[Avodah] Timtum HaLev

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
:> But this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and explicitly not about
:> other metaphysical mechanics. Personally, I would argue that the Ran
:> and the Ikkarim (his talmid, who describes a very similar hashkafah)
:> don't actually believe there is such a thing.''

: I got stuck here in your response. How can you say that the Ran is not 
: about metaphysical mechanics? ...

Picture nested sets.

The smallest set is a metaphysical mechanical explanation of sekhar
va'onesh. As I wrote in my post, I believe that approach is central to
the Ran (and RYAlbo, the Iqarim, his talmid).

Next is a belief in metaphysical mechanics, but everything runs through
people. So, an object has no inherent spiritual power without a soul
connecting it and events in this world to higher realms. I'm saying
this is the position of the Nefesh haChaim, and until the mid-20th cent,
probably of Litta as a whole. I wrote about this at some length, it took
a whole series of blog entries, and I can't do it justice in email length.

Third is believe in a metaphysical mechanics in which objects themselves
have impact in those higher realms. (And so of course do neshamos in
general, as well as that being part of how sekhar va'onesh works. Each
set includes the previous.)

The Ran only discusses the first category. Not to say his beliefs are
or are not broader -- I just haven't encountered him or the Iqarim
discussing the mechanics of other spiritual phenomena.

I'm only addressing the third, broadest, understanding of the role of
metaphysical mechanics. I believe it was one of the chiddushim that grew
out of the Besh"t's approach to the Ari's Qabbalah. And thus an odd
belief to have caught on among misnagdim.

To put it another way:

The Ran explains how the mitzvah of mezuzah causes the shemirah that
Rebbe tells Artibon about. He does not address the question of whether
the mezuzah as a cheftzah has a power of drawing down shemirah.

Does scanning the letters of the Zohar by someone who doesn't understand
anything of what he's looking at cause anything different to happen than
in lehavdil the text were Ephraim Kishon's?

Similarly, does a qemei'ah work if the person who has it isn't triggered
to think about its contents?

This is all one question. In Litta, were fancy qabbalistic qemei'os "only"
frowned upon because they were considered a violation of "tamim tihyeh
im Hashem E-lokekha" or did they also believe they simply didn't work?

...
: How then do you perceive that ''this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and 
: explicitly not about other metaphysical mechanics''?

Key word: "other".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
micha at aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507