4 of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah) that first they should eat the bread and meat, the explanations of the commandments lead to the righteousness of deeds and virtues, and only then they should taste the essence of Torah, being careful not to become intoxicated.

With blessings, Shalom

Rabbi Michi, I am really surprised that His Holiness did not pay attention to the differences between describing human love (completely legitimate, it is part of life) and going down to the details “below the belt” of God. I argued that these were unnecessary discussions about the influences of foreign teachings and knowledge. Should the “blue head” of the ”Kabbalists” be legitimized to the point that no one notices the wrongness of mentioning God's balls and sinew?
Sorry in advance for the bluntness, this is what it says originally in my book “Kabbalah”
PS: In my opinion, it is appropriate to make a distinction between the ancient Hebrew secret teachings and the new Kabbalah

To all the righteous Jews. In light of the many requests and questions from the common people and in order to clarify the issue, tomorrow an image of a male and a female will be brought to the Western Wall square to demonstrate the issue. There the rabbi, along with the rest of the Kabbalist community, will give lectures and explanations on how spiritual fertilization occurs.

During the lecture, everyone will be required to bow to the image out of respect for the divinity it represents.

Later in the evening, a lesson will be given to advanced students on how to approach God through acts of fertilization of a male and a female. The matters will be practiced in a physical way, but during the lesson, the Kabbalists will clarify that this is only a metaphor, and at the end of the lesson, the musicians and drummers will stand and put everyone into a sublime trance through which we can connect with the higher ones and thus make a great impact up there.

Later, there will be folk dances because with the majority of the people, the king is honored and with the majority of fertilization, connections are created and thus we will merit the coming of the true Redeemer.

The claim that the issues of faces and the sefirot are idolatry is not that radical nor is it new.
Radical rationalists and Rambambists like Rabbi Kapach have already claimed it.
And of course, Leibowitz too.
It cannot really be defined that way because none of the Kabbalists ever claimed that there are sefirot faces or pairings that are an independent force that must be worshipped and that is not subject to God.
Regarding things like the fulfillment of the deity and the like, the great Kabbalist himself said that ultimately the most accurate and true definition of God is the "absolute zero." The wise Kabbalists claim that it is impossible to fulfill and that the appearances of faces and various powers are part of the completion of God that is revealed.

Rational (relatively), see Rabbi Kapach's book, “Melahmot Ha”, which quotes many “Kabbalists” who claim that one should indeed work and pray for ”one's neighbor”, Rach”l.
The last Posk, Beig Lake.

In the Book of Grace in Netzach 5721

The passage in the Zohar, Petah Eliyahu, is well-known, which explains the subject of the Sefirot. This passage is usually recited in Sephardic synagogues before the Mincha prayer.

There it is explained that the Sefirot itself is a "general conception of thought." The Sefirot are the "regulations" that the Almighty God issued to "lead in a supreme and appropriate way," and in simple Hebrew, the ways of divine leadership in the world.

"So far, Reza Dikhuda"

With blessings, Sh.

And since thought is not a perception in general, the charlatan sages arrived and had to introduce things that thought is a perception in it. And they explained that the reasons for the commandments or the purpose of keeping the commandments, that is, the Torah, is “for the sake of the uniqueness of God and His Shechinah.” And this is what thought grasps.

(Just to remind you that the Rambam writes simply that the purpose of the Torah is the correction of man.)

Letter to Prof. Gershom Shalom
The letter is from July 1941
And is also found in the book I Wanted to Ask You Prof. Leibowitz, p. 255

Prof. Shalom, Honorable,

I would like to present to you in writing my questions and misconceptions that I alluded to in our brief conversation yesterday on the bus. Among them are a few questions that you will surely answer tomorrow, and the rest will be, in your opinion, just the talk of a layman who is very interested in your teachings.

To what extent I failed to explain to you what I meant by the few words in the psalm – It became clear to me from the way you presented the words in your lecture when you said that someone claimed against you that according to your explanation, the Kabbalists are standing on the wrong side of the law. And it is not – I did not argue at all against you and I did not mean at all the religious position of the Kabbalist: after all, the danger involved in following the mystical approach is obvious and clear, and you did not innovate it, and mystics of all times have recognized and emphasized it (four entered the orchard, etc.), and there is no argument in this - neither philosophical nor moral - against that approach itself: every weighty and valuable idea is liable to have sharp edges and pitfalls within it. I meant - something completely different: it seems to me that the main conceptual innovation of classical Judaism is that the entire strength of religious outlook and religious feeling is always a standing on the side of the weak, and the desire to be close to God with all one's soul and all one's strength always hangs between God and idolatry. In this regard, there is no more powerful and bold symbol in the world of religious thought than the act of the calf by the people who were honored at Mount Sinai and said, "Let it be done and be heard." This is the conceptual background to the historical discussion to which I refer at this moment.

I emphasize that the discussion at hand is historical, not theological, philosophical, or moral. You have done a great thing by freeing the study of Kabbalah from the burden of theological, philosophical, and moral assessments and paving the way for treating it as one of the great historical phenomena of our time. I will endeavor to learn from you and follow in your footsteps and not to ask whether the teachings of Kabbalah are “correct” or “good” in any respect, but rather about its place and role in history. Z.A. I am referring to your question that you put at the beginning of your lectures: What caused Kabbalah to take over the minds and souls of the masses of Israel for an extended period and to become a living historical factor, while rationalist philosophy remained something that was only studied by a limited public and its traces were almost unknown after a few generations. Your answer was that Kabbalah is closer to classical Judaism and breathed new life into religious institutions - practical commandments and prayer, while philosophy lacked a living and productive relationship with the aforementioned institutions. It seems to me that you yourself, in the rest of your words and in the details of your answer, contradicted this thesis. I ask you: What classical Judaism do you mean? Is it that specific Judaism that constitutes a division in its own right in the world of religions that was crystallized in its literary enterprise - The Talmud and Avzriyahu – and in the permanent institutions of Halacha and prayer, or to the anonymous popular Judaism of that classical period, a Judaism of individual religiosity that stems from religious feelings and mental complexes that naturally nestle in the heart of the religious Jew, just as they nestle in every religious person who worships idols? It seems to me that the entire strength of classical Judaism is nothing but a strong struggle between these two religions (Religiostaten), and the great and unique achievement of Talmudic-Rabbinic Judaism (in which it continues the line of the Torah and the Prophets) is the suppression of the elements of myth and the restraint of the free, wild individual religiosity that is nothing but an expression of instincts and desires (“Israel knew that there was no real idolatry in it, except that they sought to permit them to commit fornication in public”, Sanhedrin) and its inclination towards the path of conquering instinct and imposing duties and developing a sense of duty (“Greater is the commandment and the doing than the commandment and the doing!”). In this sense, it is precisely rationalist philosophy, despite all its borrowings from the outside, that continues the line of original Judaism, i.e. of the special and specific side of Judaism, while Kabbalah, despite the apparent originality of its symbols and intentions, is nothing more than an outbreak of that universal human religiosity, i.e. pagan, which classical Judaism tried to suppress, with all the psychopathia sexualis that entails (see Sefer Hasidim). I think this is what Rabbi Kook wanted to express in the same sentence that I mentioned to you yesterday.

I will use only one example and you, as a wise man who understands everything from everything, will undoubtedly get to the bottom of my meaning, you explained the great innovation that Kabbalah introduced in the field of prayer in creating intentions and uniqueness. And here is the prayer order created by classical Judaism, that prayer in the currency that the sages coined, was never intended to serve as an outlet for individual religious emotion and the outpouring of the soul of the individual; prayer came in place of sacrifices as a public institution. This is precisely what the philosophical explanation of the reasons for the commandments, according to which prayer is a ritual through which the worshipper includes himself in the congregation of believers, is suitable. In contrast, the concept of mystical prayer is a complete revolution, a great revolution indeed and of great historical importance, but in no way a continuation of the historical line that preceded it or a revival of the institution of classical prayer. Incidentally: this revolution against the spirit of classical Judaism is expressed in the very concept of mystical intention, because the power and strength of Rabbinic and Talmudic Judaism are nowhere revealed with such force as when it rules that commandments do not require intention.

I cannot avoid one critical remark, for which you will forgive me. To the extent that I was greatly impressed by the vivid and plastic description that you give, both in your oral and written words, of the mental world of the Kabbalists, I was disappointed by the pallor with which you describe the mental world of the philosophers. Here you have apparently followed in the footsteps of the rule of reason of Ahad Ha'am with the Rambam, John Stuart Milley, and his Herbert Spencer. Here too I will suffice with one example: Is the concept of evil in the Rambam really nothing more than the pale abstraction that you described? Did not the Rambam recognize so deeply the horror of evil that man cannot escape from it even in his greatest intellectual exaltation? Does not the Rambam have at the center of his ideas the piercing Talmudic article that descends to the abyss: "Everything great is its maker, its nature greater than its creator"? Indeed, the philosophers, in order to know evil, understand it, and feel it, did not need the pagan construction of the Stra Damsabuta, in which you apparently see a further deepening.

Finally: In contrast to your thesis, I dare to put forward this thesis: Kabbalah won in the Jewish people because it was closer to those pagan instincts that classical Judaism fought against and failed to eradicate. Maimonides' philosophy did not win because it continues the line of that classical Judaism that has always been and always remains the property of a few immigrants. And it is not for nothing that Maimonides himself says when he describes the pure love of God, "which not every wise man nor every follower is entitled to, and which is only of the rank of Abraham our father," and these are also Spinoza's words, "so glorious are they so rare" (The End of Ethics).

* Everything sublime is difficult as it is uncommon

Benjamin
Leibovitz is known for his unique approach and that is his right
But he is not a source of authority for anything
What is more, his claims always start from a real kernel and end with a far-reaching conclusion, as if I am not mistaken, Michi once said
So Leibovitz says that any work that is not for its own sake and whose purpose is to create a connection with the divine and to correct the world is a sin, so what does he say?
There is nothing wrong if a person fulfills a mitzvot and along the way comes to the conclusion that the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvot is also to correct the world or to correct the Sefirot or the Knesset of Israel. This does not make it an idolatry. I do not think that the Ari or Rabbi Kook or any other great Kabbalist were less God-fearing than Leibovitz

Here you went too far and Leibowitz presented only the core. He says that Kabbalah elaborates on pagan emotion and therefore it spread rapidly in Israel and displaced philosophy.

By the way, I didn't understand why the opinion that mitzvot do not require intention is presented in the question as something I don't accept. On the contrary, there is something mystical about it and not just compliance with the command. After all, the intention here is a basic intention to fulfill the mitzvah (and even with the exception of prayer), and if everything is just compliance with the command, then without intention, what is left?

Mysticism belongs to the world of idolatry.
Compared to the people of Israel: For there was no sorcery in Jacob, nor was there any enchantment in Israel

And especially with regard to sexuality and male and female, the Torah knew the souls of those who worshipped idols and warned:
And you shall be very careful for yourselves, for you shall not see any form in the day that the word of the LORD shall come to you in the midst of the fire: lest you be corrupted, and make for yourselves a carved image, the form of any form, the likeness of male or female:

And what the mystics want to say is that their descriptions are only Symbol and not reality This is what the Torah warned about: All symbol

To allow the attribution of marital relationships to God and to excuse it as an interpretation is like allowing bowing to an image and saying that it depends on the intention of the one bowing.

And what do you think is the act of the chariot that Chazal mentioned, and the glimpse of the orchard, and the stones of pure marble, etc.?

It doesn't matter as much as you think.
Because the Zeals are not with us to ask them what they meant and why they said what they said.
The Zeals said and did many things for no reason; otherwise the foolish public would flee to foreign fields.

The one who determines for the people of Israel is the Torah, and the Torah should not be made difficult by the Zeals (it is clear that the Zeals knew the Torah forward and backward from top to bottom. That is not the point) especially when we do not know what they meant by their statements.

Remember the Torah of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments:

The Rebbe told them, "When you come to pure marble, do not say, 'Water, water,' because it is said, 'A liar will not stand before my eyes.'"

The meaning is clear. "Water, water, water." This is mysticism, which the charlatan swindlers and the mind-benders do with as they please. They adapt the mysticism to the listener. Like water, they are flexible and take the shape of the glass. This is the essence of charlatanism.

And the Rebbe warns that these are marbles. Something solid. That does not change its shape. This is not mysticism. This is mathematics. Logic. Science.

How does the rabbi know what is really going on within Kabbalah? There are quite a few Kabbalists who understood the Sephirot and the issue of oneness with the Divine Presence literally. Among the masses there are beliefs that border on idolatry that originate in Kabbalah. Even in Hinduism today there are quite a few people who perceive the issue of the multitude of idols as a metaphor for the many faces of the Supreme Being or as forces or metaphysical sequences that descend from it. How is this different from the teachings of the Sephirot? There are also those who truly believed that God is composed of the Sephirot. I don't see much difference between Hinduism and Kabbalah in this regard.

Last umpire I didn't understand what you meant. In your opinion, is Chazal's Merkava work entirely a science of mathematical logic (this seems ridiculous to me), or are these contents in the field of knowing the divine and its influence that are only structured in an orderly and solid manner like the science of mathematical logic?
The Merkava work was of no use to the "stupid public" because they hid it from it with all their might.

Gabriel,
What does “what goes on inside the Kabbalah” mean? Are you asking what certain Kabbalists thought? I'm not really interested. By the way, it seems like you do know what goes on there. But that's probably a privilege reserved only for you…

I don't know what's going on within Kabbalah as a whole, and I don't even know if it's possible to talk about Kabbalah in general. I've just seen that there are quite a few Kabbalists who understood the matter literally. Most people see Kabbalah that way too.
I simply don't understand the difference between Kabbalah and pagan religions, where there are also interpretations here and there.

Especially since Christianity is indeed perceived as idolatry from the perspective of Halacha, while the ideas of certain Kabbalists are no less problematic. Where is the line drawn between idolatry and legitimate faith? And why is Christianity idolatry, including approaches and theologies that see the Trinity as “deep spiritual ideas” and not simply perceived as idolatry, but Kabbalistic approaches are not considered idolatry?

So what you're claiming is that there are Kabbalists who are idolaters. So what? I was talking about Kabbalah, not Kabbalists.
And if there are Christians who are not idolaters, then what? Then they're not. You assume certain stereotypes and then complicate matters. Don't assume and don't complicate matters. And in general, it's better to judge ideas, not people.

I read with complete astonishment your words, Rabbi Michi, regarding anthropomorphism and Gnosticism under the seal of strict kashrut. I wonder how his Torah respects the book “Shiur Koma.” Does the Rabbi disagree with the Maimonides’ response: “It is nothing but a composition by one of the preachers in the cities of Edom.” Destroying that book and cutting off the memory of our subject is a great commandment. To the extent that the Rabbi disagrees with Maimonides, I would like to ask for an explanation of his method on the matter?

I talked about what is meant by the marble stones.
Regarding the Merkava act, things are much simpler:
And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, for they will be abominations and abominations to you, and you will dwell with scorpions. Do not be afraid of their words, nor be afraid of their faces, for they are a house of rebelliousness.

And we must remember that even with Hazal, there was no teaching of the “Bereishit act” which is the teaching of the “Merkava act” but they dealt with demands and investigations. And not difficulties from the sermon. And just as they may have been mistaken in the act of Genesis, so they may have been mistaken in the act of the chariot. What's more, it is not at all clear what they demanded.

Benjamin,
I do not refer to the book because I am not familiar with it. If you are in shock, I wish you the best of health and a speedy recovery.
I have explained my method well, and if Maimonides thought differently, then I disagree with him.

Rebbe Michi, can you please provide a link to a place where the rabbi explained his method well?

Benjamin
I think it's pretty clear that the reference is to Michi's first message
He doesn't perceive the Kabbalah as idolatry because for him the sexual dimium and the rebium of the appearances of sefirot and the like in the world are not as simple as they seem
If the topic of finding pagan symbols that entered Judaism over the generations interests you so much
I refer you to Shnerb's review in the Shabbat supplement of the book What God Cannot Do
Or to the discussion on the topic in the Stop Here Thinking forum:
https://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&topic_id=3134493

I think this will make your Shabbat

By the way
If we are talking about Kabbalah and the things it contains that are jarring
Rabbi Tzadok's dharmanistic mishna that assumes that a Jew emerges righteous and his actions are not important because every action a Jew does - even a sin - is the will of the Holy One, blessed be He
And likewise his opposite opinion of course when it comes to Gentiles -
and in fact cancels free choice
is a fascinating thing

Rational (relatively), “not as simple as that” This is a trash can into which all types of waste can be thrown, and therefore I reject your understanding of Rabbi Michi's words, I don't think that's what the Rabbi meant.
PS: Thanks for the links.

Here for example:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%9c%d7%a9%d7%9d-%d7%99%d7%99%d7%97%d7%95%d7%93-%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%93%d7%a9%d7%90-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9a-%d7%94%d7%95%d7%90-%d7%95%d7%a9%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%a2%d7%96-%d7%95#comment-34671

I really enjoy the way the rabbi discusses the Kabbalah as a meritorious act while displaying spiritual acrobatics skills. I would like to mention the Chabad method according to which God can mate as male and female, and as follows: "Although He Himself is not a body and has an image, He may clothe Himself in a body, etc., since He is omnipotent and avoids the avoidances" (Likkuti Sichot 15, p. 85, note 3). The doctrines of communion and incarnation in the flesh in Chabad are kosher, from the y

Benjamin, I get the impression that you are an intelligent person, and what makes you insist and talk nonsense is all about obsession and fixation on certain topics or people, and it's a shame.
Why didn't you bring me the names of tribes in Africa who are Awz? I told you that I am talking about Kabbalah and not about certain Kabbalists and not about certain interpretations. In Chabad, there are quite a few aspects of Awz, even without any connection to Kabbalah, and I have already written about it here. But from your point of view, there is no point in writing because you don't read (or don't put in an effort to understand). It turns out that even when your questions seem like questions (and in these cases I try to answer), they actually aren't.

“I told you I was talking about Kabbalah and not about Kabbalists” – Would the Rabbi please be kind enough to define what that “Kabbalah”… is?

Kabbalah is the Torah described in the Book of Zohar and among the Ari and other books, with various interpretations given to it over the ages, which of course should be discussed separately. The spheres, the faces, the worlds and the various connections between them. The different interpretations given to this Torah (whether it is the same in practice or metaphor, whether it deals with our world or with higher worlds, if there are any at all, are different interpretations by different people. These are compromises and interpretations and not Kabbalah. Kabbalah is the theory itself and not its interpretations.
Just as you ask me about the Torah in light of this or that interpretation given to it that you do not like (of the Haredim, R”l). And I will answer you that I believe in the Torah but not necessarily in all interpretations. Then you ask me what the Torah is that I am talking about. And my answer will be the books that all these commentators deal with (the Bible, the Talmud). It is possible to argue about a Torah passage whether it is a parable or actually happened, and you can even say that this interpretation or its companion is heresy and idolatry. Does this mean that the Torah is a ג”z?
A wise person like you should understand this simple point even without my kind help, and certainly after I have already explained This is here.

By the way, you quoted me inaccurately, and I think you did so intentionally. I did not write: “I told you I was talking about Kabbalah and not about Kabbalists”, as you quoted, but: “I told you I was talking about Kabbalah and not about certain Kabbalists and not about certain interpretations”. This is another indication, one of many, of your bias and unwillingness to accept answers.

For the avoidance of doubt and for the sake of “and find grace and good understanding in the eyes of God and man” I would like to clarify that I had no malicious intent in quoting.
The only intention was for the Rabbi to define that “Kabbalah”. After reading the above definition, I realized that the Rabbi's understanding of Kabbalah is probably limited to the writings of Moshe de Leon and his successors such as the Ari (“and other books”… on the path of the Zohar or other paths? Unfortunately, the Rabbi (so to speak) did not explain this critical point). Kabbalah explicitly is not a “theory” but rather a collection of “theories” Therefore, the resemblance to the Torah is detached from reality. Indeed, the Torah is one and there are many interpreters of it, but Kabbalah is a multitude of "intuitions" that are not complements but the essence of the matter, similar to the (ancient) Christian concept, which developed over the years as the good imagination would have it, and as it develops before our eyes, new ones are constantly emerging.

Simply not true. But it's hard to discuss without listening. I suggest we end it here.