Talmidei HaRambam

Research please.

LINK: Dor Daim

......

Theology
Dor Daim place particular importance on the Jewish doctrine of the absolute unity of God, which they believe has been compromised by the popular forms of Kabbalah prevalent today. In support of this, they appeal to the philosophical writings of various Geonim and Rishonim such as Saadia Gaon, Rabbenu Bahya ibn Paquda, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi and Maimonides. The following points concerning the Almighty's Unity are in particular emphasized both by Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam:

• He is Incomparable to any created thing
  
• He is neither male nor female, but due to the limitations of human speech we must use certain terms allegorically and metaphorically to some extent in order to convey the fact that He DOES exist
  
• His existence is qualitatively different from all other existences, and all other existences depend upon Him and are sustained by Him, while He remains infinitely and unfathomably distinct and independent from all creation
  
• He is ONE Unity unlike any unity in creation; His Oneness is not a unity which can be divided or which is composed of parts, both of which could only be the case with a unity that is subject to time/space; Nor is His Oneness a one in the sense of a species or type.
  
• No quality of creation applies to Him: not space, not time, not change, no concept of a body, form, or image, no concept of filling a body, form, or any location, nor any other factor of creation - for He is Perfect and Sufficient in Himself and has no need for any of these. He is not a force or a power which possess or fills something else, nor is there any aspect of multiplicity in Him - as would be the case were the world literally to be within Him. Any Biblical or Talmudic phrases which seem to imply that any quality of creation applies to Him must be understood as having some meaning other than its literal meaning, for He transcends all aspects of creation. None of them are applicable to Him.
  
• The Splendor of the Reality of His Being is so great that no mind can grasp even the smallest part of it, for He has no parts, as it says, "..and to His Greatness there is no investigating." (Psalms 145:3) Therefore one must always be aware that the sublime Truth of His Being transcends anything we can ever express, but that all references to Him are either by speaking of what He is not or by way of literary tools such as metaphor.
  

Attitude to Kabbalah
In the book Milhamoth HaShem, one finds that possibly the most fundamental issue the Dor Daim had (and have) with the popularly accepted understanding of Kabbalah concerns the absolute transcendent Singularity/Oneness of the Creator and the laws against avodah zarah (forbidden forms of devotion/idolatry). The Dor Daim believe that the popular forms of Kabbalah prevalent today are contrary to the absolute and incomparable Unity of the Creator and violate various laws against idolatry and polytheism, in particular the prohibition against Ribbuy Reshuyoth (worshipping or conceiving of a multiplicity of reigns) referred to by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah.

The issue is not the existence of Kabbalah as such. The word "Kabbalah" is used in older Jewish sources to mean simply "tradition" and need not refer to mysticism of any kind. Furthermore, Dor Daim accept that in Talmudic times there was a secret mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Maaseh Bereshith (the work of creation) and Maaseh Merkavah (the work of the chariot); and Maimonides interprets these as respectively referring to something similar to Aristotelian physics and metaphysics as interpreted in the light of Torah. They simply reject the notion that this tradition is represented by the ideas popularly referred to as Kabbalah in our days.

Neither Dor Daim nor talmide ha-Rambam are against mysticism per se. Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ, for example, published the ancient mystical text Sefer Yetzirah together with his translation of Saadia Gaon's commentary. Likewise, Bahya ibn Paquda and Abraham son of Maimonides, sometimes described as "Jewish Sufis", are especially respected among Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam.

In particular a Dor Dai is not bound to reject the theory of the ten Sefirot, as set out in the Sefer Yetzirah. In the Sefer Yetzirah, unlike in later Kabbalah, there is no question of the Sefirot being Divine entities or even attributes: they are simply the numerals, considered as the dimensional parameters used in the creation of the world, and the theory probably goes back to Pythagoras.

What they view as the problem comes in with the Sefer ha-Bahir and the Zohar, where the Sefirot have become hypostatized as Divine attributes or emanations, and it seems that religious devotions can never be addressed directly to the En Sof (the Absolute) but only through one or other of the Sefirot; and in modern Edot ha-Mizrach prayer books each occurrence of the Divine Name is vocalized differently in a kind of code to show which Sefirah one should have in mind. This problem is compounded in the teachings of Isaac Luria as found in the writings of Ḥayim Vital, where it is held that as a result of some catastrophe in Heaven the Sefirot have fractured and re-formed into three, or possibly five, personalities within the Godhead known as partzufim (from Greek προσωπα, faces), and that the purpose of each religious observance is to assist in their reunification. This is felt as being uncomfortably close to the Christian Trinity, or indeed to Greek polytheism.

The original Dor Daim, such as Yiḥyah Qafiḥ, condemned the Zohar as an outright forgery and as filled with idolatry, and even organized ceremonial public burnings of the book. Today's Dor Daim usually take a somewhat more moderate stance, and allow that the Zohar may contain elements of authentic Midrash together with a great deal of later interpolation. They still consider the Zohar in its present form to be an unsafe guide, both to theology and to practice.

Other segments of Orthodox Judaism which share this perspective of the Dor Daim, while not necessarily rejecting the Zohar itself, include most talmide ha-Rambam (disciples of Maimonides) and some followers of the Vilna Gaon, as well as portions of the Modern Orthodox community and others.

Those among these groups who do not reject the Zohar assert that the Kabbalah as popularly taught today represents a distortion of the Zohar's intended teachings. However, the specific issues identified by the Dor Daim remain in all current and older editions of the Zohar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Daim#Theology

Reincarnation and Invocation of Saints
Another matter of dispute between Dor Daim and the Kabbalists concerns the Dor Daim's rejection of reincarnation. They support their rejection with writings of Saadia Gaon (892-942) who dismissed reincarnation as an unauthentic Jewish belief. This perspective is shared not only by non-Dor Dai disciples of Rambam (Maimonides) but also by many in mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

Dor Daim also disapprove of requesting from any unseen force other than the Almighty. They are against soliciting angels or Jewish leader who have passed away. They disapprove of such practices regardless of one's location, and even if the individual desires that the angel or saint intercede with God. Dor Daim, indeed all Meqoriim, consider such practices absolutely antithetical to the most essential principles of what they believe to be historical Judaism: to serve the One Incomparable Creator without joining partners or mediators together with Him in our prayers and worship. This is based on their understanding of the books mentioned above, and specifically on the laws concerning mediator (sarsur) or an advocate (melitz) mentioned in the Mishneh Torah and the fifth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Prayer, in Judaism, is a form of worship: as the ancient sages of Israel are well known to have stated, "What is the service of the heart? This is prayer."

In addition to the issue of invoking forces other than the Almighty, Dor Daim and Meqoriim in general disapprove of the common practice of visiting the graves, shrines, or monuments of saints, even if an individual does not request from a force other than the Almighty. Basing themselves on Talmudic sources codified in the Mishneh Torah, they believe this to be a prohibition instituted by the Sages of the Great Court established under Moses - the Sanhedrin. They generally consider this prohibition to have been instituted as a means to distance the people of Israel from the possibility of transgressing what Meqoriim consider to be the Biblical-prohibitions of establishing a "monument" (prohibited even without any connection to idolatry) and from invoking any force other than the Almighty. This, they point out, is the very same reason Jewish tradition explains why Moses' burial place was left unknown according to the Biblical record.

Jewish law
Dor Daim disapprove of what they believe to be an abandonment of a number of Talmudic practices on the part of a large portion of the Jewish world in favor of newer customs and innovations, some of which, in their opinion, are even contrary to Talmudic law. In particular this disapproval is aimed at customs derived from the Kabbalah, but it is not confined to them. In their view, and still more in the view of the talmide ha-Rambam, there is simply no constitutional authority in Jewish law to institute new rules or practices, whether in the direction of leniency or of severity, since the demise of the Sanhedrin in 425 CE, or at the latest the closure of the Talmud, and the role of later rabbis is confined to teaching and codification of the law as it stood at that date.

They do not claim that this position is ideal, and would gladly see a revived Sanhedrin sort out the problems in Jewish law, provided that it was itself established in strict conformity to law.

In their view, the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides is the most accurate and therefore most authoritative statement of Talmudic law, and is in itself a sufficient reference without resort to any other source. According to the arguments of Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ, it is unnecessary to consult the Talmud in order to understand the Mishneh Torah, as the Mishneh Torah was written to elucidate the Talmud and not vice versa. Furthermore, the current text of the Talmud is fairly corrupt with numerous textual variants; from this, coupled with Maimonides' indications that he had far more accurate and complete Talmudic texts available to him,^[9] they conclude that the Mishneh Torah provides the best access to what the Talmud must originally have intended.

Unlike many of the later talmide ha-Rambam, the original Dor Daim were not committed to the view that all local custom, whether Sephardi or Ashkenazi or from any other source, is totally illegitimate to the extent that it differs from the exact views of Maimonides, so they preserved certain non-Maimonidean Yemenite peculiarities in minor matters.^[10] However they did believe, in reliance on old authorities such as Joseph Caro^[11] and David ibn abi Zimra, that the views of Maimonides ought to be authoritative not only in Yemen but also in Eretz Yisrael, Egypt and the Near East generally.

There is a link between the Dor Daim's stance on Jewish law and on the other issues, as one argument for accepting the Mishneh Torah as the best restatement of Jewish law is that most of the later codifiers, including Joseph Caro, were believers in Kabbalah and should therefore not be accepted as authorities. As against this, many (e.g. Yeshayahu Leibowitz) argue that Caro and the others were operating within the rigorous rules of halachic reasoning and that their conclusions were in no way affected or invalidated by their personal theological views (just as, from the opposite perspective, Maimonides' status as a halachic authority is not affected by his acceptance of Greek philosophy). The Dor Daim reply to this is that Caro specifically allows the Zohar as a (limited and subordinate) source of rulings in Jewish law, so that his code includes practices found in Kabbalistic texts without basis in Talmudic texts.

Practices
Those aspects of Jewish/Talmudic law which Dor Daim may emphasize, be particularly passionate about, and/or consider to have been cast aside by large portions of the Jewish world include:

• laws on 'avodah zarah' (forbidden forms of worship/idolatry) which they hold prohibits any use of intermediaries or mediators between oneself and the One Creator, prohibits praying or making requests to unseen forces such as past Rabbis or Sefirot, or supplicating to any unseen being other than the One Absolute Being - Y/H/W/H, and not doing any specific acts of religious devotion to any thing other than He;
  
• laws of legislation relating to the function and necessity of the Great Court (the Sanhedrin)
  
• laws concerning the settlement of the Land of Israel by the People of Israel as elaborated upon in Hilkhoth Melakhim u'Milhamotheham in the Mishneh Torah;
  
• certain laws concerning kashruth, such as Halita - immersing meat into boiling water before cooking;
  
• preservation of proper and exact pronunciation of all the Hebrew letters and Hebrew grammar (although there are minute differences even amongst the Dor Daim);
  
• emphasizing memorization of the Ḥumash (the Torah/Law of Moses); for example, each of the 7 individuals called up to read from a Sefer Torah (Torah scroll) reads out loud the particular section of that week's parasha (section) upon which he said a blessing, as opposed to other customs in which there is a single, set reader. (This custom arose from there existing some people who did not know the cantillations by heart, and would be embarrassed to read in public);
  
• that unmarried females should also wear a head-covering, and not only married women.
  
• that one should strive to wear a Tallit Gadol and or Tefillin as much as permitted by Talmudic law whenever possible. In various areas of Israel, including Jerusalem, one may see individuals wearing the Tallit Gadol during 'Erev Shabbat' (Friday night) hanging over or wrapped over their shoulders in a manner distinct from the majority custom, when almost no other Jews would be wearing a Tallit Gadol. Even children under 13 can be seen wearing a Tallit Gadol among them.
  
• 
  Dor Daim usually use Yosef Qafiḥ's edition of the Baladi prayer book. This is on the lines of the prayer book of the Maharitz, and therefore contains some Kabbalistic insertions, enabling the book to be used by mainstream Baladi Jews. However, these insertions are clearly marked by footnotes as being later additions. Dor Daim can therefore use this prayer book and simply omit these additions.
  

Talmide ha-Rambam
Dor Daim are regarded as part of a wider trend within Judaism known as talmide ha-Rambam (pupils of Maimonides), not necessarily confined to the Yemenite community. It is important to note that although Dor Daim always identify with the Rambam's legal and theological perspectives on Judaism (hashkafa), Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam are not necessarily one and the same. That is, a disciple of the Rambam may or may not be a Dor Dai; however, a Dor Dai will always be (in a broader sense) a disciple of the Rambam.

Today's talmide ha-Rambam differ from the original Dor Daim in two ways.

• Talmide ha-Rambam do not necessarily reject the Zohar. However, their interpretation may differ more or less drastically from the Lurianic school or the currents of thought popularly referred to as "Kabbalah" today.
  

• Talmide ha-Rambam tend to hold that the Mishneh Torah is the sole binding codification of Talmudic law, and that every divergence from it is logically inferior if not actually illegitimate. On points not explicitly covered by Maimonides, such as the exact mode of prostration during prayers, there is considerable competition to unearth the most authentic mode from among the various Yemenite practices found in recorded history. Dor Daim, by contrast, do retain some current Yemenite practices, even when (according to the talmide ha-Rambam) these diverge from the views of Maimonides (see under Jewish law above). For example, they do not follow Maimonides' recommendation to eliminate all prayers prior to the Kaddish and Shema in order to avoid 'unnecessarily burdening the congregation'.
  

In short, talmide ha-Rambam are less extreme than Dor Daim about the Zohar and more extreme about "Maimonides-only" jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the similarities between the two groups, as expressed in the list of beliefs and practices above, overwhelmingly outnumber the differences.

As stated, talmide ha-Rambam differ from Dor Daim in that they are not confined to the Yemenite community and need not be committed to specifically Yemenite customs. Nonetheless Yemenite scholarship and practice are still a major resource for them. Two good examples of this are seen in the works of Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ and of Mechon-Mamre.org.

• Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ has made various contributions to Dor Daim, talmide ha-Rambam and the Jewish world as a whole. Examples of his contributions include his encyclopedic commentary to the entire Mishneh Torah set to the renowned Yemenite text of the Mishneh Torah, his translation of all of Maimonides' Commentary on the Mishnah from Arabic into modern Hebrew, as well as translations of the Guide for the Perplexed, Duties of the Heart, Sefer Kuzari, and a number of other works.
  
• Mechon-Mamre.org has produced software for learning the Ḥumash, Tanakh, Mishnah, the Talmudic texts, as well as the Mishneh Torah according to Rabbi Qafiḥ and its own accurate and scholarly text, intended to be beneficial to all. The Mechon-mamre.org website's "About" section states that most participants in the work of Mechon-Mamre are Baladi Yemenite Jews, although some of the more impacting individuals of Mechon-Mamre.org are not Yemenite or Dor Daim at all, but merely promote observance of Talmudic law as codified in the Mishneh Torah.
  

Dor Daim and "Rambamists" are most easily recognized by the manner in which their Tzitzit are tied (according to the Rambam, despite slight variations in understanding). Temani/Rambam Tzitzit can be distinguished from those of the many 'knitted kippa' youths who have adopted the same style, but have added Tekhelet.

Rambamists and Baladim are also noticeable by the fact that they wear their Tallit in a different manner from other Orthodox Jews, and even wear it on Friday nights/Erev Shabbath, which is unheard of in the Orthodox world (apart from a handful of Hasidim in Jerusalem, referred to as Yerushalmis, who wear it very discreetly so as to not look arrogant).



Tallit

Biblical commandment
The Bible does not command wearing of a unique prayer shawl or tallit. Instead, it presumes that people wore a garment of some type to cover themselves and instructs them to add fringes (tzitzit) to the 4 corners of these (Numbers 15:38, Deuteronomy 22:12). These passages do not specify tying particular types or numbers of knots in the fringes. Nor do they specify a gender division between men and women, or between native Israelite/Hebrew people and those assimilated by them. The exact customs regarding the tying of the tzitzit and the format of the tallit are post-Biblical and rabbinical and can vary between various Jewish communities.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, describes the prayer shawl as "a rectangular mantle that looked like a blanket and was worn by men in ancient times". Also, it "is usually white and made either of wool, cotton, or silk".^[6]

According to the biblical commandment, a blue (Hebrew תכלת, tekhelet, tək·ā'·leth) thread (Hebrew פתיל "pəthiyl") known as "tekhelet" itself, is included in the tzitzit.^[7][8]

Mitnaggedim and followers of the Vilna Gaon
In many respects, the dispute between Dor Daim and Aqashim is similar to that between mitnaggedim and Hasidim, with the Vilna Gaon standing for strict Torah observance and rational scholarship in much the same way as Rabbi Yiḥyah Qafiḥ. It is doubtful, however, whether the Vilna Gaon in fact rejected Lurianic Kabbalah in toto, though he was accused of this by the Ḥasidim: see in particular the letters of Shneur Zalman of Liadi. On a more objective view it seems that the Vilna Gaon had great respect for the Lurianic system, though he did not hesitate to contradict Luria when he felt the Zohar lent itself to another approach. The question of whether the Vilna Gaon's Kabbalah must be read as a different system or is ultimately in total accordance with the Lurianic approach is the subject of the forewords of the main texts of Lithuanian Kabbalah: the introduction, by Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin, to the Vilna Gaon's commentary to the Sifra di-Tsniuta and Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik Chaver's Pitchei Shearim.

Those of the Vilna Gaon's successors who were associated with the Volozhin yeshiva, such as the Brisker group and in particular Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, had a very high regard for the Mishneh Torah and regarded it as the best tool for the theoretical understanding of the Talmud and of Jewish law generally. When however it came to practical legal rulings, an activity of which they steered clear when possible, they adhered to the normative Ashkenazi version of Jewish law, as set out in the Shulchan Aruch and the glosses of Moses Isserles. On the whole they accepted the Zohar, but had a distinctive "intellectualist" understanding of it.^[12]

There are various groups in Israel today which claim to follow the Vilna Gaon. These may be found in places as diverse as the Neturei Karta and the fringes of Religious Zionism, the latter group being represented by the Aderet Eliyahu yeshiva. In some ways their perspective is similar to that of the Dor Daim.

Some Modern Orthodox thinkers of a mitnagged cast of thought, such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz, also reject Zoharic Kabbalah and praise the work of Rabbi Yiḥyah Qafiḥ.^[13]

Vilna Gaon

Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman Kramer,^[1] (Hebrew: ר' אליהו בן שלמה זלמן‎) known as the Vilna Gaon or Elijah of Vilna and simply by his Hebrew acronym Gra ("Gaon Rabbenu Eliyahu") or Elijah Ben Solomon, (b. Vilnius April 23, 1720, d. Vilaus October 9, 1797),^{[2][unreliable source?]} was a Talmudist, halachist, kabbalist, and the foremost leader of non-hasidic Jewry of the past few centuries. He is commonly referred to in Hebrew as ha'Gaon ha'Chasid mi'Vilna, "the saintly genius from Vilnius."^[3]

He was one of the most influential Rabbinic authorities since the Middle Ages, and—although he is counted among the sages known as the Acharonim—he is held by many authorities after him as belonging to the Rishonim (Rabbinic authorities of the Middle Ages). Large groups of people, including many yeshivas, uphold the set of Jewish customs and rites (minhag), the "minhag ha-Gra," which is named for him, and which is also considered by many to be the prevailing Ashkenazi minhag in Jerusalem. The Gaon wrote also on mathematics, being well-versed in the works of Euclid and encouraging a pupil, Rabbi Baruch of Shklov, to translate the great mathematician's works into Hebrew.

Born in Vilnius, capital city of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Gaon displayed extraordinary talent while still a child. By the time he was twenty years old, rabbis were submitting their most difficult halakhic problems to him for legal rulings. He was a voluminous author, writing such works as glosses on the Babylonian Talmud and Shulchan Aruch known as Biurei ha-Gra ("Elaboration by the Gra"), a running commentary on the Mishnah (Shenoth Eliyahu ("The Years of Elijah"), and insights on the Pentateuch entitled Adereth Eliyahu ("The Splendor of Elijah"). Various Kabbalistic works have commentaries in his name, and commentaries on the Proverbs and other books of the Tanakh were written later on in his life. None were published in his lifetime.

When Hasidic Judaism became influential in his native town, the Vilna Gaon joined the rabbis and heads of the Polish communities known as the Mitnagdim, to curb Hasidic influence. In 1777 one of the first excommunications against the Hasidim was launched in Vilna.

As it states in the Mishna in Tractate Peah (1:1): "The study of Torah is equal to all of the mitzvos", the Gaon encouraged his chief pupil, Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, to found a yeshiva (college) in which rabbinic literature should be taught. The yeshiva was opened at Volozhin in 1803, some years after the Gaon's death, and revolutionised Torah study, with resulting impacts on all of Orthodox Jewry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_Gaon

Youth and education
As young as three years old he had committed the Tanach to memory. At the age of seven he was taught Talmud by Moses Margalit, rabbi of Kėdainiai and the author of a commentary to the Jerusalem Talmud, entitled "Pnei Moshe". The young Elijah was said to have already known several of the tractates by heart. He is well known for having possessed a photographic memory. By eight, he was studying astronomy during his free time. From the age of ten he continued his studies without the aid of a teacher, and by the age of eleven he had committed the entire Talmud to memory.

When he reached a more mature age, Elijah decided to go into "exile" and he wandered in various parts of Europe including Poland and Germany, as was the custom of the pious of the time. By the time he was twenty years old, rabbis were submitting their most difficult halakhic problems to him. Scholars, Jewish and non-Jewish sought his insights into mathematics and astronomy. He returned to his native town in 1748, having by then acquired considerable renown.

~

As young as three years old he had committed the Tanach to memory

and by the age of eleven he had committed the entire Talmud to memory.

OH SURE!!!!

Challenging the Master


Moshe Idel's critique of Gershom Scholem.


By Micha Odenheimer


In the following article Odenheimer refers to Idel’s interest in the experiential, not just intellectual, aspects of Jewish mysticism. Idel refers to this type of mysticism as ecstatic mysticism and contrasts it with what he calls theosophic mysticism, which focuses on achieving knowledge of God and the divine realm. The following is excerpted and reprinted with permission from the Summer 1990 (50:3) issue of Jewish Action, the magazine of the Orthodox Union.

For sixty years, the study of Kabbalah in secular universities around the world has been dominated by the theories and approach of one man: Gershom Scholem. Scholem, a brilliant, charismatic German Jew, emigrated to Jerusalem from Berlin in 1923, and lived there until his death in 1982. Scholem virtually founded the academic discipline of the study of Jewish mysticism. His historical studies span the entire gamut of post‑Biblical Jewish history, from the Rabbinic age until Hasidism and beyond.

For many intellectuals, Jews and gentiles alike, Scholem’s studies and determinations have been their sole source of knowledge about Kabbalah. In most modem works on Jewish history, Scholem’s theories—such as the idea that the Kabbalah of the ARI [Isaac Luria] was a response to the traumatic exile of the Jews from Spain, and that the [false messianic] Shabbatean movement was made possible by the mass dissemination of the ARI’s Kabbalah—are treated as if they were established facts.

Recently, however, Moshe Idel, a professor at the Hebrew University, where Scholem taught, has shaken the academic world by challenging many of Scholem’s basic notions. The controversy surrounding the work of Moshe Idel has spilled out of the classroom and the learned journals of history into popular newspapers and magazines in both Israel and the United States. Idel’s revisions (his major work, published by Yale University Press in 1989, is called Kabbalah: New Perspectives) have led to his portrayal in the press and in portions of the academic world as a new wave academic, a rebel against the authority of established wisdom, a heretic in the temple of the academy. Ironically, Idel’s “heretical” ideas have brought academic research closer to the Jewish tradition’s own conception of Kabbalah than anyone would have previously guessed possible.

Four of the major points on which Idel has challenged Scholem can be described as follows:

1. The origin of Kabbalah.

One of Scholem’s central asser­tions is that Kabbalah itself was the result of the exposure of Rabbinic Judaism to Gnosticism, a dualistic philosophy and path to salvation of Greek and Persian origin. Gnosticism is a system of intricate mythological speculations concerning the nature of God and the supernal realm, speculations that Scholem saw repeated or elaborated on in the writings of the Kabbalists. Thus, Kabbalah itself, according to Scholem, originated through the penetration of an alien heresy into Rabbinic Judaism.

Idel understands Kabbalah as an internal development whose wellsprings are to be found within Judaism itself. He points out that the similarities that exist between certain Gnostic texts and some Kabbalistic symbols and ideas can be just as easily explained by positing a Jewish influence on Gnosticism rather than the reverse. The recent discovery of the Nag Hamadi Library [a collection of ancient codices discovered in Egypt in 1945]—a source which was unavailable when Scholem made his assessments—has shed new light on the history of Gnosticism, and has indeed, according to Idel, demonstrated that Gnostics were influenced by Judaic symbols and concepts. Scholem, on the other hand, according to Idel, “never satisfactorily explained why great Jewish sages in the second century would adopt a doctrine they knew to be heretical.”



see next post for where this led.......

doc this may be a slight diversion but LOOK!

Jonathan Eybeschutz

Jonathan Eybeschutz (Kraków 1690 - Altona 1764), was a Talmudist, Halachist, Kabbalist, holding positions as Dayan of Prague, and later as Rabbi of the "Three Communities": Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbek. With Jacob Emden, he is well known as a protagonist in the Emden-Eybeschütz Controversy.

1690

Biography
Eybeschütz's father was the rabbi in Ivančice (German: Eibenschütz, sometimes Eibeschutz), Moravia. Eybeschütz was a child prodigy in Talmud; on his father's death, he studied in the yeshiva of Meir Eisenstadt in Prostějov (Prossnitz), and then later in Holešov (Holleschau). He also lived in Vienna for a short time. He married Elkele Spira, daughter of Rabbi Isaac Spira, and they lived in Hamburg for two years with Mordecai ha-Kohen, Elkele's maternal grandfather. Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker and Margarethe Kelsen, the wife of Hans Kelsen.^[1]

Eybeschütz settled in Prague in 1715 and became head of the yeshivah and a famous preacher. The people of Prague held Eybeschütz in high esteem and he was considered second there only to Dayan David Oppenheim.

In Prague, Eybeschütz received permission to print the Talmud - but with the omission of all passages contradicting the principles of Christianity in consultation with Dayan David Oppenheim. Legends and rumors seeking to discredit the event said that he did this without the consultation of the Rabbis of Prague, and they revoked the printing license.

Already in Prague 1724, he was suspected of being a Sabbatean. He even got up on Yom Kippur to denounce the Sabbatean movement, but he remained suspected.^[2] Therefore, In 1736, Eybeschutz was only appointed dayan of Prague and not chief rabbi. He became rabbi of Metz in 1741. In 1750, he was elected rabbi of the "Three Communities:" Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek.

He was "an acknowledged genius" in at least three separate areas of Jewish religious creativity: Talmud and Jewish law (halakhah); homiletics (derush) and popular preaching; and Kabbalah. "He was a man of erudition, but he owed his fame chiefly to his personality. Few men of the period so profoundly impressed their mark on Jewish life."^[3]

Sabbatian Controversy

Eybeschütz again became suspected of harboring secret Sabbatean beliefs because of a dispute that arose concerning the amulets which he was suspected of issuing. It was alleged that these amulets recognized the Messianic claims of Sabbatai Zevi.Once the controversy started when Emden found serious connections between the Kabbalistic and homiletic writings of Eybeschutz with those of the known Sabbatean Judah Leib Prossnitz, whom Eybeschütz knew from his days in Prossnitz.^[4] Rabbi Jacob Emden accused him of heresy; see The Emden-Eybeschutz Controversy. The majority of the rabbis in Poland, Moravia, and Bohemia, as well as the leaders of the Three Communities supported Eybeschütz: the accusation was "utterly incredible" - in 1725, Eybeschütz was among the Prague rabbis who excommunicated the Sabbateans. Others suggest that the Rabbis issued this ruling because they feared the repercussions if their leading figure, Eybeschütz, was found to be a Sabbatean. Recent evidence has produced the actual amulets and their alleged connection to Sabbatean amulets.^[5]

In 1752, the controversy between Emden and Eybeschütz raged. In December of that year, the Hamburg government banned any more discussion of the amulets, the Senate of Hamburg suspended Eybeschütz, and many members of that congregation demanded that he should submit his case to rabbinical authorities. At this point he was defended by Carl Anton, a convert to Christianity, but a former disciple of Eybeschütz. "Kurze Nachricht von dem Falschen Messias Sabbathai Zebhi," etc. (Wolfenbüttel, 1752).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybesch%C3%BCtz

Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker and Margarethe Kelsen, the wife of Hans Kelsen.^[1]



Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker

Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker

Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker

Drucker taught that management is “a liberal art,” and he infused his management advice with interdisciplinary lessons from history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, culture and religion. He also believed strongly that all institutions, including those in the private sector, have a responsibility to the whole of society. “The fact is,” Drucker wrote in his 1973 Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, “that in modern society there is no other leadership group but managers. If the managers of our major institutions, and especially of business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one else can or will.”

During his long consulting career, Drucker worked with many major corporations, including General Electric, Coca-Cola,Citicorp, IBM, and Intel. He consulted with notable business leaders such as GE’s Jack Welch,Procter & Gamble’s A.G. Lafley Intel’s Andy Grove; Edward Jones’ John Bachmann; Shoichiro Toyoda, the honorary chairman of Toyota Motor Corp.; and Masatoshi Ito, the honorary chairman of the Ito-Yokado Group, the second largest retailing organization in the world Although he helped many corporate executives succeed, he was appalled when the level of Fortune 500 CEO pay in America ballooned to hundreds of times that of the average worker. He argued in a 1984 essay that CEO compensation should be no more than 20 times what the rank and file make — especially at companies where thousands of employees are being laid off. “This is morally and socially unforgivable,” Drucker wrote, “and we will pay a heavy price for it.”^[


Drucker served as a consultant for various government agencies in the United States, Canada and Japan. He worked with various nonprofit organizations to help them become successful, often consulting pro bono. Among the many social-sector groups he advised were the Salvation Army, the Girl Scouts of the USA, C.A.R.E., the American Red Cross, and the Navajo Indian Tribal Council.

Main publications by Drucker

• 1939: The End of Economic Man
  
• 1942: The Future of Industrial Man
  
• 1946: Concept of the Corporation
  
• 1950: The New Society
  
• 1954: The Practice of Management
  
• 1957: America's Next Twenty Years
  
• 1959: Landmarks of Tomorrow
  
• 1964: Managing for Results
  
• 1967: The Effective Executive
  
• 1969: The Age of Discontinuity
  
• 1970: Technology, Management and Society
  
• 1971: Men, Ideas and Politics
  
• 1973: Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices
  
• 1976: The Unseen Revolution: How Pension Fund Socialism Came to America
  
• 1977: People and Performance: The Best of Peter Drucker on Management
  
• 1977: An Introductory View of Management
  
• 1979: Song of the Brush: Japanese Painting from Sanso Collection
  
• 1979: Adventures of a Bystander
  
• 1980: Managing in Turbulent Times
  
• 1981: Toward the Next Economics and Other Essays
  
• 1982: The Changing World of Executive
  
• 1982: The Last of All Possible Worlds
  
• 1984: The Temptation to Do Good
  
• 1985: Innovation and Entrepreneurship
  
• 1986: The Frontiers of Management: Where Tomorrow's Decisions are Being Shaped Today
  
• 1989: The New Realities: in Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View
  
• 1990: Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and Principles
  
• 1992: Managing for the Future
  
• 1993: The Ecological Vision
  
• 1993: Post-Capitalist Society
  
• 1995: Managing in a Time of Great Change
  
• 1997: Drucker on Asia: A Dialogue between Peter Drucker and Isao Nakauchi
  
• 1998: Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management
  
• 1999: Management Challenges for 21st Century
  
• 2001: The Essential Drucker
  
• 2002: Managing in the Next Society
  
• 2002: The Functioning Society
  
• 2004: The Daily Drucker
  
• 2006: The Effective Executive in Action
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker
  

Communitarians refer to the creation of a world government as the effort to create a “healthy society.” The goal of the church growth movement (CGM) is to manipulate Christians and churches into this healthy society. “Health-based” language is sometimes used in the CGM. Some church growth leaders desire “healthy churches” and “healthy congregations” made up of “healthy Christians.” A healthy church would be one in which all members are willing to compromise the Word of God for the common good



Communitarians believe that attaining a healthy society involves the successful merger of the 3 sectors of society. It requires a merger of the government sector, the private sector (business) and the social sector (which includes the churches). This merger is also known as “Drucker’s 3-legged stool,” named after its main proponent, Peter Drucker, who is considered to be the “father of modern management.” Peter Drucker, like Amitai Etzioni, was a Communitarian and was also a student of the Kabbalah.


According to Roger Oakland’s “Bob Buford, Peter Drucker, and the Emerging Church,” Peter Drucker, like Amitai Etzioni, shared a bond with the Kabbalist, Martin Buber. Roger Oakland stated, “Drucker felt a strong bond…with a panentheist/ mystic named Martin Buber (1878-1965), who embraced the teachings of Hasidism (Jewish mysticism).”

In his book, “Between Man and Man” (New York, NY: Routledge Classics, 2002, first published in 1947), p. 219, Buber states, ‘Since 1900 I had first been under the influence of German mysticism from Meister Eckhart [a mystic] ... then I had been under the influence of the later Kabalah [Jewish mysticism] and of Hasidism.’” 32.


Drucker, who developed the community-based global management system, was under the influence of the Kabbalist Martin Buber, who also taught Amitai Etzioni, the Israeli Zionist Communitarian leader in the U.S. and founder of the Communitarian Network. Roger Oakland, quoting Michael Schwarz’s “Early Influences upon Peter Drucker’s Perception of ‘the Public Interest,’ stated, “Drucker was a student of Buber’s at the University of Frankfurt.” 33. John E. Flaherty, author of Peter Drucker: Shaping the Managerial Mind, wrote that Drucker “[drew] upon the wisdom of the philosopher Martin Buber.” 34


Peter Drucker was very interested in getting churches involved in the implementation of the world government.

Drucker, who once lamented that there were “still many unhealthy churches,” 35. was not only an occultist, but an organizational guru. It was his involvement in the Jewish Kabbalah that inspired him to create an organizational model that would transform churches into agents of Satan. This organizational model today is called Total Quality Management (TQM). “Total” stands for “totalitarian.” It was Drucker’s vision that all organizations, including church organizations, within the 3-legged stool (Communitarian system) be run on TQM. He considered churches not conformed to this TQM model to be “still unhealthy.”

Today, Drucker’s vision has become reality as organizations across all 3 sectors of society have been conformed to a TQM-style organizational model. This organizational model is called Total Quality Leadership in the military, Community Oriented Policing (COPS) or DARE in civilian law enforcement, Outcome-Based Education (OBE), and School to Work (STW) in politics.

Perhaps the main organization manipulating the churches into this Communitarian partnership (New World Order) is the Leadership Network (www.leadnet.org). The Leadership Network was founded by an entrepreneur named Bob Buford. Buford also founded the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management (now called The Leader to Leader Institute).

In the dedication to his book, “Halftime”, Buford referred to Drucker as “the man who formed my mind.” 36. The Leadership Network is in the business of marketing and promoting church growth. The Leadership Network trains church leaders how to implement congregational transformation. “The Mission of the Leadership Network is to ‘Accelerate the emergence of the 21st-century church,’ and that the (emerging) ‘paradigm (of the 21st century church) is not centered in theology, but rather it is focused on structure, organization, and the transition from an institutionally based church to a mission-driven church.’” 37.

Listed among the recent contributors to The Leadership Network is the Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund. 38.

The TQM-style model has been adopted in varying degrees by all churches that have been infiltrated by the church growth movement. This is a major step toward conforming the churches to the standards required by the “Healthy Society.” For example, the First Korean United Methodist Church of Kentucky’s (FKUMC) website states, “FKUMC is dedicated to maximizing the growth of its members through productivity, training, teamwork and total quality management.” 39.


The TQM organizational model in the churches is a transformational process or change process which utilizes group peer pressure to conform the church members to the goals (purpose, mission, vision) of the church leadership.





Communitarianism is a “Third Way” compromise between Capitalism and Communism. Communitarianism is not Fascism nor is it Communism, but a synthesis of these opposing ideologies which preceded it. It draws government-business partnerships from Fascism and employs group decision-making from Communism. Communitarianism will resemble a corporate state (Fascism) in which the elite will work under capitalist rules to continue generating wealth while the working class will be controlled by Communist model laws. The Communitarian synthesis incorporates not only elements of Fascism and Communism, but also Globalism.....


http://www.thirdgreatawakening.org/communitarianism.htm


Leader to Leader Institute

In the years ahead, America's non profits will become even more important. As government retrenches, Americans will look increasingly to the non profits to tackle the problems of a fast-changing society. These challenges will demand innovation -- in services, and in nonprofit management. The purpose of the annual Peter F. Drucker Award for Nonprofit Innovation is to find the innovators, whether small or large; to recognize and celebrate their example; and, to inspire others." —Peter Drucker

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/peterdrucker.htm

Rick Warren claims that Peter Drucker was his mentor.

sorry for derailment.

Among their descendents are the illustrious management thinker Peter Drucker

WOW!

wow is right.
fun & games with connect-the-dots.
luv u doc