Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.

(1/9) > >>

judeanoncapta:
This is from his book, Sefer Milhamoth Hashem.

His words, not mine.



"G-d forbid that any Jew should believe that R. Shimon ben Yohai or any other of our
Sages believed in such things: to exchange Hashem our G-d, Who "made known His
ways unto Moses, His deeds unto the children of Israel" that He is "Merciful and
Compassionate, Slow to anger and Abundantly Kind etc." (Psalms 103:7-8), [to
exchange Him] for an impatient alien divinity (Ze'er Anpin); and to combine and
associate with Him five Partzufim (configurations) whose very existence has not been
demonstrated, and to call them "Hashem our God;" but Hashem the true G-d Whose
existence has been demonstrated by many sound and strong proofs, as Rav Saadyah
Gaon wrote in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions (zercde zepen‘d xtq) and [as wrote]
the author of The Duties of the Heart (zeaald zeaeg xtq), and Rambam in the Guide of
the Perplexed and in Mishneh Torah, [Him] we should forsake and abandon and say
[of Him] that He has no Name, and that we should serve [instead] the Partzufim
(Configurations) and the Forms that, according to him (i.e., the author of the Zohar),
were created and developed from Him! ... The goal of our Holy Torah is to distance
us from the belief in idols, whether they be physical or spiritual, and to know that
Hashem He is G-d; there is none else beside Him. ...

We are forced to admit [that we are now in the condition] described by the prophet
(Second Chronicles 15:3): "For many days (years) Israel was without the true G-d,"
as our eyes see and our ears hear, so that one [Jew] can say to his fellow [Jew]: Your
people is my people, but your god is not my G-d (a play on Ruth 1:16)!
Unto the true G-d we pour out our supplication to lead us in the path of truth and to
deliver us from any alien belief. Amen, so may it be His will ...
Concerning this alien (heterodox) belief of the philosopher-author of the Zohar, our
Sages expounded (Yalkut, Parashath Kedoshim, Midrash Haggadol ad loc. and
Rambam (’i oie‘l ,zevnd xtq):

"Turn ye not unto the idols, and gods [of molten metal make ye not to yourselves]
(Lev. 19:4)-If you turn unto them (to honor them - Sforno), you will in the end make
gods of them." This is what happened with the belief of the philosopher-author of the
Zohar. For the early students who studied it, thinking that it was authored by R.
Shimon ben Yohai, the Tanna, sought to justify its words by calling the Partzufim
"instruments" (milk), which they esteemed and honored. Those who came later made
divinities of them, as was the [original] intent of the philosopher-author [of the
Zohar], and they accepted them as divinities (as being xenb zedl‘, "absolute Divinity,"
"absolute Godhead," as quoted above -- author). ...

Thus he (the author of the Zohar) seduced and led astray sincere and innocent
scholars who believed his falsehoods that "the Holy One, blessed be He" (d"awd),
called by him (i.e., the author of the Zohar) "the Ancient of ancients" and Moses our
teacher and Elijah appeared to him and revealed to him heretical secrets that one may
not think about even in the privy, ... [secrets of] divinities distinct in their being and
their functions, without being concerned with [the problem of] addition and
multiplicity in relation to our G-d, Whose Unity is uniquely absolute ... [of Whom]
we cannot say: "together they all form a unity." ... For the Torah demanded strictly
that we not attach or associate with Him any created being, whether corporeal or
spiritual, as it is written (Ex. 22:19): "He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly
destroyed, except unto Hashem alone"; and R. Shimon ben Yohai, the Tanna, peace
be unto him, said [on this verse]: "Whoever associates the Name of Heaven with
something else is uprooted from the world" (Sanhedrin 63a); and we do not say "they
are all [together] one [unity.]," since the Torah has explicitly stated in many places
that He is uniquely One, in contrast to all other unities.

Behold thus "ye that are Hashem's remembrancers, let there be no cessation on you
part" (Isaiah 62:6) from making known His Unity unto your children and your pupils
as we are commanded [to do].

When I looked at [the kabbalistic book] edil‘ ‘qk ... p. 3, [I found that] he compares
the Unity of G-d to other kinds of unity. For he writes there: "A house in its entirety
is called 'one house', and if you enter it you will find many rooms, large and small,
and other places, each one being described separately; ... you will also find that a
wall, before it is built, consisted of [separate] parts, each building block composed of
pebbles, earth, plaster, etc., and after the builder skillfully combines all these parts ...
they become one wall. At that point all is one unit. So too is the matter [of Divinity]
with us etc." On pages 28-29 he compares it (i.e., the Unity of G-d) to the [unity] of a
human body which is composed of bones, sinews, flesh, a head, eyes, ears, a nose, a
mouth, hands and feet - and all [together,] is called Reuben or Shimon. On pages
25-27 he writes: "The general point is that the First Cause, called by all the kabbalists
En Sof (the Infinite), He it is Who emanated, created, formed and made [all]. He
conceals Himself within Ze'er Anpin, so that Ze'er Anpin is the ruler of all creatures,
governing them, nourishing them and providing for them through the power of En Sof
that is within him. Therefore, he is our God and we are his people, for our souls are
his portion (or: are part of him); him do we serve, and he is the God of our fathers, for
in his hand is the management of the worlds with regard to reward and punishment.
But as for En Sof together with the other Partzufim (Configurations) that are above
Ze'er and his Female (Mate), if people will direct their prayers to them specifically,
without praying to Ze'er Anpin, then even if they direct their prayer to the Soul Who
conceals Himself in them, their prayers will go unanswered. On the contrary, those
who pray to them will be punished, for it is the will of the First Cause that he (i.e.
Ze'er Anpin) should be the one who brings His influence (i.e., the influence of En
Sof) to the lower beings, and there is none else beside him (i.e., Ze'er Anpin)." Read
these passages carefully.

These words of the author of edil‘ ‘qk stand in contradiction to the words of Rambam
l"f in the Mishnah Commentary, in Mishneh Torah and in the Guide of the Perplexed;
in contradiction to the words of the saintly author of the Duties of the Heart (zeaeg
zeaald) in cegid xry (the Gate of Unity), and Rav Saadyah Gaon in the Book of
Beliefs and Opinions (zercde zepen‘d xtq) and the Rokeah who wrote that G-d's
Oneness is not like that of one of a pair, nor one of a species (or: kind), nor like that
of one man who is divisible into many units, nor like the oneness of a simple physical
entity which is susceptible to ongoing subdivision. For G-d, blessed be He, is One,
Whose Oneness is uniquely incomparable.

edil‘ ‘qk also writes that En Sof (the Infinite) is the Soul of [the Sefirotic
Configurations, Partzufim], Attik and Arikh Anpin, Abba and Imma, and Ze'er
[Anpin] and his Female (Mate). But our aforementioned Rabbis wrote that G-d is not
a physical entity, nor a force in a physical entity! According to him (i.e., edil‘ ‘qk),
however, G-d is a force in a physical entity.


Note II
When the kabbalists say En Sof is the soul of the Sefirotic Partzufim, or that He is clothed (yalzn) in them
(as is also stated in miigd ytp xtq), it is tantamount to saying that G-d is a seba gk, a force in a corporeal entity. This
contradicts the ceqi (the Fundamental) of the l"f mipencw (of the Foremost Earlier Authorities) that G-d is neither a seb
(a corporeal being) nor a seba gk (nor a force in a corporeal being).

Man's soul is a force in a corporeal being, because the soul spiritualizes the body by giving it its
non-material function (i.e., consciousness, intelligence, mind, etc.). However, if the Sefiroth are conceived to be
truly spiritual, incorporeal intelligences (minds) without substance, then it is meaningless to say that another
incorporeal being (En Sof) is the soul of a Sefirah.

The truth is that, when kabbalists speak of a spiritual entity (ipgex xac) with regard to Sefirotic beings, they
really mean a c‘n wc seb, a kind of rarefied, ethereal substance, which to the l"f mipencw (the Foremost Earlier
Authorities) is a corporeal entity. In this way -- and only in this way -- can the kabbalists speak of En Sof as the
Soul of the Sefirotic beings. But this contradicts the ceqi (the Fundamental) of the l"f mipencw (the Foremost Earlier
Authorities) that G-d is neither a seb (a corporeal being) nor a seba gk (nor a force in a corporeal being).
One further point. The ceqi (The Fundamental) of the l"f mipencw (the Foremost Early Authorities) that G-d
is neither a corporeal being (seb) nor a force in a corporeal being (seba gk ‘le) is a statement of G-d's supreme
Absolute Transcendence above all that He has produced, and to which He is eternally pre-existent. His Existence is
unlike and separate from all that He has produced. To speak of G-d as the soul of the produced Sefirotic Partzufim,
even if they are taken to be purely spiritual, is to contradict the Transcendence of the Supreme Absolute Be-ing
above all that is produced, just as much as if He were the soul of a produced seb (corporeal entity). His Eternally
Pre-existent Transcendent Be-ing, unlike, separate from and unlimited by anything He has produced, is not subject
to any subsequent change or limitation. mlerd ‘xap ‘ly cr ‘ed dz‘ -- "Thou wast the same before the world was
created. mlerd ‘xapyn ‘ed dz‘ -- Thou hast been the same since the world was created." End of Note II, oade.


He (edil‘ ‘qk) also writes that Arikh Anpin and Abba and Imma preceded (i.e., in the
process of emanation) Ze'er Anpin, who is our God (according to edil‘ ‘qk), and that
the latter (Ze'er Anpin) is called the son of Abba and Imma. But our Rabbis l"f said
that G-d is Eternally Pre-Existent to all else that exists, and that all else that exists is
not eternally pre-existent.

He (edil‘ ‘qk) writes further that, regarding En Sof (the
Infinite), no service and no prayer at all are applicable to Him; no name, not d"ied (the
Name Y-H-W-H) nor the Name zepc‘ (the L-rd) etc. -- is applicable to Him, but only
to Ze'er Anpin and his Female (Mate) of the world of Atziluth, and not to Arikh
Anpin, Abba and Imma, nor to Ze'er Anpin who is in the emanated worlds that are
above the world of Atziluth (edil‘ ‘qk p. 49, bottom of ’‘ cenr and p. 53). ...
They (the kabbalists) say that in the world of Atziluth there are seb (corporeal entities)
and dnyp (soul) and yealn (garments [of divinity]). ... They (the kabbalists) state
clearly that the upper worlds and [Sefirotic] Partzufim (Configurations) which are
above Arikh Anpin are never discussed [by the kabbalists], but rather only [the
Sefirotic entities that are] below Arikh Anpin which are more dense (i.e., less
rarefied, less ethereal in the progression of emanation -- author) and more discernible.
...


The belief of kabbalism includes the following four views concerning which our
Rabbis have declared that whoever believes thus has no share in the World to Come
(‘ad mler):

1) A multiplicity of divinities: En Sof, Adam Kadmaah, Adam Kadmon,
Attik, Arikh Anpin, Abba and Imma, Ze'er and his Female Mate;

2) these entities are rarefiedly corporeal (wc seb ilra), namely [they are] light (xe‘) and En Sof is the Soul
of these corporeal entities;

3) Divine Service is not to the First Cause, called En Sof
by the kabbalists, but to Ze'er Anpin, who is the last of these [emanated] causes;

4) he (Ze'er Anpin) is an intermediary who draws down the influence from the higher
entities which are: Attik, Arikh Anpin, Abba and Imma, and he is in turn the father of
Kether of [the world of] Beriah, in the [emanated ] unfolding of the worlds, according
to their opinion -- G-d save us [from such views]!


We see the great difference between our mipey‘xd epizeax (Early Rabbis) and their
Emunah (Faith) concerning G-d and His Unity according to our Holy Torah as
explained by Rabbenu Bahya, author of Duties of the Heart (zeaald zeaeg); and by R.
Yehudah Hallevi in his Book of the Kuzari and in his prayers; by Rav Saadyah Gaon
in his The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (zercde zepen‘d xtq); by Rambam in Mishneh
Torah, in his Mishnah Commentary and in his Guide of the Perplexed (dxen xtq
mikeapd); by Rokeah in his Gate of Unity; by Semag (lecb zevn xtq); and by R. Yoseph
Albo in his Book of the Fundamental Principles (mixwrd xtq) ... and many others; [we
see the difference between these] and the present belief found in the books of the later
rabbis who follow kabbalism ... which has taken a strong hold, and which is a belief
in many divinities (i.e., the Sefiroth and Partzufim -- author).

The main point of the latter is that all our service and blessings (i.e., prayers) are directed to the last
emanated Partzuf of Atziluth, called Ze'er Anpin.

... How can the opinions of the kabbalistic rabbis accord with the words of our aforementioned Early Rabbis!

judeanoncapta:
Another passage from Rabbi Yihya Gafekh.

- - - -
[The following is from] Zohar (a"k ziy‘xa): "And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our
image, according to our likeness (Gen. 1:26). 'The secret of the Lord is to those who
fear Him'. Ps. 25:14). That Old One of the Old (oiaqc ‘aq) began and said: 'Shimon,
Shimon, who is the one who 'said' in the verse and G-d said; who is this G-d? In the
meantime that Old One of the Old flew away, and he (R. Shimon) did not see him.

And when R. Shimon heard that he called him 'Shimon, Shimon' and not 'Rabbi
Shimon', he said to his companions: 'Surely this is the Holy One, blessed be He (d"aw)
of whom it is said (Daniel 7:9): And one that was ancient of days did sit (oinei wizre
aizi) (Commentary of jln ycwn: The Old One of the Old -- oiaqc ‘aq -- is Attik, as R.
Shimon ben Yohai says below that Abba and Imma are called Old Ones, mipwf, while
Attik and Arikh are called the Old Ones of the Old, oiaqc ‘aq, and R. Shimon ben
Yohai knew that [in this case] the reference was to Attik and not to Arikh.)

Now is the time to begin [to explain] this secret, for surely there is here a secret that [until
now] was not permitted to be revealed. He began and said: It is compared to a king
who had many edifices to build, and the builder did nothing without the permission of
the king ... All the edifices that were produced in the manner of Atziluth, Abba spoke
to Imma: 'Let it be thus and thus', and immediately it came to pass. As it is said: And
G-d said: Let there be light, and there was light. And He said, He said to G-d (ded
midl‘l xn‘): Let there be light, the master of the edifice -- he said, and the builder
made it immediately. And so too with all the edifices in the manner of Atziluth, he
said: Let there be a firmament, Let there be lights (‘n idi), and all was made
immediately. When coming to the world of separation (‘cexitc ‘nlr) which is the
world of separated things, the builder said to the master of the edifice: Let us make
man in our image, according to our likeness. The master of the edifice said: 'Indeed it
would be good to make him, but he is destined to sin before you, for he is a foolish
son,' as it is written (Proverbs 10:1): A wise son maketh glad a father, but a foolish
son is the grief of his mother.

Whereupon she (Imma) said: "Since his sin relates to
Imma, and not to Abba, I want to create him in my image," as it is written: And G-d
created man in His image; but Abba did not want to participate in his (i.e., man's)
[creation]. At the time that he (i.e., man) sinned what is written: and for your
transgression was your mother sent away (Isaiah 50:1).

The king (Abba) said to
Imma: "Did I not say to you that he is destined to sin?" At that time he (Abba) drove
him (man) away, and he drove away Imma with him. Therefore it is written: A wise
son maketh glad a father, this refers to man in the manner of Atziluth (Commentary
of : Man of Atziluth is Ze'er of Atziluth), and a foolish son, this refers to man of
Beriah (Commentary of jln ycwn: This is Adam Harishon -- Adam)". End of
quotation from Zohar.

Earlier comment of jln ycwn: "The builder refers to Imma who
said to Abba: Let us make man Thus: And G-d, i.e., Imma, said to Abba: Let us make
man. This is unlike all the other instances of and [G-d] said in the Chapter of
Creation, in which the meaning is: And Abba said to G-d, who is Imma (Binah), for
Abba says and Binah makes it."

Commentary of dbp iaiay: "From this passage [of Zohar] the implication is that the
Holy One, blessed be He (d"awd) Himself, so to speak, did not agree to the creation of
man, but that the Shechinah implored that man should be her lot."

It is clear from the preceding that the Holy One,blessed be He that is called Attik was
revealed to R. Shimon in his Beth Midrash in the form of a very old man, for which
reason R. Shimon called him the Old One of the Old (oiaqc ‘aq),as explained above
by jln ycwn, and it was this Holy One, blessed be He that is called Attik, who gave
permission to R. Shimon to reveal an interpretation of the Torah which says that the
Holy One, blessed be He that is called Imma said to the Holy One, blessed He that is
called Abba: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness etc."

Thus, it has been made clear that Attik is called "the Holy One, blessed be He (d"aw),
and so too Abba; Imma is referred to as midl‘ and Abba too is called midl‘, as well as
the Holy One, blessed be He (d"awd)" In the entire Chapter of Creation Abba says to
Imma "Let there be thus and thus," and she (Imma) makes it. But in the case of Let us
make man, Imma said to Abba Let us make man, but Abba did not agree to the
creation of man. Whereupon Imma said to him (to Abba): "What difference does it
make to you? If he should sin, he would sin to me, not to you," as it is written: and a
foolish son is the grief of his mother. And when Adam sinned by eating from the tree
of knowledge, he (Abba) drove him (Adam) out together with her (Imma), as it is
written: and for your transgressions was your mother sent away.
----


Also Zohar a"r ,a"k:
R. Shimon continued and said: "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no G-d
with Me (Deut. 32:39) -- said he (R. Shimon):
Companions! Hear ancient secrets that I wish to reveal now that supernal permission
has been granted to reveal them. Who is it who said: "See now that I, even I, am He:"
This is the Cause of all causes! The one who is called the 'Cause of Causes' refers to
the Cause of one of those causes who does nothing without receiving permission from
the cause above him. (Commentary of jln ycwn in the name of Ari in mihewld xtq:
The "Cause of all causes" -- Adam Kadmon is called the Cause of all causes. But
when we speak of "Cause of causes", it is applicable to every Partzuf, which is called
so because he is the cause of the causes below him. But when we speak of the "Cause
of all causes," it refers to Adam Kadmon, who is the first of the Partzufim). [In the
case of Cause of causes, who does nothing without permission from the cause above
him, it is] as we have interpreted above with reference to "Let us make man. Let us
make surely was said by two, i.e., one said to the one above him Let us make, for he
made nothing until he received permission from the one above him; the one above
him, in turn, did nothing until taking counsel with his companion.

But the one who is
called the "Cause of all causes", above whom there is no cause, and below whom no
cause is equal to him, as it is said (Isaiah 40:25): And to whom will ye liken Me, that I
should be equal, saith the Holy One, it is he who said See now that is, even I, am He,
and there is no G-d with Me with whom to take counsel in the manner of the one of
whom it is said: And G-d said: Let us make man. (end of quotation from Zohar).


Thus it is clear from the Zohar and its commentaries, jln ycwn in the name of Ari,
etc., that the G-d who gave permission to R. Shimon ben Yohai to interpret things
that one is forbidden to think, enumerates multiple divinities: he [who gave
permission to R. Shimon] is the G-d called Attik (Ancient One), who is not the same
as he who said to Israel: See now that I, even I, am He etc. For the G-d who said: See
now that I, even I, am He is Adam Kadmon, who is the first Cause of all the
Partzufim (Configurations of Sefiroth), and he has no one from whom to receive
permission.

And the G-d who said: Let there be light; Let there be a firmament; Let
the waters be gathered together etc, is Abba.

And the one who said: Let us make man
in our image is Imma, who said to Abba: Let us make man; but the G-d Abba did not
agree to the creation of man, Whereupon Imma said to Abba: "What difference does
it make to you? If he should sin, he would sin to me, and not to you, as it is said: ...
and a foolish son is the grief of his mother (Prov. 10:1), not the grief of his father."


Thereupon man was created without the wish of Abba, as explained by dbp iaiay; for
had Abba agreed to the creation of man, he would not have driven away Imma with
man when he sinned. Surely, then, Abba did not agree to this [creation], as stated in
Zohar: "And he (Abba) did not want to participate [in the creation of man] etc."
Therefore he drove man out of Gan Eden together with Imma.


The true Israelite is seized with very great trembling at the words of the philosopher
(the author of the Zohar) with regard to these matters: the interchange of divinities
mentioned here, and the assignment of the [Divine] pronouncements, by which the
world was created, to divinities distinct from one another!

Sanhedrin 38b: "Wherever the minim (sectarian heretics) seek support for their heresy,
their refutation is near by 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness'
[is followed by] 'And G-d, created (i.e., ‘xaie, singular) man in His image; 'come let
us go down, and there confound their language (Gen. 11:7) [is preceded by] And the
L-rd came down (i.e., cxie,singular) to see the city etc. (ibid. v. 5). ..."

But the passage of Zohar quoted above states: "Let us make surely was said of two:,
and goes on to explain that Imma said to Abba Let us make man, and she did as she
wished and created man without the agreement of Abba, as explained above in the
name of dbp iaiay. Is this not the opinion of the sectarian heretics who seek support
for their heresy that there are multiple divinities, and each does as he wishes?!


Zohar, c"q sc glya zyxt on the verse (Ex. 17:7) "Is Hashem (Y-H-W-H) in our midst,
or not (oi‘)? Zohar asks: "Were the Israelites fools etc.? But they wanted to know
whether ‘nizq ‘wizr (nameless Ancient One) called oi‘ (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 (‘l), as it is written (Ex. 16): "whether they will walk in My law or
not (‘l)". (Note: Grammatically, the negative of yid, Is [Hashem in our midst], is oi‘,
whereas the negative of jlid, whether they will walk is ‘l, i.e., jli ‘l m‘; ‘l could not
have been used as the negative of yid -- author.)

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. For this reason it is stated
immediately following: And Amalek came. (The Commentary of qitel i"xdn explains
that Zohar means that our ancestors wanted to know who was leading them and
performing all these miracles: whether G-d 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).

From all the statements of Zohar and its commentaries mentioned above it it clear that
they call each of the Partzufim (Configurations of Sefiroth) of Atziluth by the
Tetragrammaton, and Lord and G-d, and they they have chosen to serve the last
Partzuf, i.e., Ze'er Anpin. They say that to En Sof (the Infinite) and to all the
[Sefirotic] Partzufim that emanate from En Sof no service nor prayer is applicable,
and that one who prays to them is not answered, because, of their great exaltedness.

How much more so the [Sefirotic] Partzufim of the worlds above the world of
Atziluth ...! Only to [the Sefirotic Partzuf] Ze'er Anpin do service, prayer and calling
to him in time of trouble apply. For he is the central pillar that connects all the powers
above and below, inasmuch as Abba and Imma gave him dominion over all things
created, and they commanded that we serve him and bless him. He alone, in their
opinion, is Hashem our G-d.

This is clear from Zohar a"r ‘"vw sc wla zyxt, which, with the commentary of ycwn
jln in parentheses, reads as follows: He that withholdeth corn (xa), the people (mF‘l)
shall curse him, (Prov. 11:26), the secret of this matter is written in an exalted secret.
What is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest (Prov. 30:4). That
name is known (Jer. 31:35) The L-rd of hosts is His name (jln ycwn: "i.e., Abba");
the name of his son, Israel is his son (jln ycwn: "i.e., Ze'er Anpin"), for it is written
(Ex. 4:22): My son, my first-born is Israel. All the keys of faith are suspended from
this Israel, and he (this Israel) boasts and says: (Ps. 2:7) The Lord said unto me: Thou
art My son (jln ycwn: i.e, Ze'er Anpin says that Abba, who is called "the L-rd of
hosts," said to me: Thou art my son). This is surely so, for Abba and Imma have
crowned him and blessed him with many blessings, and have said and commanded all
(Psalms 2:12): s©p¡‘¤i o ¤ R x ©a Ew § W©p (Translation of Jewish Publication Society based on
Targum and Rashi: Do homage in purity lest He be angry. Christian translation: Kiss
the Son -- x ©a -- lest He be angry. Zohar continued:) Kiss (or worship) this son (=Ze'er
Anpin); it is as if dominion has been given to him over all, that all should worship
him. Lest he be angry, because he has been crowned with stern judgment (‘pic) and
mercy (ingx); whoever succeeds through stern judgment -- through stern judgment;
whoever through mercy -- through mercy. All blessings of above and below ascend to
that son (xa) and form a crown. And whoever withholds blessings from this son, his
sins shall be specified before the holy king (variant reading: the holy mother, ‘ni‘
‘yicw) -- the mother (‘wiic) actually (jln ycwn: "i.e., Binah")." End quote from Zohar.


(Note: The specification of sins before "the holy mother -- Binah -- as punishment for
one who does not worship and bless the son, Ze'er Anpin, is a play on Proverbs 11:26
which reads mF‘l EdEaT§ i¦ xA¨ rpen (literally: He that withholdeth corn (xA), the people
(mF‘l) shall curse him (EdEaTi¦). Corn (xA¨ ) is taken as son; curse (EdEaTi¦) is taken as
specifying, as in Numbers 1:17: who were specified by name, zenyA EaT§ p¦ xy‘ --
author)."
Thus, clearly the Zohar calls Abba "the Lord of hosts", and Ze'er Anpin is called "the
son of Abba and Imma," and he (Ze'er Anpin) is called by the four-lettered Name in
many places in the Zohar. [It is also clearly stated in the Zohar] that Abba and Imma
gave Ze'er Anpin the power and the dominion over all things created, and that they
(Abba and Imma) commanded [all] to serve him (Ze'er Anpin) and that all our
blessings and prayers are directed only to him and become a crown unto him (Ze'er
Anpin). [Our prayers and blessings are directed] not to Abba and Imma, not to Arikh
Anpin, not to Attik, not to Adam Kadmon, who is called the Cause of all causes, and
not to Adam Kadmaah, in whose circles all the worlds above Atziluth where brought
into being (see fnxe d"c e"hw ziy‘xa jln ycwn), and certainly not to En Sof, who is
distant and much exalted above all, and to whom the kabbalists say no service, prayer
and blessing are applicable. ...

Also Rabbi Hayyim Vital in ‘i ’t llkd xry miig ur xtq writes that "Moses said to
Israel who were entering the land [of Israel]: And ye that did cleave unto the L-rd
your G-d are alive every one of you this day" (Deut. 4:4), the Lord your G-d is Ze'er
Anpin and his Female ..."

Also a"i sc jln ycwn: "... If one directs himself to En Sof, 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) ..." (emphasis added).


How greatly astonished must be the reader who cleaves to the Torah of Moshe
Rabbenu d"r,Written and Oral, and who is proficient in it, i.e., in the Mishnah, the
Talmud and the Midrashim of the Sages, and who sees the words of the Geonim, the
saintly author of the zeaald zeaeg (Duties of the Heart), R. Yehudah Hallevi, Rabbenu
Saadyah Gaon, Rambam in his [various] works, R. Eliezer of Worms in [his] Rokeah,
the lecb zevn xtq, the ohw zevn xtq, the author of the Ikkarim and similar works that
speak of the Unity of Hashem, blessed be He, according to its true meaning,
according to the Received Teaching of our Sages (l"fg zlaw itk), the Transmitters of
the Received Torah (drenyd iwizrn)!

How greatly must the heart of the reader
tremble and be moved when he hears the array of multiple divinities that have
multiplied in Israel from the beginning of the sixth millenium on the part of some
authors. And from generation to generation since the aforementioned time this belief
has grown greatly, i.e. the belief in [a hierarchy of] of many Causes, one above the
other, so that when one of the Causes wants to create something, he takes counsel
with and receives permission from the Cause that is above him as it is clearly and
explicitly stated in the Zohar (a"k ziy‘xa) i.e., that each one of the Causes receives
permission from the Cause above it: Malkhuth from Ze'er, Ze'er from Imma, Imma
from Abba, Abba from Arikh, Arikh from Attik and Attik from Adam Kadmon. For
he (Adam Kadmon) is the head of all the [Sefirotic] Partzufim of Atziluth, and he
alone says: See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no G-d with me; for he does
not need to receive permission from Adam Kadmaah who is above him. And in all the
Act of the Creation the creating king was Abba, called in the Zohar "the exalted
King" (d‘lr ‘kln), whereas Imma is the architect. And at the time of the creation of
the first man (Adam) Abba did not want to create him; because he was destined to
sin. (Whereupon Imma responded to him (Abba): "Since his sin is in relation to me,
as it is written and a foolish son is the grief of his mother, it is no concern of yours,"
as stated there (i.e., in the Zohar ibid.) and in jln ycwn.
Our Sages were very strictly opposed to anything that leads to the belief in multiple
divinities, and they said: "He is to be silenced. So what good does it do to declare:
"and all are one," after having enumerated many Causes who receive permission each
from the Cause above him. As if we were commanded to declare: "One" with our
mouths, though in our minds they be multiple divinities.

q_q_:
a problem is that if one accepts that the zohar is false, and even that all kabbalah (post talmud) is false, then I think there's no question that you must also accept that any rabbi that claimed a heavenly teacher (teaching them kabbalah), is a complete nutcase.  That includes the Baal Shem Tov, and going up a notch, the Arizal, and even the renowned Vilna Gaon, and the RAMCHAL.

It's not just an issue of saying that they were stating their opinions and were mistaken!

muman613:
This is one opinion while others dont hold that Kabbalah contains idolatrous beliefs. As I said in an earlier posting some people dont quite understand that Sefirot are not corporeal entities but just different names of the same entity. Names are given based on our relationship with him at a particular time.

I dont really understand what is being accomplished by this machlokas except you are hurting peoples emmunah. Hashem is one, this we agree, but he acts in many different ways and through many different forces. I wish we would agree to disagree on this one.

judeanoncapta:
I wish that posters would respond to what Rabbi Gafekh actually says as opposed to making side arguments however valid they may be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page