Isaiah 63:11-12.

[dybmh]

The letter tav is considered the "seal" of truth since it's the final letter in the word "truth" (it's the seal of the word)

It's a seal, a binding.

We agree.

 

[John D. Brey]

Before I respond further. Did you notice that Prof Wolfson agrees with me?

Professor Wolfson understands "rahamim" as being related to tiferet. Rahamim is the "compassion" or mercy associated with tiferet as the "middle-path" between gevurah (din, judgment) and hesed (grace or mercy). Although tiferet is a unification of judgment (gevurah) and mercy (hesed), its primary goal is "compassion." Compassion is what results when there's true harmony between judgment and mercy. Tiferet represents that harmony. Tiferet represent the power of the right and left hand unified in the right hand.

The rod of Moses spoken of in Isaiah 63 is the branch that represents tiferet. Its core is mercy (hesed), while its outer manifestation is judgment (gevurah). Moses seeks to use the rod for acts of mercy and compassion, but is able to use it for judgment too since it's the harmony of both.

Tiferet represents the harmony of the written Torah and the oral Torah in the primordial state before they were separated. The written Torah is related to law, commandment, and judgment (the power of gevurah), while the oral Torah is related to grace or mercy. Tiferet harmonizes the two in what you're calling the middle-path. Rahamin is what you get from the harmonizing of judgment and mercy.



John

 

[dybmh]

Professor Wolfson understands "rahamim" as being related to tiferet. Rahamim is the "compassion" or mercy associated with tiferet as the "middle-path" between gevurah (din, judgment) and hesed (grace or mercy). Although tiferet is a unification of judgment (gevurah) and mercy (hesed), its primary goal is "compassion."

Yes, Prof. Wolfson agrees with me.

Compassion is what results when there's true harmony between judgment and mercy. Tiferet represents that harmony. Tiferet represent the power of the right and left hand unified in the right hand.

Prof Wolfson: Gevurah <<< Mercy >>> Chesed.

You wrote: Gevurah << Mercy >> Mercy

Here it is, a little easier to see:

Rahamim is the "compassion" or mercy associated with tiferet as the "middle-path" between gevurah (din, judgment) and hesed (grace or mercy).

Above, mercy is listed twice. Wolfson places it in the center. You've added it to the right. It doesn't belong there. The choice to include "mercy" in Chesed is not correct. Chesed is much-much more than mercy. Chesed can destroy, see Psalm 110. Mercy does not destroy, time after time, but there are consequences.

The best biblical example of mercy is after the Golden-Calf. Those who participated, were killed, thanks to Aaron's brilliant quick thinking. Those who didn't rise up in opposition weren't killed, but they lost the privilege of learning from the first set of tablets. That's mercy. It was wrong, according to the story, for the Israelites to watch, and wait for their savior, Moses, to return. The Torah is teaching that the people should have risen up the stop the assembly of the mixed multitudes.

The best example of pure Chesed, that I'm aware of, in the Gospels is Jesus overturning the tables of the money-lenders. The rule of law is completely over-whelmed by the need to reach-out and disrupt the operations of the Temple. If Jesus were operating with even a shred of justice, he would not have interrupted the temple service which is required by the law.

The second best example, maybe, of pure Chesed in the gospels is cursing the fig tree.

Chesed is "out-reaching" in all of its various forms. Anytime someone extends their arm, it is an expression of Chesed. It is contrasted with Gevruah which is "holding-back". Anytime someone restrains their arm from an impluse, like not scratching a wound while it's healing, is Gevurah. Tiferet includes both, but inclines towards Chesed in a way which is only capable by The Most High.

Rahamim is the "compassion" or mercy associated with tiferet

You're talking about a different type of mercy? A better word choice is grace, or absolution.

Mercy is what happened in Eden. A mistake was made, there are consequences, but they are not punished to the full extent of the law. The punishment fits the crime.. It's merciful, but, not a free-pass.

Grace and absolution is what King David writes about in Psalm 51:

​

8 Behold, You desired that truth be in the hidden places, and in the concealed part You teach me wisdom.​

9 Purify me with a hyssop, and I will become pure; wash me, and I will become whiter than snow.​

10 Make me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that You crushed exult.​

11 Hide Your countenance from my sins, and erase all my iniquities.​

12 Create for me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.​

13 Do not cast me away from before You, and do not take Your holy spirit from me.​

"Create ( ברא ) for me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me."

ברא = creation ex-nihilo

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, Prof. Wolfson agrees with me.



Prof Wolfson: Gevurah <<< Mercy >>> Chesed.

You wrote: Gevurah << Mercy >> Mercy

Here it is, a little easier to see:



Above, mercy is listed twice. Wolfson places it in the center. You've added it to the right. It doesn't belong there. The choice to include "mercy" in Chesed is not correct. Chesed is much-much more than mercy. Chesed can destroy, see Psalm 110. Mercy does not destroy, time after time, but there are consequences.

The best biblical example of mercy is after the Golden-Calf. Those who participated, were killed, thanks to Aaron's brilliant quick thinking. Those who didn't rise up in opposition weren't killed, but they lost the privilege of learning from the first set of tablets. That's mercy. It was wrong, according to the story, for the Israelites to watch, and wait for their savior, Moses, to return. The Torah is teaching that the people should have risen up the stop the assembly of the mixed multitudes.

The best example of pure Chesed, that I'm aware of, in the Gospels is Jesus overturning the tables of the money-lenders. The rule of law is completely over-whelmed by the need to reach-out and disrupt the operations of the Temple. If Jesus were operating with even a shred of justice, he would not have interrupted the temple service which is required by the law.

The second best example, maybe, of pure Chesed in the gospels is cursing the fig tree.

Chesed is "out-reaching" in all of its various forms. Anytime someone extends their arm, it is an expression of Chesed. It is contrasted with Gevruah which is "holding-back". Anytime someone restrains their arm from an impluse, like not scratching a wound while it's healing, is Gevurah. Tiferet includes both, but inclines towards Chesed in a way which is only capable by The Most High.



You're talking about a different type of mercy? A better word choice is grace, or absolution.

Mercy is what happened in Eden. A mistake was made, there are consequences, but they are not punished to the full extent of the law. The punishment fits the crime.. It's merciful, but, not a free-pass.

Grace and absolution is what King David writes about in Psalm 51:

​

8 Behold, You desired that truth be in the hidden places, and in the concealed part You teach me wisdom.​

9 Purify me with a hyssop, and I will become pure; wash me, and I will become whiter than snow.​

10 Make me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that You crushed exult.​

11 Hide Your countenance from my sins, and erase all my iniquities.​

12 Create for me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.​

13 Do not cast me away from before You, and do not take Your holy spirit from me.​

"Create ( ברא ) for me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me."

ברא = creation ex-nihilo

Ok. Would we be on the same sheet of music with the idea that chesed is mercy tempered with judgment while tiferet represents the possibility of mercy not tempered with judgment ala "erase all my iniquities" rather than go easy on me for my iniquities?



John

 

[dybmh]

chesed is mercy tempered

chesed is at the extreme end of the spectrum. It's not tempered. It's pure.

 

[dybmh]

tiferet represents ...

connection. It's the vav. the 6th.

 

[dybmh]

the attribute positioned in the center between left and right

... an attribute positioned in the center ...

Cultivating tiferet is an opportunity to skip ahead.

It's a force which can do both. Place the crown on the head, and simultaneously knock the crown to ground.

Crown, like kesser. Congujated as a verb. It's coronating. It's also a middle-path attribute. And, here's the trick. Kesser is malchus from the realm immediately proximal, in route, towards the throne of glory. It's literally bound into tiferet. Cultivating tiferet, produces a sort of "spirtual loft". It's mediative. But, it needs a bit of precision in regard to the metaphorical "wings", which are chesed and gevurah.

תפארת

The "cornonating force" is bound, between two tavs.

 

[John D. Brey]

chesed is at the extreme end of the spectrum. It's not tempered. It's pure.

Pure what?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

tiferet represents . . .

connection. It's the vav. the 6th.

Connection to what? Or between what?


John

 

[dybmh]

Pure what?

"out-reaching"

Connection to what? Or between what?

All the other middot, past-present-future.

The first thing I would advise is to realize the difference between the sephirot and the middot: emanation as contrasted with manifestation. What you've been describing are middot ( attributes, manifestations ), not sephirot ( vessels ).

 

[dybmh]

chesed is mercy tempered

What is a Chassid? What do they do? What distinguishes them from the others?

Answer: The will-to-bestow contrasted with the will-to-receive.

A Chassid is "out-reaching".

 

[dybmh]

tempered

Middot are almost always blended, ( tempered ). They are the intentional confluence of God's divinity flowing into and out of a nested chain of vessels. At the end of this theorhetical "kosher-sausage" conveyor-line process, out comes a "thing", a middah. It's a manifestation of God's will.

There are special cases.

If all the other vessels are empty, except for one, this becomes a sort of "pure motive", an archetype. These archetypes are what are commonly referred to sephirot. But, they're not. They're middot, special cases, where all the other sephirot are completely empty.

Example:

Consider a rock. Most people look at a rock and do not consider it alive. To them, it's devoid of life-force. However, the Kabalist sees a rock, and perceives a manifestation of God's will. In this way, cosidering it deviod of life is blasphemy. It's full of life-force, God's divinity, in the form of "Submission" ... and nothing else. Kabalistically it would be described as being full of Hod, and all the other vessels, sephirot, are empty.​

That's the kabalah of a "rock". It's "hod". It's kabalah, the rock's kabalah, what it receives, and its correspondence to the rest of reality, is "hod". the middah. It's referred to by the same name as the vessel, because all the others are empty. ( Technically not all. I'm simplifying to make a point. )

Another more technical example:

Tiferet ( often translated in this context as beauty, splendor* ) is a vessel which manifests Rachamim ( mercies, plural ), depending on the flow of the other vessels. It's most often described, metaphorically, as manifesting in the human heart.​

​

Tiferet is one of the sephirot. A vessel.​

Rachamim is a middah, an attribute of reality, a manifestation. They're nearly infinite in type and form.​

* splendor is a specific type of joy, which comes from making connections between many different beautiful objects... ornaments. A Christmas tree is splendid because of all the ornaments which are connected to it.​

 

[John D. Brey]

Middot are almost always blended, ( tempered ). They are the intentional confluence of God's divinity flowing into and out of a nested chain of vessels. At the end of this theorhetical "kosher-sausage" conveyor-line process, out comes a "thing", a middah. It's a manifestation of God's will.

There are special cases.

If all the other vessels are empty, except for one, this becomes a sort of "pure motive", an archetype. These archetypes are what are commonly referred to sephirot. But, they're not. They're middot, special cases, where all the other sephirot are completely empty.

Example:

Consider a rock. Most people look at a rock and do not consider it alive. To them, it's devoid of life-force. However, the Kabalist sees a rock, and perceives a manifestation of God's will. In this way, cosidering it deviod of life is blasphemy. It's full of life-force, God's divinity, in the form of "Submission" ... and nothing else. Kabalistically it would be described as being full of Hod, and all the other vessels, sephirot, are empty.​

That's the kabalah of a "rock". It's "hod". It's kabalah, the rock's kabalah, what it receives, and its correspondence to the rest of reality, is "hod". the middah. It's referred to by the same name as the vessel, because all the others are empty. ( Technically not all. I'm simplifying to make a point. )

Another more technical example:

Tiferet ( often translated in this context as beauty, splendor* ) is a vessel which manifests Rachamim ( mercies, plural ), depending on the flow of the other vessels. It's most often described, metaphorically, as manifesting in the human heart.​

​

Tiferet is one of the sephirot. A vessel.​

Rachamim is a middah, an attribute of reality, a manifestation. They're nearly infinite in type and form.​

* splendor is a specific type of joy, which comes from making connections between many different beautiful objects... ornaments. A Christmas tree is splendid because of all the ornaments which are connected to it.​

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. It's just that it seems more like practical or contemplative kabbalah, or the practice of kabbalistic technique. Living kabbalah if you will. You seem to be presenting kabbalisitic ideas a a way of life. A way to think and live and adjust to God.

My studies and exegesis are far less important. They're merely theoretical, logical, or theological examinations of kabbalah as mystical exegesis of scripture much as is found in the Zohar or Bahir. Someone reading what I write could easily correlate all of it (to one degree or another), to professors of Jewish mysticism like Gershom Scholem, Eliot Wolfson, Moshe Idel, or say Rabbis Elie Munk and Isaiah Horowitz. They could recognize that I'm borrowing ideas from the Bahir, the Zohar, Shney Luchot Habrit, and such. I'm trying to synchronize Christian exegesis of scripture with the kind of exegesis of scripture studied by the aforementioned students of kabbalah as presented in their writing.

What you seem to be presenting would likely require a living mentor or guide to help the student learn these living techniques and ideas since these ideas are not only more subjectively determined, but they're better taught orally, face-to-face, from mentor to student. Some of what you're presenting is likely too subjective to be academic or theoretical. Case in point being your definition of chesed as "pure out-reaching." That's not easily read as an academic or theoretical answer to what chesed is in the thinking of academics or those interested in the theory and theology of kabbalistic exegesis.

All of which reminds me of a critical analysis by Col. R.B. Thieme, Jr. (my Christian mentor) of one of his early teachers. Thieme was academic and theoretical to a fault. When as a young Christian he went to his pastor-teacher with a question about the mechanics of the Christian life, his teacher said, "Yield brother." -----Thieme said, "I don't to this day know what that means."



John

 

[dybmh]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. It's just that it seems more like practical or contemplative kabbalah, or the practice of kabbalistic technique. Living kabbalah if you will. You seem to be presenting kabbalisitic ideas a a way of life. A way to think and live and adjust to God.

Just like anything, it needs to be consistent.

Particularly for something like this, of this magnitude, precision is necessary. When traveling a long distance, 1 degree of deviaton will send the individual far off course.

to professors of Jewish mysticism like Gershom Scholem, Eliot Wolfson, Moshe Idel, or say Rabbis Elie Munk and Isaiah Horowitz.

There's a huge difference between those who study it for their career, and those who practice it daily.

Do you have a plumber? Next time you have them over, ask them how they feel about "designer" plumbing fixtures. If your plumber is like my plumber, be prepared for a short lecture about how the college-trained designer knows next to nothing about plumbing.

None the less, the problem with these individuals is that they are raiding trash-heaps ( more or less ) looking at manuscripts that were discarded. But no one considers, those manuscripts were thrown out for a reason.

And this ignores that Wolfson was either lazy, incompetent, or dishonest in the translation choices he provides. I started reading his essays, because of the things you were posting with "academic certainty". What I found is rather typical. A prior academic paper was mistranslated. In spite of his Hebrew fluency, he included the false translation. Why? Probably because his desire has compromised his judgement. Just like Eve in the Eden story. It's tunnel-vision. I've mentioned it before. It's not something to emulate.

What you seem to be presenting would likely require a living mentor or guide

Kind of. Let's continue?

Which is why it's important to note that it's literally the choshen (Judaism), or crucifix (Christianity), dangling as an ornament ...

I don't understand why?

What is important about this?

 

[John D. Brey]

Ok. Would we be on the same sheet of music with the idea that chesed is mercy tempered with judgment while tiferet represents the possibility of mercy not tempered with judgment ala "erase all my iniquities" rather than go easy on me for my iniquities?

In my opinion, this question is important. Tiferet is related to the ability to forgive sins in an antinomian sense that transgresses the natural law of consequences. As I believe Rabbi Hirsch once implied, this would make a god who forgave sins and transgressions, without consequence to the sinner, something of a tyrant since he would be (god would be) trangressing his own laws for the sake of a selected cadre of believers (those whom he choses to forgive without recourse to law).

Would @dybmh (or Judaism in general) reject the idea that God could chose to "save" some (from the natural consequences of sin and transgression), while leaving others to absorb the full and natural results of their sins? Could a just God fully forgive all sins and transgressions of a select group while holding all others fully accountable?



John

 

[dybmh]

Tiferet is related to the ability to forgive sins

Yes, absolutely. Unqualified. 100%.

in an antinomian sense

And directly...

that transgresses the natural law of consequences

natural law?

( ... it's natural for my skin to heal after I scrape it ... )

Would @dybmh (or Judaism in general) reject the idea that God could chose to "save" some (from the natural consequences of sin and transgression), while leaving others to absorb the full and natural results of their sins? Could a just God fully forgive all sins and transgressions of a select group while holding all others fully accountable?

No. Of course not. Judaism does not assert itself as the only way.

God in the Hebrew bible does not forgive all sins of a select group while holdng all others fully accountable.

 

[dybmh]

As I believe Rabbi Hirsch once implied

implication does not over-rule explicit

 

[dybmh]

I don't understand why?

@John D. Brey ,

Let's recap?

In Isa 63, there is a reference to God's "tiferet". In regard to this "tiferet", whatever it is, the verse refers the reader to the splitting of the red sea.

Which is why it's important to note that ["tiferet"] is literally the choshen (Judaism), or crucifix (Christianity), dangling as an ornament ...

???

 

[dybmh]

an antinomian sense that transgresses the natural law of consequences

... the pascal lamb. Pesach literally means skipping-over.

The "transgression" of the law of consequences for the individual, happened when they brought the pesach into their homes as a community and lifted it up together.

Exodus 12, after the pesach offering is detailed... verse 42.

לֵ֣יל שִׁמֻּרִ֥ים הוּא֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לְהֽוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם הֽוּא־הַלַּ֤יְלָה הַזֶּה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה שִׁמֻּרִ֛ים לְכָל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם:​

​

It is a night of שמרים ( guarding, plural ) for the Lord, to take them out of the land of Egypt; this night is the Lord's, שמרים guarding all the children of Israel throughout their generations.​

​

That's the source for the "transgression of the law of consequences". That's why Jesus needed to be crucified on Pesach night. The splitting of the red sea is something else.

 

[John D. Brey]

Let's recap?

In Isa 63, there is a reference to God's "tiferet". In regard to this "tiferet", whatever it is, the verse refers the reader to the splitting of the red sea.

Earlier in the thread I quoted a midrash (Mekilta Beshalach, Vayehi 5) that's dealt with in a good article in Haaretz. The short article points out how the sea refuses to obey Moses until God himself appears. That appearance of God, which is recognized as very peculiar in the narrative, hinges on the nature of tiferet as the appearance of God that allows God to transgress his relationship with nature herself. Which is to say we have the same issues found in the parting of the sea when we get to Isaiah 63. Moses' rod is noted in Isaiah 63, as is tiferet.

What the article in Haaretz points out, which Professor Daniel Boyarin points out even more pointedly, is the extreme problem (so far as Judaism is concerned) with the fact that God tells Moses to lift the rod and part the sea, but then the text says God himself parts the sea? Did Moses or God part the sea? Did God use Moses? Did he need Moses? Did Moses' hand part the sea (through God's power) or did the rod part the sea?

In the midrash, the sea doesn't part for Moses' hand, or the rod. It parts at the appearance of God. But what is that? And more importantly, what relationship does Moses hand, and the rod, have to the appearance or non-appearance of God? Judaism has no incarnate "appearance" of God such that either Moses' hand, or the rod in his hand, should have sufficed to get the sea to part. Moses rod, or hand, or the combination, is, so far as the Torah text is concerned, the closest thing possible in orthodox Jewish exegesis to the "appearance" of God since the rod, in Moses' hand, is the avatar of God through which God and his power are manifest (since he has no actual, singular, appearance, in Judaism's monotheistic ideal).

But in the midrash (based on extremely good exegesis) the sea knows it doesn't have to part for Moses, or the rod, only God. Why; when the rod and Moses are the direct avatar through which God's power functions?

Do you see the problem? Because it's pointless to provide a possible solution unless the problem is understood. And for what it's worth, the solution to the problem found in the narrative of the parting of the sea, lends itself to opening up the deeper meaning of Isaiah 63 (which references the parting of the sea). What do you think about how the article in Haaretz deals with the issue?




John