argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot

The argument between the Rambam and the Rashba and Tosphot concerning an alley with three walls.
To the Rambam it has a category of a carmlit [a middle state that is not a private domain nor a public domain] To Tosphot and the Rashba it is a private domain.


One of the commentators of the Yerushlmi brings this subject and the opinion of the magid mishna on the Rambam.
What is hard to understand about the Rambam here is the gemara in Suka page 7: an alley that is open on two sides--if equipped with a lehi is a private domain and if with overhead board is a carmlit.

If the Rambam would be right why should the Gemara deal with an alley with two walls?

In this area there is an argument between the Magid Mishna on the Rambam and Rav Moshe Margolit [the author of the Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi].

To Rav Moshe the three wall alley that is open to a carmlit and has a lehi is a reshut Hayakid. And to me it looks like he is using this idea to answer for the Rambam. I do not see how this helps the Rambam. If a simple lehi helps an open alley [open on two sides] then why should an alley closed on three sides be worse.

I guess he must be saying the open alley also is just open to a carmlit. Still I admit it is hard for me to see how the Ramabm could fit into the Gemara over here.

[Sorry if I do not have any more ability to concentrate on things in order to make my remarks clearer--after my experience with getting arrested because of false accusations I have little ability to concentrate on anything.]]

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. Moshe Idel conserning his approach to the idea of "the Son" and the start of his interest in Rav Avraham Abulfia.

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism

https://shi-webfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/Havruta_2009_Issue3_MosheIdelInterview.pdf

" In my Ph.D. dissertation, I wrote a section dealing with the son of God in Avraham Abulafia."
[Abraham ben Shmuel Abulafia (1240-C.1291), the founder of the ecstatic brand of Kabbalah]


In that thesis, you can see the Rav Abulafia held that Jesus was a tzadik.[משיח בן יוסף, החותם של יום ששי] I had seen that beforehand in Rav Abulafia, but seeing this idea also brought in Moshe Idel made it more clear. [I asked him later about this issue on the phone.]

Sonship

https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Sonship-Mysticism-Library-Studies/product-reviews/0826496660/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews


See also Kabalah and Elites

[Myself I never got into Rav Abulafia but I see him as a very important aspect of Torah. However I did see some of this subject in the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria]. The most obvious place for me is after the breaking of the vessels the vessel of Foundation was brought up into Emanation and filled with the light of Kindness. כלי של יסוד נעלה לאצילות ובו ירד האור של חסד. The Ari also brings this up concerning Joseph in Egypt.
Hegel has his own take on this which is known to be hard to understand. However it seems to me that Hegel is thinking more about Adam Kadmon more than Joseph. [While Hegel brings both subjects he does not tie them specifically together.]]

the Rambam and Tosphot about a private domain on Shabat.

There is an argument between the Rambam [Shabat chapter 14] and Tosphot about what constitutes a private domain.
Tosphot and the Rashba both hold three walls constitutes a private domain on Shabat. But the Rambam makes a difference. If the alley is open to a public domain then it is just a Carmalit. [A place that is not a private domain nor a public domain.] But if open to a carmalit then it is a private domain. That is the three walls reduce it one level down.
There is a lot to go into here because of a few gemaras in Eruvin which seem to be clearly like Tosphot. [And I wanted to add that the Karban Eda in the Yerushalmi holds that the Rambam holds a Lehi is considered a wall from the Torah but an overhead board is just derabanan.]


But the thing I wanted to point out here is something I mentioned a few years ago--that you really do not see the Gemara making the distinction about a public domain having 600,000 people walking through it. So on Shabat my approach is to carry only in a pocket. This you can see in Ketubot chapter 3 and also in Bava Batra that the thief taking out a purse on Shabat is obligated for Shabat when the purse has changed domain, not when the object in the purse has changed domains.[You can see this more clearly in Bava Batra but I have forgotten the sugia over there.]


But unless it is really absolutely necessary I think it is best to stay home on Shabat and avoid all the problems. Besides that usually people need to recover from Shabat ion Sunday. So it really is not much of a day of rest for most people. 

the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [

 the idea of Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons. [תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים].
The way Rav Nahman understands this is based on a few statements of the sages about the problem of using Torah to make money or gain power.

This idea can be expanded to groups that use the appearance of Torah also to gain power or money.


The idea of Rav Nahman has a few sources in the Gemara. One being the gemaras about demons that were in fact knowledgeable in Torah--and could take over people's souls. So it really is no surprise to find Torah scholars that are in internally demons. 

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison.

There is a kind of evil inclination that causes people involved in some kind of religious delusion to try and spread their poison. It might be in part because of the super organism idea of Howard Bloom.

In fact this kind of behavior I have seen a lot. This was in fact one of the causes that the Gra put his signature on the letter of excommunication. In order to stop that type of action on the part of people that were deeply into religious delusions.

You can see that people that are involved in the good side of Torah like in the Mir or Brisk, never try to go out and change others or make mass movements.

Torah scholars that are demons תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים

The basic idea of Torah scholars that are demons [Le"M vol I chapter 12]. [The Gemara itself brings the idea  that demons can be knowledgeable in Torah and  also that they can possess a person. Therefore the logical deduction is that a person possessed by a demon that is knowledgeable in  Torah will be knowledgeable in Torah. [The note on the bottom of the page in the Le.M brings the source of Rav Nahman from the Zohar, but I do not see why since Rav Nachman also had a source in the Gemara itself. 

 [It is brought in expanded form in the Ari also. ] This seems to me to be one of Rav Nahman's most important ideas. It provides a warning to people that could be too easily taken in.

Is there any test, to know the difference between good and evil in this regard? There is, but I can not tell what it is exactly. 

However I did want to add a comment. First that David Bronson did point out to me that even Rav Yaakov Emden did hold that some parts of the Zohar are authentic. (Large portions of it were added to.)
Furthermore there are plenty of warnings about religious leaders in the Talmud and the Prophets also.

Ari [Isaac Luria]- The way the Ari understands the creation of the universe

The way the Ari [Isaac Luria] understands the creation of the universe is by a process of צמצום of the Divine Presence of God from an empty space within his Infinite Light and then sending down first the light of the divine name 52 or Adam Kadmon of the Circles. Then the name 45 which became Adam Kadmon of the form of Man.

This explains to some degree why Buddha would have seen Nirvana as the peak of things and that perfection means to be self-annihilated.  Buddha [and Schopenhauer] would be seeing the level of the empty space as being the bringing. Thus forgetting that there was one level before that.

However Hegel did incorporate the level of Adam kadmon and the previous levels in his system. [Though I do not know how he learned the Ari or even heard about him. But he certainly brings him in his books. And his system is a kind of commentary on the Ari.]