[Avodah] Kabbalah's Legitimacy

[Arie Folger]

RMM asked for reactions to his notion that:
> Rambam was (IMHO) wrong that the text (Shiur Koma) was inauthentic, viz. a
> viz. Chazalic authorship.

IMNSHO I believe that you are confusing two concepts: period of authorship and 
actual authorship. Shiur Qomah is indigenous Jewish literature, plausibly 
from the time of 'Hazal. That does not mean that it is part of the TSBP 
cannon. Where is SQ quoted in the Talmud? Sefer Yetzirah is, but I am unaware 
of SQ being quoted. Who among Hazal is supposed to have been the author of 
that work? These are important questions that  need answering before you show 
that Rambam was wrong on his stance on SQ.

Of course, I am sure there are other Jewish thinkers who felt comfortable with 
SQ and considered it a holy holy sefer. There likely still are Jews who 
believe so.

Last but not least, accepting the rejection of SQ does not mean that other 
Jewish texts, whose authorship may or may not be in dispute, are to be 
rejected. Likewise, the difficulty of reconciling a certain work with one's 
provate convinced philosophy is not sufficient ground for rejecting the work. 
Not every work is as difficult as SQ; Zohar, while often very difficult, does 
not approach the SQ by far in this regard. Some difficulties require us to 
wrap our brain around them, rather than reject the work. Or at least, we must 
try. We may calmly take Rambam's attitude towards SQ to be an exception 
rather than a rule.

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com