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

[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.