The odd thing about the four elements that turns up in Kabalah quite a lot is that it does not really seem to be all that accurate. If the kabalists were receiving this idea by Ruach Hakodesh [the Divine Spirit] then it seems that they were being fooled. If they were just borrowing from Aristotle and the ancient Greeks then why not at least attribute their sources?
[The four elements idea in fact seems to have been an obstacle instead of a help in coming to understand the nature of matter and energy. It took a lot of effort of Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Locke et al to get to the idea that matter has elements that are not divided so neatly into Fire Water Air and Dirt.
The system of the Ari towards the end of the Eitz Haim also has the regular Ptolemaic scenario of the sun going around the Earth.
While I would not doubt the Ari and the Remak [Moshe Cordovaro] on the deeper meaning of Torah, still I tend to limit their validity to areas outside of their expertise.
However when I really what to learn about the Wisdom of God as it is revealed in the Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot as the Sages said it seem to me that the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda were more correct to say that that is what the ancient Greeks were learning and what they called Physics.
[Also the עם כל דא [although] that comes up all the time in the Zohar is a medieval invention of the Ibn Tibon family meant to replace the other ways of saying "although" that you have in the Midrash and Gemara like אף על פי, אף על גב which are in fact really difficult. (One means "also on the mouth," the other is "also on the back.") You can see why Ibn Tibon would have replaced them. But this does show that the Zohar is not from R Shimon Ben Yochai.]
Rav Isaac of Aco asked the person that publicized the Zohar in Spain about the original manuscript. But was never shown it, and when he asked his wife about it, she said there was no original manuscript.
[It is like people are looking for a Jewish point of view about the world, and kabalah seems to be the only thing out there that is presented as authentically Jewish and has flavor and interest. But is it so accurate? Once I stated looking for accuracy in my world view, the Zohar seemed less impressive. But as far as mysticism goes I think Rav Avraham Abulafia and the Ari and Remnak are important. However at least Rav Abulafia was simply stating his own revelations with no reference to any books at all. [He even attacked the kabalists.] This seems a lot better than even the Ari or Remak who are basing themselves on the Zohar at least to some extent. And philosophy does not seem to have any validity at all. Philosophers spend their time wondering what scientists do and thinking about words. Philosophy is meaningless.]
[The four elements idea in fact seems to have been an obstacle instead of a help in coming to understand the nature of matter and energy. It took a lot of effort of Boyle, Dalton, Newton, Locke et al to get to the idea that matter has elements that are not divided so neatly into Fire Water Air and Dirt.
The system of the Ari towards the end of the Eitz Haim also has the regular Ptolemaic scenario of the sun going around the Earth.
While I would not doubt the Ari and the Remak [Moshe Cordovaro] on the deeper meaning of Torah, still I tend to limit their validity to areas outside of their expertise.
However when I really what to learn about the Wisdom of God as it is revealed in the Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot as the Sages said it seem to me that the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda were more correct to say that that is what the ancient Greeks were learning and what they called Physics.
[Also the עם כל דא [although] that comes up all the time in the Zohar is a medieval invention of the Ibn Tibon family meant to replace the other ways of saying "although" that you have in the Midrash and Gemara like אף על פי, אף על גב which are in fact really difficult. (One means "also on the mouth," the other is "also on the back.") You can see why Ibn Tibon would have replaced them. But this does show that the Zohar is not from R Shimon Ben Yochai.]
Rav Isaac of Aco asked the person that publicized the Zohar in Spain about the original manuscript. But was never shown it, and when he asked his wife about it, she said there was no original manuscript.
[It is like people are looking for a Jewish point of view about the world, and kabalah seems to be the only thing out there that is presented as authentically Jewish and has flavor and interest. But is it so accurate? Once I stated looking for accuracy in my world view, the Zohar seemed less impressive. But as far as mysticism goes I think Rav Avraham Abulafia and the Ari and Remnak are important. However at least Rav Abulafia was simply stating his own revelations with no reference to any books at all. [He even attacked the kabalists.] This seems a lot better than even the Ari or Remak who are basing themselves on the Zohar at least to some extent. And philosophy does not seem to have any validity at all. Philosophers spend their time wondering what scientists do and thinking about words. Philosophy is meaningless.]
