The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxxii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest further cites Shomer Emunim and the Raavad that the Sefirot are not Divinity. The author cites the sefer Emunat Chachamim which offers a harmonization of sorts, that they are inconsistent in the use of Ein Sof to sometimes refer to Sefirot, and sometimes Divinity to refer to Sefirot, even though what was intended was emanations of Divinity. The guest does not accept this explanation as plausible. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And the man said: And so too in this sefer, sefer Shomer Emunim, you will find explained that the Sefirot are "effects" from Ein Sof.

And he read before me in the first dispute, siman 41, and this is its language: And we ascend the steps from the bottom effect until the upper effect, until we stand at the first effect which the Creator brought out, and this is the Supreme Crown {kesser elyon}, and we will establish that it is found uniquely complete to the extent of completeness which is possible to exist in an effect, etc.

And this is what the Raavad wrote in the introduction to his commentary to sefer Yetzirah. And this is its language: The cause of all causes {=Ein Sof} induces from it the Supreme Crown {=keter elyon, the first Sefirah} which is simple {all of one thing} to the full extent of simplicity, such that there is not between it {keser elyon} and its cause {=Ein Sof} anything except that this one {=Ein Sof} is the cause and this one {=keser elyon} is the effect.

And he {=the guest} said: Go now, please, and harmonize the Raavad, Rav Moshe Cordevero, the Rama {miPano}, the Ari, and the author of Shomer Emunim, who say that the Sefirot are effect and new things, and the others whom the Rama {miPano} mentioned who commit themselves as a matter of halacha that the Sefirot are entirely the Identity of the Divinity.

The author: Go and I will show you in sefer Emunat Chachamim one introduction, by which will be explained and whitened all these contradictions.

And I took the sefer and I found written in it, at the end of chapter 23, and this is its language: Only this I have seen fit to mention in order to remove the stumbling block from the eyes of those who learn from books {sefarim} and not from scribes {sofrim}, that in the words of the Sages of truth and righteousness, the term Ein Sof, Baruch Hu does not refer in every place to the Creator Yisbarach, but rather at times it is not so. And the Rama {mipano} zatza"l in Pelach haRimon delved into this, and in the introduction of sefer Yonat Elem he {=Rav Menachem Azarya miPano} explains this more. And I have not merited to receive it ftom the motuth of Maharma"z, who received this from Rav Binyamin haLevi, who received it from Rabbi Chiyya Rofei, who received it from the mouth of Rav Chaim Vital himself.

Further, all the sages of peshat know that in the words of the sages of truth, "Divinity" is not God Yisbarach but rather emanations of His Light, just as the light of the sun is not the actual sun. And therefore, be not astounded if you find in the words of the Acharonim that Divinity is the ten Sefirot, etc. And behold the sun which enters the house is not the sun itself, but rather its light which spreads through the words, and it is just exactly so the Shechina {Divine presence} of Hakadosh Baruch Hu." End quote.

And the man {=the guest} answered: The haughtiness of {King} Yerovam drove him out of the world, and the haughtiness of the kabbalists causes them to choose to deny God, and to say that God is not God, and that Ein Sof is not Ein Sof. in a way that they have no God anymore at all, rather than admitting that there is dispute between their sages, something with is clear like the sun at noon.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxxi

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The author just suggested that there was indeed dispute among the kabbalists, but the Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, and so on, who held that the Sefirot were Divinity, were the true kabbalists, but the others who argue were not true kabbalists. The guest notes the problem with saying that -- for then the Arizal, Rabbi Moshe Cordevero, and the Rama miPano are not true kabbalists. He then cites them to show that they maintain this. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: It is not possible for you to say so, since after all the Rabbi Moshe Cordevero and the Rabbi Menachem Azaria of Pano (Rama miPano), and the Ari himself, who according to the words of the kabbalists had ruach hakodesh resting upon him, all of them with one mouth say that the Sefirot are not themselves Divinity, and that there was already to them a beginning of existence.

And now, take to me the sefer Pelach haRimon from Rabbi Menachem Azaria of Pano, and see.

And I took the sefer Pelach haRimon, and the man read in it from gate 4 chapter 1, and this is its language: "And others invested themselves as a matter of halacha to believe that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity, nothing else, and they said that the changing of the names and the number of the Sefirot does not compel an increase in the Emanator, for they are not associated with Him except in the way of receivers of different aspects {?}. And with them we will argue and judge together:

Say, please, fearers of Hashem, what is the need, if so, of designating an attribute with an attribute, that this accepts and that influences? And who gave in the identity of One aspects which are affected one from the other? And where is the unity which is completed {?} from our prayers and the intent of our precepts, etc.? And also on the existence of the attributes themselves, who is the decider to attribute to them a number in a place it is fitting to us to refrain from counting, for there is no number?"

And further, there in gate 3 chapter 1: It has already been explained from that which they taught {tnan}, "ten and not nine" that the Supreme Crown {keter elyon} is not the Emanator, like the position of a few who deduce from the end part {the sefa} "they are ten and not eleven," and it is a broad halacha by them that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity, according to their position; and in gate 4, with the aid of Heaven, we will make blind eyes able to see with this exposition."

And further, read before me from sefer Asis Rimonim printed on the side of Pelach haRimon, and it is of Rabbi Moshe Cordevero z"l, and this is his language: And according to the second position that they are the identity, how free of illness and worry was this man {see Yoma 22b}, and he said this as he was nodding off and sleeping, for if so, there is no need for the Malchut {Kingship} to receive from Tiferet {Glory}, and no other attribute except for it, just as it would not be correct to say about the Sun that its attribute of drying is dependent upon and requires the attribute that it melts things, etc. And furthermore, according to opinion, the Sefirah is not found except at the time of the action, and when the action is removed the Sefirah is removed, forfend, and when it comes down to it, according to his words, the Sefirah is not in true existence, forfend, and like this should not be heard from our mouths. Therefore, it falls upon us the command of explaining these positions, for both this and that are the words of the Living God, and together they are complete.

I {=the author} said to him: In truth, the beginning of the words increased in my heart the confusion and the doubt, but the end of the words were for me a peace from my grief and my ire. And behold you see with your eyes how there is no dispute here at all whatsoever, for "both these and these are the words of the Living God, and together they will be complete."

The guest: With empty condolences has Rabbi Moshe Cordevero comforted you. And once he related in the beginning of his words that the one who says that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity said them while tired and asleep, he cannot then turn around and relate that both these and these are the words of the Living God. For still, the two opposites cannot stand together in one topic, and all his efforts and labors to forcefully bring close the distant {positions} are only the flattery that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael flatter each other with flattery, lest all to them as one come to shame in the eyes of the Diaspora which provides them with their needs.

And behold and see that the Rema miPano who did not {improperly} regard man {nosei panim} because he was exalted with riches, even though he always traveled in the path of Rabbi Moshe Cordevero, he did not say nor hint that both these and those were the words of the Living God, but rather he wages battle against those who say that the Sefirot are Divinity, and said "and with them we will dispute and judge together."

And now, take to me the sefer Shomer Emunim and see the words of the Ari.

And I took the sefer, and he found written in it, in the first dispute, siman 63: That which it is called First Man {Adam Kadmon} is not because it has no start and beginning, but rather because it was before all the rest of the Emanations, like what the Rav (this refers to the Ari) z"l wrote in sefer Adam Yashar, anaf 4 (not anaf 70 -- see the errata). And in the first anaf, he wrote, and this is his language: "And yet, that emanation of this "Adam Kadmon," and certainly the other worlds which are under it as mentioned, had a beginning and an end, and had to them a beginning of their existence and their emanation."

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxx

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest just finished a lengthy citation (spanning several segments) of the words of Rabbi Menachem of Rikanti from Taamei haMitzvot. He now explains the purpose of the lengthy citation -- to show that there is dispute among the kabbalists about the nature of God and the Sefirot. For Rabbi Menachem notes that position he puts forth is not in like with Ramban and the kabbalists. The author suggests that Rabbi Menachem is not arguing but rather interpreting them. But the guest replies that Rabbi Menachem is not saying this as a received tradition, but rather engages in an elaborate shakla vetarya. The guest then cites Shnei Luchot haBrit that the maggid of Rav Yosef Karo said, about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat about the nature of the Sefirot, that Hashem should forgive him. Thus, surely there is dispute. The author admits that this may indeed be dispute, but that perhaps those who argue on Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, and so on, were not true kabbalists. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And I {=the author} said to the man: And what purpose is this lengthy reading, and what comes out to you from the words of Rabbi Menachem?

And the man {=the guest} answered and said: And could you request clearer testimony than this that the wisdom of the kabbalah is without tradition man from the mouth of man? Behold you see this matter, the matter of the Sefirot, the fundamental upon which all hangs, and this Sage, Rabbi Menachem, who was of the eminent kabbalists, expounds and delves, asks and answers, in order to find the truth. And in the end he brings up in his hand a position and opinion which he himself admits not all the Sages of kabbalah accept admit to and accept.

And in the beginning of his words, did you not see that when he said that the Shechina is a created form, he said that this was not the opinion of the Ramban, and that all the Sage of kabbalah argue upon this.

Will you still say that there is no dispute among the kabbalists? And were this in a leaf of its leaves, I would have remained silent, but behold the dispute is in the root of roots, and in the fundamental from which everything hangs.

And there is no doubt that if the truth is with Rabbi Menachem and with the chassid {pious one} mentioned by the Rivash, behold all the kabbalists who argue upon them and who believe that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity, all of them are considered like idolators.

The author: It is still not clear by me at all that there was dispute among the kabbalists, for still I can say that the received tradition of all the kabbalists was always so, that the Sefirot are not the identity of the Divinity, like the tradition of that chassid the Rivash brought, and as appears from the words of Rabbi Eliezer of Germaiza, and like the position of Rabbi Menachem and the Chayyat, and as appears as well from the words of Sefer Yetzirah. And that so {despite appearing to say otherwise} was also the opinion of the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya and the author of Maarechet haElohut, and all the rest of the kabbalists, but they, because of their love of concealing, closed up their words, and from the brevity of their language it was extended to a few of the kabbalistic folk who understood their words as the opposite of their {actual} intent, until Rabbi Menachem deemed it necessary to remove the stumbling block from before the blind man, and to explain the matter broadly.

And do you not see that even Rabbi Menachem, at the end of his words, brings a proof to his words from the words of the Ramban on the statement {from Bava Batra from Rabbi Yitzchak} about "one who wishes to become wise..." Behold that it was not clear to him that his opinion did not accord with the kabbalah of the Ramban. Also he would not be arguing upon the Ramban after he brings for himself a proof from his words.

Behold that there is not here a necessity that there was dispute among the kabbalists.

The guest: But Rabbi Menachem did not say, nor hint that his opinion was received {from prior generations} in his hand, and in fact the opposite -- that he expounds and delves in the manner of the philosophers, and he brings out from his thoughts a new opinion which he knows that all those of this wisdom will not agree to, and he says about all sages who preceded him that they built upon a foundation of nothingness. And this is kabbalah {received knowledge}?

And now, an additional thing I will place opposite your eyes, and from it you will see whether there is disagreement among kabbalists. Take please to me the sefer Shnei Luchot haBrit.

And I took the sefer and the man read in it before me (Amsterdam printing, page 34b), and this is its language: "And to complete this idea, I will repeat the opinion of the words of the maggid {angel} who was to the great rav, the Bet Yosef z"l, etc., {namely} that that which brought the author of Minchat Yehuda (he is Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat) to say what he said, that is it in the pattern of the vessels of the boat, etc., may his Master forgive him, may that All-Merciful forgive on that position. And still, he will not be punished for those words which he said, for since he did not say it with intent to sin before Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but rather it was a complete error, etc., and all these ten Sefirot are really united as one, and they themselves are Divinity, for behold, they are in Ein Sof like a flame tied to a coal, and this is in the pattern of the soul in the body of man with the limbs, in that all is one, and all is entirely united, without any aspect of separation in the world, forfend. And Kingship, which is Matronita, and the other Sefirot, all is one with complete unity with the Ein Sof, and all was, all is, and all will be.

I {=the author} said to him: In truth this is difficult in my eyes, for Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat, Rabbi Menachem Rikanti, Rabbi Eliezer of Germaiza, and that chassid the Rivash brought, all of them are kabbalists in name but are not kabbalists in truth, since all of them did not know Hashem and His Sefirot.

And still, against my will I admit to this, and I say that all these Sages were not true kabbalists, and the true kabbalah was with the Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, and the author of Maarechet haElahut, since it appears from their words that they believed that the Sefirot were themselves Divinity.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxix

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest finishes his lengthy citation of Taamei haMitzvot by Rabbi Menachem of Ricanti, about the nature of God and the Sefirot. In the footnote, Shadal notes where this text can be found and where it cannot be found. The text of the Vikuach follows:

"And also in the great sefer haZohar he says on a verse in the beginning: On that which is written {Yeshaya 10:15}

טו הֲיִתְפָּאֵר, הַגַּרְזֶן, עַל, הַחֹצֵב בּוֹ: אִם-יִתְגַּדֵּל הַמַּשּׂוֹר, עַל-מְנִיפוֹ, כְּהָנִיף שֵׁבֶט וְאֶת-מְרִימָיו, כְּהָרִים מַטֶּה לֹא-עֵץ. {פ}

15 Should the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Should the saw magnify itself against him that moveth it? as if a rod should move them that lift it up, or as if a staff should lift up him that is not wood. {P}

behold that he describes the actions of the Attributes as regards Him Yisbarach veYisalech as the relation of the craftsman to his tools. And this is a better proof than all of them, etc.

And so wrote the Ramban, z"l, as we have written, and this is his language:
{Commenting on Bava Batra 25b: אמר רבי יצחק הרוצה שיחכים ידרים ושיעשיר יצפין וסימניך שלחן בצפון ומנורה בדרום}
"One who wishes to become wise should yadrim {face south}." The explanation of yadrim is to direct {/intend} towards the right Attribute to request from there from the King, King of Kings. And so is the intent of yatzpin {face north} to request from Him from there."

Behold the words of the Rav z"l match our words, for he does not say have intent towards the attribute, but rather towards the Creator that he act towards him with the Attribute which he needs, etc.

And I found a support to my words in the matter of the Attributes and the Sefirot from that which is found written by one of the gedolim in this language: "And that which the First Sefirah is called "Original Air" {avir rishon}, it is not called this because it was First, for there is no First except for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, etc. These are his words, z"l, etc.

And it appears to me that upon this intended the poet {paytan} when he said in the Yotzer of Rosh haShana: "King with ten garments, who will be girded with holy ones, etc." He called the ten Sefirot garments because they are like a garment to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, like the body to the soul, which is to it a garment, etc.

This is my position and my opinion, even though the simple reading of the words do not inform so, and one who inspects them when initially delving into them will find it difficult that the matters are as I have written. And I know with a clear knowledge that not all of the Sages of kabbalah agree to this that I have written, but I have not found to these matters a fix in any other way that what I have written, for all the Sages in this wisdom, all of them built upon a foundation of nothingness, and have said nothing in the matter of unification. Therefore I have written what appears to me, and one who heeds it will heed it and one who ignores it will ignore it. (*)


Footnotes
_____

The lengthy statement which the Chayyat recorded in his sefer is not found in the sefer Taamei haMitzvot which is printed (Constantine, year 304 {=1524}, but it it in manuscript form at the end of sefer Taamei haMitzvot, and before the explanation of the prayers. And this sefer in manuscript form was in my hands in the days of my youth, and now it is in the hands of my friend Ramshag. And from there I corrected a few scribal errors which fell into the words of Rabbi Menachem in the printing of the Chayyat.

And know that Taamei haMitzvot which is in manuscript form consists of 34 pages, and this statement comes after them, which is missing in printed form, and consists in manuscript form of 15 pages, and Baruch Hashem who gave into the heart of the Chayyat to record most of them in his sefer.

And after the aforementioned 15 pages, there are two additional pages, "a commentary on Birkat haMazon based on the path of kabbalah, according to what I found clarified in Midrash Rut to Rabbi Menachem." And afterwards a commentary on prayers just as in the printed edition, but in the beginning of it {=the commentary on tefillot} there are about 3 pages, missing in the printed edition, and also here he speaks about the Sefirot similar to what he said at the end of Taamei haMitzvot.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxviii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest continues his lengthy citation of Taamei haMitzvot by Rabbi Menachem miRicanti, about the nature of the Sefirot:

"And behold I will prove to you with proofs, and also from the words of Razal, that all that Razal said in the matter of Sefirot is {specific to the Sefirot and} not fit to say about the Creator Yisbarach veYitaleh.

Firstly, because if it is said that the ten Sefirot are actually the Creator Yisbarach Himself, if so, how is the Creator One and yet the number Ten, and one cannot but a division into the identity of the Creator Yisbarach.

And what distinction is there between the Attribute of Judgment and the Attribute of Mercy, for even though about this one is able to say that in the matter of these attributes that there is no difference in their identity, but rather the division is one the side of the receivers, still how shall we place a distinction between the Attributes, so call this one right and this one left, this one leaf and this one root, for it is known that all these things would be a lack in the lap of the Creator Yisbarach.

And furthermore, when we place a division between the attributes, we place a division in the identity of the actual Creator and this is not possible, for it is known that from the left side comes the influence of impurities, witchcraft and demond, as we have explained, and it is called in the wondrous sefer haZohar "Evil Thought" {machshava raah}, and from the right side it is the opposite. And if they are actually the Creator, how shall we place a division in the acts of the Creator Yisbarach?

And I have sought and was punctilious a lot, and I did not find a single Sage who spoke about this at all, except for Rabbi Asher z"l. And I have never found an answer to this question, except what I have written above in the matter of the Sefirot and their emanation, with a hint/allusion in order to conceal the matter, as it is stated {Tehillim 25:14} סוֹד ה לִירֵאָיו.

And furthermore you have to know in the matter of the emanation of the Sefirot that it is true, and a clear thing, that all the Sefirot emanated one from the other, but the first one was as the matter that we have written above. And understand this a lot, for so agrees one of the greats as we have written.

This is a true proof seized by the contemplation of the heart.

And furthermore, we need to bring a proof to strengthen the house of our God from the words of Razal, from that which I found in the wondrous sefer haZohar, etc. And because of the extreme fineness of the matter we are required to speak by way of allegory. And the allegory in this is to a king who has two servants, and he commands one of them as follows: "take heed when you see a man who strengthens himself and going in the right path, assist him and save him from his enemies." And to the second he commands, "when you see a man traveling in a path which is not good, hit him and chastise him until he returns." And while the servants of the king fulfill their instructions, the king does not do a single thing, and the judgment does not come from him at all, but rather he assists his servants to perform their actions.

So too, the Creator Yisbarach influences the Attributes to perform their actions, and He does not change his actions, but rather the Attributes perform their actions.

And in the wondrous sefer haZohar I found so, etc.

And now let us return to our matter, and it appears to me that from here we are also able to understand that the Kitzvot {the Six Corners, the six Sefirot of Zeir Anpin} are not attached {deveikim} to Him Yisbarach, for if so, they would not need influence {hashpaah} and blessing if He is One and the number is Ten, as I explained above, for the Emanated is not separated from the Emanator. Rather, since they require irrigation {? hashkaah}, there is for us to so that they did not speak of the Creator, for there is not to the Creator Yisbarach deficiency or addition, etc. And since the Creation is within them, perforce they called the Shechina "Shechina" for the Creator "dwells" {shochen} within it, etc. And this is the word "Baruch," which is a pa'ul form {passive} -- the intent it to the Attributes which are blessed from the Creator Yisbarach.

And so I found in a certain sefer which was composed by Rabbi Eliezer from Germaiza, and this is his language: Therefore they established in the closing of every blessing of "Baruch Ata Hashem" to the Shechina, and anyone who does not know this wondrous knowledge, when he directs his prayer he should not contemplate to whom he is directing his prayer, but rather to his Father in Heaven, and so I have seen in the writing of Rabbi Yehuda haChassid which he sent to his son." Thus ends the language of this Rav, z"l.

If so, it is understood from here that the language of "Baruch" is not about the Creator, actually, but rather on that which Receives from the Creator. And since the Creator is actually found within them, therefore one cannot cut and say that they are ten angels which act in the vessels, but rather One is the actor within them, as is explained in sefer Yetzirah which says "And the One Trustworthy Master rukes within them from His holy abode and until forever"; after he mentioned all the ten Sefirot, he said that even though the Attributes are ten, the Creater is One who rules in all them, as we have explained.

Further, there is for us a fourth proof from that which is written in the prayer of Rabbi Nechunia ben haKana, peace be upon him, which is founded upon the Sefirot, in that in each and every Sefirah, when he mentions it, he places a ב. That he says "I will exalt You in {ב} the first Sefirah which is Supreme Crown, etc." And be very precise why he did not say "I will exalt You, first Sefirah, etc." Rather, he did not speak about the Sefirah, which was like clothing, but rather spoke about the "soul" which was within it. That is to say: I will exalt You, the Creator, Who is found in the first Sefirah. And from its splendor is made for Him like a garment from wondrous light and from pillars of light, which are, to make a million distinctions without end, like the body to the soul.

And perhaps therefor they called the Creator Yisbarach veYitaleh the "soul of souls." That is to saw the soul to the Sefirot who are fine {/ethereal} things and pillars of pure light, and there is no limit to their fineness, just as the soul which is in the body of man and it is not possible to know its character.

And further, the pious one {=Rabbi Nechunia ben haKana} said in his prayer: "The Attribute of Mercy roll upon us, before Your Creator {קונך} cast our supplication, etc." Behold that he places a distinction between the Attribute and Him, Yisbarach veYisaleh.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxvii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The citation of Taamei haMitzvot by Rabbi Menachem miRicanti continues, in discussing the nature of the form of God, and the nature of the Sefirot. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And further is says in Maaseh Merkava the following language: "Rabbi Yishmael said: Metatron the great official of testimony said to me: This testimony I testify about Hashem God of Israel, Living and Eternal God, our master and teacher, that the measure {manah = weight; perhaps vessel?} from his holy seat and up is 118 myriad {a myriad = 10,000} parsang {a measure of distance} and from his holy seat and down is 118 myriad parsang. From His right arm to His left arm is 77 myriad parsang, etc.. And he gives a measure for height of 236 million myriad parsangs, like the number of ורב כח, for it is written {Tehillim 147:5} גָּדוֹל אֲדוֹנֵינוּ וְרַב-כֹּחַ {taken as "the size of our Master is "veRav Koach"}. And it gives a measure for the width as 77 myriad parsang, for it is written {Tehillim 68:35} תְּנוּ עֹז לֵאלֹהִים {perhaps give space of עז, that is, 77, for God}. And if so, how are we able to say that they spoke of the Shechina {Divine Presence}? If it were a created Form he would not have said "this testimony I testify about Hashem the God of Israel," if they were speaking of a created form.

And it is more difficult to say that they actually were speaking of the Creator, for anyone who says such as this has no God at all, for it is known thing, and a fundamental concept, that about the Creator Yisbarach one cannot say these words and the like.

And now, stand and consider the wonders of my words and contemplate them with a fine consideration, to fix these words, for they are they mystery of the world. And this is my intent as well in the matter of the Unification.

Know that it is true that one cannot say about the Creator, Yisbarach, that there is any change or any physical attribute thing in the world, and all that Razal expounded in the sefer haMerkava was not really about the Creator, but rather they spoke about the Sefirot.

And if you wish to ask and say that we already know that the Sefirot are Emanations and not creations, and anything about which we speak of emanations, the power of the Emanator is in the Emanation, and the Emanation is not separate from the Emanator. And if so, all that we say about the Sefirot are as if they are said about the Creator, Yisbarach, and how are we able to say that they spoke of the Sefirot? And if is not like speaking actually about the Creator Yisbarach Himself?

Know that the answer to this question is extremely deep such that it has no end or limit, and before we begin to answer, our thoughts are to prove that all that the Sages and the Geonim said about the matter of the Emanation of the Sefirot, that matter is not to be understood in the plain sense of the words, with true proofs {that this is so}.

And even though Rav Asher z"l entered, with great difficulty, a fence on this side and a fence on that side, still all is not settled entirely; and therefore my intent is to explain here all my thoughts and intent, for from this matter hands a major fundamental and the faith in its entirety.

Know that all that we speak in the matter of the Sefirot is not speaking about the Creator, but rather the Sefirot are like the vessels of the craftsman, with which the craftsman works his craft, to make a billion distinctions {lehavdil bein elef alfei alafim}, and they are similar to every matter and its substitute, and perforce we are unable to bring the matter close to the mind of the investigator. For we are only able to compare it to the things we are used to, and thus one of the Sages compares it to the will of the soul, for it is equal to all the desires and all the thoughts which extend from it -- even though they are many, their basis is only one, and the soul does not change, but rather the change is in the body, which brings out to action the thoughts of the soul.

And perforce there is for us to say that these are things that are similar in a thing and its corresponding item {in the analogy}, for if there were not equal power to the thing and its corresponding item, there would not be any power to anything. For that which is light is not darkness and that which is darkness is not light. Perforce, that sage likens them to the will of the soul. And just as the soul is clothed by the body, so is from the great light of the Creator Yisbarach emanated these vessels, and the Sages called them Sefirot, and the spreading out of the First Cause Yisbarach into these vessels is called emanation. And in the sefer haZohar I have found this, etc."

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxvi

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest wishes to demonstrate that there is dispute among the early kabbalists about fundamentals such as the nature of the Sefirot, and so he begins a lengthy citation of the words of Rabbi Menachem Ricanti, an eminent fourteenth century Italian kabbalist, in the sefer Taamei haMitzvot. For some reason, perhaps because they are at odds with common kabbalistic belief about Sefirot (?), they are not in the printed edition. See Shadal's footnote in segments xxix, which is not yet posted. This text is, however, cited by Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat, and also exists in manuscript form. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And the man answered: Go and I will show you one holy one who was at the beginning of the sixth millennium -- is he not the eminent kabbalist Rabbi Menachem miRikanti, and see what he wrote in the sefer Taamei haMitzvot, which the Chayyat brings down (from page 33 until page 40), and he said that there is in this a place for doubt, and many are perplexed by it, and that he has not seen one who has descended to the depth of this drush {exposition?} except for Rav Menachem, and these are the words of Rav Menachem:

"Know that there is not in the Creator Yisbarach any difference in the world, but rather He Yisbarach relates the end from the beginning, and when things are new by us, there is no change in will by Him, Yisbarach. For he already knew from the beginning this matter which would be in the future, and nothing changed in the desire of the Creator such that one would be able to say that this desire went from the potential to the actual, like the matter of the desire found in us. For any actor with the exception of Him Yisbarach only acts because he needs the action. Therefore his thoughts do not cool until he finishes that action. And if so, it turns out that his desire was in potential and went out to action with the completion of his labors. And forfend that the matter would be so by the Creator. For He did not do the think in order to attain that specific need. And if we believe that there is a new desire in Him, it would turn out that that novelty would be in the essence of Hashem Yisbarach veYis`aleh, and this would compel an novelty of the kadmon.

Rather, the Creator Yisbarach veYis`aleh, He and His Desire are One, and just like He is kadmon, so is His desire. He relates the end from the beginning, and all the future events are revealed before Him. If so it is made clear that there is not to the Creator Yisbarach neither a change of desire not a change of will, nor wavering nor activity. And one cannot say upon Him neither that "there is" nor that "there is not" nor any matter in the world. Nor do the limitations of the world bound Him, for He Yisbarach is equal in all places.

And after these things are made for us as true axioms -- for one who does not admit to them has no God at all -- if so, there is for us to fix all things, whether from the words of the Torah or whether from the words of Chazal which appear to contradict these words of ours.

We have already explained that it is not possible to say about the Creator Yisbarach anything from which we are able to understand from it that He is bounded, for anything bounded changed, while by the Creator Yisbarach veYis`aleh there is neither difference nor change.

And if you ask and say "Behold we see from the Scripture that it seizes a way of boundary, for it states "And Hashem descended"; "And Hashem ascended"; "And Hashem went"; "And Hashem came"; "And Hashem stated"; "And Hashem said"; and all the like to this --

Know that the answer to this question is that, besides that which Razal said that the Torah speaks in the language of people, it is extremely deep. And I have seen one of the Sages of kabbalah, z"l, who wrote that all of this, and in every place that it says the like to one of these things which imply a lack in the lap of the Creator, Yisbarach, all is said about the Sefirot, but the Creator, Yisbarach veYis'aleh, the First Cause, one cannot say upon Him anything which implies physicality. And it appears to me that Rabbi Eliezer miGermaiza leans towards this opinion. For he wrote, and this is his language: "And that which is written {Yeshaya 57:15}

טו כִּי כֹה אָמַר רָם וְנִשָּׂא, שֹׁכֵן עַד וְקָדוֹשׁ שְׁמוֹ--מָרוֹם וְקָדוֹשׁ, אֶשְׁכּוֹן; וְאֶת-דַּכָּא, וּשְׁפַל-רוּחַ, לְהַחֲיוֹת רוּחַ שְׁפָלִים, וּלְהַחֲיוֹת לֵב נִדְכָּאִים.

15 For thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

all is about the Shechina, etc." Thus it is understandable from his words that the verse does not speak about the actual Creator. And furthermore, one who peruses his books is able to understand his intent quite well without any doubt.

And another difficulty from that which they say about the Chariot Mysticism: It tells you the measure of our Fashioner, etc. And it is known that the Creator, Yisbarach veYisaleh, has no boundary or end, and walls do not surround Him. Therefore some say that that which they measured was not speaking of the Creator but rather the limbs of the Shechina they measured, and they think that the Shechina is some created form. And so is not the opinion of the Ramban z"l, and all the sages of kabbalah argue on this.

And furthermore it appears to me that it is difficult to say this, for there, in the Maaseh Merkava, it states in this language: "I saw Hashem God of Israel, King of the world, sitting on a high and lofty throne, and to His left were the ministers of the interior {sari hapanim}, etc.," until it said, "I will tell you the measure of our Fashioner {Yotzereinu}, etc." And if they measured a created form, he would not have said Our Fashioner -- there is no "Our Fashioner" except for the Creator, Yisbarach.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxv

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest and author continue to discuss whether the kabbalists argue about whether the Sefirot are Divinity:

The author: Behold I see in you the trait of the inciters {to apostasy}, for by deception you come to me to show me that Rabbenu Nissim said that more than was appropriate the Ramban invested himself to believe in the wisdom of kabbalah, and that that the Rivash said that we have no need to intend in our prayers towards the Sefirot.

The guest: No so, my master, but rather my main intent was to point out to you that one of the first kabbalists believed that the Sefirot were not Divinity, forfend, but rather that they were like appointees of the king who stood to perform His Will for whatever He would command them; and behold, between him and Rabbenu Bachya there is a dispute, without doubt, in the fundamental upon which everything relies. And where is the "kabbalah"?

The author: If so, I will say that I made a mistake in that which I understood from the words of Rabbenu Bachya, and that he never in his days intended to say that the Sefirot were Divinity.

The guest: This is not the way of a man of intelligence, since the words of the Rav {=Rabbenu Bachya} cannot be explained at all if one does not believe that the Sefirot are Divinity. For what is the meaning of the yud of בוראיך and to the yud of אלהים, after he divided this name into two words, El Hem {=They are God}? Is his intent not apparent from within his words that there are there 10 things which are Divinity.

And now, come please with me to another place, and see how one of the early and preeminent kabbalists says explicitly that that Sefirot are themselves Divinity. Take please the sefer Maarechet HaElohut.

And I took the sefer, the the man read before me from the end of the Maarechet haShemot {Pirara printing, page 43 and page 57) like these words: "There is furthermore to know that the matter of the Emanations which were mentioned and which I will further discuss in Avodat haSeder is not a matter in which there is a changes or a new thing in that which emanates or which in emanated, something which had not been before the emanation, forfend. For we have already mentioned that the emanations, which are the Sefirot, are Divinity, etc., etc.

And understand this fundamental, for it is the fundamental of all fundamentals, the foundation of the entire building, together with what we will always mention in this service, that these ten Sefirot are themselves the Divinity Yisbarach, as we have mentioned, and that the Divinity is unified in them without any separation or difference, and this is the foundation of the entire building." End quote.

Is his opinion not made clear that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity?

And now, so that you should know that there is dispute between the kabbalists, read now the words of the commentator {on this book}, Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat, in his introduction.

And the man read in it like these words: "And also that this sefer is entirely full of dear things, rare but refined, and he has ten hands above the other books of the books of kabbalah, for all of them speak of the holy Sefirot, one increases and one decreases, and {yet} they close the door, and he arises to open the lock, and said {Tehillim 118:20}

כ זֶה-הַשַּׁעַר לַה; צַדִּיקִים, יָבֹאוּ בוֹ.

20 This is the gate of the LORD; the righteous shall enter into it.

And in a few places I desired to argue about the major fundamentals, which are the extraordinary and noteworthy roots in the holy kabbalah, and most kabbalists go in them wandering to and fro, and I girded my loins like a warrior to battle with the Rav, the author of this sefer, and sometimes to battle with those who battle him, etc."

And the man said to me: Go please, now, and say that there is no dispute among the kabbalists in the fundamentals of their wisdom.

I said to him: Perhaps the dispute was born in the later generations, for this Rabbi Yehuda Chayyat was at the time of the expulsion from Spain.

Kedoshim, Behar: Rabbenu Bachya, Sefirot, and Elilim

Yesterday, in Shadal's Vikuach, Shadal mentioned a position Rabbenu Bachya took about Sefirot which caused Shadal's rebbi to say "chalila" -- that the Sefirot are Divinity. To cite:

Know that I was 16 years old, and I was attending before my primary teacher {rabbi muvhak} the pious sage Rabbi Mordechai Yitzchak Kolonia, zlh"h (*), who was at the end of his days a blind man, and I would read before him, and write from his dictation his derashot.

And it was that day that I read before him the verse {in Kohelet 12:1} וּזְכֹר, אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ, בִּימֵי, בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ and I said to him: Rabbi! The word בוראך is written with a yud.

And he said: Silence! What are you putting forth out of your mouth? Is this not a scribal error?

And I answered and said: But my master, it appears to me that in have already seen in Rabbenu Bachya that he darshens this yud, and behold it appears that there is no scribal error here.

And he said to me: Take the sefer Minchas Shai.

And I took it, and I found written therein: בּוֹרְאֶיךָ written plene with a yud, and see in Bachya at the beginning of parashat Bereishit.

And my rebbi said to me: Take sefer Bachya.

And I took it, and I sought in it, and I found that he darshens the word אלהים as two words, אל and הם, and that this is the explanation of the yud of וּזְכֹר אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ written plene.

{The implication is El Hem, they are God. And the yud implies 10, such that there are ten of them. Thus, the Sefirot.}

And my rebbi was astonished and he said: Forfend! The Sefirot are not Divinity!

The alternate position is that they are keilim nivraim, and there are perhaps other positions in between. (Shadal goes on about this topic for a while, so keep checking back, if interested.)

I would like to explore Rabbenu Bachya's position a bit more. Of course, I think that to fully understand it, I would have to read all he writes about the topic in scattered places. But I saw something in parshas Behar which I think makes his position clearer.

The topic is idolatry, and he distinguishes between "kosher" idolatry -- worshiping the Sefirot and "treif" idolatry. He does not cast it as such, of course, since he considers Sefirot to be the elahus but see what he writes. The pasuk is in Vayikra 26:1:

א לֹא-תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם אֱלִילִם, וּפֶסֶל וּמַצֵּבָה לֹא-תָקִימוּ לָכֶם, וְאֶבֶן מַשְׂכִּית לֹא תִתְּנוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם, לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת עָלֶיהָ: כִּי אֲנִי ה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

1 Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the LORD your God.

Rabbenu Bachya writes what is pictured to the right. Namely, that which are worshiped by the gentiles are actual forces, but they are called "elilim" rather than eilim {with a yud, connoting power}, to testify on the smallness of their power. For though they have power, it is not from them, but rather from outside them. (He identifies this as the Shem haMeyuchad in parshas Kedoshim. This seems to mean that they actually are existing forces, but just to do what God directs them to do.) And once it mentioned Elilim, which are the upper forces, it mentions also pesel and maseicha, which are idols, made by man to receive those forces. (I am not sure if Rabbenu Bachya believes here that this reception of the forces actually works.) He also gives an explanation why this instruction about idolatry is placed by the commands about eved, and suggests that it is so that a slave should not say he will worship Elilim because his master does so, and so on. It is a good instruction even for those who are non-servants.

But which forces does Rabbenu Bachya consider Elilim? Namely, would he consider the Sefirot to be Elilim? After all, shouldn't we say that their power is not from themselves, for they are just doing the will of Ein Sof? But he considers all of them to be El, as he says "El Hem" about the ten sefirot, and casts them as the Boreih, the Creator! May one worship them? (Indeed, does he consider Ein Sof to be a separate thing from the Sefirot? I don't know, but see in later posts from the Vikuach about a dispute about this matter.)

He writes in parshas Kedoshim, on Vayikra 19:4

ד אַל-תִּפְנוּ, אֶל-הָאֱלִילִם, וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם: אֲנִי, ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

4 Turn ye not unto the idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

what is pictured above. In this case, he elaborates a bit more. He clarifies that by Elilim, he means the sechalim hanifradim which are below ten, and they are called Elilim from Eil, meaning power, but the duplication is to show they have only a little power, because their power is not from themselves but mizulatam, namely, the Shem haMeyuchad. And this is the meaning of "Ki kol elohei haAmim elilim, va-Hashem, Shamayim Asah." Through creation of heaven, Hashem's completeness and power in and of Himself is publicized.

Rabbenu Bachya explains וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה as referring to still other (existing) forces, which are below that of the sechalim hanifradim, that of the stars and constellations (mazalot), and the idols receive the force from them, and this is what the Torah is prohibiting.

Assuming I am reading this correctly, I think we can say that michlal lav ata shomea hen. It would then seem that the ten, the Sefirot, do have power, and not a little power, because their power does come from themselves. Thus, he must hold that they themselves are Divinity.

This might also undermine certain explanations of Sefirot as just carrying out the will of Ein Sof, because after all, it is everything else below which does not work on its own power.

But we have perhaps not covered enough of Rabbenu Bachya to draw such conclusions. At the moment, however, what I see is somewhat troubling. Perhaps more at a later date.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxiv

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest continues discussing Sefirot, and now contrasts the words of Rabbenu Bachya with those found in teshuvot Rivash, from another kabbalist, Don Yosef ben Shoshan, that one does not pray to the Sefirot, but only to Ein Sof, but asks that He direct the Sefirah appointed over a specific matter. But not that they are Divinity. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: I will make the matter entirely clear before you. And now, let us bless upon the food which we have eaten.

And it was after the blessing that the man said to me: I do not know how the kabbalists can boast that their wisdom is mekubelet {received} in their hands, and that there is none who ponders after their words, except to accept them as if they were given from Sinai, after I find them perplexed and without agreement in the great fundamental upon which all their wisdom relies.

The author: Be careful with your words, for it may be because of the depth of the concept and the deficiency of those contemplating it, it is easy to stumble and think that they argue, while they never argued in their lives, but rather we have not descended to the end of their thought, and if it is all but from us.

The guest: All this is true. But what will you believe, my brother, about the words of Rabbenu Bachya about the yud found in the word Bore`echa, and upon the name Elohim which is divided, according to his opinion, into two words, El and Hem? Do you not believe with all your heart that the intent of the Rav {=Rabbenu Bachya} was that the Sefirot were themselves the Identity of the Divinity?

The author: So it appears to me in truth, but it is possible that I err, for I have not received the wisdom from the mouth of a kabbalist sage.

The guest: And now hear what the gaon of renown, Rivash (who was the student of Rabbenu Nissim), wrote. Take, please, the sefer of his Teshuvot, or the sefer Avodat haKodesh which brings down his words (in chelek haAvodah, chapter 13), and see.

And I took the sefer Sheelot uTeshuvot Rivash {but not in the linked-to version} and the man read before me from Teshuva 157: "And it already happened to me when I was in Sarkista that the very old sage Don Yosef ben Shoshan came there, whom I had already seen in Balansia, and he was a sage in Talmud, and a seer {?} in philosophy, and was a kabbalist and a pious man and was scrupulous in commandments, and between me and him was great love and friendliness. And one time I asked him how you kabbalists, with one blessing, have intent for a specific known Sefirah, and with another blessing for a different Sefirah; and furthermore if there is Divinity to the Sefirot, such that a person would pray to them.

And he answered me: Forfend that the prayer would be to anyone to Hashem Yisbarach Most High. But this matter is like one who has a dispute and asks the king to perform justice for him, he will ask him to command the one who sits upon judgment that he judge for him, and not that he command the one appointed over the treasury, for then the request would be in error. And so too if one asks from the king that he give him a present, he does not say to him that he should command the judge but rather to command the treasurer. And so too if one asked from him wine, he will ask that he command the royal butler, and if he asks for bread he will say to the royal baker, and not the opposite.

So is the matter of prayer. For it is always to the Highest of High, but he intends in thought to extend the abundance to that Sefirah which is associated with that matter upon which he asks. Such as one says that in the blessing on the righteous one should have intent on the Sefirah called Chesed which is the Trait of Mercy, and in the blessing on the Minim {apostates} one should have intent on the Sefirah which is called Gevurah which is the Trait of Judgment. And this is analogous to this. This is what the aforementioned pious man explained to me about the intent of the kabbalists, and behold it is very good.

However who brought us into all this? Is it not good to pray plainly to Hashem Yisbarach in intent, and He Knows in which way to pay the one who makes the request, like the statement which is written {Tehillim 37:5}:

ה גּוֹל עַל-ה דַּרְכֶּךָ; וּבְטַח עָלָיו, וְהוּא יַעֲשֶׂה.

5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in Him, and He will bring it to pass.

And this is what the great Rav, Rabbi Shimshon dekinun z"l who I mentioned above. And so do I inform you of that what my teacher the Rav Rabbenu Nissim z"l told me in private {?} that Ramban z"l invested himself in believing in the matter of this kabbalah, etc."

End quote from the words of the Rivash in the responsum.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxiii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest now asks how kabbalah can be mekubelet, if there is a dispute in the fundamental upon which everything else relies, namely whether the Sefirot are etzem elahut or keilim nivraim, or something else. Rabbenu Bachya maintains the former, while Rabbi Mordechai Yitzchak Kolonia (and others) held otherwise. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: This is not truly the way of wise men to judge from the particular on the entirety of the general. And if one finds also in the congregation of kabbalists one of a thousand who is not crowned with all the exemplary traits ...

The guest: and is an idiot, a wicked person, and a haughty person ...

The author: still, will you not admit that the majority, as if all of them, are men of accomplishment, those who fear God, men of truth, haters of {improper} profit, who are luminaries within their nation, and they are mentioned in each and every generation for praise, renown, and glory. And who will say about holy ones such as these "you are saying falsehood, and all of your kabbalah is made up and forged?"

The guest: And how can I believe that it is received {mekubelet} in their hands. And behold, they argue on on the other in the fundamental upon which everything depends. Is it not the matter of the Sefirot. For some of them say that they are the Identity of the Creator. And some of them say that are only created vessels.

And a wisdom whose fundamental is in a state of doubt, how can it be a received and true kabbalah {received wisdom}?

The author: Behold, this is an extremely lofty and deep matter, and we shall not discuss it together with the food and the drink.

But this I will say to you, that you have reminded me with these words of yours an incident which happened to me in the days of my youth, and all me days I have been aggravated about it, and I have not found an explanation to the matter.

Know that I was 16 years old, and I was attending before my primary teacher {rabbi muvhak} the pious sage Rabbi Mordechai Yitzchak Kolonia, zlh"h (*), who was at the end of his days a blind man, and I would read before him, and write from his dictation his derashot.

And it was that day that I read before him the verse {in Kohelet 12:1} וּזְכֹר, אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ, בִּימֵי, בְּחוּרֹתֶיךָ and I said to him: Rabbi! The word בוראך is written with a yud.

And he said: Silence! What are you putting forth out of your mouth? Is this not a scribal error?

And I answered and said: But my master, it appears to me that in have already seen in Rabbenu Bachya that he darshens this yud, and behold it appears that there is no scribal error here.

And he said to me: Take the sefer Minchas Shai.

And I took it, and I found written therein: בּוֹרְאֶיךָ written plene with a yud, and see in Bachya at the beginning of parashat Bereishit.

And my rebbi said to me: Take sefer Bachya.

And I took it, and I sought in it, and I found that he darshens the word אלהים as two words, אל and הם, and that this is the explanation of the yud of וּזְכֹר אֶת-בּוֹרְאֶיךָ written plene.

{The implication is El Hem, they are God. And the yud implies 10, such that there are ten of them. Thus, the Sefirot.}

And my rebbi was astonished and he said: Forfend! The Sefirot are not Divinity!

And I heard this and did not understand, and I stood shaking, how Rabbenu Bachya {bar Asher} could say something upon which it correct to say "Forfend!" And I knew the aforementioned rabbi who extremely great in wisdom, and also the wisdom of kabbalah was not concealed from before him, even though all his days he did not wish to speak in it a word.
And I was more astounded when I grew up and read a bit in the books of kabbalah, and saw the disputes between the kabbalists in the matter of the Sefirot, and I said in my heart: How is it possible that there is found any more dispute, after the Rav, the Ari, arose and resolved all the doubts with ruach hakodesh which rested upon him?

And from where did this tradition {kabbalah} come to this rabbi that the Sefirot were not Divinity, after the Rav the Ari (zal) already taught they they are the Identity of the Divinity?

___________________
(*) He was gathered to his nation on Adar I, 524, and he was the brother of the magnificent Rav Avraham di Koloniah.



{
The following is some of the text from Rabbenu Bachya from parshas Bereishis:

}

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xiv

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The author just claimed that Ibn Ezra cited Rav Saadia Gaon about the chachmei haSefirot, so it must be that this kabbalistic notion is as old as that. The guest now shows that that phrase chachmei haSefirot in context refers to astronomers. Then, he turns to the topic of gilgul, and how Rav Saadia Gaon condemned this belief as foolish. The author suggests that this is because kabbalah was not as revealed, so Rav Saadia Gaon did not know of this kabbalistic belief. The guest shows that he did know of this belief in all its particulars, but nonetheless condemns it. Then, he notes that Rambam condemns the kabbalistic practice of combining letters and claiming it is a Divine Name. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: Forged evidence such as this I despair to bear and I am almost worried about about the sin of not bearing a false report.

Do you still not know what is intended by Rabbi Ibn Ezra with the phrase chachmei haSefirot? Go and seek out the verse {Bereishit 1:14}

יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.

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

and see if the Sefirot he mentions are the same ones as the Sefirot that the kabbalists mention.

{The author now relates:} And I took the commentary of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra on the Torah and I searched out the verse יְהִי מְאֹרֹת, and I found his writing: "And if someone asks, do not the chachmei haSefirot say that the planet Tzedek {=Jupiter} and all the planets except for Kochav {=Mercury} and Nogah {=Venus} are larger than the moon, and so how can you say הַגְּדֹלִים, the large ones?"

And the man {=the guest} said to me: And how can you not see that the Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra called chachmei haSefirot {perhaps spheres} to the sages of astronomy? And so too you find to him in other places if you seek out in his commentaries. And when it comes down to it, is it not so that that which he says in his introduction is something to be learned from its matter, that Rabbenu Saadia upon the verse יְהִי מְאֹרֹת speaks in matters of astronomy.

And I, even though you speak to me so haughtily, I do not suspect you either of foolishness or dishonesty, when you bring lying proofs such as this. But rather I think that you previously saw them brought down in one of the books of the kabbalists, which you is the straightness of your heart did not know how much they are established liars and dissemblers.

Not like these, however, are the proofs which stand by my right side to support me when I deny the earliness of the kabbalah.

Do you not know that one thing of the faith of the kabbalists, and that one which is most popularized by the hamon {common folk}, in their simple understanding, is the belief in gilgul {transmigration of souls}. And now come and see what Rabbenu Saadia Gaon wrote in his honored sefer, sefer haEmunot veHaDeot, at the end of the sixth maamar.

And I took sefer haEmunot, and the man read in it before me these words. "But I say that there are men of those who are called Jews who say something which is a change and they call it a copy {i.e. something not new}, and the substance of it by them is that the spirit of Reuven returns to Shimon and afterwards to Levi and afterwards to be in Yehuda. And there are many of them who says that there are times that the spirit of a man is in an animal, and the spirit of an animal in a man, and many things of this type of craziness and confusion. And I have looked at what they say in this maamar, and I have found four mistakes, etc., etc. And the simpletons do not understand, etc. And I would lift my words from their lightness of their thoughts, and would be loftier than their lack {presumably and not address them}, if not for my fear of the persuasion.

I {=the author} answered him: In those first days, the wisdom of the kabbalah was in truth a kabbalah {received wisdom}, that is to say it was received from one mouth to another {orally}, and not written. Therefore, it is possible, and indeed possible, that Rabbenu Saadiah, with the breadth of his wisdom in the wisdom of the Written Law and also the Oral Law which was already written in his days in a book, did not merit to receive the secrets of the kabbalah from a kabbalist Sage.

The guest: Rabbenu Saadia was not without knowledge of the belief in gilgul, since he mentions it in all its specifics and particulars, and with all the proofs which are brought to establish it and to supports it. But rather he says that this is not a traditional belief in the nation, but rather than it is the opinion of a few men who are "called" Jews, that is to say that they are not Jews in truth.

To what is this matter comparable? To that which the kabbalists say that the secrets of the kabbalah were not revealed to the Rambam, for he did not merit to receive them from a true kabbalist, and therefore his thoughts are not like their thought. And this, however, is lies and dissembling, for the Rambam in his sefer Moreh {=Nevuchim} already mentions one of the cornerstones of the wisdom of kabbalah, but he talks at length to mock it.

And I {= the author} took the sefer Moreh {Nevuchim}, and the man read before me in the first volume {chelek}, chapter 61, like these words: "And it should not enter your thoughts the craziness of the writers of amulets and what you hear from them or that you find in their various books; and of the Names which they compose they do not refer to anything in any fashion, and they call them Names, and they think that they {=these purported Divine Names} require holiness and purity, and that they do wondrous things. All these matters are not proper for a complete individual to hear, all the more so to believe in them."

He read further before me in the chapter which followed it, and this is its language: "And when these evil, simple men found these words, they expanded for themselves the falsehood and the saying, which they could collect whatever letters they wished and say that this was a "Name," which one could do and perform when one writes or utters this appellation. And afterwards they wrote these lies which the original simpletons invented of their own hearts, and these books were copied to the good people, soft of heart, the fools, who did not have by them balances by which to know the truth from the falsehood, and they hid them and they were found where they were abandoned, and it was thought about them that they were truth. And in the end, a simple person will believe anything.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xiii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest attributes the position that the Sefirot are simply numbers to the Rabbi Yehuda haLevi, author of sefer haKuzari. The author responds that Rabbi Yehuda haLevi did not know the true meaning of Sefirot, since it was not popularized in his generation. The guest points out that the kabbalistic conception of Sefirot does not accord with certain language used in sefer Yetzirah; and further that kabbalists never created anything big or small via sefer Yetzirah. The author now attempts to prove that the chachmei haSefirot existed in the time of Rav Saadia Gaon, a claim the guest will debunk in the next segment. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The guest: Let us put aside the philosophers, and now come and I will establish you on the substance of the intent of sefer Yetzirah based on the opinion of the lofty sage Rabbi Yehuda haLevi, who revealed to us the correct explanation and which sits well on the intellect, more than all that is written in this matter.

It is an important foundation to the author of sefer Yetzirah that all that Hashem wants He does, and all that He imagines in His thoughts He causes to come into existence for its time, without and other labor: Therefore, when he {=the author of sefer Yetzirah} comes to inform us in his book the matter of creation {yetzira}, he only mentioned 32 paths of wondrous knowledge, by which the world was created, and these are the ten numbers and the twenty two letters. And the reason is that when the Master of all contemplated decided in His Heart what He wished to create, He would set bounds for each and every matter its quality and quantity, and the author of the sefer Yetzirah hinted to the qualities with letters, for the letters, when you join them together to form words, inform about the name and the substance of things; and he hints to quantity with numbers, and the matter is plain that the numbers inform about the quantities of things.

{J: An interjection here, for a definition of terms. Sefer Yitzirah 2:4 reads:
"He set the fundamental twenty-two letters in a wheel, as a wall, in two-hundred-and-thirty-one gates. The wheel moves forward and backward. And the sign of the matter is: "There is nothing in goodness above pleasure and nothing in misfortune below a [leprous] lesion."

231 gates is arrived at as follows.
22 * 21, since there are 22 choices for the first letter and 21 choices for the second letter. This equals 462. Divide by 2 because we treat AB as identical to BA, and we have 231 combinations, which are called "gates."
}

And behold, according to what the Master of all joins in His Heart the letters via the 231 gates and their descendants, so too immediately and instantly the substance combines and bonds as is fitting in the Eyes of the Creator to do. And according to how He combines the numbers in His Heart, so do the created stand in that measure which arose in thought before Him.

And if we were able, when speaking the word "man," {?? or perhaps, "when speaking human speech"} to bring out its form, we would be capable of the Divine speech, and we would be creators.

And a simple example of this matter is already apparent in terms of the movement of our limbs. For it is enough that a person imagines in his heart to move one of his limbs in some movement, and immediately, the nerves move the arteries and the arteries move the cords {?muscles?} and the cords move the hand or the foot, or whatever the person wishes to move. {Note: I am sure I did not translate the biological terms correctly here, since such specific medical terms might not be the same in modern Hebrew. To be fixed -- and any help is appreciated. Here is a history of nerves and another one -- by Shadal's day, they knew all about nerves transmitting electrical signals from the brain and causing muscle contraction.}

And those {Talmudic} Sages who were in truth creators did not create with their wisdom {chochma} nor did they perform actions by which creator of something would be compelled, as the simple think, and those who grant the honor of the Creator to his creations, and His praise to sons of man; rather, because of their righteousness and their piety, Hakadosh Baruch Hu fulfilled their desires, and He was the one who made it so that all that arose in their thoughts came out immediately into reality; such that when they were engaged in sefer Yetzirah, and they contemplated in their hearts the qualities of the thing they wished to create and its quantity, their thoughts went out to actuality, not because of their {using this} wisdom, but rather from Hashem's love for them.

This is the primary idea of sefer Yetzirah, and therefore you do not find that he says in any place, "when you come to create, do such-and-such," for he knew that this matter was not in the hands of man, but rather to Hashem alone.

The author: These words were fitting for the one who said them. And behold this is a very beautiful proffering of Rabbi Yehuda haLevi, in order to bring the matters close to the intellect, since he never saw in his days the lights of the kabbalah. But we, upon whom the light of the true received wisdom has shined from our ancient ones, there is no doubt that we should not set aside the certain in order to take the doubtful.

The guest: There are two answers to the matter. Firstly, that the words of sefer Yetzirah are not explained at all according to the opinions of the kabbalists. For behold, if you say that the Sefirot are themselves Divinity, how does he say "and before His throne they prostrate themselves?" And if the Sefirot are all bounded creations, how did he say that they have no end? And is it not so that everything created is perforce something something that is finite. And the second answer is that we have never heard about of of the congregation of kabbalists that he created something, neither a small thing nor a large thing.

{J: There are stories of questionable accuracy about the Maharal of Prague and the Vilna Gaon creating golems.}

The author: I see that you are a wise man in your own eyes, in the same fashion as the fools who never saw lights {meorot of kabbalah} in their days. If this is not so, how does it enter your heart that you will descend to the depths of sefer Yetzirah more that the geniuses of the land who were before me and before you? And further, how do you not see that the faith of the kabbalists in the matter of the Sefirot was received in their hands from the first {=earlier} generations? Do you not to to Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah, that he said that Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (such that this was the year 900) in the commentary of {Bereishit 1:14}

יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.

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

extends to talk based on the wisdom of the Sefirot.