The Foundation Stone (Hebrew: אֶבֶן הַשְׁתִיָּיה ‘Even haŠəṯīyyā, literally "The Foundation Stone"; or simply סֶּלַע Selā‛, "Rock"), or the Noble Rock (Arabic: الصخرة المشرفة, romanized: al-Saḵrah al-Mušarrafah, lit. "The Noble Rock") is the rock at the centre of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is also known as the Pierced Stone because it has a small hole on the southeastern corner that enters a cavern beneath the rock, known as the Well of Souls.
In traditional Jewish sources, it is considered the place from which the creation of the world began. The site was used by the Temple in Jerusalem; most classical Jewish sources agree it was the location of the Holy of Holies. If it was the site of the Holy of Holies, that would make this the holiest site in Judaism. Jewish tradition views the Holy of Holies as the spiritual junction of Heaven and Earth, the axis mundi, and is therefore the direction that Jews face when praying the Amidah. In modern academia, this is usually the consensus, however, overall there is no conclusive opinion on the matter.
ובילקוט שמעוני מובא: ולמה נקרא שמו של הקב"ה מקום שבכל מקום שהצדיקים עומדים שם הקב"ה נמצא שנאמר בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי וגו´
בעדות המזרח נהוג לומר נוסח קצר יותר 'מן השמים תנוחמו'.
בראשונים כלל לא מופיע נוסח מסוים לניחום האבלים. היחיד שמזכיר נוסח ניחום אבלים הוא הרמב"ם, וכפי הנראה הנסוח הוא בהשפעת הנוסח ב'מסכת שמחות': "כיצד מנחמין את האבלים... האבלים עומדים לשמאל המנחמין וכל המנחמין באים אצל האבלים אחד אחד ואומרים להן תנוחמו מן השמים" (משנה תורה לרמב"ם, ספר שופטים, הלכות אבל, פרק י"ג, הלכות א'–ב').
יש שכתבו שכפי הנראה המקור לנוסח זה הוא בספר שבות יעקב של רבי יעקב ריישר:
גם באתי להודיע חידוש בדין, דאם אותן המתאבלים עמהם מנחמים את אבילם, יאמרו נוסח זה בזה הלשון: המקום ינחם אתכם ואותנו עם שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים
— שבות יעקב חלק ג סימן צח
יש שציינו לדברי הירושלמי שם מופיע נוסח קרוב לנוסח זה, לעניין ביקור חולים: "רבי יוסי אומר: המקום ירחם עליך בתוך חולי ישראל
“Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”.
After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”. Spinoza attempts to prove that God is just the substance of the universe by first stating that substances do not share attributes or essences, and then demonstrating that God is a “substance” with an infinite number of attributes, thus the attributes possessed by any other substances must also be possessed by God. Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe. God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”. This concept of God is very similar to the Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism  This view was described by Charles Hartshorne as Classical Pantheism. Spinoza has also been described as an "Epicurean materialist", specifically in reference to his opposition to Cartesian mind-body dualism. This view was held by Epicureans before him, as they believed that atoms with their probabilistic paths were the only substance that existed fundamentally. Spinoza, however, deviated significantly from Epicureans by adhering to strict determinism, much like the Stoics before him, in contrast to the Epicurean belief in the probabilistic path of atoms, which is more in line with contemporary thought on quantum mechanics.
see also: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/131214415.pdf Cohen, Spinoza and the Nature of Pantheism, Yitzhak Y Melamed, John Hopkins University, 2018
What Is Pantheism?
In order to establish a common ground, I suggest a working definition of
pantheism as the view that “whatever is, is in God.”
of claiming that finite things are parts of God, Spinoza consistently asserts
that finite things (as well as some infinite things) are modes of God. Call
this view substance-mode pantheism.17
Pantheism is sometimes distinguished from panentheism. I am familiar
with two clear manners of drawing this distinction. According to one, pantheism
asserts a symmetric dependence between God and the world of
finite things (a view sometimes expressed by the formula that “the world
is in God, and God is in the world”), while panentheism asserts an asymmetric
dependence of the world on God. (Thus, the midrashic formula, “God is the place of the world, but the world is not
His place” (Bereshit Rabbah, 68/9), seems to be a nice illustration of panentheism
according to the first way of drawing the distinction)
An alternative way to draw a distinction between pantheism and panentheism
is to say that pantheism asserts an identity between God and nature –
as the totality of bodies (and mental items) – while panentheism asserts that
all bodies (and thoughts) are in God, yet do not exhaust God – i. e., there
are some aspects or elements of God that are beyond physical (and mental)
He asserts: “Whatever
is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God.”20 If
we add to this his definitions of Substance21 and God,22 according to which
God is not dependent on anything else, we get the panentheist side of the
first distinction – i. e., that everything is in God and depends upon God, but
not the other way around.
facie, monotheism seems to be consistent with pantheism, since pantheism
may well (and in Spinoza’s case clearly does27) assert the existence of one
In medieval and early modern Kabbalah, pantheism and panentheism
are commonplace. Numerous Kabbalists endorsed the formula “God is
Nature” and issued unmistakable endorsements of pantheism or panentheism.
Thus, the Zohar states: “He surrounds all the worlds, and nothing
surrounds Him … There is nothing outside Him; He fills all the worlds,
and nothing else fills Him.”37 Similarly, the 16th-century Safed Kabbalist,
R. Moshe Cordovero, claims: “All is one and there is nothing separate from
him … all is included in Him and adheres to Him.”38