Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The options are, going with the evidence against the zohar, and then accepting that these rabbis (taught by angels and accepting it) are insane/dishonest..

- It is not from Rashbi at all, since there is no evidence for it. But then that suggests that some rabbis, for reasons mentioned, were insane or dishonest.

No, it doesn't.   As I've said again and again and you have seemingly ignored.  It suggests that they might have been mistaken.    
But that also runs on the assumption that that could even be possible.   That even rabbis "taught by angels" are also humans that can make mistakes.   If you don't accept that premise as a possibility, there's a much bigger issue involved here that ought to be looked at.

I assume , well, I think it most likely, that if they were taught by angels, and the Zohar was not by Rashbi, then they would have been told the zohar wasn't all right

Would the angels also have told them that the there is really a DNA molecule, that the body is composed of cells.   Would they have taught them particle physics too since everyone alive then was wrong about that too?   Or how bout, just limited to Judaism, fixing up every existent manuscript with differing extant versions?   Those were simple problematic copying mistakes that could have all been fixed in one fell swoop for the whole Jewish people and for hundreds of years into the future when they would be used extensively and by so many learned Jews, who were instead left with uncertainties.  If the angels had just told us what was the correct version.  If the angels are assumed to tell a kabbalist that his view of the Zohar is mistaken, why not assume the angel would tell the kabbalist all the other mistaken or unclear views within Judaism that need clearing up and all the other mistaken assumptions in the world that the angel knows in order to tell the kabbalist?   What makes it any more or less likely?

KahaneBT, why do you even think it might be from Rashbi?

Quite frankly, at this point I tend to think it wasn't, for very basic reasons such as the Spanish language and the zohar's initial rejection by the gedolim of that period when it came out, but nonetheless, I have not studied it in depth or looked into this topic enough to say with confidence one way or the other.   But I will certainly take issue with poor arguments in either direction.  And especially when presented here as if somehow clearing up the matter.   (for instance, the other "proof that the zohar is real" thread).

[q_q_]

<snip>
The type of thinking you exhibit here is entirely problematic, dangerous, and in my mind possibly bordering on heresy.   You seem to suggest that these great men, these wise rabbis, were WITHOUT FAULT AND WITHOUT MISTAKE.   That because they (or their followers) claim that they were taught their Torah by angels, and because you for some reason take this claim as indisputable fact, and consider it logical to assume as a starting point and a given (namely, that they were taught by angels), that therefore they never made any errors!  In anything!  And all their teachings and all their words were completely flawless and perfect in every way.   And so if something was incorrect, "they would have said so."   And if not, then it was correct.   And they knew everything.   Were they themselves angels too?   Or the angels just taught them?   Did these kabbalists have physical bodies living on this earth?   I'm pretty sure they did!

No. Certainly a rabbi can make mistakes..  Even if he was taught by G-d!

(and this applies to your post directly above too)

Now Consider this.

If your life was devoted to the study some discipline, and you accepted these core texts of it as being ABSOLUTELY TRUE,  and important only because of their truth, and you devoted your life to this discipline.

And if you claimed a heavenly teacher was guiding you in the study of this discipline.

And if you are honest.  Let's say you really were taught this discipline by an angel, frequently.

Would we expect that the core text is a fraud?

Or is the idea of the core text being a fraud a ridiculous thing to suggest?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

<snip>
My logic is gone?  What you did say, was said specifically as a challenge to me.  A challenge - Where I presented the concept (lo beshamayim he) as a challenge to the idea of angels teaching 16th century kabbalists halacha and Torah.  So when you suggest that the concept, which does not address Matan Torah, that the fact that it doesn't apply to Matan Torah or the prophets is somehow a "refutation" (and I use that term lightly) or a point of contention to MY CHALLENGE, it is clear to anyone here that it is you who presented something nonsensical.

That specific part of what I said is not a refutation of you or a point of contention with you..

It most certainly is.   

And if it was then it would mean that lo bashamayim hee in the gemara, means don't accept matan torah.  Have I lost you? It doesn't matter.

Now you are using circular logic.   You brought that irrelevant, inane statement and you simply can't accept that it added nothing to the conversation and actually detracted from it.   And your persistance in trying to tell me I'm wrong just perpetuates even more meaningless back and forth because you simply refuse to ever concede a mistake or logical argument and move on if it implies (by moving on) that you 'got anything wrong.'   When I said "it most certainly is" above, I did not mean that it really is a legitimate challenge, I mean that YOU PRESENTED IT AS SUCH.   I can't believe you really think otherwise about the quote "it most certainly is."    The rest of the paragraph (which you conveniently did not quote here), explained the context of what I meant quite clearly so there should have been no confusion. 

 I'm sure that now you will say 'well, you should have said, "you meant it as one," rather than "it most certainly is" '  - in retrospect, yes I should have.   Nonetheless the context is clear that that is not what I meant.   I go on to say that what you said is IRRELEVANT.   So clearly not a challenge to me at all.    But you presented it as such .     You tried to say that that - something the principle does not include - is somehow a moderating affect on the principle itself - ie "not so extreme"

The idea that angels come down and teach poskim halacha is ludicrous.    And why do you pretend that zohar has not influenced the halachic renderings of Torah giants and/or Torah-giant kabbalists who certainly paskened to the best of their abilities on pertinent matters?

[muman613]

Regardless of this argument Kabbalah, and the Zohar by extension, has become an integral part of Judaism. Today before davening Shabbat Shacharit this morning a group in my minyan was doing some learning. Of course this group is geared toward Chabad, but the majority of the minyan was Sefardic. As a matter of fact they were joking that they would change the nusach of the shul to Sefardic {I think they were joking}. What they were learning was the Lubavitch rebbes teachings on todays Parasha. I was not surprised to hear them learning about Kabbalah and how the Sefirot of Chesed, Gevurah, and Tiferet represented the three ways to battle the yetzer hara. I also was listening to several shuirim from TorahAnyTime by non-Chabad Orthodox Rabbis who, in each of their talks, brought up Kabbalah and the Zohar.

Maybe you are saying that all these Rabbis are wrong but it seems to me to be an argument which is too late. I don't think there is any danger, nothing which is idolatrous, in learning from Kabbalistic sources. I realize my saying this will have little effect on this ongoing discussion. But I would like to say that continued fueding between the Misnagdim and the Chassidim is not productive.

[q_q_]

KahaneBT,

This round of arguments about logic is not getting anywhere.

Look at reply 27, it would be interesting what you think about that.

[Sefardic Panther]

The concept of the 10 Sefiroth also comes from sources outside the Zohar which no Rabbi can dispute!!!

Talmud Bavli Hagigah 12a and Pirkei Avoth 5:1, specifically says the world was created with 10 expressions.

Sefer Yetzirah discusses the Sefiroth and I find it very hard to believe that any Rabbi would reject this Sefer.

Hakam Azriel of Gerona said the Sefiroth are a necessary part of Hashem’s perfection. Hashem would not be perfect if He was absolutely infinite, He must also have finite manifestation (the Sefiroth) to be perfect. 

This concept is to be found throughout Torah!!!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

But I would like to say that continued fueding between the Misnagdim and the Chassidim is not productive.

But that's not what this is.   Mitnagdim accepted kabbalah.  At least I think they did.   Considering the Vilna Gaon was the leading Mitnag, and he was most certainly a kabbalist.

Muman, keep in mind that there are different hashkafas within Judaism, and by saying that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi is not saying that there can't be any such concept as kabbalah or even that the Zohar contains nothing good in it.  On the contrary.   There is much deep wisdom in the Zohar even if it was written in the 1200's, which I suspect it was.   I just would caution that it is not a 'new revelation' as some here would like to think, it is not perfect, and there can certainly be errors or even mistaken concepts in it.   At least according to my limited understanding and opinion.   By no means do I suggest that kabbalah should go in the trash bin as a whole.   But I think it's fairly reasonable to suggest that it shouldn't influence halachic decisions and it certainly shouldn't by default override other Rishonim, the Talmud, Amoraim, Tannaim, the mishna, Chumash etc....

[judeanoncapta]

In some ways they are part of man (at least each man does contain the "dna" of these things). The Sefirot are just channels and the way that G-d created and interacts with man. They are not to be worshipped, or identified as being seperate or independent of G-d.

Actually, the Zohar and many kabbalistic works says that they are to be worshipped. That is why Rabbi Gafekh was so opposed to kabbalah as any decent jew should be to such ideas.

[q_q_]

In some ways they are part of man (at least each man does contain the "dna" of these things). The Sefirot are just channels and the way that G-d created and interacts with man. They are not to be worshipped, or identified as being seperate or independent of G-d.

Actually, the Zohar and many kabbalistic works says that they are to be worshipped. That is why Rabbi Gafekh was so opposed to kabbalah as any decent jew should be to such ideas.

no doubt he would reject it anyway..

but it seems there are many many reasons why he is -so opposed- to it. And perhaps if it's not one thing it's something else..

Do you have a source, a quote, for the zohar saying to worship it?

If it's convincing, then maybe somebody that knows a kabbalist could ask them - not for their interpretation, but for evidence that the traditional interpretation is not to worship it.

[judeanoncapta]

The concept of the 10 Sefiroth also comes from sources outside the Zohar which no Rabbi can dispute!!!

Watch me!!!!!!

Talmud Bavli Hagigah 12a and Pirkei Avoth 5:1, specifically says the world was created with 10 expressions.

First of all, can you not see the difference between creating the world using ten sayings and ten sefirotic beings that combine together to form various combination that kabbalists beleive can be prayed to?

Second of all, from the beginning of the creation until the creation of Hawa(Eve), it says "and G-d said" ten times.

Here they are:

1 And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

2 And G-d said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'

3 And G-d said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.

4 And G-d said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

5 And G-d said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

6 And G-d said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'

7 And G-d said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.

8 And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

9 And G-d said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food;

10 And the LORD G-d said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

What that has to do with Ten Sefiroth, is anyone's guess.

Sefer Yetzirah discusses the Sefiroth and I find it very hard to believe that any Rabbi would reject this Sefer.

Actually, Rabbi Saadya Gaon wrote a commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah and he did not interpret it kabbalistically at all.

Hakam Azriel of Gerona said the Sefiroth are a necessary part of Hashem’s perfection. Hashem would not be perfect if He was absolutely infinite, He must also have finite manifestation (the Sefiroth) to be perfect. 

Wow, that really is idolatry!!!!

That contradicts the faith of Israel in the most fundamental way.

You wrote it very simply. Kabbalah does not beleive that Hashem is absolutely infinite.

Simply shocking.

This concept is to be found throughout Torah!!!

Yes, Idolatry and idolatrous beleifs are mentioned throughout the Torah as one of the most evil acts a person can do and the reason that the Nation of Israel was sent into exile.

True, that concept is to be found throughout Torah!!!

[judeanoncapta]

In some ways they are part of man (at least each man does contain the "dna" of these things). The Sefirot are just channels and the way that G-d created and interacts with man. They are not to be worshipped, or identified as being seperate or independent of G-d.

Actually, the Zohar and many kabbalistic works says that they are to be worshipped. That is why Rabbi Gafekh was so opposed to kabbalah as any decent jew should be to such ideas.

no doubt he would reject it anyway..

but it seems there are many many reasons why he is -so opposed- to it. And perhaps if it's not one thing it's something else..

Do you have a source, a quote, for the zohar saying to worship it?

If it's convincing, then maybe somebody that knows a kabbalist could ask them - not for their interpretation, but for evidence that the traditional interpretation is not to worship it.

Zohar,  Parashath Beshalah Page 64, on the verse (Ex. 17:7) "Is Hashem (Y-H-W-H) in our midst,
or not ? Zohar asks: "Were the Israelites fools etc.? But they wanted to know
whether (nameless Ancient One) called (Ayin, Nothing) [was in their
midst] or Ze'er Anpin called Hashem. For this reason it is not written: Is Hashem in
our midst or not , as it is written (Ex. 16): "whether they will walk in My law or
not ".

The Israelites said: If it is this one
(nameless Ancient One), we will petition in a certain manner, and if it is this one
(Hashem, Y-H-W-H) we will petition in another manner.

(The Commentary of Mahari Lupis explains
that Zohar means that our ancestors wanted to know who was leading them and
performing all these miracles: whether God who is called Ze'er Anpin and by the
Tetragrammaton, or Ayin (nothing), who is called Attik (the Ancient One). They
sought this information in order to serve him in the proper manner: if Ze'er Anpin in
one manner, and if Attik in a different manner. For there is a difference between
service and service, and between intention and intention. They remained in doubt
until they heard: "I am the L-rd thy G-d." Then they knew that it was Ze'er Anpin).

[judeanoncapta]

q_q_, this is from the Kabbalistic book Mikdash Melekh page 12. It is a normative book of Kabbalah accepted as legitimate by all Kabbalists today.

 "... If one directs himself to En Sof,(The Infinite G-d) because of His exaltedness
above any name or point that can limit Him, his prayer is not a prayer. He should
rather direct himself to Him (En Sof), as He is clothed in His attributes (i.e., in His
Sefiroth) ...".

This is making it as clear as possible that one must pray to G-d "through" the sefiroth. To the point where if you simply pray to G-d the infinite being who created the universe, according to Kabbalah, your prayer is worthless.

That is shocking, but that is the true beleif of Kabbalah.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I am not focused right now, maybe I will take a better look after the finals and read everything pertaining to this thread, but from my understanding and from what I know and was told- the Sefirot are more of channels from G-d to man. If we were to recieve directly from G-d's light it would be too overwealming for us and we would "vanish into Ein Sof" so to speak. Through proper meditation people have gone into higher state's of consciousness, and in the past have gone even through that and have recieved prophecy. Moshe was the one to recieve the most proximity to Hash-m becuase he was the most humble (which makes perfect sense becuase the more the self is nullified, the more one gets absorbed closer to Ein Sof- which is Infinite).
  But yea in general, the Sefirot are channels, their is a constant flow of energy coming down through these channels, but that doesn't make them seperate entities of their own, or seperate gods or powers.

[judeanoncapta]

 But yea in general, the Sefirot are channels, their is a constant flow of energy coming down through these channels, but that doesn't make them seperate entities of their own, or seperate gods or powers.

And yet the kabbalists claim that all prayer should be directed to six of the ten sefiroth because this combination is Zeer Anpin and Zeer Anpin is our god that took us out of the land egypt, the god referred to in the Torah as the Lord thy God, Hashem Elokenu.

These six sefiroth combination is Hashem Elokenu and all prayer, service and worship is directed to Zeer anpin only. Prayer directly prayed toward the Infinite G-d is worthless and actually a sin according to the Zohar.

This is what is actually written in the Zohar and it's commentaries. Perhaps modern day kabbalistic apologists tell you that they are channels, whatever.

That is not what is written in the kabbalistic sources themselves.

[q_q_]

q_q_, this is from the Kabbalistic book Mikdash Melekh page 12. It is a normative book of Kabbalah accepted as legitimate by all Kabbalists today.

 "... If one directs himself to En Sof,(The Infinite G-d) because of His exaltedness
above any name or point that can limit Him, his prayer is not a prayer. He should
rather direct himself to Him (En Sof), as He is clothed in His attributes (i.e., in His
Sefiroth) ...".

This is making it as clear as possible that one must pray to G-d "through" the sefiroth. To the point where if you simply pray to G-d the infinite being who created the universe, according to Kabbalah, your prayer is worthless.

That is shocking, but that is the true beleif of Kabbalah.

suppose we take them  not as channels, but different aspects of G-d.

It's seems similar to in tenach, where G-d has different names, one for judgement, one for mercy. And sometimes it is written as if it's Elokim doing things, other times like "Yudkayvavkay" doing things, (and sometimes both names in the same sentence).  It's only when read in the context of jewish belief, which is also in the tenach, that we know it is the same one G-d, and there is no other beside him.   Outside that context, you could say "different gods".

It's taking the tenach's descriptions of G-d a bit literally to say that if you want G-d to be merciful, use his mercy name, just pray to that.   But would that be idolatry? I don't think so.  That is similar to what kabbalists might be doing..

Regarding it saying not praying to the Ein Sof - the infinite G-d.  They may mean that G-d occupies space and don't pray to tables and chairs.  If they did pray to the "Ein Sof", then with their conception, given what they mean by it, it would be idolatry. Worshipping or addressing physical objects or beings ..

Can you give a definition of idolatry that covers any false conception of G-d?
/ idolatry as worshipping that false conception? (not talking about worshipping a man or object)

[Sefardic Panther]

Hakam Azriel of Gerona was no idolator!!!

You misunderstand completely!!! He did say that Hashem is infinite, but to be totally perfect Hashem must ALSO HAVE finite manifestation.

The Atiq Yomim (Ancient Of Days) discussed in the Zohar is also mentioned in Daniel ch.7. Is this a reference to idolatry? Lo!!! 

[q_q_]

Hakam Azriel of Gerona was no idolator!!!

You misunderstand completely!!! He did say that Hashem is infinite, but to be totally perfect Hashem must ALSO HAVE finite manifestation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azriel_(Jewish_mystic)
Azriel of Gerona
"He is the teacher of the most important figure from the kabbalist community of Girona, Nahmanides."

"Azriel was the most important student of the mystic Isaac the Blind. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_the_Blind
"He believed that....Individual beings in the world are material manifestation of the sefirot, albeit on a lower level of reality."


Given that.
I guess it's similar in that sense to what I know of the misnaged tzim tzum idea. Also held by the Vilna Gaon .

(so you could say that somebody that accepts that it is idolatry, has to accept that the RAMBAN and the VG were idolators)

The guy I mentioned would say that it's idolatry if you worship the physical world. But you don't worship it.

The Atiq Yomim (Ancient Of Days) discussed in the Zohar is also mentioned in Daniel ch.7. Is this a reference to idolatry? Lo!!! 

it's a name for G-d there I guess..

this is what I was saying about its use in the Zohar. That the tenach also talks as if Elokim does this, and YKayVKay does that, but we know from elsewhere in tenach that there is only one G-d. (also though in tenach sometimes 2 words are used in one sentence like ykayvkay and elokim )