<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 12pt; font-family: Georgia,Palatino,serif'>
<p>On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<p>Any luck with this?</p>
<p>Zvi</p>
<br />
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<p> </p>
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><span style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger </span></div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<pre><span style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed
create round squares and other self-contrdictory things.</span></pre>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><br /></span>
<pre><span style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite</span>.
Zvi Lampel
(To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) </span><!-- meta ignored --><!-- meta ignored --><!-- meta ignored --></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source.</p>
<p>I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not...</p>
<p>The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows.</p>
<p>(BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.)</p>
<p>I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest <em>pesach </em>30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc...</p>
<div>
<pre><em>Tir'u baTov</em>!
-Micha
<span style="font-family: 'courier new', courier;">--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach</span></pre>
</div>
</body></html>