[Avodah] ain od milvado

[Micha Berger]

My bet is that this and the following discussion ("shattering of
vessels...why not pleasing") do not belong on an email list, that we
are violating Chagiga 2:1 ("Ein dorshin ... velo beMaaseh Bereishis
beshinayim, velo beMerkavah beyachid ela im ken hayah chakham umeivin
midaaso." This thread is about Maaseh haMerkavah, Hashem's Presence in
the world, the "vessels" thread about maaseh bereishis, and the audience
is far more public than 1 or 2 people.

Asking an email list your qabbalah questions is probably the wrong way
to go about getting these answers, LAD. Speaking halachically, not
functionally -- with the right people on the list, why couldn't it in
theory help?

But, even thinking that I'm probably sinning, my YhR makes it difficult
for me not to participate.


On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 03:43:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Not the same thing at all; they claim that there is a division *within*
> HKBH, and that Y is one of those parts, and in fact the part to which
> prayer should be directed.   That's very different from saying that the
> "nefesh hasheinis beyisroel" is a "chelek Eloak Mimaal mamash".  It's
> actually the exact opposite.

> *If* one looks at a person and sees only the Atzmus that's in him, then
> one may indeed address him as Hashem and worship him...

Explain how they are semantically different.

Position 1 is belief in a god who has parts, and one should pray to one
of those parts.

Position 2 is belief that someone is "literally a part of G-d above" and
worships that realization as G-d.

In either case, it's belief in divisibility. The Rambam would never
go with the phrase "cheileq E-loak" with any continuation. And, it's
worship of a non-essential part of the division.

The difference you are drawing appears to me to be only syntactic --
the people who follow position 1 use the word "God" broadly so as to
include the division "within" the concept being names, whereas you are
using the word narrowly, so that the division is outside the idea you are
naming. But still within the concept of "E-loak", as you're recognizing
the cheileq of It that within someone.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:02:57PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: Is it possible that the concept of ain od milvado is:
: 1. true but not understandable to our finite and non-contradictory accepting 
: minds (e.g. how can there be an "I" or "Id" or yesh, when everything is Hashem?)
: 2. true but has at least one exception (namely bechira)
: 3. true but has no practical applications to us, since it doesn't absolve us of 
: choosing to do good (and not evil) 

I think no.s 1 and 3 are identical. It has no application because we
can't understand it anyway, and therefore we must simply act like it's
not an option.

I don't think #2 is viable. If you think that "ein od milvado" means an
obligation to be a panentheist (everything is of G-d, but G-d is more
than the totality of creation) then how can you have exceptions?

Realize that most sources outside of the Chassidic world teach
4. there are no gods, demiurges or other controlling forces nor anyone close
enough to those categories worthy of worship, but Him.

    Atah hareisa ledaas
    ki Hashem hu haE-lokim
    ein od milvado
	- Devarim 4:35

Look at the word "od" in context. Sure sounds like Moshe is talling
them "ein od [E-lokim] milvado". Rosh haShanah 32b says it's about
"ein od malkhus", since there R' Yosi and R' Yehudah debate whether
it can be included as one of the 10 pesuqim for Malkhus in RH Mussaf.

Tiqunei Zohar, tiquna 55 (88a) speaks about the unity of the Godhead,
"bela pirud ubela shituf". Again, not about creation being of Him. Based
on what RZS wrote above, the TZ is denying "position 1" and does not
speak to "position 2". And on 122b it's more clear
    Ki H' Hu haE-lokim bshamayim mimaal ve'al haaretz mitachas ein od
    ve'is aver de'isqarei "Elohim" ushaltanusei bekhol ar'ah

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?