Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh on the idolatrous beleifs of the Qabalah.

[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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally?   Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?   Whatever happened to the principle of Lo Beshamayim Hee?   Even if angels did come to teach them, how could they accept it?    For that reason and for others...

[q_q_]

qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally?   Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?   Whatever happened to the principle of Lo Beshamayim Hee?   Even if angels did come to teach them, how could they accept it?    For that reason and for others...

In the case of the Arizal and the RAMCHAL, certainly they and/or their direct disciples , faithful to them, wrote of it.

Here, in the case of the RAMCHAL
http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/special1.html
see he and one of his disciples write of it. 

Kabbalistic teachings often have new revelations(particularly in the case of the Arizal). Teachings that cannot come through reasoning or reasonable speculation.
It is silly to think that they believed that their teachings were the product of their imaginations. They took it as serious doctrine.
It can only make sense as teaching derived from heaven.  If they didn't make that claim then it would be even worse!!! It would just the imagination of the rabbi.. and it would have no basis, it wouldn't even be claiming to have a basis!

Regarding "Lo Bashamayim Hee/Hi". We can't take that in the complete absolute sense. Since we received the torah at sinai.  And after that, we've had Prophets.
Some, and maybe all rabbis think it still possible for one to have Ruach HaKodesh in our times..  (even though prophecy - something rambam puts at a class above ruach hakodesh - has ended)
Maybe it just means in matters of deciding halacha.
A prophet can temporarily suspend a law. But that's not a typical case of deciding halacha

Interestingly, regarding the gemara with that phrase
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/067045.php
Talmud Bavli Baba Mesi`a 59B
It seems to suggest  that the torah goes by the majourity!

"
But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.
"

in reality though, kabbalists do decide halacha based on kabbalistic reasons, and this really bothers halachic purists very deeply.. 

[q_q_]

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

well, I don't understand most of it properly. I don't know where he is referring to aor the context of his references, some of which the context probably isn't very relevant. 

But if i'm critical..

there are chunks of that which look like jibberish, it's just not written clearly.

people complain that the quran is jibberish in places.. That is nothing compared to how parts of this appear to the layman!

He is really writing for an audience familiar with the Zohar, and the whole Torah. Things that I am not very familiar with!

He is also not very clear anyway.

I'm not even sure that he is writing very logically. He isn't clear enough for me to see.

For example, he writes-
"
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.
"

I'm amazed that he started that paragraph with the words "Thus it is clear".

Reading it again and again, he seems to be saying that the Zohar claims that Adam did not have to ask permission from anybody, and that he is the first cause of something to do with G-d. And that this contradicts what we know to be Torah beliefs..

It's certainly an idea that cannot be derived from the Tenach or Talmud.
But the tenach and talmud do not go into detail about how we are to understand HaShem.
RAMBAM went quite far, clearly no future revelations were informing his opinion..
RAMBAM talks alot about how we cannot understand G-d. The reality is that we have what we have.
If somebody had said to him "this is the way it is , ein sof and whatever", he would have said "Nonsense".  But I am not sure that it contradicts the RAMBAM.. He would have said nonsense because it has no basis. Had it been in the talmud then i'm sure the RAMBAM wouldn't have rejected the whole Torah and said it completely contradicts itself.

RAMBAM in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, says that G-d is not a body that one can say some is here, some there.. this area is to the left, this area is to the right. 

But I don't see how that refutes some mystical notion  in the Zohar.. about the 10 sefirot.

It may well contradict the misnaged view of tzim tzum. Which I think has G-d constricting himself and being all present in our world.  (while the chassidic view I think has G-d's light constricting himself and being all present in our world)

Also, Idols in tenach anyway, are material..  Rabbi Gafeh seems to be extending them to spiritual..
There is a concept of shituf(having things in your mind alongside G-d?)
shituf isn't technically idolatry..
And kabbalists would no doubt say that it's not besides G-d!

I also have to question why the RAMBAM should have authority to make statements on the nature of the unity of G-d.
He doesn't claim to have been taught by an angel..  He doesn't say he wrote with ruach hakodesh. We can assume based on how rational he is, that it is based purely on reasoning.. But really, i've never seen the RAMBAM's reasoning on this proven purely from tenach and talmud.  People just quote the RAMBAM, and it suffices because he is such a heavyweight.

I suspect that many yemenite jews.. since all they had was the RAMBAM.. just reject anything not in the RAMBAM.  RAMBAM of course codified the talmud.. So they have a very purist form of judaism. But that's why they reject future additions.  Because the RAMBAM didn't say it, and the only mysticism that the RAMBAM wrote of was briefly, maaseh merkava and maaseh beraishit. which are in the talmud.

I'm sure that if the RAMBAM had recieved some zohar like mysticism, from reliable sources, then he would not have said it contradicts the whole Torah!

Now, it is true, kabbalah is from private claims.. not a national claim like the written and oral torah.   But rabbi Gafeh is not just arguing that the origins are questionable. He is arguing that the contents contradicts the Torah.

I think the torah is loose enough in its concept of G-d, that there is room for manoeuvre.
If G-d turned around and said I have 10 aspects or whatever.. We wouldn't say "no you don't".  Obviously we can say certain things with certitude.. He is not a man - alive or dead!  But the abstract mysticism of kabbalah describing what he is.. We just don't have enough information in the torah to say "that definitely cannot be".
 
this rabbi is the rationalist?!!!
I wish his writing style followed his purist view of judaism.

Compare his style to the clarity with which the RAMCHAL writes
his book "an eye on eternity"
http://ohr.edu/misc/eterni-2.htm#C2.3
He is philosophically logical.. (infact, rabbi dovid gottlieb is such a fan, he did a 40 part lecture series on him!)
(I know, the Arizal no doubt isn't that clear.. but I read a bit once, and I think he's clearer than that article by rabbi gafeh!  It's very difficult to respond to something that is written like that.  If I knew my stuff I could try. but it's written in such a way that you REALLY have to know your stuff to just know what he is trying to say, then one can worry more about the logic of it which is going to have numerous issues. There is no way something in that style is going to be firm)

[q_q_]

Rabbi Kafach, as well as the Teimani community in general, is a breath of fresh air.  You don't have to be a pagan to be a religious Jew.

Mere name calling (calling those that accept kabballah "pagans") is below the intellectual level of this discussion. Previous posts (from over a year ago , but easy to find with a search of your name and kabbalah) have already shown that you reject kabbalah for illogical inconsistent reasons.  Not for good reasons. Your arguments are there , fully expressed, and responses were given, and people can look them up there instead of rehashing them here.

Judea started this thread with Rabbi Gafeh's arguments.. and requested a response -to- Rabbi Gafeh.  Not a person to sit in Rabbi Gafeh's corner hurling labels at people.

[muman613]

Rabbi Kafach, as well as the Teimani community in general, is a breath of fresh air.  You don't have to be a pagan to be a religious Jew.

What do you mean 'be a pagan'... Are you implying that we who follow Chassidus are pagans? You are truly off-base with this remark.

There is nothing idolatrous about Kabbalah, at least from what I understand. Those who think it is simply have not contemplated what Kabbalah is saying. I hear everyone against it says that the sefirot are a form of idolatry, which is completely untrue.

[q_q_]

Rabbi Kafach, as well as the Teimani community in general, is a breath of fresh air.  You don't have to be a pagan to be a religious Jew.

What do you mean 'be a pagan'... Are you implying that we who follow Chassidus are pagans? You are truly off-base with this remark.

There is nothing idolatrous about Kabbalah, at least from what I understand. Those who think it is simply have not contemplated what Kabbalah is saying. I hear everyone against it says that the sefirot are a form of idolatry, which is completely untrue.

The arguments with Dan have taken places in other threads you can see them.. Don't turn this thread into that.

I could easily pull up previous threads but it would just cause more unnecessary trouble.

You should do the research and look it up.

Look at the title that Judea gave to this thread. 

Don't hijack it into an anti-intellectual argument like this.

Judea, KahaneBT.. You are both intelligent. i'm sure SP is too, certainly relative to this..

I don't know if muman or dan ben noah are going to hijack this thread (you may even be too polite to admit that it is a hijacking)

But I suggest that any hijacking can be ignored, and the intelligent discussion on the contents of Rabbi Gafah's article can be had.
I know my post wasn't a particularly good response to it.. But at least it was a response!! I would urge others to respond to the article or argue against the response or whatever. And not get dragged into the silly conversation that we(I mean the intelligent we, intelligent in the relevant ways) see potentially happening here.

[muman613]

<snip>

The arguments with Dan have taken places in other threads you can see them.. Don't turn this thread into that.

I could easily pull up previous threads but it would just cause more unnecessary trouble.

You should do the research and look it up.

Look at the title that Judea gave to this thread. 

Don't hijack it into an anti-intellectual argument like this.

Judea, KahaneBT.. You are both intelligent. i'm sure SP is too, certainly relative to this..

I don't know if muman or dan ben noah are going to hijack this thread (you may even be too polite to admit that it is a hijacking)

But I suggest that any hijacking can be ignored, and the intelligent discussion on the contents of Rabbi Gafah's article can be had.
I know my post wasn't a particularly good response to it.. But at least it was a response!! I would urge others to respond to the article or argue against the response or whatever. And not get dragged into the silly conversation that we(I mean the intelligent we, intelligent in the relevant ways) see potentially happening here.

Sorry, I expect to answer the original issues when I get a chance this evening. Ive been working all day and should be prepared to write something which addresses the issues which Judea has brought up...

I am not trying to hijack or alter the topic of this thread. I am just a bit emotional when it comes to issues like this which have a potential to divide us. I normally try to look for issues which unite us.

[q_q_]

<snip>
Sorry, I expect to answer the original issues when I get a chance this evening. Ive been working all day and should be prepared to write something which addresses the issues which Judea has brought up...

I am not trying to hijack or alter the topic of this thread. I am just a bit emotional when it comes to issues like this which have a potential to divide us. I normally try to look for issues which unite us.

the main thing is not diverting the issue..

It can take quite a bit of work to analyse an article.  (if people can, then great). I'm not suggesting that everybody give a response.. Just that they don't divert the thread.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally?   Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?   Whatever happened to the principle of Lo Beshamayim Hee?   Even if angels did come to teach them, how could they accept it?    For that reason and for others...

In the case of the Arizal and the RAMCHAL, certainly they and/or their direct disciples , faithful to them, wrote of it.

Here, in the case of the RAMCHAL
http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/special1.html
see he and one of his disciples write of it. 

Kabbalistic teachings often have new revelations(particularly in the case of the Arizal). Teachings that cannot come through reasoning or reasonable speculation.
It is silly to think that they believed that their teachings were the product of their imaginations. They took it as serious doctrine.
It can only make sense as teaching derived from heaven. 

When you say this, I hope that you realize that the Ramchal and others like him CERTAINLY QUOTED PRIOR SOURCES!   So had there not been a bubba maaseh about angels teaching to them, still no one would suspect that they invented it of their own imagination, say a work like Mesillath Yesharim.  (and the reason the Ramchal's works were burned is a separate issue).   Not only that but the Ari is as far as I know considered to be the primary commentary on the zohar as to its explanation and exposition and overall kaballah philosophy (of course there is machloketh with the nefesh hachaim's view and there are two different worldviews in the kaballah).  but as far as kabballah goes, he is not considered an inventor by kabbalists, is he?   He didn't write his own zohar.   He used the earlier sources available to him and expounded upon them.  -primarily the zohar.    Question is, is zohar authentic kaballah or isn't it....

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

QQ:

Regarding "Lo Bashamayim Hee/Hi". We can't take that in the complete absolute sense. Since we received the torah at sinai.  And after that, we've had Prophets. 

Obviously that concept, lo beshamayim he, does not refer to Matan Torah!   To say something like what you just said, you must not understand the concept or what it means.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

QQ, from what I can remember that gemara you have quoted has a greater context that is necessary to understand it fully. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Reading it again and again, he seems to be saying that the Zohar claims that Adam did not have to ask permission from anybody, and that he is the first cause of something to do with G-d. And that this contradicts what we know to be Torah beliefs..

When he says "First Cause" the Rabbi is speaking about G-d.   I don't see how one can gather otherwise from that paragraph.   That said, I do not understand that paragraph either.   It probably requires knowledge of Zohar as most of his writing seems to require.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or one of the other recent threads on this subject, but I would like to say that the different Sefirot DO NOT represent G-d in any way, shape or form. 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. Everything depends on G-d and the Sefirot just describe the way that G-d channels His Shefa (or energy- for a lack of a better word) to us collectivly and individually.
  Even in Midrash I believe that it says that G-d created the world with 10 sayings.

[q_q_]

QQ:

Regarding "Lo Bashamayim Hee/Hi". We can't take that in the complete absolute sense. Since we received the torah at sinai.  And after that, we've had Prophets. 

Obviously that concept, lo beshamayim he, does not refer to Matan Torah!   To say something like what you just said, you must not understand the concept or what it means.

Goodness me.

I SAID I Actually SAID that it does not refer to matan torah.

Your logic has gone completely.

Yes, there is a gemara, first google result. I read it before I responded to you, and I was familiar with it before. Try reading it too!

Infact, where you wrote Hi, I wrote Hee/Hi, because if you write Hee, you can find it in google.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

QQ:

Regarding "Lo Bashamayim Hee/Hi". We can't take that in the complete absolute sense. Since we received the torah at sinai.  And after that, we've had Prophets. 

Obviously that concept, lo beshamayim he, does not refer to Matan Torah!   To say something like what you just said, you must not understand the concept or what it means.

Goodness me.

I SAID I Actually SAID that it does not refer to matan torah.

Your logic has gone completely.

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.

Yes, there is a gemara, first google result. I read it before I responded to you, and I was familiar with it before. Try reading it too!

Infact, where you wrote Hi, I wrote Hee/Hi, because if you write Hee, you can find it in google.

You didn't understand the implication of what I was saying.   Let me explain.   You quoted in brief a story from the gemara surrounding this statement lo beshamayim he.   I suggest that the story fits into a context and requires learning the gemara and the context.   Not googling a translation.   Learning the gemara.   You presented conclusion(s) from this piece that I suggest may need reexamining.

[q_q_]

qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally?   Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?   Whatever happened to the principle of Lo Beshamayim Hee?   Even if angels did come to teach them, how could they accept it?    For that reason and for others...

In the case of the Arizal and the RAMCHAL, certainly they and/or their direct disciples , faithful to them, wrote of it.

Here, in the case of the RAMCHAL
http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/special1.html
see he and one of his disciples write of it. 

Kabbalistic teachings often have new revelations(particularly in the case of the Arizal). Teachings that cannot come through reasoning or reasonable speculation.
It is silly to think that they believed that their teachings were the product of their imaginations. They took it as serious doctrine.
It can only make sense as teaching derived from heaven. 

When you say this, I hope that you realize that the Ramchal and others like him CERTAINLY QUOTED PRIOR SOURCES!   

Obviously they ALSO quoted prior sources. They were rabbis and great scholars..

You asked me
"
qq, when a rabbi says angels came and taught him Torah, do you really take that literally?   Do you have proof/sources that any of these rabbis really claimed this themselves (as opposed to their followers who then ascribed it to the rabbis saying it) ?
"

So I wrote info on that.

<snip>   Question is, is zohar authentic kaballah or isn't it....

I've explained this already..

I think it's unclear.. I think both Yes and No are problematic.

I could say "I don't know", but I dont want to cover up the problem with the "yes" and with the "no".

Why do -you- even consider accepting any of it?
I've given my reason but I haven't seen yours.


I see the reason to accept it as that these rabbis (that one assumes are not insane or dishonest), rabbis that claim to have been taught by angels. They accepted it and studied it alot.

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, and they would have said so, they would have corrected those issues, they wouldn't have just accepted it as they -apparently- did.  (I don't think at that time, the time of the Ari or of the RAMCHAL, that it was  unacceptable to say there were problems with it, or that the Ari or RAMCHAL would have been afraid of people and thus didn't say so. Rabbi Yaakov Emden was saying it, and the Arizal wasn't afraid of going against the party line, he did anyway in coming up with his unique controversial kabbalistic system which initially was not accepted at all. The RAMCHAL was hounded out for his kabbalah).


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..  Or



One could theorize that they knew it was part problematic, but had other very good moral painful reasons for not saying that truth..
There is no evidence for that though.

So I see 3 stances there..
- It is all from Rashbi, since those sane honest rabbis, taught by angels, accept it. This goes against the evidence before our eyes regarding the contents of the zohar having spanish words in it.  (I don't think he planted them to fool us! ;-) )

- 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.

- Those rabbis knew of the problems with it, thought it was part good part bad, and for some reason, some good reasons, didn't say anything about it, and appeared to accept it. (There is no evidence for this though..  It's just a theory because the other 2 stances are so problematic, but there's no evidence for it at all)

All those stances are terrible!


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

[q_q_]

<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..

This is why I say your logic has indeed gone. (or rather, it isn't strong enough to always get to the depths of things, but it's better than most people)

Continue reading what I said. I was analysing the expression "Lo Bashamayim Hee".   What doesn't it mean. What does it mean.

The fact that you agree with me regarding something that it doesn't mean, is very nice.

If you read on with what I said.. I said a number of things including an interesting question..

But the point that should have hit you most, was

That gemara applies the expression, regarding Halacha .

I wouldn't necessarily extend that to new mystical revelations

The Zohar can be accepted without it affecting halacha. (And due to the problematic nature of kabbalistic claims, it's better that it doesn't affect halacha!)

You didn't understand the implication of what I was saying.   Let me explain.   You quoted in brief a story from the gemara surrounding this statement lo beshamayim he.   I suggest that the story fits into a context and requires learning the gemara and the context.   Not googling a translation.   Learning the gemara.   You presented conclusion(s) from this piece that I suggest may need reexamining.

I always understand you.. (because you are never unclear)

I told you, I was familiar with it even before the google. Forget Google(where the full hebrew with a translation is available) if you want, forget google.

[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.   I said that in response to you, when you said some bubba maaseh about angels teaching Torah to the kabbalists in the 14-18th centuries.   As if the claim of being taught by angels somehow makes it the TRUTH that all must submit to.   This clearly contradicts the idea of lo beshamayim he.   So I alluded to that idea.   With that simple quote.      And then you retorted with something like a 'well it doesn't apply to giving the Torah or prophets, we had those, so it can't be in every case' .    That's not at all a challenge to the idea I present.  Because inherent in the idea is what it is talking about as opposed to what it is not talking about.    So telling me what it doesn't talk about, as a way to challenge the idea, is simply an irrelevant jumping through hoops.

You tried to say that what it does not talk about is evidence that it is "not that extreme" - as if that is some type of modification or moderation of the concept.

This is why I say your logic has indeed gone. (or rather, it isn't strong enough to always get to the depths of things, but it's better than most people)

I'm amused to see that you have 'anointed' yourself as an allknowing judge on the matter of who is able to "get to the depths of things."  However, personal insults (or more accurately in your case, pompous condescension and delusions of self-grandeur) do not bolster your arguments even slightly.   I would advise you to refrain from such in the future as this adds nothing to the discussion aside from pointing out your own arrogance.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I see the reason to accept it as that these rabbis (that one assumes are not insane or dishonest), rabbis that claim to have been taught by angels. They accepted it and studied it alot.

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, and they would have said so, they would have corrected those issues, they wouldn't have just accepted it as they -apparently- did.

snipped

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..  Or



One could theorize that they knew it was part problematic, but had other very good moral painful reasons for not saying that truth..
There is no evidence for that though.

So I see 3 stances there..
- It is all from Rashbi, since those sane honest rabbis, taught by angels, accept it. This goes against the evidence before our eyes regarding the contents of the zohar having spanish words in it.  (I don't think he planted them to fool us! ;-) )

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!

[q_q_]

<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.

I don't see any value on keeping on this point.. but you'd be better off dealing with the other issues we are discussing.

Were you bringing up about Lo BaShamayim Hee as a proof that it is fobidden to have any new revelations e.g. any new mystical revelations?
(it certainly looks like you are/were)