01:20 Brief History of the Scholarship 03:30 Story of Avraham Cohen de Herrera 14:44 From Herrera to Spinoza 18:00 The Textual Witnesses 23:03 Spinoza’s Kabbalistic Ideas 28:21 Spinoza and Hasidism 34:03 Spinoza and Mysticism 39:23 Closing thoughts Thanks for watching. Much love.
I’m Native American, Indigenous to the modern southeastern US. We have our own spiritual and mystical traditions in my nation but I have fallen in love with your channel and Spinoza’s philosophies. Thank you for your work.
Ok, so I’ve seen every video you and Justin have done on Spinoza up to this point. I think this one might be the best, because this one delves more than any others into the nitty gritty of what Spinoza had to say about himself
Again, splendid! Thank you. I'm still crawling through all this, so I will refrain from making specific comments for now. (Also, typing in a foreign language doesn't help). But I hope to get back to your videos in the future with something to give back in this conversation.
This video is awesome. Spinoza was so insightful. And on top of that, he lived the life of a sage. I would love to sit and have tea with him and listen to him for hours about his opinions concerning Kabbalah. It's unfortunate that we have to guess at his views based on things scattered sparsely throughout his texts. This is a superb investigation into what his views might have been.
I've watched this video before. Each time that I do, it only serves to deepen my understanding and love for this man. Your scholarship is wide and thorough. I derive much intellectual satisfaction from your videos. Thank you so very much.
This is a scholarly work, very informative and thought-provoking. One thought I might add is the viewpoint of Will Durant, who suggested that Spinoza was excommunicated not because his ideas about God were necessarily anti-Jewish, but because they were anti-Christian, and the Jewish community in Amsterdam was afraid they would result in the persecution of or even expulsion of the Jews from Belgium. Does this suggestion hold any merit, in your opinion? Thank you again for the careful work you put into this presentation.
A very unique approach. Kol akavod! From a personal perspective, it was very well structured and it does contribute to the understanding of Spinoza's thought and, more importantly, the elements that made them possible to be brought into the world. From an academic perspective, I would just say that this would've been a great opportunity to (re) define Kabbalah in the same unique way you accomplished defining Spinoza. It is a challenge to convey the depth, beauty, and essence of Kabbalah to those who have been created by a context that has an inherent repel to religion, so of course, I do not mean to place that burden on your shoulders ;) Kul tov! Hannah
Thank you Hannah. I hope to develop an introductory series to Kabbalah, to present in a palatable way to those that may otherwise be ill-disposed towards it. With the hope to neither sacrifice on it's historical, academic integrity, nor on it's own beauty and intrinsic value and religion gravitas. Maybe you'll help me so it won't be all on my shoulders ;) Thank you for watching and thank you for your warm feedback. Stay safe, with love, Zevi
@@SeekersofUnity b'simcha!... do you have an email address? id like to share with you the paper I'm writing on Malchus :] ... thanks to you for these wonderful videos! all best, -H
I really don't know science well enough to answer this question. But it seems you might be getting at the idea of matter/energy as the modern concept of substance. I'd be curious to turn the question back to you...
Thanks for the informative talk. I am drawn to Jewish mystism and esoteric ideas. I feel that the Jewish esoteric insights/intuition have reached to some profound truths and I find them inspirational, more so, because they combine feeling (heart, Agape) and thinking (mind, Logos) to reach to the core of the reality. Jewish esoterism (and religious ideas) combines Eastern and Western mystical realisations and intuitions.
Great vid! You quote Rav Kook and his attitude to Spinoza. I couldn't find it in his works. Could you please point me in the right direction? What are your references? Thanks so much!!
In the Ethics, you will find that Spinoza used the number 32 to mark the heart of the matter and even explicitly used the term "heart of the matter" in one such context. This practice always seems hard to ignore as a connection to a Jewish mystical tradition. You can't trust your sense of evil with hate in your heart.
In the first quote it seems clear that he is refering to and critiquing kabbalistic numorology - the notion that the letters of the torah is divine and has meaning beyond the words they signify.
It is excellent. A question which I would like to ask is whether, as regards the principles of Spinoza, it should be spoken of pantheism or of panentheism.
Hey friend. Thanks for the question. We try answering it at the end of this video: The Riddle of Spinoza's God ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZCwUCC-GsNg.html (37:43 Was Spinoza a Panentheist?). Enjoy
Great video! There is another part of Spinoza where he I think he mentions the cabbalists. In the note to proposition 7 of part 2 of the Ethics he mentions that the mode of extention and the idea thereof is the same, although expressed in different ways. And that some Jews have dimly recognized this by maintaining that God, God’s intellect, and the things understood by God are equal (paraphrasing). Maybe you have some further insight. Caute
Thank you Oleg. Yes, Spinoza writes: "Before going any further, I wish to recall to mind what has been pointed out above--namely, that whatsoever can be perceived by the infinite intellect as constituting the essence of substance, belongs altogether only to one substance: consequently, substance thinking and substance extended are one and the same substance, comprehended now through one attribute, now through the other. So also, a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, though expressed in two ways. This truth seems to have been dimly recognized by those Jews who maintained that God, God's intellect, and the things understood by God are identical." - E2: PROP. 7 Corollary, Note. Spinoza here seems to be most likely making reference to the Jewish Philosopher, Maimonides (12th century) who writes: "The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His truth and knows it as it is. He does not know with a knowledge which is external to Him in the way that we know, for ourselves and our knowledge are not one. Rather, the Creator, may He be blessed, He, His knowledge, and His life are one from all sides and corners, in all manners of unity. ...Thus, you could say, "He is the Knower, He is the Subject of Knowledge, and He is the Knowledge itself." All is one." - Mishneh Torah, Sefer Madda, Yesodei haTorah 2:10. Although not himself a Kabbalist, this tripartite adage is repeated by many Kabbalists and mystics from other traditions in a variety of forms. Caute
Glad that you mentioned Maimonides here in your reply as he influenced Thomas Aquinas ( Catholic Doctor of Theology) who had completely influenced catholic orthodox teachings from that time onwards.
You know, I think I might have found "my Rebbi"... Baruch SpinozAAAA!!! The ultimate fusionist of all times, it seems. Finding the unity of the Oneness in such diverse and seemingly contradictory fields.
But how can "The Spinoza of Ethics" (Geometric) be reconciled with "The Spinoza of the Political Theological Treaty" (where he destroys Israel's Torah there)?
It seems like Spinoza's aims in his Ethics and his PTT were quite different, ergo I don't think they demand a reconciliation. Also destroys Torah sounds like a bit of a dramatic exaggeration. I'm not sure if you're referring to his remarks about the role of the prophet or the role of the mitzvot as only applying to the commonwealth of the people of Israel when in the land of Israel or something else entirely. Either way, you can enlighten me, it's been some time since I've read the PTT.
Seekers of Unity I think your analysis of Spinoza's Ethics and its root in Kabalah is perfect. congratulations. You should delve into the connections with Tanya. however: I find that PTT Spinoza is extremely different, extremely superficial in Israel's identity analysis, and extremely superficial in considering the Oral Torah philosophically irrelevant (for him).
@@SeekersofUnity it’s not exaggeration. that was precisely what he was doing there! he scorns the Mitzvot! He scorns circumcision! and his conception of the mitzvot was not just didn’t apply outside the commonwealth , but their sole raison d'etre - all of them- was the creation and preservation of the common wealth... and those were the mitzvot he recognized..., but having already arrogantly and irresponsibly assumed the Torah to be a human construct (Gd forbid) , with his own absurd and abstract and private theory, he would of thoroughly dismissed the rest of them. His explanation for the commandments were UNPRECEDENTED in jewish traditional thinking. There’s at least a few of the ikkarim ( principals of Judaism) that he tries to uproot. What’s more he excludes himself from Am Yisroel she. Referring to them as “the Jews” As I mentioned already Alan Nadler as well Arthur Herzberg and Chaim Grade who called his work the most antisemetic Literature of the 17 century. Also the romantisation of him as being a mild and meek philosophical soul who unjustly persecuted by by fanatic rabbis belies the facts that he was provocative contrarian who defiantly wore a signet ring that read “watch out” and that his teacher Menashe Ben Israel (Who might of been part of the heres) was rather Humanistic and cosmopolitan and was pro-ported to be friends with Rembrandt. But just like Gospel accounts of Jesus criminality , and the Hadith narratives of Muhammad insanity the narrative flipped is reversed , So that this secular prophet is now celebrated. Also, call it an ad hominem if you will, but he evidently had pension for delighting in torturing spiders if the Freideker refered to Mendelssohn as YS”V, Which can be argued to be unfairly, I wonder what he would epithet he would have reserved for Benedict de Spinoza.
Thanks I'm glad you find it interesting 😋 I really have nothing to hide. I have no formal academic training or education, I've just read a lot of academic works on the subjects that interest me. On the Hasidic side, I grew up in a Chabad family, so have been passionate about and learning Chassidut since I was a teenager, plus a few years of yeshiva, shlichut and teaching Chassidut. Feel free to ask, I'm an open book.
I found that the concept of the Tzimtzum was against the belief in Pantheism because of the idea that god began the process of creation by "contracting" his Ohr Ein Sof in order to allow for a "conceptual space" in which finite and seemingly independent realms could exist. As I see creation the Creator was in and is a part of the existence of all matter so the Creator could not have contracted but was part of the creation and still is. By the way; have you studied the works of רבי יחיא בן שלמה קאפח ?
That would depend on how Tzimtzum is being read. Check out this video where we explain the two readings: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fhMuDoIcKKc.html I haven’t. Would you recommend something of his?
As far as Kabbalah which is bound in the works of the Zohar read: מלחמות ה' הוא ספר מאת הרב יחיא קאפח, מנהיג הפלג הדרדעי ביהדות תימן, שנושאו הוא אמונת הייחוד, וההתנגדות לקבלה בכלל ולספר הזוהר בפרט
To play devils advocate, although I have had your same insight ( that Spinoza did believe in some immanent quality) When he uses the term blessedness, why can it not be a non-theistic psychological state of attainment, a status designation? What’s more though, his thorough depersonalizIng of God, throughly the rest of his TPT and so that, not true prophethood or communion as was traditionally understood can ever be attained, and prophets ( both Jewish and Christian) were at best, extremely insightful statemen and governors , (Which is incidentally a grave heretical assumption, as articulated by Maimonides) whose sole concern was the “temporal” Good, happiness, right living and correct governance (blessedness?) of this earth, points to a conception that has been thoroughly stripped of any immanent or spiritual quality. Incidentally, in romanticizing Spinoza one should not get carried away...I’ve heard Professor Alan Nadler Say that he heard it from two great scholars that the TPT was a thoroughly antisemetic work on par with mein Kampf. Cheers.
I would agree that ‘blessedness’ refers to a non-theistic state of mind, because Spinoza was certainly no theist by any stretch of the imagination. However, as we attempted to demonstrate, he was most certainly a pantheist and perhaps even a panentheist. He certainly believes in some ‘immanent quality’ because all is God for Spinoza, although he precludes the spiritual or supernatural from his metaphysics, Deus sive Natura. Check out the second vid we did on Spinoza for more discussion on this. I agree that he sees G-d and prophecy very differently from traditional religious perspectives, and is stripped, as you say from any spiritual or personal quality. But I don’t think it is stripped of immanence. On the contrary, it is most likely stripped of transcendence. I don’t mind romanticizing Spinoza. Nadler (Steven not Alan) is a great Spinoza scholar, but it’s hard for me to rely on what you said, he said, some other unnamed people said, particularly with regard to such a, and excuse me for saying this, vile allegation. The TPT is not locked away somewhere in the Vatican in some foreign language so that only scholars can read it and make pronouncements on it. I’ve read the text, and even though it’s been a quite a while, trust me it’s no Mein Kampf and the comparison is disgusting. Even better, don’t trust me, you can read the text yourself and let me know what you think of it. And please don’t repeat that hearsay until you’ve read it. I’m not halakhist but I think books too ought to be protected under the clause of lashon hara, malicious speech. With love, Zevi
@@SeekersofUnity I could feel the love.... so actually I did read it, and why you think otherwise. I read at the 16 and re-read subsequently many times. As far as the quotation don’t know why anyone wouldn’t take my word for . Why would I make it up? you can listen To it yourself from a recent lecture Alan Nadler ( not to confused with his cousin the Spinozist enthusiast Steven Nadler) did in Israel.. (the relevant bit starts at 17:00 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PqwjZJ5jwVc.html
I apologize if i came across too harshly. I was just quite shocked by the comparison, and my assumption was based on that hope that no one who had read the text for themselves would repeat such a comparison approvingly. I just listened to the lecture you linked and heard Professor Allan Nadler quote the scholars and authors Arthur Hertzberg and Chaim Grade’s negative stances towards the text calling it anti-Semitic. But unless I missed it, i heard no mention of any comparison to Mein Kampf. Again, I apologize if i was too harsh but i genuinely feel disgusted by the comparison. With tough love, Zevi
@@SeekersofUnity the exact quote by Arthur Hertzberg said the TPT was the most antisemetic work before mein Kampf. I saw the comment made by Nadler on FB. ( you’d have to take my word for it or can direct you there privately) . Here it is: “So, you like Spinoza's anti-Semitism. His statement of identification with Paul over the Torah, his dripping cynicism about Jewish survival and his bad joke about God choosing them "again" (given that for Spinoza, God never chooses anything or anyone nor can he: See Ethics, I, Appendix), had their religion not overly "emasculated" them. This is what you like ? Interesting. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, z"l famously called the TTP the most vicious anti-Semitic work before Mein Kampf. Not entirely wrong.”
