В рай – без оглядки.

[nedosionist]

Попал еврей в рай. Осмотрелся, и восклицает «Как же здесь красиво!» И немедленно очутился в аду. Да за что же, спрашивается!? Ему рай понравился.

Авот 3:7: R. SIMEON SAID: WHEN ONE, WALKING ON THE ROAD, REHEARSES [WHAT HE HAS LEARNT], AND BREAKS OFF FROM HIS REHEARSING, AND SAYS, ‘HOW FINE IS THIS TREE!’ [OR] ‘HOW FINE IS THIS NEWLY PLOUGHED FIELD!’ SCRIPTURE ACCOUNTS IT TO HIM AS IF HE HAD INCURRED GUILT [EXPIABLE] BY HIS LIFE.

На первый взгляд речь идет о недопустимости излишнего наслаждения пасторальными сценками. Однако эта мишна относится к категории меркавы. Уважаемые brotherinlaw и мкитросс уместно отмечают аллюзии с раем, и с райским Древом. К этому можно еще добавить и упоминания Поля и Пути (ср. напр. Бер 24:63 «Isaac went out to meditate in the field»; UPD. а также пост "Поле, чистейшее поле".). «Walking on The Road»: близко по смыслу к «езде на Колеснице», и «хождению по Воде». "Scripture аccounts": речь может идти о цитате в Авот 3:8, либо см. ниже.

В отличие от псевдо-анекдота в начале поста, похоже речь в этой мишне все же не идет-таки о райских впечатлениях, но лишь о фазе пути. Предостережение р. Симеона парадоксально именно потому, что такое выражение восхищения теологически кажется очень уместным, ожидаемым, и почти неизбежным. И в чем проблема!? Однако тем не менее это не аберрация; очень похожее предупреждение, хоть и другими словами, высказано в Хагига 14б: R. Akiba said to them: When ye arrive at the stones of pure marble, say not, water, water! For it is said: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.

UPD. О красоте обычных деревьев, по-контрасту: If one sees beautiful creatures and beautiful trees, he says: Blessed is He who has such in His world. (Берахот 58а)

***

Авот 3:18: R. ELIEZER HISMA SAID: KINNIM [I. E. ‘NESTS’] AND PITHEHE NIDDAH [I.E. ‘THE STARTING TIMES OF A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN’] ARE ESSENTIAL ORDINANCES; [THE STUDY OF THE] ‘REVOLUTIONS’ [OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES] AND ARITHMETIC ARE AFTER COURSES OF WISDOM.

Эта мишна похоже по структуре на обсуждаемую ранее Хагига 10а - подчеркиванием того, что некоторые трактаты существенны. В некотором роде это предшествующее звено: если в Хаг 10а говорится о разделении на категории между трактатами/темами Мишны, то здесь – между Мишной в целом, и сопутствующими методами ее изучения. Речь, скорее всего, идет не об астрономии и арифметике, а об астрологии и гематрии/нумерологии. Они лишь дополнительны, считает р. Элиезер, - возражая, например, проекту «Кодов Торы».

Kinnim and Pithehe Niddah: Кинним по моей классификационной гипотезе может относиться к категории меркавы, и это упоминание можно рассматривать как соответствующее указание. Нидда – видимо, из категории чистоты. Подобная конструкция, скорее всего означает «Мишна от Альфы до Омеги». Другой вариант - что часть Нидда все же классифицируется как шабатняя, тогда эта мишна – подтверждение Хаг 10а.

Comments

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

R. Akiba said to them: When ye arrive at the stones of pure marble, say not, water, water! For it is said: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.

I am quite at a loss with Akiba's saying. I could suppose a meaning like "when you get there don't take mere crystal ('pure marble') for water [of life]" (i.e. "don't take the clarity of appearance for the clarity of substance" or something similar), which seems to agree with your understanding. This would find some support (a) in the fact that "water" is sometimes used for "water of life", (b) in Ex. 24:10 (at least as MN 1:28 understands it), (c) in Akiba's own quote from Ps. 101:7 ("falsehood" must be degrading enough to deserve such a judgment). Yet this is inconclusive, and contradicts the Soncino note on "say not, water, water!": "I.e., how can we proceed!" The note is hardly to be just dismissed, meanwhile it means something seemingly strange ("proceed and don't be scared by false obstacles!"??).

I googled "stones of pure marble" and the 1st thing I found was that Akiba's words "have baffled exegetes both ancient and modern." However, R. Schneerson ("the Rebbe", who I think is authoritative in spite of kabbalism), seems to favor the interpretation that water is too good to take stones of marble for it: "[This indicates that] the stones possess water, but they are hidden and greatly concealed to the extent that much effort and labor is necessary to reveal the element of water that they possess. ...etc." On the other hand, here is quite a different - I can say opposite - interpretation derived from the same kabbalistic concepts.

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

I should say that r. Akiba's buffling comment is way above my current theological paygrade. Somewhat at variance with the structure of the posting itself, I'd think that r. Simeon's saying seems simpler and helps us a bit towards understanding r. Akiba's; rather than conversely.

Of your references I agree with everything in 1st paragraph except "mere crystal" (see separate comment), and Soncino, with caveats (see below). R. Schneerson's explanation looks weak and questionable. 3Enoch/Hekalot and r. Yaakov are better, thanks.

I can throw in Rambam (MN 2:30) for good measure, who calls it "how clearly and distinctly this passage explains the subject for those who reflect on it!", and then proceeds to undermine this point with gratuitous(?) reference to meteorology. Yet again, perhaps here also "it was considered necessary to make this one of the most hidden secrets, in order to prevent the multitude from knowing it."

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

MN2:30 seems to identify the stones of pure marble with "water that above the firmament" (Gen. 1) which he says is no water but "higher matter". (He then indeed makes metaphysics serve as physics, following his day's philosophy that was hostage of his day's lack of physics but I don't think this matters.) So (his point is) it would be falsehood to call it water. So his view ("don't mistake more perfect [marble] for less perfect [water]") seems contrary to yours ("don't mistake less perfect [marble] for more perfect [water]", which is also "the Rebbe's" view]. Unless I miss your/his/Rebbe's points, which is quite possible.

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

contrary to yours .. less perfect [marble] for more perfect [water]
This is NOT my view at all; and it is unclear what made you think so!? (Perhaps I might need to rephrase something, to clear this up?) I took this to be YOUR position, based on "don't take mere crystal ('pure marble') for water [of life]", in your root comment. I took exception to this view here, and further clarified meaning here.

Now, given that understanding I can tentatively accept Marble as more perfect holy than Water, on the theory that at Sinai Water was accessible to all Hebrews, whereas Marble/Tablets only to Moshe.

As to the upper waters, both the concept itself and relative rankings are ambivalent, Rambam doesn't articulate nuances enough. Arizal/Schneerson view that there's only one water, and no need to differentiate here in kind between upper and lower can also be accepted, but I think he uses water where Rambam uses upper water. On one view, everything that's "up/higher" should be holier (for those who consider degrees of holiness as continuous); but on another, which I'm leaning towards (Hag 20b), holiness is quasi-discrete (in levels), water being "above" shouldn't matter that much. In any case, I'm reluctant to argue this, if we can't really tell the difference; at best it's scholastics, at worst - we'll be going in circles.

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

Well, I started with confiding that I am at a loss with this baraitha, and that is what I am and have been all along. Whatever arcane symbolism or pseudo-physics have been cited on this page IMHO only show that joining the honorable company of the "baffled exegetes both ancient and modern" would be the most prudent thing one can do:)

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

arcane symbolism and pseudo-physics
That's actually pretty close to how I usually tend to view our Texts. ;))

As you like to say on occasions, come back revisit r. Akiba in couple years. :)

There's a curious angle considering cited authorities. Note that we've brought into the discussion several opinions, more than we usually do, and of most of them a single line (or two) fits in, but the rest of the page seems either incorrect or unclear. But when I tried to render in a single line a "holistic" opinion of a piece of commentary, that inevitably involved oversimplification, usually negative-sounding. So, instead, there may be a nice way to rearrange and put together short citations from these rabbis that seem ok as is; but they would sound mutually incompatible, so they would naturally form a structure of a quasi-argument. - Which may end up looking just as Gemara typically does(!)

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

That's actually pretty close to how I usually tend to view our Texts. ;))
The Catholic formula is contritio, confessio, satisfactio. But Dante suggested changing the order to confessio, contritio, satisfactio. Congrats on completion of step 1! ;)

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

a) makes metaphysics serve as physics .. but I don't think this matters ... b) it would be falsehood to call it water
You've created a liar's paradox: b' pretty much rules out a', and conversely.

it would be falsehood to call it water
I doubt this is the issue. It goes to the core of usage of homonyms in Torah/Talmud. Water is ubiquitously called water in Sefer Torah and by Chazal. No Pharisee getting to that point (Marble) would confuse Water with ordinary water, Tree with ordinary tree etc, - that's simply impossible. Perhaps the issue is not mystic's own confusion, but calling things by their proper Names, and not by euphemisms. Then this underscores that a) they are normally using euphemisms bordering on falsehood, and b) there's another entire (complete!) set of terminology, to be used instead, beyond that point. A' would actually strengthen the point I'm usually making (except for the falsehood part) (омонимия, ПСТ-1), but b' is pretty much impossible, or at least unknown to us in Hebrew/English; unless we consider loshen kodesh as an alternative.

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

One way to somewhat accommodate Soncino's point is that such distractions in both cases may become a fixation, and thus indeed a sort of obstacle: either in virtue of beauty or attractiveness with Tree and Field (r. Simeon), or because the Marble Stone might seem to be the ultimate source of Water (r. Akiba). The latter would be a falsehood bordering on unintentional idolatry: not "how can we proceed!", but "why would we proceed!?".

That interpretation can further be supported by
a) Hekalot Rabbati 18:2 describes an elaborate technique for terminating a trance which was probably used when things appeared to be going awry. (your ref 3 Enoch, p 233)
b) And the Rabbis? — They were of marble. And R. Meir? — It is hardly possible that the man did not hang on to [the arches] and doze a while. (Yevamoth 121b)

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

This is the interpretation I favor but I wonder why you find it compatible at all with r. Yaakov's. Speaking simply, His water is bad ("a shattered world fraught with boundaries and contradiction", with emphasis on "two waters") while his stones of marble are good (oneness, eternal life etc.)

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

I liked that brief sampling from r.Yaakov mostly for d) here. Some of the imagery he's using seems rather on target, although I question many details; it's not clear at the moment if my arguments would be with r. Yaakov himself or translator's misunderstandings.

With regards to Waters, it's clear that repetition by Akiba has some meaning. It may be a) mere abundance, b) upper/lower, c) good/bad etc. I'm leaning towards reading b), and there's some textual basis for it in Gemara; r. Yaakov's image of water, and shattered world seems confused and unreliable; but I'm not yet ready to make a call.

marble

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

But the most interesting find here so far is The Marble Stone, "inspired" by your initial comment about "mere crystal", thanks. :) As a result, I now think that this is a reference to The Tables (Ex 24:12, 31:18). This might deserve a separate post later on.

a) MARBLE TABLES WHICH STOOD BETWEEN THE PILLARS (Tamid 31a, Middot 3:5)

b) THERE WERE TWO TABLES INSIDE THE PORCH AT THE ENTRANCE OF
THE HOUSE, THE ONE OF MARBLE AND THE OTHER OF GOLD.(Menachot 99b)

c) Wisdom is יש "Yesh" Being. Kinship is שי "Shay" (reversed). Combined they form שיש "Shayish" (marble) ... These waters are completely pure. (Cordovero @ wiki) (warning: kabbalism)
The point here, if accurate, would be not even that marble symbolizes something, but rather that "Shayish" in this context means (as terminology, abbreviation) "Sefirot from Alpha to Omega" (comp. logic to Avot 3:18 in the posting), but is read and translated as "marble".

d) This image harks back ... to the essence of the first Tablets of Law (r. Yaakov, p.16) This quote came as a timely corroboration, thanks again.

[ermenegilda.livejournal.com]

Еще один аргумент антирелигиозной пропаганды "разлетается как дым". Этот отрывок в советское время страшно ругали, "мол, какая жестокая религия, запрещает деревьями любоваться". А деревья - не обычные земные.

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

Этот отрывок в советское время страшно ругали
Со ссылками на Гемару!? Может быть, Вы помните, где именно Вы встречали эту критику?

[ermenegilda.livejournal.com]

Нет, не вспомню уже. Но критики религиозного аскетизма было много, очень много.

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

R. Akiba said to them: When ye arrive at the stones of pure marble, say not, water, water! For it is said: He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.

From here can be derived an explanation that seems to me better than others. "Water water" refers to separation of waters below and above the firmament in Genesis 1, the marble stones represent the separated waters in Pardes/Olam HaBa; but there/then, separation is no more ("the realm of purity"); hence R. Akiva's warning: do not say they are still separate there.

This line of explanation can be loosely suggested by the commentary on Vayelech by R. Schneerson/R. Sacks.

[nedosionist.livejournal.com]

Я уже ссылался на тот же самый пассаж из Рамака; моя интерпретация лучше, чем у Moshe Miller, и она с тех пор была подтверждена.

[brotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

?...