5

(Closely related to this post, but I think it is still a bit different)

Panentheism: A doctrine that the universe subsists within Gcd, but that Gcd nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe.

Panentheism (aka Monistic Monotheism) plays quite a prevalent role in the philosophy of Chabad (and chassidus in general?), as well as apparently the Nefesh HaChaim (3:3).

Is there anywhere in the body of Rabbinic Judaism, including of course the Geonim, Rambam, and later authorities, that deem such a belief to be forbidden?

Specifically, does the doctrine of panentheism as explained by the sources above, transgress the Rambam's thirteen principles?, specifically (from the third principle) אינו גוף ולא כוח בגוף?

Community
  • 1
jj2
  • 1,194
  • 6
  • 16
  • 3
    Since you already provide sources that seem to support Panentheism, can you explain why you would think there would opinions that view it as heretical? – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 23 '16 at 19:52
  • 2
    @IsaacKotlicky It's not uncommon for the Rambam to disagree with various practices/beliefs of "mysticism", which (I think) the Vilna Gaon blamed on his deep involvement with Greek philosophy and the like – jj2 Feb 23 '16 at 19:59
  • 1
    This question is one of the key points in the dispute between the Misnagdim and the Chassidim back in the Vilna Gaon's day. Nowadays, I would think only Baladi Teimanim, the strict followers of the Rambam, would consider panentheism a problem.

    As for Nefesh haChaim 3:3, his understanding of tzimtzum is nuanced, complex, and subject to broad dispute. There are those who think its the same as the Chassidim (including the author of the newly published translation of NhC, "Nefesh haTzimzum"). I'm not one of them. But the topic is for a book, not a MY answer.

     – Micha Berger Feb 24 '16 at 14:36
  • @MichaBerger It sounds like you know of a Rambam that speaks on this topic? That would probably make a good answer if so. – jj2 Feb 24 '16 at 15:42
  • @jj2: I just meant that only pure Rambamists would consider mystical ideas to not only be false, but heretical. The rest of us have seen too many good Jews who believe in such things, and yet still believe in something "close enough" (for us) to the Rambam's 13 articles of belief. – Micha Berger Feb 24 '16 at 21:09
  • @MichaBerger If I may, I invite you to a certain caution when the famous Mahloktoth. I might be quoted Mishnath Hassidim. But in any case what you say about some "rambamists" reminds me that philosophy as there is Bottom Up and Top Down, who are not necessarily contradictory. In this difficult subject, the more the more concrete they are mistaken, and the more abstract they are the more one is incomprehensible. – kouty Feb 28 '16 at 05:30
  • Just because it is "not uncommon" doesn't mean that the Rambam disagrees with *everything.* Read in context, the Rambam's 3rd principle is explicitly referring to any imagery of Hashem as a physical entity (e.g.: no actual head, neck, shoulders, etc. in contradistinction to those who understood "outstretched arm" as a literal arm). He says nothing there whatsoever of the divine source of the physical world, which is the position of panentheism. – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 29 '16 at 15:56
  • @IsaacKotlicky Not that I think/believe it's a problem, but the troublesome clause is the latter one, not a power within a body. – jj2 Feb 29 '16 at 16:07
  • 1
    That's not troublesome at all - it's clearly stating that no physical object contains divine power. That doesn't preclude a divine *origin* for a physical object. – Isaac Kotlicky Feb 29 '16 at 16:18
  • @IsaacKotlicky Yeah, that's my understanding as well – jj2 Mar 01 '16 at 02:05
  • Yes, its probably heretical if by panentheism you mean that the universe or some part of it is directly a part of G-d's essence. Him being immanent in things vs things being a part of Him are two completely different concepts. The former is correct I think, while the latter is both incorrect and heretical because it implies that He has parts and if things change in the universe, He changes too, and thus, He is by proxy imperfect (G-d forbid). – setszu Sep 13 '23 at 14:17

4 Answers4

1

What the Rambam wrote that Hashem is not a body etc. is not at all a question to what chassidus (chabad) explains.

When believing Hashem is a body c"v, the meaning is that Hashem is limited to a body, or even any limit at all similar to a body.

However the explanations in chassidus are exactly the opposite, chassidus explains that Hashem is תכלית הבלי גבול or like the pasuk says אין עוד מלבדו, and the existence of the world does not contradict Hashems unlimited existence [and what leads us to this conclusion is, I would say, three reasons: 1) the Torah says בראשית ברא אלוקים 2) being unlimited cannot prevent hashem from limiting himself (for otherwise he would be limited in being unlimited), and 3) the existence of the world] because as the pasuk says בדבר ה' שמים נעשו, just like speech does not define or limit the person speaking, rather it is a גילוי a revelation of the person (to others), so to the world is really a revelation of Hashem (but there is what is called in chassidus העלם והסתר or in kabbalah it would be called קליפה that blocks us from feeling the existence of hashem.

For more see sha'ar Hayichud Vehaemuna in Tanya: https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1029162/jewish/Shaar-Hayichud-Vehaemuna.htm

bondonk
  • 10,280
  • 2
  • 26
  • 76
user24005
  • 127
  • 5
  • 1
    Please look over what you wrote one more time. It's not written clearly or in proper English. The first point from bereishis needs explanation. And you can't just quote a whole Sefer as a source, you need to link to specific passages. – Ethan Leonard May 28 '23 at 04:46
1

This article makes the claim that the Vilna Gaon described Chassidism's panentheistic false duality model to be heretical, akin to a Golden Calf, and

sought to uphold a dualistic schism between the spiritual and the physical, between G‑d and the world.

Sources are given as Mordecai Wilenski, Hasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1 (Bialik: Jerusalem, 1990), 188-189 and Aderet Eliyahu to Isaiah 6:3; Supplementary notes in Be’ur ha-Gra to Sifra di-Tzeni’uta, Sod ha-Tzimtzum, p. 75 [38a in Hebrew pagination].

This article discusses this point in more detail.

Rabbi Kaii
  • 9,499
  • 3
  • 10
  • 50
  • Vilna Gaon is (somewhat?) wrong. Literally the entirety of the Holy Temple worldview and the introduction in Genesis is about a hard distinction between sacred space and profane space and that G-d, blessed be He, does not inhabit the profane space of the world via His essence. If you went to Ancient Israelites (who had THE most contact with G-d, blessed be He, out of anyone), they'd have NO clue and would think you're insane if you told them about panentheism and omnipresence. This is both the view in Jewish sources and secular academia which studies early Judaism. – setszu Jan 11 '24 at 15:34
  • @setszu this stems back to a debate on tzimtzum that came way before the Gaon and Alter Rebbe. I can't attest to the veracity of the claims in the article, and note that the nature of this dispute seems controversial, even today. However, I would personally agree with you, that panentheistic false duality (i.e. tzimtzum shelo k'pshuto) seems to be fully accepted nowadays, probably because of the Nefesh Hachaim and Tanya – Rabbi Kaii Jan 11 '24 at 15:37
-1

The Rambam in Yesodei Hatorah describes angels in term not all that different from the Kabbalist's description of the Sefiros. And the Talmud in Brachos 10 draws a parallel between Hashem and the soul. These ideas seem to fit the description of the term in question, and therefore would suggest that it is completely in line with the philosophy of Chazal and the Rambam.

HaLeiVi
  • 4,993
  • 16
  • 27
  • The Rambam writes that the kabbalistic work Shiur Komah must be destroyed. He writes that one who accepts the kabbalistic belief that mezuzot have protective effects loses his share in the world to come. His intellectual successors, such as the Meorot were opposed to the Sefirot ideology as heresy, describing it as worse than Christianity. The Meorot actually burned such literature. Even the more moderate kabbalist Rabbenu Avraham Abulafiah accused the other kabbalists of believing in 10 Seifrah Gods. In more recent times, Rav Yihya Qafih z"l, the staunch Maimonidean also burned Zohars. – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 20:21
  • 3
    The Maimonideic view, is not the kabbalistic view of sefirot. – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 20:22
  • The fact that there are similarities between the soul and God, is not relevant to the question of pantheism. – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 20:24
  • 2
    @mevaqesh I guess putting the Rambam and Kabbalists in the same sentence disturbs you greatly. That would explain your irrelevant references to the Rambam's other ideas. – HaLeiVi Feb 29 '16 at 22:14
  • 1
    Certainly it is offensive to lump Rambam together with those he considered idolaters. And there is nothing irrelevant about analyzing the positions of Rambam and his students in regards to kabbalah; the topic of your answer. The only irrelevant thing is your answer; which has nothing to do with pantheism; the topic of the OP's question. As it stands now the answer has no bearing on the question, as I noted. I see no reason to further respond until this is changed. – mevaqesh Feb 29 '16 at 22:59
  • 3
    Without getting involved with the specifics here, @mevaqesh the topic here is panENtheism, pantheism is considered heretical by all chareidim AFAIK – jj2 Mar 01 '16 at 02:04
  • 2
    @mevaqesh בא לכלל כעס בא לכלל טעות. Wikipedia's definition of panentheism is that God is viewed as the soul of the universe. That is what the Gemara, I referred to, says as well. I also showed that the Rambam, too, goes with this understanding, that the creation is put forth from Hashem's כח וטובו, and not as an outsider. – HaLeiVi Mar 01 '16 at 03:04
  • @mevaqesh Regardless of what he says about Sefiros and measurements, the point I clearly made was that he ascribes to angels the same essence as the Mekubalim ascribe to Sefiros, which is from Him. And I linked to where you'd find the Ramaq agreeing to this Rambam, but applying it to Sefiros. – HaLeiVi Mar 01 '16 at 03:08
  • @HaLeiVi Even if this were true, what does it have to do with the OP's question? – mevaqesh Mar 01 '16 at 04:25
  • @mevaqesh He wanted to know if this belief was ever deemed forbidden, and a reference to Chazal's attitude answers his query, that it won't be forbidden. And his last paragraph, asking if it violates the Rambam's principle is answered by pointing to the Rambam himself voicing such an opinion. – HaLeiVi Mar 01 '16 at 06:31
  • @jj2 Thanks. I apologize for wasting people's time with a hasty misreading. The other objections still stand. – mevaqesh Mar 01 '16 at 19:13
  • 1
    panentheism posits that although God and the universe are two different things, the universe is a manifestation of God, misunderstanding of the difference between comparison and identification, where does the Talmud say that the universe is the physical manifestation of God? – mevaqesh Mar 01 '16 at 23:32
  • @mevaqesh The wiki article in the topic and any other articles explaining the term do not describe it as a manifestation. That would actually be further than pantheism. The definition is that the universe comes from God, that it's substance comes from God, and He is not foreign to the world, as חומר קדמון would have it. The Rambam aptly describes the high angels coming about מכחו ומטובו. – HaLeiVi Mar 02 '16 at 03:53
  • @mevaqesh Referring to God as the soul of the universe is part of panentheism, and is mentioned in Chazal, as I referenced. – HaLeiVi Mar 02 '16 at 03:55
  • @mevaqesh I could have referred to other commonly quoted passages, such as בדבר ה' שמים נעשו and בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם, but these don't have to be interpreted as ingredients. – HaLeiVi Mar 02 '16 at 03:59
  • Irrespective of the points you claim to have made in the comments to your answer, your answer says none of them and should be revised to do so. Also, the second and third links need to be corrected, because they do not take you to the paragraph which says what you say they say. – Ethan Leonard May 28 '23 at 04:28
  • The first source is not specific enough to make your point. Formless doesn't equal same by default. Also, kabbalists differ quite a bit in their definition of sefiros, ranging from those who believe the sefiros are distinct parts within G-d (which the Rambam would find heretical seemingly) to those who consider the sefiros to be models for describing different types of responses G-d displays to us. (According to the latter view, the sefiros aren't real, just like Rambam says, but they are useful in understanding how we ought to ask for things and behave in general.) – Ethan Leonard May 28 '23 at 04:40
  • Thanks @EthanLeonard. They must have changed their URL system. I updated the reference to Brachos 10. – HaLeiVi May 28 '23 at 22:53
  • @EthanLeonard, to address your comments, the point from the Rambam is how he describes the angels and the creation as being from God's 'essence', although he wouldn't use the word essence since God is not made up of anything. Hence the term כחו וטובו, His force and goodness. – HaLeiVi May 28 '23 at 23:06
  • Good answer HaLeiVi, thanks. – Rabbi Kaii Sep 13 '23 at 14:29
-2

You can find an excellent review of this topic in the introduction to Rabbi Chaim Miller's The Practical Tanya (volume for Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah). Essentially, while the Rambam would consider the opinion of Reb Ezriel Gerona (who posited that the Sefiros are real distinct entities within Divinity) to be heretical, he would not consider panentheism to be heretical, because they agree on the crucial point, which is that there are no distinct entities within Divinity. Rambam considers that heretical because it violates his notion of Divine unity, since it would follow that G-d is a sum of parts, and his notion of Divine unity expressly states that G-d is not a sum of parts.

Where Rambam and panentheism differ is that panentheism considers the Sefiros to be operatively real and distinct, while still not truly so. In other words, they are a model by which mortals can understand Divine response and prompt it in an informed way. Panentheism posits that Sefiros are useful, even if they are not real. Rambam, on the other hand, does not make use of such categories of Divine response to make Divinity relatable, but does not say anywhere, to my limited knowledge, that it is forbidden to do so.

Support for the idea that we can use Divine response to define G-d comes from Shmos Rabbah 3:6 , where G-d says He is referred to according to His current actions.

Ethan Leonard
  • 684
  • 1
  • 8