Is Rabbi Asher Dahan a gilgul of Pinchas?

{Note: This was written to make a point, and is tongue-in-cheek. No, I don't really think Dahan is a gilgul of Pinchas.}

According to recent news, R' Asher Dahan, who murdered R' Eleazar Abuchatzera, has no regrets, and believes that he is the gilgul of Pinchas. Some have scoffed at this, but in fact, it makes perfect sense.

After all, we know from the autistics that the gemara about children and lunatics having ruach hakodesh is to be regularly applied. Someone who stabs another person in the heart and claims he is a gilgul of Pinchas is surely a lunatic. Therefore, he must have ruach hakodesh. And just as we believe the autistics about their being gilgulim, so should we believe Asher Dahan.

It goes further than that. When Pinchas killed Zimri, he stopped the magefa, a terrible judgement and punishment upon all of klal Yisrael. And indeed, the brother of the murder victim, Baba Baruch, confirms that this is so:

“Harsh punishments were decreed on the people of Israel, and he wanted to nullify them,” said the slain rabbi's brother, Rabbi Baruch Abuhatzeira, also known as the Baba Baruch, speaking at Rabbi Abuhatzeira's funeral.

He added, “As he nullified many harsh decrees for us...We ask you, Rabbi Elazar: go before the Throne of Glory and pray there for the people of Israel. Pray for the entire family. Pray for your sons, your daughters, your grandchildren and wife,” Rabbi Baruch continued. He said, “There is much to say, but the mind is confused.”

Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, made similar comments to Arutz Sheva on Friday.

“Who knows what kind of decree G-d's people was under? And [Rabbi Abuhatzeira] was strong for us, and he bore the atonement for our generation,” Rabbi Amar said.

More than that. Over at Yeranen Yaakov, he brings various gematrios from comments at Kikar Shabbat finding evidence to this murder in the Torah. And also at Yeranen Yaakov, Rav Amnon Yitzchak brings a nice gematria -- indeed, those posts inspired this post:

Rav Amnon Yitzhak said that perhaps it was due to non-kosher songs and singers.  He said that the siman in Shulhan Aruch that has to do with the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash and not listening to music is Siman 560, which is also the gematria of the murderer (without the א in his last name).  He added that the death of Tzaddik atones if we act in the ways of the Tzaddik, and since Baba Elazar was careful with guarding his eyes, we too should be more careful in these matters.

The transcript, available at Life In Israel, shows more certainty and intemperate language than that.

With this great insight, that gematria can help us discover new facts, we can certainly prove that Asher Dahan was a gilgul of Pinchas. Who did Pinchas kill? Zimri ben Salu. Who did Asher Dahan kill? Baba Elazar.

Looking to gematria, we discover the following amazing fact:
רבי אלעזר אבוחצירה = 842
זהו גילגולו של זמרי בן סלוא = 842

and
אשר דהאן = 561
פנחס בן אלעזר = 558 + counting the three words in 'Pinchas ben Eleazar' = 561

More than that, Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak blamed our songs for the murder. And this is certainly connected with the gilgul of the deceased, Zimri, meaning 'my song'. And Zimri was the son of Salu, while Baba Elazar was the grandson of Baba Sali.

This does not mean that Dahan acted appropriately. According to the Ishbitzer:

[Pinchas] judged Zimri as no'ef b'alma (sexually corrupt.) However, the depth of the foundation of the matter was hidden from him, for Cosbi was his [Zimri's] soulmate from the six days of creation, as explained in the writings of the Rabbi Isaac Luria, z"l. Owing to this Moshe Rabeynu didn't become involved and sentence Zimri to death. Pinchas' response in this action is thus compared to a child, meaning that he didn't know the depth of the situation, seeing only through human eyes and no further. Nevertheless, the blessed God loved him and agreed with him, for in Pinchas's mind he had done a great and self-sacrificing act in his zealotry.

Was Korach a Gilgul of Kayin or of Yisro? Also, the earliest Torah code, perhaps known to Rishonim!

Summary: One kabbalistic source says Kayin, and one says Yisro? Can they be harmonized?

Post: Gilgul is likely a foreign superstitious import, as Rav Saadia Gaon asserts. Yet is is deeply embedded in kabbalah.




Thus, in this week's parsha, Rabbi Menachem Tziyuni (a mid-14th century kabbalist -- see Daat's Encyclopedia Yehudit), we read:

Thus, he will hint to us as he has himself received. The pasuk stated {Bereshit 9}:

ו  שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ:  כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

and this means within that man himself. And since you drowned someone, you were drowned, etc. And so too Hevel killed Kayin {and?} in the days of Moshe and the death of Korach was via swallowing {up in the earth} as midah keneged middah, as is known. And just as Korach investigated and darshened in the warf {shesi}, place the woof {erev} and you will find a wondrous secret.

I don't know what the secret is. However, I have my unfounded suspicions. And I am not a kabbalist and not privy to their secrets and their methods, but I can try to make an semi-educated guess.

Where was Korach choker vedoresh? In "Vayikach Korach". That is where Chazal explain that he had various arguments based on a techeles string on a beged entirely of techeles, or based on a mezuzah on a room entirely full of sefarim.

And if we form a matrix, counting certain letters across (=the warp, the shesi), we will find one secret. And if we then move down the matrix, counting certain letters down (=the woof, the erev) we will find another aspect. Shesi veErev means horizontally and vertically. I don't know that this is a Torah code, but the language can support it. And the Gra, a kabbalist, had various insights based on skipping letters.

Reuven Wolfeld writes the following insight in Truth in Numbers: Insights Into the Book of Bereshis:

There is thus a 'Torah Code' that brings in Kayin and Hevel, just here in the beginning of Korach. That is, highlighting Kayin in red and Hevel in blue:

א  וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.

1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;

This is an ELS skip of five followed by an ELS skip of two. Here is a graph I put together to demonstrate it:

My guess is that he is not speaking of Hevel at all; rather, just start your count from Vayikach Korach and arrange it as a matrix of five across. And then count words going vertically down. Thus, you have the horizontal plain text and the vertical secret text. And we are only supposed to go three rows down. Hevel is not part of it, since it does not form a vertical. Maybe you can form the words החי and קבר working vertically in those three rows.

I don't know how Hevel specifically killed Kayin in the days of Moshe, except if Moshe Rabbenu is the gilgul of Hevel. And that is how I have seen it reported.

I'll just make explicit what was otherwise implicit. Surely this pasuk is a part of it. In Bereishit 4:

יא  וְעַתָּה, אָרוּר אָתָּה, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר פָּצְתָה אֶת-פִּיהָ, לָקַחַת אֶת-דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ מִיָּדֶךָ.

11 And now cursed art thou from the ground, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.

In both places the ground swallowed them up, in Bereishit Hevel and in Korach, Kayin. And this is the midah keneged midah that Tziyuni was speaking about.

On the other hand, according to the Arizal, Moshe was Hevel's gilgul and Yisro was Kayin's gilgul. Thus:

The Arizal reveals for us a fascinating a piece of information which can provide us with a deeper understanding of several points in the beginning of Parshas Yisro. The Arizal writes that Moshe was a gilgul (reincarnation) of Hevel and Yisro was a gilgul of Kayin. His student Rav Chaim Vital notes that this is hinted to by the first letters of the words “Ani chosencha Yisro” – I am your father-in-law Yisro – which spell the word “achi” – my brother.

I would note a more straightforward derivation that this roshei teivos hint. According to the Mechilta, Yisro had seven names. Two of them were Chever and Keini, presumably based on חבר הקיני, husband of Yael. If Yisro is קיני, that he is Kayin.

Can two people simultaneously be someone's gilgul. Someone asked that question, Rabbi Yaakov Shlomo Weinberg:

Although he rarely spoke on these matters, the Mashgiach, Mori V’Rebbi Horav Dovid Kronglas zt”l, once mentioned that Korach was a gilgul (reincarnation)  of Kayin. (Indeed, they both fell because of the trait of jealousy. ) It’s also brought in seforim (books) that Moshe was a gilgul of Hevel. (Moshe is an acronym – in Hebrew – of Moshe, Shes  and Hevel .) Regarding Kayin, the pasuk (verse) states, “…min ho’adomoh asher potzetzoh es pihoh…”   (You are cursed from the ground which opened its mouth to take the blood of your brother from your hand.) Regarding Korach it says, “…upotzetzoh ho’adomoh es pihoh…”   That which Kayin did to Hevel, Moshe/Hevel did midoh k’neged midoh (measure for measure) to Korach/Kayin.
An Aside
As an aside, the Mashgiach once mentioned that Yisro (Moshe’s father-in-law) was a gilgul of Kayin. I asked him afterwards how could Korach and Yisro both be gilgulim of Kayin since they were contemporaries. He answered me that gilgul doesn’t necessarily mean the whole person is a gilgul. Rather, various aspects or traits can be a gilgul by one person and other aspects by another. 

I would answer in a different manner. While Chazal were content with inter-Biblical allusions and would call it maaseh avot siman levanim; or would draw midrashic comparisons and contrast between various stories or character traits, kabbalists have this new tool at their disposal, to claim that this instance of parallel is actually an instance of gilgul.

Maybe two people cannot simultaneously be someone's gilgul. And maybe it really was a machlokes. This certainly is not the first dispute in kabbalah. Of course, we cannot have a dispute in kabbalah, if it really is kabbalah. In other words, we would like to believe that these are mystical traditions and secrets, going all the way back to Moshe Rabbenu, that the holy Arizal is revealing to us, or that the holy Tziyuni is revealing to us. But in reality they are simply derashot created by human beings, applying kabbalistic hermeneutical methods, and operating in a kabbalistic framework and worldview.

If these are all derivations by human beings trying to discover the truth, then there is room for machlokes. But I am not sure that there is room for such an explanation in the mystical worldview, when it comes to contradiction in kabbalah.

{Update: See the comment section, where Arizal explicitly has different aspects of Korah in different contemporaries. So it certainly is possible, and would handily answer the question, just as Rav Kronglas did above. And this is the standard current understanding of gilgul, as different sparks of a root soul.}

If you sin too much, will you come back as an unripe fruit?

Parshat Ki Tavo is a few weeks away, but the tie-in here is to Daf Yomi. In Ki Tavo, in Devarim 28: we have:

ב וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל-הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה, וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ: כִּי תִשְׁמַע, בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ.	2 And all these blessings shall come upon thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.
ג בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה, בָּעִיר; וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה, בַּשָּׂדֶה.	3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
ד בָּרוּךְ פְּרִי-בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ, וּפְרִי בְהֶמְתֶּךָ--שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ, וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת צֹאנֶךָ.	4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the young of thy flock.
ה בָּרוּךְ טַנְאֲךָ, וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ.	5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough.
ו בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה, בְּבֹאֶךָ; וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה, בְּצֵאתֶךָ.	6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

This means something pretty straightforward on a peshat level, namely material reward in this world for doing good. But of course Chazal interpret it to mean something else as well. In Bava Metzia 107a, right at the bottom of the page, we have a statement by Rabbi Yochanan:

R. Johanan did not interpret thus, but: 'Blessed shalt thou be in the city' — that the privy closet shall be near to thy table, but not the synagogue. R. Johanan's interpretation is in accordance with his opinion, viz., One is rewarded for walking [to a synagogue]. 'And blessed shalt thou be in the field' — that thy estate shall be divided in three [equal] portions of cereals, Olives, and vines. 'Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out' — that thine exit from the world shall be as thine entry therein: just as thou enterest it without sin, so mayest thou leave it without!

This is a rather explicit statement that one enters the world without sin, in contrast to the Christian idea of the taint of original sin.

The Rashash makes a comment which is likely true: מכאן סתירה קצת לבעלי דעת הגלגול. Indeed, it seems fairly straightforward that this contradicts the belief if gilgul, because not only do they maintain that many people have had past lives, and thus don't enter the world as a tabula rasa, but they maintain that the purpose of returning to the world is to fix the flaws and sins from a past life!

Now, nothing needs to be contradictory in rabbinic literature, because harmonization is the rule. Often the harmonization is correct, but sometimes it is not, but people will explain away contradictions anyway. And I don't doubt there is a resolution to this contradiction or apparent contradiction.

Still, there is a noteworthy idea in Rashash, and that is that we can look at gemaras, read their implications, and try to deduce what Chazal's theology was. And that this theology might be at odds with present-day popular theology, even theology grounded in kabbalah and the Zohar.

Indeed, it seems likely that Chazal did not believe in gilgul. (The purported reference to Pharisees believing it, mentioned in Josephus, is most likely a reference to techiyat hameitim rather than gilgul.) And it seems likely that the belief in gilgul comes from sources foreign to Judaism, but has tainted our entire theology in ways impacting our conception of sechar veOnesh, of tzaddik vera lo, and indeed much of our purpose on this earth. It is very far-reaching.

The "problem" in saying this is that kabbalists can find many sources for their beliefs in the words of Chazal. However, is this an honest reading of sources to determine Chazal's beliefs, or is it reinterpretation of sources to say what you want them to say, in order to read your own beliefs into Chazal? This is the issue I have about much "pnimiyus" interpretation of gemara and aggada. If you don't like what a source says, say it has some hidden, deep mystical meaning. But mystics are likely not the only culprits in this regard. Rationalists are guilty of this as well. Shadal indicts boths Jewish philosophers and Jewish kabbalists for engaging in such reinterpretive derash, which reads their own values and beliefs into Chazal. And while everyone likes to cite Rambam in his introduction to perek Chelek as encouraging the metaphorical, deeper meaning of otherwise ridiculously impossible aggadot (for example, Og's incredible height, or the sun and the moon speaking), perhaps this could stem from Rambam's inability to attribute theological or scientific beliefs he would regard as extremely silly. If so, such reinterpretation, rather than careful analysis and consideration of Chazal's actual words, may lead us away from the truth of Chazal's intent.

Which brings us to a gemara we learned in daf yomi but two days ago, on Bava Metzia 105a:

We learnt elsewhere: Wild olives and grapes — Beth Shammai declare them unclean; Beth Hillel, Clean. What is meant by 'wild [perize] olives?' — Said R. Huna: Wicked olives [i.e., which yield very little oil]. R. Joseph said: And what verse [warrants this interpretation]? — Also the robbers [perize] of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fail. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is from this verse: If he beget a son that is a robber [pariz] a shedder of blood.

What is peshat in the gemara? On a simple, rationalist (and I would argue, true) level, the brayta mentioned pritzei zaitim. Paritz probably means uncontrolled, and thus wild, undomesticated, uncultivated grapes. Since they are not cultivated, they don't produce much. Are they fit for eating? This might well be the source of Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. Since Bet Shamai consider it fit for eating, they can become ritually impure. And Bet Hillel disagree.

The Amoraim know this tradition of the meaning of the Mishnaic term, but the language has changed from Tannaitic to Talmudic times. And as a mnemonic, or to demonstrate the use of this word to refer to olives and grapes of extremely low yield, different Amoraim offer different psukim. Thus, Rav Huna calls them "wicked" olives. This is idiomatic. As Rashi notes:

פריצי זיתים - כדמפרש רשעי זיתים וענבים שהן לעולם בוסר שאין בישולן נגמר לעולם

They are "wicked" in terms of not producing the good things they should produce, such that they never fully ripen. But not that they are really "wicked" and evildoers. It is ridiculous, from a rationalist perspective, to speak of wicked grapes on a literal level! Does a grape have bechirah chofshis? Are they given any mitzvos or avairos? Of course not. It must be idiomatic, and Rashi knows this well.

But what of the prooftexts, when they base this interpretation of a pasuk? There are two answers, to my mind. The first is that these pesukim are actually talking about the wicked, such that we get "reshaim" from the pasuk. And subsequently, one we have "wicked" in hand, we apply the idiom to the grapes or the olives. The alternative is that "wicked" is just an idiom which only crops up in the words of Rav Huna, but when the other Amoraim derive it, they focus on the meaning of the idiom, and thus are trying to find a message of disappointment associated with the word paritz. The two prooftexts are as follows. First, in Daniel 11:14:

יד וּבָעִתִּים הָהֵם, רַבִּים יַעַמְדוּ עַל-מֶלֶךְ הַנֶּגֶב; וּבְנֵי פָּרִיצֵי עַמְּךָ, יִנַּשְּׂאוּ לְהַעֲמִיד חָזוֹן--וְנִכְשָׁלוּ.

14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall stumble.

I believe that it is no accident that the quote provided in the gemara extend to the end of the verse. Thus yes, it might merely serve to establish them as "the robbers" or "the children of the violent," and the context in the gemara is sufficient to tell us that these are people, and the context in the pasuk is sufficient to establish them as wicked, somehow. But if the purpose was the context up to the end of the pasuk, then the fact that they failed and thus provided a disappointing yield. The second pasuk is in Yechezkel 18:10:

י וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן-פָּרִיץ, שֹׁפֵךְ דָּם; וְעָשָׂה אָח, מֵאַחַד מֵאֵלֶּה.

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth to a brother any of these things,

This (unlike the previous example) could easily be to prove that a paritz is simply no good. Alternatively, the clear context in this pasuk is a rasha ben tzadik. Thus, the tzadik begets a son whose behavior is disappointing, such that he does not live up to the standard of righteousness of his father, to say the least.

I am comfortable with either explanation, and they both work out well with the clear peshat in the gemara, that the grapes are wicked only on an idiomatic level.

But someone more mystically inclined can find an entirely different message in this gemara, reading a belief in gilgul into it. The grapes are wicked because in a past life they were humans who sinned.

Thus, as Daf Notes reports on this gemara, with a devar Torah written by Rabbi Yosef Dov Karr (see there for his full remarks):

The Ben Yehaydah explains that a wicked person can come back as a gilgul (reincarnation) as fruit and his neshamah (soul) gets a tikkun in that a person makes a blessing on this fruit. Unfortunately, there are some evil people that are so wicked that when they return as fruit, they come back as peritzim, or fruit that will never ripen. They are not even considered a food (and therefore cannot become tamei). One does not say a blessing on peritzim and the wicked person does not receive his tikkun.

But what would Beis Shammai say about these reincarnated fruits? More seriously, if (and I stress the word if) gilgul is a theological belief foreign to Judaism, besides being an untrue and silly interpretation of the gemara, and one which corrupts the words of our Sages, it also changes our concept of sechar veOnesh even further. I can understand the justice in gilgul. It just takes the long view, that a soul has multiple visits to earch to achieve perfection, and thus there is a purpose to returning to earth and undergoing certain types of suffering. But this is gilgul just for the sake of punishment. This is not punishment in gehinnom to purify it; and it is not returning to earth to fix it. Rather, stick the soul in a fruit just out of spite, and deprive it an opportunity to fix itself, at least in that lifetime. (And why call these fruits wicked and not other fruits, less wicked who can achieve a tikkun, reshaim as well?) One can formulate a satisfactory answer within the system, but it seems even more problematic, seeming to make Hashem into a vengeful God, punishing a wicked soul just for the "heck" of it, and with no toeles in the punishment.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxi

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest continues his critique of the prayer attributed to Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol:

"'By the greatness of Your arm they are as still as a stone,' as is written תִּפֹּל עֲלֵיהֶם אֵימָתָה וָפַחַד בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ -- כָּאָבֶן "Terror and dread falleth upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are as still as a stone" (this verse one should say three times)

{a reference to Shemot 15:16}

that they not see me, and if they see me that they not harm me, as is written {Bereishit 19:11, about the men of Sodom at Lot's door}

יא וְאֶת-הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים, מִקָּטֹן, וְעַד-גָּדוֹל; וַיִּלְאוּ, לִמְצֹא הַפָּתַח.

11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

{Now in reverse:}
The door to find so that they wearied great and until from small with blindness they smote the house door that the men and to.

(Three times forwards and backwards one should say this verse.)"

And he said: This is not the way of prayer, but rather the way of incantation.

"And if they call me {?} they should not reach me. King of Heights, castigate them and close and seal their mouths with a stone."

And he said: With a stone! And who will give, that the mouth of this forger be closed with dirt!

"And lop of their hands and their feet so that they do not harm me and that they do not cause me evil, and turn upon them their evil counsel from me so that it does not panic me, nor any person who is with me and by be, whether in the house or in the field, whether on the sea or on dry land, to my nefesh, ruach {spirit}, neshama {soul}, and might. And Your Name which is Great, Mighty, Awesome, Powerful, and Strong, the Ineffable Name, the Name of 72, should travel and come and pitch {=dwell} with me, Ploni son of Plonit, and not with them; and they should be shamed and I should not be shamed; and they should be terrified and I should not be terrified; my enemies should be ashamed with terror and fear and trembling and horror, and I should dwell securely with you in happiness and goodness of heart, for I trust in You. And they should be scattered like straw before the wind, as is written {Bemidbar 10:35} קוּמָה ה, וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ, וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ, מִפָּנֶיךָ -- 'Rise up, O LORD, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee.'

{Then say Tehillim 121:}

א שִׁיר, לַמַּעֲלוֹת: אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי, אֶל-הֶהָרִים-- מֵאַיִן, יָבֹא עֶזְרִי.

1 A Song of Ascents. {N} I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains: from whence shall my help come?

etc.

I implore you, Metatron minister of the interior {sar hapanim}, whose name is like the name of your Master, and Azriel and Refael, Michael and Gavriel the ministering angels, that you should stand before the King, King of Kings, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, God of Gods and Master of Masters {Adonei haAdonim}."

And the man said: This is forbidden according to our Torah, and is one of the forms of idolatry.

"That you should request for me mercy via the aspect of grace, kindness, and mercy, before the Master of Mercy."

And the man said: al tzad hachen is a poetic phrase which is new in the later generations.

"To hear and to influence my prayer and my supplication, that it should be favored and accepted in holiness and purity, and all the accusers should be subdued and affected {mushpaim} under me."

And he said: ומושפעים תחתי! See that this is new.

I said to him: Perhaps one needs to say ומושפלים {and degraded}.

"That there should not be to them permission to come close to any of my borders, whether at time of prayer, whether at the time of study, or whether during any of the rest of me needs."

And he said: לימודי! He should have said תלמודי. For our teachers were very careful with these two words, and they did not say limmud except for something which was regular, such as when they said "and he seeks his limmud and does not find," and so too "do not seek honor greater than your limmud," its meaning is only more than comes to you and you are used to.

I said to him: I do not know.

"And to do by request to forgive and pardon me on all my iniquities, sins, guilts, and transgressions that I sinned, perverted, and transgressed before you."

And the man said: "Before you!" And before whom is he speaking? Is it not to the ministering angels? And yet he says "that I have transgressed before you!"

I said to him: Perhaps it is a scribal error, and one needs to read "that I have transgressed before Him."

"Whether accidentally or willfully, whether unintentionally or deliberately, whether in passing thought {hirhur} or consideration, whether in this gilgul or in another gilgul, I, Ploni son of Plonit." And perform for the sake of Your Great Name, the Ineffable Name, the Name of 72 and the Name of 42, the holy ones, pure, which are magnificent and unequivocal {?} in cleanliness and purity."

And he said to me: This is no scribal error, but rather it is complete idolatry, or at the very least it is confusion of the intellect and error of the thoughts on the part of the foolish composer, who did not know between his right and his left, and he was blessed in his heart to ascribe his craziness to holy ones who are in Heaven.

"that you {plural} all the keys of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge."

And he said: "That you {plural} take!" "Do for the sake of Your {singular} Great Name that you {plural} should take!" It is apparent that all the keys of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, were taken from the composer, and the keys of stupidity and foolishness fell to him as an eternal inheritance."

"And the key of livelihood."

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xviii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) Does dispute show there is no tradition? What about machlokes in the Mishnah and Gemara? The guest draws a distinction. The author then brings the chain of tradition of kabbalah brought down in the sefer Brit Menuchah, and the guest shows some chronological improbabilities or impossibilities in the account. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: There is nothing to be astounded at in this, for also our teachers the authors of the Mishna and the Talmud were masters of true kabbalah, and they also many times argue one on the other in their opinions.

The guest: If they argue, they only argue in particulars which did not come to them in tradition {kabbalah}, or which were forgotten.

The author: There is in my hand the sefer Brit Menucha, upon which the Arizal said that all its words are words of Divine Inspiration {ruach hakodesh}, and I recall that he mentions in his introduction the order of the chain of tradition of the wisdom of kabbalah from the first generations. And now, I will show it to you, and you will put your eyes upon his words.

And I arose to take the sefer, and the man came after me in order to see my library {?}. And I took the sefer Brit Menucha, and I read before him in the introduction, and these are his words there: "And Ezra and his court transmitted it to Shemaya and Avtalyon, etc., and Shemaya and Avtalyon transmitted it to Hillel and Shammai, and this Hillel was Nearyah, of the descendants of David from the seed of the kingship who is mentioned in Divrei haYamim, etc. And Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, until it reached the hand of Rabbi Shimon." End quote.

{The reference is to Divrei haYamim I 3:22-23:
וּבְנֵי שְׁכַנְיָה, שְׁמַעְיָה; וּבְנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה, חַטּוּשׁ וְיִגְאָל וּבָרִיחַ וּנְעַרְיָה וְשָׁפָט--שִׁשָּׁה. כג וּבֶן-נְעַרְיָה, אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי וְחִזְקִיָּה וְעַזְרִיקָם--שְׁלֹשָׁה.

}

And the man laughed and said: How many bundles of mistakes are said in these two lines, which were {purportedly} written with ruach hakodesh! May lips of falsehood fall silent! And behold, first of all, he speaks falsehood when he said that Ezra and his court transmitted it to Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were at the very least 300 years after him, and if by way of miracle the matter was such, rabbenu hakadosh {=Rabbi Yehuda haNasi} would not have omitted mention of it in perek {of Avot} Moshe received the Torah from Sinai, for a great strengthening comes out to us from this in the matter of the truth of the Oral Law.

The author: Have you forgotten that we find in the Talmud, that Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrcanus who was in the generation of the destruction of the Second Temple testified that upon this seat sat Chaggai the prophet? {J: See here. And perhaps, based on the context in Yevamot 16a, it means that he dealt with this issue. In which case it need not be eyewitness testimony. לשבת על המדוֹכה פירושו להתעמק בבעיה, לבחון אותה לעומק ולמצוא לה את הפתרון הנכון. But this is not how Shadal takes it.}

The guest: This was known to him by tradition from his fathers. And if you wish to believe that he saw with his eyes Chaggai the prophet, and that Ezra transmitted to Shemaya and Avtalyon, the permission is in your hands.

And what will you answer about the second? Hillel was Nearyah? And did he not begin his Nesiut {prince-ship} only 100 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and he was the community leader of Israel for 40 years. If so, he was born 180 years before the destruction, and how can it be believed that he was of those mentioned in sefer Divrei haYamim which was written in Bavel in the days of the exile, before the building of the {Second} Temple of in the beginning of the Second Temple, more than 200 years before Hillel was born?

The author: When it comes down to it, do you not see that there is mentioned in Divrei haYamim six generations from Zerubavel and on, and Zerubavel was conceived in Bavel, according to the words of our teachers. And it is difficult according to the normal way of the world that six generations are born in 70 years. If so, what shall we say? Rather, a bit of that genealogy was added to sefer Divrei haTamim a few generations after the closing of the sefer and after the construction of the Second Temple. And now it is not difficult to us any more to believe that Hillel the elder was mentioned in Divrei haYamim.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xvii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest now reads the letter of Rabbi Yedaya to the Rashba (a kabbalist), which defends philosophy by saying that it will move people away from the heretical belief in gilgul, and then explains the problems with gilgul. The assumption is that gilgul is not a traditional kabbalistic belief. Then he shows that Rabbi Shem Tov (an eminent early kabbalist) calls gilgul "something which is not fitting for anyone of intellect to introduce into his heart." This also suggests that gilgul, believed by all later kabbalists, is not a received kabbalistic belief. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And I {=the guest} took the sefer Teshuvot haRashba, and the man read before me from siman 418 about the the apologetic writing of רבי ידעיה הבדרשי and these are his words:

"And within this purpose is also the annulling of that which a few of the early ones believed, according to what is mentioned in sefer haNefesh, about transmigration of souls, and this is the opinion in which they say that the soul transmigrates from one body to another. Some of them think that this is even from the body of one species to the body of another species. And they say that the soul of a horse, for example, could possible migrate after a while to the soul of a dog, or immediately after it leaves, we do not know how they distinguish in this. And so too we do not know if those who maintain this belief dissent as to whether the soul of one species can enter the body of man, or the human soul into the body of some other species, or if they only extend to matter to within different species of animal. {But no cross-overs of human and animal, which would be difficult presumably because of different types of souls.} And some of them do not depart that much, but rather say that it transmigrates from one body to another within a single species, and from this they say about the soul of Reuven who dies that it manifests itself in the body of Shimon.

And behold, these wondrous truths have prevailed upon these positions to erase them, where the aim of nullifying them is extremely clear in faith, for many reasons.

First of all, that it is wickedness and perversion, and forfend to attribute to God, to establish that the soul of one who dies in his righteousness should return to manifest in the body of another who perhaps will be wicked, such that by law he should be punished; or if He rewards one who was initially righteous {in a previous incarnation} but is now completely wicked, behold it will be even worse. {For where is true reward and punishment for deeds?}

And so is it perversion in the law of one who dies in his wickedness if he returns to manifest in the body of another who is righteous, and he should, according to law, be recompensed that which is fitting to him of the punishment for that which the previous one {incarnation} had perverted, but if this one is punished for the wickedness of his soul in a different body, it would be worse within the law of uprightness, and it would be an instance of bad things happening to a righteous man for an incorrect cause.

And he shows it is true with true proofs that each body is matched with only a single unique soul, which is recompensed or punished in accordance with its conduct, and this is the complete uprightness {i.e. as it should be}.

And another thing which nullifying this belief can accomplish is that this {belief} can lead to weakening a person from endeavoring in the service of God, and even at the beginning of his time, for he will think about his soul which was found when not in him, and he will think that if it sinned in the other, the punishments will come to him upon that which he did no wrong with his own hands, and he will be in turmoil on this and stand always in fear and weak hands from this. And so too if when it was in the other body it was righteous, behold it will arise that his time will be good and sweet because of the recompense of the previous righteousness,

and he will be negligent as a result from adding more. For many men improve their way in hope of reward and from fear of punishment.

And furthermore, when many times the troubles jump upon one who thinks himself to be pure and righteous, but with all this is not so sure of himself, he will increase to suspect his own soul {=self}, and judge that there were hidden sins {which he performed in this lifetime, which is his only lifetime} upon which he is being punished, and behold because of this there will increase confessions and repentance. But with this belief {in gilgul} he will certainly be compelled to attribute his tribulations to the wickedness of his soul in another another body, and he will begin to blame, because of his suffering, the conduct on High {that he is suffering through no fault of his own} and to decree upon himself completions {? to make up for this unfair sufferings}, and this will be a cause of neglect from repentance.

And furthermore, this {belief in gilgul} will harm one of the cornerstones of our strong faith, and that is resurrection of the dead. For if there is found within two or three souls only a single soul, how will both or all three of them live at once? For to each living thing there is perforce but one soul, etc." End quote.

And the man {=the guest} added and said: And how did the heart of Rabbi Yedaya swell to speak such words before the Rashba who was a kabbalist, in a letter which he wrote to turn away from himself his {=the Rashba's} wrath in which he was angry with those engaged in outside wisdoms? Unless it was clear to him that the belief in gilgul was not a traditional belief in our nation of old, even according to the kabbalists themselves?

And when it comes down to it, how can you say to me that there was to the kabbalists a true tradition {kabbalah} in the matter of gilgul?

Take to me the sefer haEmunot of Rabbi Shem Tov and see.

{The author now narrates:} And I went and took the sefer haEmunot of Rabbi Shem Tov, and he found written in it (gate 7, chapter 8): "Know that that which a few of the early ones thought that there is transmigration from man to beast, I have also found to a few people who travel the paths of kabbalah, something which is not fitting for anyone of intellect to introduce into his heart."

And the man said to me: And behold, the entire congregation of later kabbalists believe with a complete belief in the gilgul of souls from man to beast, and behold they believe something which according to the opinion of one of the eminent early kabbalists is not fitting for any person of intellect to enter into his heart. And where is their agreement, and where is their tradition {kabbalah}?

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xvi

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The author suggests that the author of Masaot Binyamin mocks gilgul because it he did not know the truth that it was a secret traditional Jewish belief. The guest wonders why they would conceal it them, and also posits that it contradicts the words of Chazal in Talmud. Then, he notes that Rabbi Yedaya haPenini writes to the Rashba in defense of philosophy that it will help disprove gilgul. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: Have I not told you that the kabbalah in the early days was only transmitted in secret from the mouth of one kabbalist sage to the ear of an intelligent kabbalist?! Perforce, it is not farfetched that the belief in gilgul was a secret which was hidden from Rabbi Binyamin the author of the Masaot.

The guest: I do not see any reason to conceal the belief in gilgul from the common folk. And behold, in these generations it is well-known among the ignorant folk, and it does not harm their faith at all, but rather aids them in certain ways.

Do you think that the later kabbalists were wiser than their earlier teachers? That they {=the early kabbalists} thought that there was some danger to the common folk in promulgating this belief, and those these {in our generation} understand that its promulgation is good and helpful.

And still, my master, behold I see that this belief was also held back and hidden from our teachers, the sages of the Talmud.

Is it not so that in many places they said "the son of David {=Mashiach} will not come until all the souls in the body finish, and if it entered their minds that the souls which descend into the bodies which are born are not entirely new, how did they not understand that there is no substance in their statement at all? For if the souls transmigrate time after time from one body to the next body, when will the souls in the body end, and when will the son of David come? And is it not possible that the souls will transmigrate generation after generation, and the son of David will still not come in all the days of the earth's existence. And how did they encourage the nation to engage in being fruitful and multiplying in order to bring the redemption closer, for the reason that the son of David will not come until all the souls in the body finish? And is it not so that since most of those born are partial sinners and require gilgul to fix that which they perverted. It thus occurs that one who establishes a single son in fact delays the redemption and does not hurry it; for this son who is born will come to close the door for two new souls who were prepared to leave from the body, and are not able to leave, in order to make room for the sinful soul to return to dwell on earth until the end of its filth.

See how the belief in gilgul contradicts and casts down to earth the words of our teachers, the Sages of the Talmud.

The author: There is no doubt by those upright in their hearts that these matters are encompassed within those hidden things of the All-Merciful, extremely deep such that who will find them, and they are acquired via faith in the Sages and not in pilpul {casuistry} of students such as you and me, who have not even reached to be shepherds.

The guest: Another one I will please relate to you, that so new is this belief within the children of Israel, and so distant is it from being a traditional belief in our nation from days of old, that the magnificent advocate {? -- melitz} Rabbi Yedaya haPenini, the author of Bechinat Olam, when he came to advocate on behalf of philosophy in a written apologetic which he sent to the Rashba (since he {=the Rashba} placed under a ban anyone who learned that wisdom before he was 25 years old) was not ashamed nor afraid from mentioning before that Rav (who was a kabbalist) that one of the purposes of the wisdom of philosophy is that it contradicts and makes a lie the belief in gilgul. Take to me the sefer Teshuvot haRashba, and I will show you the language, for it is lengthy.

The Maharal Tzintz of Plotzk

The name just rolls of the tongue! It is a really fun name to say. Give it a try.

At any rate, I saw the ad, pictured to the right, in the Five Towns Jewish Times. Click on the image to see it much larger, so that you can actually read the advertisement. It presents the rare opportunity to help print the Maharal Tzintz of Plotzk's sefer, sefer Chidishei Maharal on Hilchos Ribis.

I just love that they call it "chidishei" rather than "chidushei," presumably reflecting their pronunciation. (A Google search returns no hits for "chidishei," but three hits for "chiddishei.")

They even have a website, the wonderfully named tzintz.org, as a front-end for this same project.

He is indeed the Maharal, but it is spelled with an aleph -- מהראל, for Rabbi Aryeh Leib.

Basically, he promised on his deathbed (170 years ago) that he would aid whoever would try to bring his sefarim to publication:

The talmidim watched silently as this mighty Torah scholar wrote: finally, his amazing wonderful promise was written: I will be an intermediary with the Almighty (melitz) in the world to come for anyone who tries to bring to publication the books that I have compiled.

...

For a short moment, he speaks in a clear voice: When a man hangs a sign on his store, he is telling us that he has something to sell!

They have indeed published several of his books. What they are doing here is as follows: For your donation of $400, they will print 10 sets of his books (a set in this case consists of two of his sefarim of Chiddushei Maharal on Ribbis) and distribute it to yeshivos, libraries, etc., and you can even specify where you want it to go. Thus, you published his books and you thus should get the benefit of the segulah!

They will also travel to Warsaw on the day of his Yahrtzeit on May 8 (2 Iyyar). "They will recite the names of all those who undertake to print the holy seforim of the tzaddik, and they will pray that the tzaddik fulfills his promise."

I would note that HebrewBooks.org has 13 hits on his name, some of which are duplicates:

הגדה של פסח ברכת השיר	צינץ, אריה ליב	ווארשא	תקפט
הגדה של פסח ברכת השיר	צינץ, אריה ליב (מהרא"ל)	ווארשא	תרצו
הגדה של פסח עם פירוש ברכת השיר	ארי' ליב צינץ ור' משה פלאצק	פיטסבורג	תשה
הגדה של פסח עם פירוש ברכת השיר	ארי' ליב צינץ	פערנוואלד	תשי
יין המשמח	אריה ליב צינץ	ורשה	תרמח
יעלת חן	אריה ליב בן משה צינץ	ורשה	תרנב
להב אש	אריה ליב צינץ	פיעטרקוב	תרצה
מלא העומר	ארי' ליב צינץ	פיעטרקוב	תרפה
מקצוע בתורה	ארי' ליב צינץ	פיטסבורג	1950
משיבת נפש ח"א	ארי' ליב ב"ר משה צינץ		תשלט
משיבת נפש חלק א	אריה ליב בן משה צינץ	פיוטרקוב	תרם
שו"ת מהרא"ל	אריה ליב בן משה צינץ	ורשה	תרמט
שיורי קומץ המנחה	אריה ליב צינץ	מאנטריאל	תשז

By publishing this blogpost, I have effectively published his sefarim, so I should reap the benefits of the segulah.

The cynic in me has a few questions or problems with all this.

First, it does indeed seem that he intended it as a segulah, and they cite some big names that endorse this as a segulah. Fine, as much as I disagree with this approach.

But his idea, I think, was not specifically to create a new segulah, but to get the sefarim published. And likely he had in mind people with printing presses 170 years ago, so that his chiddushei Torah would not remain in manuscript form and be lost. But I think it is perhaps misguided to set this up as a perpetual segulah such that the way his books are published are based on the donation model, and such that the books are segulos, and the segulah is a commodity. The idea is print them. And then make it available for people to purchase.

Second, I admit not having read any of the sefarim in question, and so I do not know how good these chiddushei Torah are. (For the sake of this post, though I am short of time, I will cite a few things from his Haggadah shel Pesach at the bottom of the post.) But there have been a lot of tzaddikim, and a lot of Talmidei Chachamim. And while there is some luck to what becomes popular and what books people purchase, it is also a meritocracy. The Ketzos is popular for a reason, and that is why people buy it, and why people learn it. The same for Mishnah Berurah, Aruch haShulchan, Penei Yehoshua, Nodeh Be-Yehuda, and so on. So too for Chafetz Chaim, despite the fact that he also gave a segulah for learning his sefer on shemirat halashon. These are important works. This is not to say, chas veShalom, that the works of Maharal Tzintz of Plotzk are not also valuable and full of pearls. But if they are, publish the sefarim, they will become popular, and everyone will learn it, and buy it! Which is perhaps more in line with what the Maharal Tzintz intended. Instead, this segulah seems to circumvent this process of natural selection. Of course, there are great works that for various reasons, people are not exposed to. But still.

Third, what exactly are the expenses involved? Lulu.com will publish bound books for between 7 and 13 dollars a copy, depending on the size and the type of binding. And they are making a profit. These publishers are asking for $400 to print 10 sets, and since a set is 2 books, this is $400 for 20 books, or $20 a book. Is this really their operating costs? I would assume that sefarim printers can get publish for cheaper than this. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps some money goes to typesetting (assuming these are not simply reprints of existing books). And for ads in the Five Towns Jewish Times. And perhaps airfare to Warsaw to visit the kever. And perhaps they are getting other donations, or something, such that $400 donation this merely contributes towards the total expenses, rather than being the specific expenses in publishing these 10 sets. I don't know. It could also be a moneymaker, or a way to pay the salaries of the people involved, and so on. After all, these people could be doing other work, but instead they are spreading Torah knowledge and giving a chance to participate in the segulah, so this could be viewed as sechar batala. I wish they would be more clear about this.

Fourth, this whole idea of davening at the kever. I know that it is an inyan for some people, though I personally think they misunderstand the sources they bring to support the practice, such as the gemara in Taanis. (Perhaps a lengthy later post on this topic.) But they claim that they pray to Hashem at the location of the kever, and the deceased tzaddik will also daven and intercede. Or they ask the tzaddik to intercede on their behalf with Hashem (though I think this is where the misunderstanding of sources lies). Or asking Hashem to answer us in the tzaddik's merit. And so on and so forth. And all sorts of defenses of the practice are available, depending on how this is cast.

But here, see what they say: "They will recite the names of all those who undertake to print the holy seforim of the tzaddik, and they will pray that the tzaddik fulfills his promise."

To whom are they praying? I certainly hope that they are not praying to the tzaddik that he fulfill his promise. The alternative is that they are praying to Hashem. So it is tefillah directed at Hashem that He will make it that the tzaddik fulfills his promise to intercede on these peoples behalf with Hashem. Why pray for this at the tzaddik's kever? So that he can intercede and also ask Hashem that he will fulfill his promise as act as a meilitz. It is a bit of a Rube-Goldberg tefillah, if so.

Perhaps (most probable) here is where the tzaddik is acting as an advocate. That is, specifically now, they recite the names of people in need of his advocacy, and that all work out for them, and are hoping (and perhaps asking) that the tzaddik fulfill his promise and thus acts in this instance as an advocate for all the donors. This is better, but does not really work so well with the wording to my mind.

Even if so, would he make a promise and not be able to deliver? The Maharal Tzintz of Plotzk claimed that he was promising this because he had this power. So if I go separately and print and distribute his seforim, and don't daven at his kever, he won't help?! Or Hashem won't listen to his advocacy, or let him advocate? What happened to tzaddik gozer veHakadosh Baruch Hu Mekayem?!

At any rate, do it or don't do it. But I found all this interesting.

______________

I said above I would flip quickly through at least a bit of his work, and so here I do a bit of that.

From the Maharal Tzintz of Plotzk, ztz"l's Haggadah, with my own thoughts:

1) He says one may not say kiddush ad shetechshach. Indeed, Divrei Chamudos on the Rosh says this. I personally am not so convinced this is the case, and think it possible it only applies to matzah. But there is what to speak about in this matter.

2) He has an analysis of Ha Lachma Anya. His style in general in the haggadah seems to be Abarbanel-like, asking a bunch of questions and then answering all of them afterwards at length. One interesting question is why the shift to Hebrew in leshana habaah benei chorin. And notes that the Rambam's language is indeed leshata de`atya benei charei.

3) He cites the Arizal that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya was the gilgul of Shmuel Hanavi. Shmuel lived 52 years. And Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya was 18 years at the time. Add the two together and you get "ke-ven shivim shana." And Shana is a notrikon for nishmat shmuel haNavi. And "Nasi" is the notrikon of nishmat shmuel yedid elkana. And it hints with this that he had a great neshama. Yet he was not zocheh to what ben Zomah darshened, because this was the chelek of the neshama of ben Zomah.

We've been talking recently on parshablog about gilgul, and kabbalah in general; and whether there is anything to gilgul, or whether it is nonsense borrowed from the superstitions of others. This last bit obviously is not my cup of tea. And this notrikons seems very easy to make up in any direction, and prove nothing (just like the abuse of gematrias).

4) He suggests that the fact that the chacham says etchem is of no concern, given that it is said as regards to korban pesach, and presumably he was one of the minuyim of the korban pesach or he would be chayav kares. So when he asks, he is trying to find the particulars of the mitzvah he is participating it. But the rasha says mah haavodah hazos lachem, and he is not part of the avodah, until he gets his arguments first answered. Ayin sham. And blunt his teeth so that he will not be able to eat of the korban, for he is not one of the minuyim on the korban.

Interesting. I don't think it is correct, in that we see blunting teeth in other contexts of sharp responses; and because of the alternate girsa of the pasuk which the Yerushalmi seems to have had such that the question is uprooted. But that I disagree is not of a concern here.

But I have not touched the surface of the work; and it is late at night; and I am not devoting to it the time it is due. I am sure there is a lot to learn from these sefarim, some which I would find interesting and some which I would argue with, or dismiss. Regardless, I still maintain what I said above.

____

Update: Note in the ad that they have done work on it, such as thousands of corrections and the like.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xv

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) In response to Rambam's blasting of kabbalistic concepts, the author suggests this was due to his being influenced by philosophy. The guest disagrees and notes that that one cannot say the same for Rav Saadia Gaon. Then he notes how Masaot Binyamin calls a belief of a certain nation foolishness, when that belief is extremely close to gilgul. This proves that gilgul was not a traditional Jewish belief. The text of the Vikuach follows:

I answered him: There is not from all this any proof at all against the earliness of the wisdom of kabbalah, for the Rambam z"l because of the spirit of philosophy, filled his heart to deny, via the estimation of his thoughts, many things which were received {mekubalim} and established in the nation. And what do you want? Does he not also deny the existence of demons {shedim}, whose existence is well-known in the words of our Rabbis, z"l; and he denies the existence of magic, whose existence in well-known in the Torah itself.

The guest: The Rambam does not deny, forfend, that which is in the Torah, but rather explains its words in a way which agrees with the intellect. For still, the Torah does not explain to us explicitly if there is actual substance in magic, or whether it is only stratagems and trickery.

But let us set aside the Rambam. Is there not Rabbenu Saadia? Do not tell me that he denied because of the estimation of his own thoughts that which came to him as tradition {kabbalat} of the nation. For there is none like him, faithful for all the words of our teachers z"l. If so, admit to me that since he mocks the belief in gilgul, there is no doubt that the matter was clear to he that this was not a received tradition faith in the nation.

And no, go please, I will take you to another place, where you will see from it that the belief in gilgul was not established in our nation of old, but rather it was well known by them that this thought was nullified.

Do you not know Rabbi Binyamin, the author of the Masaot {=Masaot Binyamin, from Rabbi Binyamin bar Yonah of Toledo ?} who was older than the Rambam, and was not a philosopher, but rather was a man upright with his God and with the traditions {kabalat} of his fathers. And now, take to me his Masaot, and I will show you his words.

And I took the sefer Masaot of Rabbi Binyamin, and the man read before me like these words:

"And close to them about 10 mils is a certain nation which fights with the residents of Sidon, and this nation is called Durziin (*), and they are called Paganos heretics, and they lack faith and religion, and they are steeped in sexual impropriety, with the father taking his daughter, etc.; and their belief is that they say that the soul, at the time it leaves the body of a good person, enters into the body of a small child who is born at that time that the soul leaves his body. And if he is a wicked person, it enters into the body of a dog or into the body of an animal. This is their foolish way." End quote.

And the man {=the guest} added and said to me: And if the belief in gilgul was a traditional one in the nation in the days of Rabbi Binyamin, how would he swell his heart to call the beliefs on those nations foolishness, which are only slightly distant from the opinions of the kabbalists?

(*) The Sage Rabbi Avraham Ashaer in his edition and insights to the Masaot of Rabbi Binyamin that the intent is on the Drusii.

{J: If this means the Druse, then here is some more information about the Druse religion and transmigration of souls. But that book says the Druse differ from the Manicheans by not holding that souls transmigrate into the souls of animals. According to this work, this is also true; and Rabbi Binyamin confused these people with the inhabitants of Khandy (Ceylon):

It is interesting to note in this connection that Benjamin of Tudela calls the inhabitants of Khandy (Ceylon) by the same name as the people around Sidon—Druzes. He was probably impressed by the similarity of belief in transmigration among the two peoples and concluded that they must have been the same.

Those people do belief in transmigration of souls into the bodies of animals.

Or perhaps he meant the Druids? I don't know. Tzarich Iyun. Regardless, the guest's point is a valid one.
}

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.