What it seems to me after looking at the Talmud and the Rambam is that worship of a tzadik is a problem. This you can see in a most direct fashion in the 13 principles of Faith of the Rambam in principle 5. But what the Rambam is saying there seems to be accepted across the board. At least that is what it looks like to me from what I have seen in Sanhedrin 60b until 63a, and from what my learning partner has told me about Nachmanides' idea of what the Golden Calf was about.
And it is this approach of the Rambam, Nachmanides, and the Talmud itself that I think should be considered as the basic Torah approach. And given the most weight. So when closeness with a tzadik is important, we will have to take that in the general context of the world view of the Torah,--not as something that can outweigh the 'Rambam, Ramban' and the Gemara itself.
In other words--there is a fine line between closeness to a tzadik and the things above mentioned that one is not allowed to do, like praising him or asking him for help to come close to God.
Appendix :
1) Principle five: It is not proper to praise or ask help from or ask any created thing to bring one close to God.
[The Rambam lists there everything from the angels, constellations and stars to things created from the four elements.] [It is in his commentary on the Mishna. You can also see the the same basic idea in his Yad HaChazaka (Mishna Torah) in the beginning of the laws of idolatry.]
And it is this approach of the Rambam, Nachmanides, and the Talmud itself that I think should be considered as the basic Torah approach. And given the most weight. So when closeness with a tzadik is important, we will have to take that in the general context of the world view of the Torah,--not as something that can outweigh the 'Rambam, Ramban' and the Gemara itself.
In other words--there is a fine line between closeness to a tzadik and the things above mentioned that one is not allowed to do, like praising him or asking him for help to come close to God.
Appendix :
1) Principle five: It is not proper to praise or ask help from or ask any created thing to bring one close to God.
[The Rambam lists there everything from the angels, constellations and stars to things created from the four elements.] [It is in his commentary on the Mishna. You can also see the the same basic idea in his Yad HaChazaka (Mishna Torah) in the beginning of the laws of idolatry.]
2) So Christianity has one good point-- it has a tzadik who said right things. And we know there is a great deal of importance in believing in a tzadik. But that does not mean to believe that that tzadik is divine. Or to worship that tzadik, or even to praise him. While praise of humans is OK, but when Divinity is attributed to some person - then it becomes a problem.
Or at least that is the way it looks to me from Tosphot [Sanhedrin 63a]. But we find countless of tzadikim to whom divinity is attributed. When Bava Sali said that his son Meir is a soul from Emanation which we know is all Divine, no one objected. The Ari devotes to entire Shaar HaGilgulim to many tzadikim whose souls were from Atzilut. But then no one prays to them. So we seem to have hit a road block.
It seems to me that the problem that Christianity ought to deal with is this: worship of a tzadik is not good, but belief in a tzadik is good. It seems this distinction ought to be be made, and even sharpened.
3) What I am assuming here is that the Torah has a point of view. That is maybe a little hard to see. We know that people have points of view, but can you say a certain document has a point of view? I think you can. So when I look at the Talmud or the 'Rambam or the Ramban' I am looking not for their point of view, but I am looking for help in understanding what the Torah itself might be thinking about a certain issue. The worldview of the Torah or Daat of the Torah.
I know this sounds like cheating. When Christians want to understand what the Torah holds, they go to the C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. Why is my going to the Rambam any different? Mainly because the Middle Ages were more careful not to indulge in circular reasoning. So any modern author is not valid as far as I am concerned, because it is just a matter of time until you find fatal flaws in their reasoning. So any debate about the OT or NT can't be based on post medieval authors. So we are left with the Rambam, and Nachmanides verses Aquinas. Or you could go to the NT and OT yourself to figure out the one rigorous self consistent world view in each. But that is usually beyond the capability of every person. My feeling is that Aquinas is stemmed in by the fact he has to get the OT and NT to correspond. So I feel free to say that the Rambam was the most accurate and won the debate.
Plus Dr Kelly Ross noticed that Aquinas did not get Aristotle and the NT to fit. Judging by that he would have had to have gone back to the Neo-platonists. And that would have left him in the same soup he was trying to get out of.
4) The Torah worldview is monotheism, not pantheism. But what kind of Monotheism? Rambam's Aristotle's? Or Nachmanides' Neo Platonic? And the Torah does have a world view about commandments. That is that they exist. They are not nullified as soon as someone keeps them. And such an idea seems absurd anyway. For example the Torah says to bring the daily burnt offering in the morning and one in the afternoon. [A male sheep]. Let's say in theory I would keep that commandment perfectly one day. Would that mean I don't have to keep it the next day? Surely not because the Torah says explicitly to do this every day.
Or at least that is the way it looks to me from Tosphot [Sanhedrin 63a]. But we find countless of tzadikim to whom divinity is attributed. When Bava Sali said that his son Meir is a soul from Emanation which we know is all Divine, no one objected. The Ari devotes to entire Shaar HaGilgulim to many tzadikim whose souls were from Atzilut. But then no one prays to them. So we seem to have hit a road block.
It seems to me that the problem that Christianity ought to deal with is this: worship of a tzadik is not good, but belief in a tzadik is good. It seems this distinction ought to be be made, and even sharpened.
3) What I am assuming here is that the Torah has a point of view. That is maybe a little hard to see. We know that people have points of view, but can you say a certain document has a point of view? I think you can. So when I look at the Talmud or the 'Rambam or the Ramban' I am looking not for their point of view, but I am looking for help in understanding what the Torah itself might be thinking about a certain issue. The worldview of the Torah or Daat of the Torah.
I know this sounds like cheating. When Christians want to understand what the Torah holds, they go to the C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. Why is my going to the Rambam any different? Mainly because the Middle Ages were more careful not to indulge in circular reasoning. So any modern author is not valid as far as I am concerned, because it is just a matter of time until you find fatal flaws in their reasoning. So any debate about the OT or NT can't be based on post medieval authors. So we are left with the Rambam, and Nachmanides verses Aquinas. Or you could go to the NT and OT yourself to figure out the one rigorous self consistent world view in each. But that is usually beyond the capability of every person. My feeling is that Aquinas is stemmed in by the fact he has to get the OT and NT to correspond. So I feel free to say that the Rambam was the most accurate and won the debate.
Plus Dr Kelly Ross noticed that Aquinas did not get Aristotle and the NT to fit. Judging by that he would have had to have gone back to the Neo-platonists. And that would have left him in the same soup he was trying to get out of.
4) The Torah worldview is monotheism, not pantheism. But what kind of Monotheism? Rambam's Aristotle's? Or Nachmanides' Neo Platonic? And the Torah does have a world view about commandments. That is that they exist. They are not nullified as soon as someone keeps them. And such an idea seems absurd anyway. For example the Torah says to bring the daily burnt offering in the morning and one in the afternoon. [A male sheep]. Let's say in theory I would keep that commandment perfectly one day. Would that mean I don't have to keep it the next day? Surely not because the Torah says explicitly to do this every day.
