I don't know if you are a Rambamist or just unaware, but the fact is many Rishonim argued on various points of the Rambam's list.

@DoubleAA or re-interprets them

@ShmuelBrin Not sure what the difference is, but either way there is machloket.

@DoubleAA no. For example, most Mekubalim don't consider themselves arguing on the 1st Ikkar (even though Rambamists think they are)

@Shmuel Even ignoring Kabbalah there are other machlokot. IAE if you mean reinterpreting against the original opinion, then we have machloket (between Rambam-the-person and Kabbalists). If you mean machloket about what the Rambam said, then we still have machloket (Rambam-via-Kabalists and Rambam-via-Antikabalists). Either way it's a machloket rishonim (about ikkarim 2 3 and 5 primarily, in this case). I still don't understand why Kabbalists would care that the Rambam thinks they fit in his Ikarim. He clearly thought the rest of what they said was havel havalim even if it isn't formal kefira

@DoubleAA 1. Depends on how you learn Moreh Nevuchim 2. One can say that Moreh Nevuchim was written on "a different level" (like things that make no sense in Pshat will in Remez or Drush)

@ShmuelBrin One can also say that the Zohar was written on a different level, and really the Ramban, the Ari, etc. thought magic was all bupkis. But no one would really believe that either.

@DoubleAA oops, but too late

@DoubleAA The Ari clearly worked within the world of the Zohar.

@ShmuelBrin ?

@DoubleAA There are places where Rashi explains pshat in chumash differently than the Gemara (the Gemara explains the Pasuk one way yet Rashi explains it a different way). They are just talking in two different universes.

@ShmuelBrin He appeared that way, because he was using the same language and all. But actually both the Zohar and the Ari and the Alter Rebbe all thought magic didn't really exist. They were just performing an elaborate Drash.

@DoubleAA I didn't mean to click the "transfer to chat" link

(I'm not actually claiming that; just pointing out that rewriting someone entire theology, metaphysics, and epistemology out of thin air is not usually very convincing.)

@ShmuelBrin probably better off if that answer get's deleted

This really wasn't meant to be a post about Kabbalah. I was thinking more like the 8th, 12th or 3rd ikkarim.

@DoubleAA Metaphysics is meant to be drash? Isn't that the Shita of the Rambam himself (regarding Aggadata)?

especially if he held that the Mishna (Ein Dorshin) is still applicable.

Studying metaphysics is what he thought was Maaseh Merkava. But he still came to conclusions about what metaphysically exists (eg. no sheidim).

or his thoughts about free will vs divine foreknowledge

@DoubleAA AFAIR, he kind of left that off with a Tzarich Iyun (which the Raavad attacked)

@ShmuelBrin Ya. Tzarich Iyun on his Tzarich Iyun, really.

@DoubleAA The Raavad gave an answer, which I don't fully understand either, so ya, Tzarich Iyun on that also.

so, bad example. but shedim is a good one. he's pretty clear about thinking they don't exist.

here's the rambam/raavad about free will btw

hebrewbooks.org/…

@DoubleAA @ShmuelBrin This is an article by R' Ariel Bar Tzadok claiming that the Rambam was a kabbalist of sorts in addition to being a rationalist. I enjoyed the title: "Maimonides: Was He a Closet Kabbalist?"

@Fred A false messiah and a dream of a 19th century Chasidic Rebbe? Pretty conclusive...

@DoubleAA Yeah, well, do with that what you will. The article did also cite the Ramban, Sefer haChinuch, and others. Anyway, I thought that perspective was germane to the discussion.

@DoubleAA And did R' Abulafia actually declare himself the messiah, or was is more like this:

@DoubleAA Looking through the Hebrew Wikipedia article, it seems that he did not actually declare himself messiah. The article just speculates that he personally thought he was the messiah.

Whatever he actually did, the Rashba at least thought it wasn't very appropriate.

@DoubleAA True, but he did claim that the Rashba was misinformed about what he said ( מה שחשב הרב ר' שלמה ב"ר אברהם ז"ל בן אדרת על ענייני או מה ששמע היה הכול הבל ורעות רוח), so I don't know if it's clear that he actually claimed to be a messiah. In any event, yes the Rashba was strongly opposed to him.

@Fred I don't know why you are so focused on what the exact details of the claims are. There was messianic fervor aroused, and it didn't pan out.

@DoubleAA The expression "false messiah" carries a lot of baggage, so I think it should be used carefully. I'd be much quicker to ignore someone who actually declared himself messiah (falsely) than someone who I suspect might have thought that he was but turned out to be wrong.

@Fred And Bar Kochva?

@Fred Arousing Messianic fervor over 800 years before the Messiah actually comes seems pretty "false" whatever his personal role in the story was.

@DoubleAA I suppose he could have been a legitimate candidate at some point (R' Akiva thought so), so I guess a distinction is warranted.

@Fred It's more about "was this increase in messianic fervor done beratzon chachamim" I would think.

It's almost the standard model of false messiah. Rabbi who looks pretty good gets messianic. Encounters criticism. Gets a following, but soon dies. After a bit everyone goes back to normal except a fringe who continues after him and is squashed out of Judaism.

That teshuva of the Rashba is against a student of R Abulafia who was being all messianic

look at shabtai tzvi

etc.

@DoubleAA Plenty of gedolim throughout history mistakenly calculated the keitz, but I see your point about increasing a fervor. That could still be an error in judgment as opposed to an absolute disqualification from being a legitimate rabbinic figure.

@Fred Even those who say it was assur to do (rambam)

@DoubleAA Yes.

@DoubleAA Except once someone declares himself messiah, his followers are essentially bound by that. Further, Shabtai Zvi and other false messiahs went beyond just proclaiming themselves messiah.

@Fred Bound by what?

Was R Akiva bound to Bar Kochva?

@Fred some are obviously more eccentric than others

@DoubleAA I don't recall R' Akiva's wording - did he proclaim Bar Kochva as definitively the messiah?

ר' עקיבה כד הוה חמי בר כוזבה הוה אמר דין הוא מלכא משיחא א"ל ר' יוחנן בן תורתא עקיבה יעלו עשבים בלחייך ועדיין בן דוד לא יבא

From Yerushalmi Ta'anis 4:5.

@DoubleAA Perhaps the difference was that R' Akiva was relying on his own judgment, whereas followers generally rely on the self proclaimed messiah's own judgment. So R' Akiva of course did not persist after Bar Kochva's death.

@Fred see some early sources he.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

@Fred That's a really dismal view of the followers' agency. If he's dead, then get with the program.

@Fred btw i don't know if you saw this, but i think you'd like it judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/33360/…

@DoubleAA Unfortunately it's often been a realistic view of a good chunk of the followers of false messiahs, although the followings of course dwindled afterwards.

@Fred Unfortunately indeed...

@DoubleAA I think that's referring to talking between prayers, not anointing.

סח בין תפילה לתפילה

@Fred more likely, between tefillin.

@DoubleAA Correct.

@DoubleAA Hence the ches rather than a chaf (as far as talking, that is).

When I read that question I had the line הסך מברך something something something in my head and couldn't figure out from where, because I couldn't think of any bracha on annointing.

@DoubleAA Well, chalk one up for Purim Torah.

:)

On that note, I wish you a Layla Tov

@DoubleAA Likewise. :)