The Truth About The Zohar As "Qabalah" :

The Irrefutable Issue of Ribbi Reshayoth: The Illegal "Multiplicity of Reigning Powers"

"And we say that we shall not unite 2 Gods in G-D or 5 Gods in G-D or 10 Gods in G-D, nor shall we have anything to do with such Divine Unifications. For this reason it is prohibited to speak of Divine emanated levels and categories. Any such levels or categories necessarily become a Multiplicity of reigns and Divisions in God, G-D forbid. Moses, the teacher of us all, taught ‘Be of a pure and simple heart with the Lord, your God’ and he taught ‘The hidden things are to the Lord, your God, while the revealed things are for us and for our children’.

"If you have understanding you will comprehend that which our sages pointed out. They have clearly stated that the Divine Chariot (the mysteries of Torah) includes matters too deep and too profound for the ordinary intellect. It has been shown that a person favored by providence with reasons to understand these mysteries is forbidden by the Law to teach them except viva voce, and on condition that the pupil possess certain qualifications, and even then only the heads of the sections may be communicated.  This has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared from our nation and nothing has remained of it."
                      (Rabenu Moshe - Mosheh ben Maimon zs"l - Moreh Nevuhhim - 1160 CE).

“Glory then to Him who is such that when the intellects contemplate His essence, their apprehension turns into incapacity; and when they contemplate the proceeding of His actions from His will, their knowledge turns into ignorance; and when the tongues aspire to magnify Him by means of attributive qualifications, all eloquence turns into weariness and incapacity!” (RMb"M: MN 1:58)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Do you really think you can reach the final understanding of G-D?" (Job 11,7)

SITE ADMIN's INTRO

"This has been the cause why the knowledge of this mystery has entirely disappeared from our nation and nothing has remained of it." (Guide)

"It would have been superfluous thus to dilate on this subject, were it not for the mass of the people who are accustomed to such ideas." (Guide)

QUESTION to the ZOHAR Mystic: Do you honestly believe that man is capable of bridging the gap between the finite and infinity (G-D)? Even though the term infinity may be limiting (in terms of describing HaShem who is not numerically defined or divided), we shall stick with it during this article for the sake of reason and logic.

ANSWER: This was the challenge the Qabalists sought to overcome. They actually believed (ie: still believe) it was possible to bridge this gap with their emanation dogma. But as you will see proven below (based on early historical sources and logic), HaShem (G-D) actually created the Kavode (a revelation of the Divine Presence) for this very purpose...to give our limited, finite, wise men something to behold, as no mortal man can actually reach the infinite Creator. As stated above, the keepers of the chariot (ie: the genuine mystical tradition) no longer exist.

So let your tongues and heart be still. And for goodness sake, stop giving money over to the big lie- "the business of selling the Zohar".  The translation of Mori Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh El Qafahh's "Milhamoth HaShem" (that is quoted below) is accurate--and thus relevant to this article.  (Site Admin.)

 ר' שמעון בן יוחי עבד עובדא בשמיטתא חמא חד מלקט ספיחי שביעית אמר ליה ולית אסור ולאו ספיחין אינון אמרו ליה ולא את הוא שאת מתיר אמר ליה ואין חבירי חולקין עלי וקרי עלוי (קוהלת י) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש וכן הות ליה. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi Shimon ben YoHai [he was Israeli, not Bavli--ben, not bar] proved a point about the Shmita. One came to pick saphiHin [produce that grows of its own during the Shemittah year--not planted. He had previously ruled it to be permitted to pick these during Shemittah, but the Sanhedrin overruled his opinion].

He [the rabbi] said, "isn't it forbidden [what you are doing]?? And aren't those saphiHin?" 

"[Yes, but] aren't you [the one] who permits it?!" 

"Yes, [the rabbi answered] but didn't my colleagues disagree with me [and overrule my opinion]?"  And he recited over him [the passuq from Qohalath 10], 'he who breaks a fence [of the rabbis], a snake will bite him.' And so it happened. [HaShem fulfilled the word of the saintly Sadiq, and a snake bit the man to death]" 

This shows that Rabbi Shim'on ben YoHai, no matter WHAT he ruled, or WHAT he wrote (or didn't write), subjugated himself to the majority opinion of the Sanhedrin.

He may have held many opinions that could have veered far from his colleagues. But he would NEVER agree to future generations relying on his words against the accepted halakhah as it was codified.

And so, we must keep this in mind, before attributing anything to Rabbi Shim'on ben Yohai. Surely, everything attributed to him would be in line with the law.

This was taught to me by one of my masters. 

The source, by the way is דף ו,ב פרק א הלכה א גמרא 

That is Yerushalmi, massakhath barakoth, daph wow, amudh bei, towards the very end of the daf.

Parasha Tetsawah: The Avon Ketz: Israel's Final Sin Of The Zohar

PURPOSE: Indeed, this is a very disturbing article. Most of the content is taken from Milhamoth HaShem. This article intends to unite Israel by defining the original and historical traditions and laws (ie: dogma) that have existed since the days of old. Using undeniable logic and accurate historical data, we can retrace the thinking of the original, pre-mystical (or should we call them the authentic Qabalistic) masters (ie: the Saadia Jaon and the RMb"M). Afterall, the word Qaballah was originally understood as anything passed down orally (even to the oral law). The very fact that G-D is above our understanding (indefinable) does not dismiss us from the requirement to use logic (and other sciences) in our never-ending quest to approach and know him (to the best of our capability). Defining "what he is not" can only lead us to inescapable conclusions that enhance our true understanding of His nature. So logic (as limiting as it is) will be used in this article.

This honest, religious, historic and factual analysis of the Zohar (and other Qabalistic documents) aims to bring us back (down) to our humble origins. This article is in no way meant to endorse those who would use it to detract from today's Jewish Observant Rabbonim (may they be blessed with long life, honesty, objectivity, accuracy, logic and success)...This article deals with one specific, important snare. May G-D nullify attempts to use this article in a harmful way. May G-D turn the enemy's curse into a complete blessing, as was done by Bilam in the the time of Balak. At the end of the day, we should strengthen our resolve to study things that all Jews (across the board) agree with. Works like the Mishna & Gemara, RMb"M's "Yad" (Mishna Torah), Midrash Rabbah & Gadol, Targum and many others that make up the nuts and bolts of our faith. Please sit up strait and take note. The contents of this article should never be used as an excuse not to learn these nuts and bolts with an Orthodox Hhevrah--even one in error regarding the subject of this article. If the subject of this article becomes your primary focus in life, you will spiritually falter (heaven forbid). I've seen this happen before. But it is still important for you to understand the concepts of this article. Because they are critical to the object of your correct worship. They are critical to the basic definition (or non-definition) of our monotheistic G-D.

I stand by every word of this article despite the popularity (and sometimes obsession) with the Zohar that exists today. If this article comes off a bit sarcastic... I apologize in advance. Not all of the content was written by me. But the concepts are solid. I have separately verified the English translation of Milhamoth HaShem (I quote and paraphrase below). The following article is dedicated to all my friends and family (may they live many long, happy, Jewish years…bli ayn hara). We have to be honest and clear about what Judaism believed (originally)--and what has been illegally added since then. The "Onis Probandi" always rests on the new thing--not the other way around. This is logical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this week’s Parasha Tetsawah -- Shemoth 28:42 says the following about the Holy Priests: "and you shall make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness"

On this verse, the RMb"M says the following: "The custom of the idolaters to expose their nakedness during their worship is well known. Our priests were therefore commanded to wear breeches during their service, and even then not to ascend to the altar on steps, so as not to reveal their nakedness." Guide 3:46

In the "olden days", the practices of avodah zorah (idol worship) were well known. They stood out like a sore thumb. Their (outwardly) idolatrous cults made them easy to identify. Thus, Jewish Priests would avoid emulating it in their service. Indeed the pure monotheistic faith was strong and true in those days. Although Ancient Judaism has had bouts with idol worship (on and off) throughout its' history, Israel has always returned to the worship of the one true G-D. 

Today’s avodah zorah (idolatry) is more subtle and hidden from the world. In addition, today’s violations are a bit more elusive then they used to be. As a shocking result, avodah zorah has managed to penetrate observant Jewish communities throughout the world (without their knowledge) in modern times. Please read the previous sentence one more time before continuing…According to the Hhacham from Saana, Yemen --Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh El Qafahh zs'l, there is a new danger on today’s horizon that came to us in the form of an extremely controversial book of so-called "Jewish mysticism" --known simply as the "Zohar" . 

But how could this be? Is Rabbi Qafahh zs"l calling the greatest Rabbonim (of the past four hundred years) idolaters for espousing the doctrines of the Zohar... Is this possible ? How could a mystical work like the Zohar (which was accepted by most "Gedolim" for the past 400 years) be idolatrous ? Could the Rabbonim have actually missed something? How is this whole thing possible? To believers in the Trinity (l'h), it sounds possible, but to pious and scholarly Jews who spend their days in contemplating the precious meanings of the Torah, how is it possible?

Rav Qafahh zs"l answers to this in one place: If it were not possible that the heads of Israel fall into error concerning an idolatrous sin, why would it be provided by the Torah that in the case an idolatrous sin hidden to the eyes of all the heads of the congregation (ie: the Sanhedrin or Nasi), a sin offering must be brought etc. ? The Torah exclaims that an idolatrous sin might be perpetrated even by all Israel without it being recognized until after the fact (Lev 4 & Numbers 15) .

Obviously those who follow the Zohar do not bow down to crass graven images. They bow down, instead, to extremely sophisticated graven mental images and concepts, but they are unaware of its idolatry. The sin of the fathers is always subtle, otherwise no one would fall into its clutches.

Please sit back and relax. Take off your shoes and clean your feet. Drink some chamomile or Green tea if you must. But please… try to fully absorb a point of view that comes straight from the leader of one of the most pristine forms of Yehadut (Judaism) on the planet --- The Yemenite Jews . But more importantly, it comes from the Saadia Jaon and RMb"M. If you would like a quick background about the Yemenite Jews, click here:

The following piece (below) was taken from translation of Milhamoth Hashem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 THE HOLY WARS against the FALSE Qabalah of the ZOHAR

by the Hhacham from Saana, Yemen
MORI YIHHYAH BAN SHLOMOH Qafahh ZS'L
Taken from an actual translation from Hebrew into English and comments (in parenthesis)

INTRODUCTION FROM THE SITE ADMIN: According to Mori, you don't need to be an expert in Zohar to understand these things. Study these pages a few times and you will clearly see it. The most important thing to keep in mind is that the idolatrous doctrines to which we refer derive from the concept of Atzilut -Emanation. It is essential to the Sacred Wars that one may not speak of levels or categories in G-D above or before the Act of creation. This fact will help the reader not to get confused. We are really not interested in what the Qabalists say concerning their Worlds of creation, Formation and Action. But in formulating any categories or levels above the level of creation, idolatrous doctrines are created, doctrines when translated are closer to the Divine Emanations in the Hind-u religion than to the pure Monotheistic faith of Judaism. In comparison to Christianity, once we know that the John’s doctrine of the Logos represents a false theology, making Jesus the Instrument of G-D’s creation, we are no longer interested in all the rest of John’s theology concerning Jesus.

A description of the idolatrous doctrines of the Zohar
"The Etz Hhaim and the Mikdash Melech in the name of Yitzhak Luria states: The ‘Cause of all causes’ is Adam Kadmon, The Cause over all other causes. Explanation: When we say the ‘Cause of causes’ this pertains to each partzuf and is so called because it is the cause of those causes below it. But when we say the Cause of all causes, this is Adam Kadmon, the First Cause of all the partzufim."

Thus is it explained in the philosophical words of the Zohar and its commentators, that the G-D who gave permission to R. Shimon b. Yohai (to speak about what is prohibited even to think about, namely a multiplicity in God) is Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu called "Atik". This, however, is not the one (according to Zohar) who said to Israel ‘Behold now that it is I’ etc. Since the one who said to Israel ‘Behold now’ is ADAM KADMON, the First Cause of all the partzufim who has not from whom to take permission.

Likewise, the one who said ‘Let there be light’ ‘Let there be a firmament’ Let the waters gather etc. is called 'Aba' (in Zohar), but the one who said ‘Let us make a man in our image’ is 'Ema'. For Ema said to Aba ‘Let us make a man’ but Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu (Aba) did not agree to his creation until she said to him "What difference is it to you, if he sins it is against me that he sins, as it states ‘A foolish son is the anguish of his mother’ but not the anguish of his father.

So was he created against the will of Aba and, as the Shvilei Noga explains: If Aba had agreed to his creation, he would not have banished ‘her’ from Gan Eden together with him when he sinned, but because he had not agreed, he banished her as well. " [Comment from Site Admin: Take some ten gods from the Greek Pantheon and instead of the contents of the Greek myths, substitute them with verses of the Torah and Tradition, and you too could write a Zohar ]

Back to the Introduction:

We, however, who believe in His Oneness to which there is no like in all other entities of ‘one’, From all the above mentioned statements of the Zohar and its commentators, we see that they call to each "partzuf" of the World of Emanation with the Tetragrammaton (the ineffable four letter name of G-D that is not taken lightly), with ADONAI, with ELOHIM and with HA-KADOSH BARUCH HU (the Holy One, Blessed is He). They have, however, chosen out the last partzuf "Zeir Anpin" to serve. They say as well that the "EIN SOF" and all the other partzufim emanated from it are not to be served or prayed to because of their great exaltedness. How much more so the partzufim in those worlds above the world of Emanation for reason of their great hiddenness.

(According to them): Only "Zeir Anpin" can be served and called to in the ‘hour of need’, for He is the Middle-Pillar which joins all the forces from above and from below. He was ‘raised’ by Aba and Ema and given ‘Rule’ over all the creations which, in their turn, were commanded to serve and to bless Him. And this, according to them, is the Lord, our God, G-D save us! Let us now look at the Zohar (Balak) with the commentary of Mikdash Melech on the verse ‘He who withholds grain shall be cursed by the nation’ (mone’a bar yikvuhu le’um) -

[Admin comment: The Fourth Generation (this one) is also the time of the Great Purification of the faith for the world. How much more so is it essential that the faith of Israel, which is the pure faith of Abraham, our father, and the faith revealed in the Holy Torah and in Jewish tradition, be clarified and purified so that it be totally uncontaminated by extraneous doctrines of human intellect which deviate from the truth. Only when Israel’s faith is pure can it be a light of the true faith for the world, a world the majority of which has yet to purify its many forms of idolatry.]

Just this understanding is necessary for the correction of Israel’s Sin of the Last Days of Judgment. Just as Aaron had to admit before Moses that he had not understood the evil that lurked within the idolatrous tendency of the mixed-multitude, so must (many of) the heads of Rabbinate Judaism lower their heads before the knowledge of Milhhamot Ha-Shem against the false Qabalah and to understand their great error. Repentance from this sin on the part of the heads of Israel represents nothing less than the first entrance of the Jewish people into its Final Redemption.

Heaven forbid: The Qabalists have considered the Infinite G-D Who Is (EIN SOF) and God the Maker ("Zeir Anpin") as two separate "God-heads", the latter being an emanated existence in the ‘form’ of a ‘Spiritual Cosmic Man-God’ who is the ruler and king over all the worlds. As one might beseech a king to grant him his desire, for it is in the king’s power to give, so are prayers to be directed to the king of the world, and not therefore to the First Cause of all existence.

The Hacham R. Qafahh zs'l demonstrates prophetically and exactly that PLACING THE NAMES OF G-D ON TEN emanated SFIROT TO BE CALLED TO AS SHARING IN HIS GODLINESS, WHILE BEING CLOSER TO US AND WITHIN OUR REACH WHEREAS THE INFINITE EIN SOF, THE HIGHER INFINITE G-D ABOVE, IS ABOVE THE REACH OF ALL BEING, IS EXACTLY THE SAME SIN OF THE GENERATION OF ENOSH--IDOLATRY.

Indeed the introductory letters of Rav Qafahh zs'l are all intended to ask the Zohar-Qabalist how such a metaphysical concept ever came to be considered a true theology of the Jewish Faith? Our service and our prayers to G-D are not to be directed to the Higher Infinite Light but rather to the emanated "Zeir Anpin" (the Contracted Cosmic Man-G-D of the World of Emanation). Why didn’t Moses, our teacher, tell us about it, rebukes the Rav, or why didn’t the Prophets of Israel explain it to us so as to correct our error? Why did they let us waste our time and energy praying to the Higher Infinite G-D who is not interested in our prayers?

This is pure kifrut, exclaims ha-Mori Qafahh zs'l, and it corresponds exactly to the prohibition of ‘RIBUI RESHAYOT’ a ‘multiplicity of reigns’ against which the Sages, of blessed memory, warned in many instances.

*Rav Qafahh zs'l throws brimstone and fire against the idolatrous connotations of such a division of emanated Godheads which is closer to the Greek Pantheon than to the second Commandment.

IMPORTANT: It should be pointed out that Rabbi Yichyah Qafahh's grandson (Mori Yusef zs'l) took a different view of the Zohar that bordered on being silent, as opposed to that of his grandfather's approach. The younger Qafahh (while still opposing the Zohar as avodah zorah) favored a more quiet approach for the sake of Shalom Bayith. Throughout his life Rabbi Yosef Qafahh zs'l kept silent about the fierce schism which existed in his community 80 years ago, but which left deep marks on his own life. His stance was forced upon him by the Zohar-Qabalists. As a young man he was imprisoned on false charges by the Igashim, and almost forced to convert to Islam. Immediately after his release at the age of l9, he married and shortly thereafter emigrated to Israel.  Please click here for instructions (from Grandpa Yichyah Qafahh zs"l) on how he proposed to deal with the hidden sin of the new qabalah... 

Will the real ten sfiroth please stand up?

Site Admin: Yes... the ten sfiroth appear to exist (as they are mentioned in Sefer Yesira--most likely a valid source of real Qabalahh)--but not in the emanated form described by the new qabalists. In addition, Rav Qafahh zs'l says that to describe, speak or write about the Ten Sfiroth is to falsify them. "Do not search into that which is too wondrous for you" he said.

fr. ch. 67 of Milhamoth HaShem-- R. Y. Qafahh zs’l:  "The Shevilei Emunah justly admonishes:-Let it not arise in your mind that you will be able to perceive G-D by trying to study or to search into the knowledge of His Essence or of His Essential (absolute) Truth. For this is impossible. On the contrary, whoever attempts to enter into such a study is a blasphemer and a reviler. For all that which exists has not the power to understand this. How much more so one who is found in a material body. Therefore the Sages of blessed memory warned us and said: Don't search into that which is too wondrous for you." Ironically, this verse comes from an ancient book called Ben Sira. It eventually became corrupted and was thus thrown out of our authoritative books of scripture. Perhaps this is more than ironic. No one here is arguing against real Qabalah in principle (a true tradition of the Chariot that was 'received'). It is false Qabalah we struggle against.
---------------------------------------------

Site Admin: A few reliable (pre-Zohar) sources have given descriptions of the sefiroth in the past, but most of these references generate more questions than answers (in my humble opinion). I have listed some of the references below (which I continue to expand upon every week). Please don't stumble upon them or meditate on them for two long. And by all means, do not let these quotes engulf your definition / concept of G-D... because you will not truly understand them. Only a real oral tradition could transmit them properly. And there is a huge doubt in my mind (and also RMb"M's mind) that anyone has (had) this tradition anymore (see below).. Everything about the ten sefiroth is and should remain a mystery. Any "apparent" contradictions that appear below reflect a defect in our own knowledge. 

The suggestion that the sefiroth were "created" is a whole other can of worms (which I am brave enough to explore below). Because... once we hypothetically classify them as "created", there is no risk (of multiple eminated gods) when discussing them. One could argue (and a few great Rabbonim have) that "created sefiroth" nullify the possibility of emanation (i.e.: a dividing of G-D--heaven forbid).  Sounds like a great solution..right? Just remove them from the world of emination and move them into the created realm--similar to the non-physical (created) Angels. 

One pitfall with this approach is that one must remember that G-D has no need of any creation in order to create. So one who believes them to be "created" can STILL NOT speak of them as having any creative potential or rule. We can't say that G-D needed or that his own creations were the creator. In the end, one could argue that we do not know why HaShem created them--or did many other things during the creation of our world. All and all, this problem is not that big of a hurdle. By designating the function of the sefiroth as "unknown", the "created sefiroth" theory passes the test in flying colors. Just leave it alone. Ahhh... but that is not intellectually satisfying.

The concept of created sefiroth can be compared to the Divine Presense of G-D. Some of our sages (that hold this way) state that the sefiroth were used by HaShem to make his Presence known to a finite man-because Man was/is incapable of bridging the Infinite gap. I believe that Sefer Yessira specifically says that HaShem 'used' them (the Sefiroth). One explanation in Gamara and old Midrashim states that HaShem teaches humanity lessons by doing certain things. Perhaps that explains why he used them. For example, why did G-D consult with the heavenly court before creating man? To show us that it is important to seek counsel before doing things...not that he needed help in creating.

Below, we explore this concept further. 

The other alternative:

The other alternative is to hold onto to the idea that the ten sefiroth still fall into the category of Pre-creation. Thus, the initial challenge faced by the new Zohar-Qabbalists --of how to describe the Ten Sefiroth (pre-creation) without emanating them (i.e.: and dividing HaShem) is unavoidable. This is a dangerous place to be. Let's step backwards for a second and stop. We need to be very careful about Ribbi Rishayoth (attributing a multiplicity to HaShem's reign) here (lehavdil).

At this point, most folks view this "spiritual stop sign" as 'intellectually unsatisfying'. This is the problem. How do we satisfy intellectual curiosity without splicing and dicing the one indivisible G-D. At this point, the truly sensible person should answer "FORGET IT--we must stop here! " Let's go learn some practical stuff.

But there is room for a GENERAL discussion --provided we do not violate 'ribbi reshayoth' (dividing G-D) as explained above.

In my estimation, the answer to whether the Sefiroth were created (or not) is the critical issue in determining the nature of the Ten Sefiroth. On the one hand, they may just represent vague, intellectual (pre-creation) concepts that relate to HaShem. This approach may be okay in terms of avoiding idol worship. HOWEVER, the minute we say this, we encounter the danger of assigning usefulness to them as tools OR (on the other hand) we emanate spiritual 'forces' as separate from HaShem--clearly committing avodah zorah--a multiplicity of reigns (ribba reshayoth). As long as we can keep them vague enough without assigning them utility, this may work. But again... intellectual satisfaction comes into play. And does this approach really hold up to scrutiny?

However, viewing them as creations avoids the utility possibility (entirely). This may be the optimal choice. However, the created sefiroth approach has its own problems as well--as mentioned above and below. The person who is gung ho about leaving the Ten Sefiroth in the pre-creation world has no choice but to stop at this point--and chalk their nature up to an unknowable mystery (characteristics or descriptions) without mentioning them --or risk causing a division of G-D--a violation of Ribbi Reshayoth (a multiplicity of reigns).

GOING TO THE EDGE:

I think the possibility that the ten sefiroth (characteristics or descriptions) were "prior to creation" and simultaneously not a division of HaShem is also a possibility. Although it is impossible and dangerous (for finite creatures like us) to attempt an explanation. So I wont !

Returning back to the 'created sefiroth' approach, the RMb"M zs"l and rav Sa'id (the Saadia Jaon zs"l) also appear to support it. Although there are important differences to each of their approaches as well. Although it should be noted that one has to compare the Shehhina to the Sefiroth in order to make this conclusion--the concepts are enlightening.

For the moment, let's take a look at the "created" Sefiroth concept as espoused by the Saadia Jaon and the RMb"M (may they be remembered for a blessing). 

The following piece (below in navy blue) appears on a Jay Michaelson's website examining the Saadiah Gaon's response to these questions. Although I appreciate this website's contribution to the conversation at hand, I think the article does a disservice to its own approach by prematurely accusing the Saadia (and RMb"M by extension) of a non-Talmudic approach. While the Saadia's (and later the RMb"M's) apparently NEW approach does beg for a source, I choose to turn it around with the following question. Does the Talmud unequivocally state that the Shechinah is NOT created? More likely, this is a case of "absent evidence" for either view--which clearly leaves dogmatic room for opinions such as these. Although I am sure that some may disagree with me--I remain unimpressed by the verses they bring. And indeed, the RMb"M defends the Saadia's view (of a "created Divine Presence/ Kavode") as dogmatically acceptable--although as a second choice to his preferred compromise. ALSO, all of the participants in this discussion may be doing this study a disservice by referring to the Shekhina (Diving Presence) and the Kavode (his Glory) as synonymous. Perhaps this is the key to understanding this whole debate? Are they really the same exact thing? Although I choose to believe the RMb"M's first choice (which leaves the description a bit more vague) -- as opposed to the Saadia's more risqué concept, here is the clip. My comments appear in red.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"While the references to the Shechinah in Talmudic sources are somewhat diffuse, nowhere (with the one exception below) does it appear as (1) an entity distinct from G-D, and nowhere is there any reference to it (2) being a created object. [Again, this topic may not have been the focus for the Tanaaim. Because in those days, no one was considering any attempt to EMANATE a bridge between the finite and the infinite. Thus, absence of evidence (IN THIS CASE) does not make for evidence of absence--as LOGIC takes over. Also, there IS evidence that this critique may not have considered from mainstream Mikra sources - refer to Pg 121 in the Rosenblatt edition of "The Book of Beliefs and Opinions" by Saadia-Treatise II, chapter X, towards the end] . The former idea without the latter would seem to violate the concept of the unity and non-corporeality of G-D (a price paid by many Kabbalists, who accept it in the guise of an 'emanated kavod', later, the Sefirot). To accept the latter without the former makes no sense, and yet to accept neither is to admit that G-D can be known via revelation. Saadia's decision, to argue both, buys complete noncorporeality--a rationalist requirement--at the price of the theological preference for total veracity of the Written and Oral Torah. [I don't see how this goes against Talmudic sources. In fact, the Talmud clearly demonstrates that whatever we regard as perfection, is attributed to G-D, expressing that He is perfect in every way, and that no imperfection or deficiency is found in him whatsoever (Moreh Nevukhim). For sure, if someone was to claim that G-D decided to become finite --even for a short while, he would be breaking this dictum, and He would cease to be called G-D by this very definition] The position has its consequences (discussed below) but whatever they are, its origins are not in the Talmud. [In my humble opinion, the thoroughness of the writer's Talmudic review is in question.]

If the idea of the created kavod is not in Talmudic sources, where does it come from ? [IF? Than how is it that throughout the Talmud, HaShem has to CAUSE his Presence to dwell in certain places: "But when the Holy One decided to CAUSE His Presence to dwell there and to make it His sanctuary, He said: 'It is not fitting for a king to dwell in a valley, but only on a high and lofty mountain, resplendent in beauty and visible to all. So He beckoned the valley's environs to come together and provide a suitable place for the Presence." In anticipation of critics who will find verses that say the Presence never did descend or arise, I would again say the following. The concept of dwelling is -as the Sadia Gaon said-- a concept of revealing a created aspect that men could behold. There is no other choice here. Surely we can not say that HaShem does not already dwell everywhere or that there are STRONGER or WEAKER levels of HaShem. In fact, there is a verse in Megillah that says there is NO PLACE where His Presence does not dwell. So here is the resolution. This moving around of the Presence must be a reference of HaShem creating something for our Tsaddiqim to behold, as man can not possibly see the infinite and live. Also, the infinite can not possibly limit itself and still be called infinite. For those who would quote verses saying that the Presence / Shekina (dwelling presence) is the Infinite (although it might in different places depending on usage and content), I would again ask them to explain how the infinite can dwell in one finite place. By its very definition, this is an absolute illogical impossibility. And the response (I've heard) that G-D is above logic --is an escape from logic. Rather, it must mean that HaShem allowed us to view something that was representative of his Essence-- that He CREATED for men. This actually fits and fulfills the Talmudic concept of speaking to men in the language of men.  Thus, the term PRESENCE is used loosely depending on the context. By the way,  there may be a clear difference between the Kavode and Presence, and we are all off the mark... and this is really about the word Kavode. Either way... this discussion is still relevant in examining these concepts.

Urbach dates the "change of conception" regarding the Shechinah, to "the philosophical exegesis of R. Saadia Gaon," i.e. the application of Saadia's rational deduction to a scriptural problem. Again, the use of the word CHANGE here is loaded with agenda in my opinion. It lines up the argument that all of Medieval mysticism was one big response to rationalism (which they consider to be the new development). This takes the spot light off the fact that the Zohar doctrines were (in most cases) the actual (Greek oriented) innovations, and that logic was already a built-in component of our faith from the start.

(Uhrbach 64) More definitively, Joseph Dan has stated that the concept of the shechinah (again, there could be a blurring Kavod and Shechinah) being created is "absolutely an innovation" of Saadia's, and he does not know of any previous texts which refer to it, with only one exception. (Dan *) This exception, noted by both Gershom Scholem and by Urbach, is exactly one midrash--again, amid about forty cited in the Urbach work--which interprets Proverbs 22:29 ("Seest thou a man diligent in his business?") in part as follows:
            
When the Sanhedrin wished to count him [king Solomon] with the
three kings and four commoners, the Shechinah stood before the Holy
One, Blessed be He, and said unto Him: "Sovereign of the universe! 
Seest thou a man diligent?--They wish to count him with mean men."
                    (Midrash Proverbs, XXX, cited in Uhrbach 63)

Scholem [an admittedly controversial and yet useful source] sees here the beginning of a new conception of the Shechinah, yet at the same time stresses that the Hechalot literature that follows does not continue to develop it. (Scholem 59) Nor does Dan find any evidence for the continuity of the idea. Still, although Saadia does not mention this source, it is possible to conjecture that he may have read it. For our purposes, however, this possibility is less pertinent than the comment by one of Saadia's critics, R. Moses b. R. Hasdai, on the matter. R. Moses blames a misinterpretation of the above midrash (of course, giving his own correct one) for Saadia's and others' misconceptions about the Shechinah being a created form and charges that the source is insignificant: "We need pay no heed to the reading in Midrash Proverbs, for our Talmud takes precedence." (Ktav Tamim, Oshar Nechmad III, cited in Uhrbach 63). Here, the author again implies that our Talmud states something to the contrary. Above, I showed this was not true.

This observation is in fact what I believe to be most relevant in Saadia's redefinition of the kavod: that he goes against the apparent Talmudic opinion. Dan suggested, in fact, that--given the proto-Qabalistic agreement with the Talmudic sages on the point--the only group from whom Saadia might have learned of the idea of a created kavod would be the Karaites, although even from them we have no texts supporting such an idea.  This is absurd. Almost everything that Saadia wrote was written against the Karaites. You will not find a person, in the history of Judaism, who disagreed more with their doctrines. If anything, the Karaites were the first Jews to speak of concepts like Reincarnation. In fact, it is the RambaN who claims "reincarnation" as a Jewish belief, when in fact it first appeared in Judaism in the Karaite world. So we must take what the RambaN is saying here with deep suspicion. In reality, it is the Zohar-Qabalists who took from the Karaites, as the Saadia argued vigorously against the fraudulent and pagan concept of Reincarnation. This author would have us believe that the Saadia borrowed a concept (that defines the very nature of G-D) from his greatest antithesis. This is just preposterous revisionism.  A direct borrowing such as this would of course be shocking in Saadia's case, but even a divergence in principle from strict adherence to Talmudic authority is surprising. If Saadia diverges from the near-unanimity of Talmudic opinion (again, this has not been proven in this article), what is to stop the Karaites from doing so? One Karaite, R. Solomon b. Yeruhim, called Saadia on this point, using rationalist arguments to attack Rabbanism. (Here I am indebted to Joseph Dan's as-yet-unpublished examination of the original texts.) Using the extravagantly-anthropomorphic (at least on the surface) Shiur Komah, attributed to Rabbis Akiva and Ishmael, R. Solomon ridiculed those who stake their beliefs in such blatant anthropomorphists. Saadia's response, which we have in the writings of a late follower, R. Yehuda ben Barzilai, is to declare the book to be pseudepigraphic invention--a dangerous reply, given that it opens a wide body of Talmudic literature up to the same charge from the Karaites. Hedging his bets, Saadia states that if R. Akiva and R. Ishmael did actually write the Shiur Komah, then it is surely about the kavod. This author obviously has an agenda.

Apparently, then, Saadia believed himself to be following the Talmudic opinion on the Shechinah--of course, given his thesis that the Torah and reason are non-contradictory, this would not be surprising--despite the evidence to the contrary. [Site Admin comment: Evidence to the contrary?] . Needless to say, this is not the opinion of Saadia's many detractors, who point out that the consequences of accepting a created-kavod view are more troubling than the reasons to do so. Most obvious of these consqequences is that the kavod is itself (and Saadia claims that it makes sense to speak of the kavod 'itself') prayed to in Jewish tradition. [Site Admin comment: The Kavode is not prayed to... the portion in the Qedusha (the Sanctification) is actually a statement- even though it is said in the middle of a prayer-the Amidahhh. At the least, there shouldn't be any praying to the creations or Kavode here. His so called detractors may be been speaking about what people were doing at that time. But the interdependence of a created Kavode -Nivra and the necessity of praying to it is a huge leap of illogic, with all due respect. If anything, the Zoharists were guilty of this, and thus caused a backlash who say praying to the sefiroth as unorthodox. One such response is translated in J. David Bleich, With Perfect Faith: The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York, Ktav, 1983). Also see the responsum Noda Bibuda on saying "Le-shem Yihud" in the prayers (Yoreh Deah 93); and "The Polemic on the Recital of Le-Shem Yihud" in Jacobs, p. 140]. Although the verse's grammatical ambiguity has been the source of wide-ranging interpretations, most often from adherents of the created-kavod idea, Ezekiel 3:12--[HEBREW TEXT OMITTED] (perhaps, Blessed is the kavod of G-D from its/His place)--is the first such example. Reacting to Maimonides' exposition of the notion of the created kavod (discussed below), Nachmanides (RambaN) provides the most cogent objection:

If one should say that it is a created glory, in accordance with
the view of the Master [Maimonides] in regard to the verse "and the
glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" and others, how can we
apply thereto 'baruch' [blessed is] and ha-mevorach [the blessed]?
Moreover, one who prays to a created glory is, as it were, an
idolater. 
                (Nachmanides, Perush ha Torah, on Genesis 46:1)

I think it would help if the author would actually state the RMb"M's words. Here they are:

"In this sense (metaphorically), this term (ie: Shaken/ to dwell) is employed in reference to G-D, that is to say, to denote the continuance of His Divine Presence (Shechinah) or of His Providence in some place where the Divine Presence manifested itself constantly, or in some object which was constantly protected by Providence. Comp. "And the Glory of the Lord Abode" (Exod xxiv.:16); "And I will dwell among the children of Israel" (Exod xxix: 45); "And for the goodwill of him that dwelt in the bush" (Deut. xxxiii:16). Whenever the term is applied to the Almighty, it must be taken consistently with the context in the sense either as referring to the Presence of His Shechinah (ie: of his light that was created for the purpose of men to behold) in a certain place, or of the continuance of his Providence protecting a certain object. " (Guide for the Perplexed, Chp 25)

Similarly the Qabbalist R. Judah Hasid remarks in a commentary on the `alenu prayer that "if, as R. Saadia contends, that He is a created Glory, we would not be able to proclaim about a created Glory, that it is our G-D." (cited in Dan, Iyyunim, 82) Although Saadia devotes many pages to prayer in Treatise V of Beliefs, primarily on why it may or may not be answered, he does not address this concern. (Maimonides does, below.) He of course condemns "worship of someone else than G-D," in accord with the second of the ten commandments, but does not give the words of prayer the same rigorous interpretation as he did the words of scripture. (Beliefs 219) Nor does Saadia address the vaguely-Gnostic problem of an intermediary between G-D and the world (cf. Philo and the logos ). To him the kavod is a messenger/angel (the same word, of course, in the Hebrew) like any other. I do not mean to suggest that Saadia is ignorant of the consequences of his own innovation--let us recall that he only resorted to it to support "the axle of the book". (Beliefs 93) Rather, I see Saadia's deliberate choice of maintaining a rigorous philosophical conception of the Divine, at the expense of the traditional, revelation-based acceptance of It, reveals something of the nature of his program and priorities in The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. [Okay... I think that here the author went overboard. He assumes that a revelation-based concept of the Kavode is the universally accepted concept that has been handed down -- when in fact -- it is nothing more then a Trinitarian remake by the New Qabalistic schools of medieval times in their weak attempt to bridge the gap between something from nothing (or between the finite to the infinite--usually with overlapping worlds leading into emanated Godheads). I feel safer following the Saadiah's logic (which I am sure is found in Torah) of a Created Glory--then to assume the author's unsupported premise that this was the traditional way of understanding things. And how (see below) he has the guts to state that the Saadia's explanation as potentially Trinitarian boggles my mind-as it was exactly the opposite. The Saadia was keenly aware of the dangers of this whole topic in terms of dividing G-D. Obviously, the first two of the ten commandments was his primary concern here. The new Qabalists are oblivious to it. But I guess this makes sense coming from the RambaN, who claims that reincarnation was actually an ancient Jewish belief when it first appeared on the Jewish scene as a Kairite Belief.]

Saadia goes to great lengths to make his theological point clear, and denies even incidental holiness of the kavod. He goes out of his way to state, in a refutation of trinitarianism, that the kavod in no way becomes holy: Christians are "compelled to assume that a physical being could become G-D through the association with it of a divine element. They cite as an analogy the descent of the glory of G-D on Mount Sinai and its appearance in the Burning Bush and the Tent of Meeting. Such a comparison would, however, compel them to acknowledge the Tabernacle and the Bush and the mountain also as deities, which would be going from bad to worse so far as they are concerned." (Beliefs 110) Although the phrasing of this passage is potentially misleading, Saadia is here implying that the kavod-as-object is no more divine by virtue of its association with G-D than are the mountain, bush, and tabernacle in which it resides. Of course, once Saadia claims that the kavod is created, such terms as 'resides' are no longer problematic, and Saadia allows that the kavod takes several specific, physical shapes, sometimes also appearing as light. (Beliefs 121 and 177)

Saadia's innovation is by no means a minor one, and influences entire schools of both rationalistic and Qabalistic Jewish thought. As has been previously indicated, Maimonides adopts the idea, first giving the reader of the Guide to the Perplexed the choice of an interpretation of the term kavod ("The whole earth is full of His glory; the meaning of this verse being that the whole earth bears witness to his perfection") or Saadia's sense: "However, if you wish to consider that the 'glory of the Lord' is a created light that is designated 'glory' in every passage and that 'filled the tabernacle', there is no harm in it." (Maimonides 46, I:19). In typical fashion, Maimonides becomes more direct as the work progresses. The term 'shahhon,' to dwell, "is used in the sense of the permanence of his Indwelling--I mean his created light--in a place." (Maimonides 55, I:25, emphasis added) And again, soon after: Onkelos in Exodus 20 "referred the 'throne' to 'His glory', I mean to the Indwelling [shehhinah], which is a created light." (Maimonides 60, I:28) It is interesting also to note that Maimonides follows both Onkelos' rereading of the Torah and Saadia's rereading of the concept of the shehhinah (once more, lowercase his).

In chapter I:64 of the Guide, however, Maimonides characteristically confuses the issue, in an attempt to escape from the problem of praying to something created, anticipating Nahhmanides criticism, by declaring 'Glory' to be an equivocal term. 

The 'glory of G-D' is sometimes intended to signify the created
light that G-D causes to descend in a particular place in order to
confer honor upon it in a miraculous way...

However,

The expression is sometimes intended to signify 
His essence and true reality... as when he [Moses] says 'Show me,
I pray, Your Glory,' and was answered 'For man shall not see Me and
live.'  The answer indicates that the 'glory' spoken of here is His
essence...
'Glory' is sometimes intended to signify the honoring of Him, may
He be exalted, by all men... [even] those beings that have no
apprehension, as for instance the minerals, also as it were honor
G-D through the fact that by their very nature they are indicative
of the power and wisdom of Him who brought them into existence... 
It is in this view of the notion being named 'glory' that it is
said "The whole earth is full of His glory", this being equivalent
to the dictum, "And the earth is full of His praise," [Habbakuk
3:3] for praise is called 'glory.'
                                      (Maimonides 157)

While I think this lengthy tripartite interpretation of the term Kavod serves mainly as an excellent example of the difference between Maimonides' method and Saadia's, it also makes clear the degree to which Saadia's notion was incorporated into rationalist thought and to which that stream of thought wrestled with it. While not all philosophers after Saadia agree with his interpretation of the kavod (a notable dissenter is Bahya ibn Pakuda, who writes in Hovot haLevavot that "it is impossible for us to conceive of him from the perspective of the essence of His Glory, may He be blessed."), Maimonides' project indicates that he at least felt it to be a necessary solution to a philosophical problem that had severe consequences for traditional religious theory and practice. [Perhaps this author should have been more properly concerned with the Zoharist-Qabalistic (idolatrous) violation of ribi reshayoth (a multiplicity of 'G-DLY' reigns) that is apparent in popular revelation-based "descending emanated level" theories --which are surely as big of a problem -- if not bigger then whether this is a prayer to a created being.  Whether it was considered "praying" also remains to be seen from the "evidence" above in my assessment.]

Saadia's interpretation of the kavod had an even greater influence on the development of Qabalah. [Certainly, this was not his intention]. As has been convincingly argued in Dan, Torat Ha Sod, Saadia's kavod becomes the root of the Bahir's postulation of three such entities, which in turn multiply into keter (the highest sefirah, the ineffable link between the 'ein sof' and the sefirotic tree), the intermediate sefirot, and the Shehhinah-as-tenth-sefirah. Scholem in Major Trends casts the history as follows:

The glory of G-D, the Kavod, i.e. that aspect of G-D which He
reveals to Man, is to the Hasidim [of medieval Germany] not the
Creator but the First creation.  The idea is derived from Saadia
whose doctrine of divine glory was intended to serve as an
explanation of the Biblical anthropomorphisms and the appearance of
G-D in the vision of the prophets....
  The importance of this conception for the religious thought of
[medieval] Hasidism is considerable.... The assertion that the
light of glory was created is, of course [!], a novelty introduced
by Saadia of which the ancient Merkabah conception of Kavod knows
nothing.  
                                   (Scholem 111-112)

[Hello... The Saadia never said anything about describing how G-D descended by levels to turn into divided sefiroth 
(which is complete idolatry. If anything, used out the Saadia's created Kavode to support something that Saadia was
trying to avoid in the first place--idol worship. I am not convinced of any of the above conjecture.]

Note that German Hasid R. Judah ha Hasid, in his "Book of the Glory" already distinguishes between an "inner glory" (kavod penimi) with no form but a voice, and a "visible glory" (kavod hahhitzon) whose forms change with the will of G-D, whose form convinces prophets that the voices they are hearing are not spurious. (cited in Scholem, 113) Scholem adds "The vision of the Kavod is expressly defined as the aim and the reward of Hasidic askesis." (Ibid.) So too does R. Nathan of Rome write in the year 1100 of "a Glory, which is above the Glory." (Cited in Verman, 22) Many interpret Proverbs 25:2--"It is the glory of G-D to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter"--as suggesting that the kavod either hides the true essence of G-D, or is that which is hidden; in either case, it is the kavod of Man to discover it.

The disjuncture between Saadia's kavod and the idea of the "Glory which is hidden from sight" (the 12th century Sefer Ha Iyyun, or Book of Contemplation, Verman trans., 38) form interesting rifts, outside the bounds of this paper, between those Kabbalists--primarily in Germany--who accept the created-ness of the Kavod, and those--primarily in Spain and Provence--who did not. Both views, in fact, are expressed in the Bahir, which uncharacteristically presents two conflicting parables regarding Ezekiel's "[HEBREW TEXT OMITTED]":one in which the kavod is the daughter of a far-off and invisible king, the other in which she is the invisible wife (i.e. noncontingent) of the king. In any case,Dan argues (this time contra-Scholem, although, as we have seen, not entirely) that it is in fact Saadia's doctrine of the Kavod, and not the influence of gnosticism, which sets off the chain of Qabalistic 'pleroma' in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. [What an irony that the very person who would have been in the forefront against this kind of association should be labeled as the very father of it. What a stretch. Poor Saadiah. The author makes it sound like Saadiah would have been proud. Oh boy. How does he get from A to B here?] Whatever the merits of this argument, and I think they are strong, the many positive and negative references Kabbalists make to Saadia's kavod themselves make a fairly strong case.

As revolutionary as Saadia's doctrine of the created kavod is [what a dramatitization--in my estimation] , the lasting effect it had on Jewish thought would seem to indicate its usefulness in addressing the problem of the Divine acting in or penetrating the world, which can be seen as one of the fundamental contradictions between 'the Jewish G-D' and 'the Aristotelian GoD.' What I hope to have shown is that Saadia is not merely using Aristotelian methods [as if the Greeks had a monopoly on logic. See Moreh Nevukhim for RMb"M's insistance on learning at least three sciences --including Logic -- before touching the study of Maaseh Merqavah - metaphysics] to prove traditional ideas about the former, but that he takes seriously the task of proving that the two gods are the same. Because Saadia believes in the Aristotelian God, as defined in the introduction to Treatise II, he cannot accept the revelation of that G-D Himself, which is a basic claim of the Exodus from Egypt and revelation at Sinai, as traditionally understood [Ribi reshayoth was never our tradition, although it was a Greek one]. To make his rationalist program work, Saadia thus departs from this traditional understanding, radically reinterprets Biblical accounts of revelation, and introduces a new concept that was to take on tremendous significance in subsequent Jewish thought. While I believe that categorizing Jewish thinkers according to which method and tradition of thought they seem to prefer is to a priori deny the possibility of their projects, it would certainly seem that Saadia is being a rigorous philosopher in his interpretive endeavour. Rather than claiming that Saadia's Opinions about the rationality of Jewish Beliefs as bely a less-than-thorough philosophical worldview, I hope to have shown that the exposition of at least one of those opinions shows that Saadia takes his syncretism seriously, and, when reason demands it, changing not only the tradition received from revelation but the nature of that revelation itself, in order to make his integrative philosophical project legitimately work. The author does absolutely nothing to prove this baseless assertion.  

• Works Cited

• Dan, Joseph, Iyyunim be-Sifrut Hasidei Ashkenaz (Ramat Gan: 1975)
• Dan, Joseph, Torat Ha-Sod, (Academon: 1977)
• Dan * -- refers to conversations held with Professor Joseph Dan by the writer.
• Fackenheim, Emil, To Mend the World (New York: Schocken, 1982)
• Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of the Perplexed (Shlomo Pines trans., Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963)
• Nahhmanides, Moses, Commentary on the Torah (Volume I: Bereshit, Chavel trans., New York: Shilo, 1971)
• Saadia ben Joseph haGaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Samuel Rosenblatt trans., New Haven: Yale, 1948)
• Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1941)
• Urbach, Ephraim, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Israel Abrahams trans., Jerusalem: Magnes/Hebrew University, 1979)
• Verman, Mark, The Books of Contemplation (New York: State University of New York, 1992)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the Ten Sefiroth:

A friend of mine writes that the TEN SEFIROTH first appear in the text of Sefir Yisirah provided by Mori Yusef Qafahh zs"l-- which contains his commentary and targum of Morenu haJaon Saadhya ban Yusef al-Fayyumi zs"l:.here is the quote in Temani pronunciation: "Bara eth olamo beshalosha sefarim: besafar wsipur ousefer. Asar sefiroth blima, asrim washtaim otiyoth, shlosh imoth, shva kepuloth, washtaim asra peshutoth": Sefer Yessira : rishon- psouq alef

This is what it says under "haPreq haRishon, haHalahha Harishona": translation: " Bara olamo bashlosha devorim: kothev oumasefar wadibour. Waham asrith hamasefarim hamughdarim". This agrees with Rabbi Yehudah HaLewi's quote directly below. Mugdar means "defined or classified" according to my dictionaries.

Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi zs'l (Author of The Kuzari - 1140 CE): "The Book of creation describes that G-D ‘CREATED’ the universe with the three s-f-r’s—s’far (calculation), sipur (instruction), and sefer (writing)—and that all three are one vis-à-vis G-D. This conglomeration gave rise to the ‘thirty-two mysterious pathways of wisdom,’ which are ‘the ten sephiroth plus the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. These are illusions to how all things came into existence and how they are bounded both quantitatively and qualitatively."

“Let us not pay any heed to the (Greek) philosophers, who make hierarchical distinctions within the Divine realm. For us, everything in that realm is simply of the Divine level, by virtue that it is completely separated from the physical. Thus, only G-D conducts the physical realm.”

R. Y. Qafahh zs’l: “our Sages of blessed memory refused to attribute to G-D any need of his creations or of their help. Nor did they attribute to the angels, His messengers, any act of creation, for all existence refers itself back to G-D alone.”

RMb"M zs’l: “If you wish to go in search of truth, to cast aside your passions, your tradition, and your fondness of things you have been accustomed to cherish, if you wish to guard yourself against error; then consider consider the fate of these speculators and the result of their labors: observe how they rushed, as it were, from the ashes into the fire. They denied the nature of the existing things, misrepresented the properties of heaven and earth, and thought that they were able, by their propositions, to prove the creation of the world, but in fact they were far from proving creation ex nihilo, and have weakened the arguments for the existence, the unity, and the incorporeality of God. The proofs of all these doctrines must be based on the permanent nature of the existing things, as perceived by the senses and the intellect.” (MN I:76)

Sefer Yesirah: Chapter Three: Ten Sefirot out of nothing. Stop your mouth from speaking, stop your heart from thinking, and if your heart runs (to think) return to a place of which it is said "they ran and returned"; and concerning this thing the covenant was made; and they are ten in extent beyond limit. Their end is infused with their beginning, and their beginning with their end like a flame attached to a glowing ember. Know, think [reflect, meditate] and imagine that the Creator is One and there is nothing apart from Him, and before One what do you count?

Camilla Site references:  (although I do not subscribe to many of the views on this site): The original textual usage of the expression ‘Ten Spherot’ may be assumed to be Sefer ha-Yetzirah with the expression ‘esser sfirot bli ma’ Ten Spherot without substance; and blima is written together so as to include the interpretation ‘blom picha mi-ledaber’ seal your mouth from speaking of it. That which is without substance cannot be spoken of or expressed in words except negatively to say that the matter is without a substance about which one can or may speak and because it is so it therefore becomes an obligation to seal your mouth from speaking because speech will represent substance and thus your words will only falsify the true contents relating them as a substance. 

It was the non-compliance concerning said interdiction that allowed for the collosal error to take place.Moses de Leon didn’t treat the Ten Spherot as if they had no substance and he opened his pen to substantialise them. He ‘converted them into substance’ and to cover over the contradiction of their not having substance, he ‘elevated’ them to the falsified-non-substance of Emanation linguistics. ‘Atzilut’ ‘emanation’ was for him above all substance because it was before creation and above creation. He had ‘elevated’ the level to the nihilo before the creatio. What substance could you find in the ‘ain (nothing) before the ‘yesh’ (substance)? To understand that the expression Ten Spherot of itself is representative of a ‘true hidden-matter’ but that the falsification of such a term brought about the immense confusion is illuminating to all those who desire to comprehend why all this has happened.

2 points -- The idolatrous-sin of the Zohar and after it of all the false Qabalah that issued in the 400 years before the Holocaust is itself called the ‘sin of emanation’. The doctrine of ‘emanation’ is itself an idolatrous doctrine which is against the true faith of the Holy Torah. The second point is that the doctrine of Emanation is in direct opposition to the all-essential beginning of the Torah ‘bereishit bara Elohim et ha-shamaim ve-et ha-aretz’ (In the beginning G-D created the heavens and the earth). The Torah has been given us in the linguistics of ‘creation’ with the obligation to remain within that boundary. The emanation-linguistics of the Zohar distroys the ‘beit’ of bereishit.

The fact of the mentioning of the Ten Spherot in that book called Sefer Yetzirah, falsely attributed to Abraham, our father, can be properly simplified for our purpose here. They are part of ‘secrets’ revealed to the true Hidden Tzadikim. There is no permission to explore or study or interpret or write about them etc. etc. They exist as many other true ‘secrets’ that exist. There exist 7 heavens. Can you climb to enter them? Absolutely no, unless one is authorized by his teacher who is one of the Hidden Tzadikim.

These are references to the (remnants of our) true Qabalah --which we have received from Moses, our teacher and from Abraham, our father, that the Oneness of G-D is unlike any other category of ‘one’ and that His Oneness stands eternally and it will never change."

Site Admin.'s personal comments
It is my wish to see the Jewish people return to their original faith. One need not be a purist to desire this. It has to do with intellectual honesty and loyalty to the original beliefs of our fathers-- and to HaShem (G-D) Himself... I have to believe that the long awaited return to the original faith will happen... and that it will pave the way for the ultimate redemption with the coming of the Messiah. Then brothers and sisters everywhere will peacefully thirst for the understanding that HaShem alone reigns as ONE in the universe. 

OTHER RESOURCES:

• Qabalah: Are we allowed to learn the real stuff (Metaphysics / Maaseh Merqavah) / RMb"M?

• RMb"M's SPECIFIC CHANGING VIEW OF ONE "QabalistIc" WORK

• Site Admin.'s Indisputable List of Authentic Torah / Qabbola (Qabalah)

• EXTENSIVE QUOTES FROM MORI YIHHYE'S "MILHAMOTH HASHEM"-- CLICK HERE"

• Demons al pi RMb"M

• "Al Hahhmat HaQabalah and on the ancientness of the Zohar"- R. Shmuel David Luzzatto is also a worthwhile read on this topic

Is Zohar authentic? Conclusion...

Pretending it (or some of it) was...even r. Aryeh Kaplin says: "Since the 'Qabalah' is essentially based on 'Divine Inspiration', its decisions are not legally binding, and therefore such customs are no more obligatory than any other proper custom. Hence, when Qabalistic customs are in conflict with laws based on the Talmudic authorities, the latter must be followed" (Many Talmudic sources sited for this in the "Handbook of Jewish Thought", r. Kaplin)

It has since become accepted knowledge that the legend (of how the Zohar was discovered) was merely legend. Says Encyclopedia Judaica: "The Zohar with its various strata was without doubt composed in the years that immediately preceded its publication, since it is impossible to uncover any section that was written before 1270" (1209). The actual author of this work was the Spanish Qabalist Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon, and it is believed that Simon Bar Yohai was simply a pen name taken by Leon in order to make a pretension of antiquity. 

Many of the Qabalistic scholars (some from universities / or Encyclopedias) totally ignore the r. Yihhyeh's take on this subject. As if it didn't really merit a mention. I think people are just down right racist (they despise Yemenite Jews?) not to mention it. No one denies the merkavah tradition in Judaism that was mentioned by Morenu Moshe. The question revolves around what that was/is. And one of only a handful of ravs with the guts and intellectual tenacity to vigorously argue against the Zohar (as not being Merkavah or even basic Judaism) in a specific, dogmatic, content-based fashion was rav Yihhyeh zs"l. It should be mentioned that one of the heads of Italian Jewry ("Shadol") also explored this territory. Anyone saying that these works have been disproved since then is in outer space --with all due respect.

It astounds the mind that Mori Yihhyeh's rigorous arguments are being totally left out of the history books. Not to mention the fact that he pleaded with the Zoharists to reconsider before publishing anything.  He took the Zohar at face value and then dogmatically argued from there (against it) based on the RMb"M--and other commentators who wrote of the importance of maintaining the purity and oneness of G-D. He used Judaism to show that it is not Judaism. I think that deserves at least a mention--as I will do below.

The establishment does not always care about accuracy, instead favoring the status quo.  This is common in all areas of study, but is prevalent in those areas where controversy is highly probable.  The Spanish-Portugese reaction to the Zohar in the wake of the Sabbetaean heresy is glossed over as well, although not to the same extent as the Rav Yihhyeh Qafah (and a large portion of the Temani community in general).  It may be easy for some to ignore the intellectual prowess of Italian or Spanish-Portugese Jews and claim that their rejection of the Zohar was "reactionary or naive" (which I totally reject).  It is not easy, however, to provide any counter to Rav Yihhyeh Kafah's specific dogmatic arguments, since they are too logically founded and without external circumstances to pin the blame on.  When the blame cannot be shifted, a group will attempt to absolve itself of error by simply ignoring the problem or blackballing its critics as heretics or kofers.  Another thing we have to understand is that popular Qabalah (ie: Zohar based mysticism) equates to a money making enterprise. Why would people who pervert Yahaduth for money wish to admit to the existence of something which would undermine all they have to gain? This is a conflict of interest. Reform Jewry rejects the Divine nature of the Torah directly. Conservative Jewry is leaning more to the left each day, and the majority of Orthodoxy resists any change whatsoever. It would be nice if we could free ourselves from fiction in order to return to a more pristine Yahaduth.