Kabbalah and Philosophy pt iii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The guest quotes sources which equate the kabbalistic position on the soul with that of the philosophers. There are distinctions, but the guest says that these are mere additions to the philosophical position. He notes that this was not done with evil intent, but rather to be mekarev those with a philosophical bent. The text of the Vikuach follows:

And he {=the author of the Akeida} further said that this was the position of the sages of kabbalah, and he brings down a lengthy citation from the sefer ha-Zohar which establishes his opinion.

The author: You are always returning to learn demerit upon the kabbalists, but this I will never believe, that the position of the kabbalists agrees with the opinion of the philosophers in the matter of whether the nefesh is only potential and preparation, and that the remnants are not natural {/automatic} to it but rather by happenstance, according to what it merited to learn and be completed -- this I have not seen nor heard from the kabbalists.

The guest: Take to me the sefer HaBrit and you will see the words with your eyes.

{The author relates:} And I took the sefer haBris and the man searched and found written in it (chelek 1, maamar 18, chapter 1): "And you, my brother and head {?} do not be astounded on the matter, when I say that the soul of man is composed of the form of the four elements, for this is not of my own heart, but from the one who is righteous, holy, and faithful in all of Israel, the Ari Luria za"l in his sefer Etz Chaim, and this is what he said in his holiness there: 'The "speaker" {medaber} is the innermost of all of them, and it is from the portion of fire which is in every element of those four.' End quote. Further, there: ' And these four aspects are called one nefesh, but are drawn from the form of the four elements.' End quote.

And if you say in your heart, 'have we not already said that anything connected to the four elements will separate in the end, and its components will be dispersed and return to the four elements as at the start, in all the points that it came, so shall it go {from Kohelet 5:15}, and if so it will happen here as well to every soul of man, that it will be lost and be nullified from existence, and then where is the belief in the soul's remaining, which all the children of Shet already established and accepted upon themselves and upon their descendants, and certainly the nation which Hashem has chosen for Himself? Upon this, my tongue will answer your statement a soft response, responding in a clear and appropriate manner: Know, my son, that in truth all the faithful kabbalists, and at their head the Ari Luria za"l and his student Rav Chaim Vital za"l, have said that this nefesh which is called the elemental nefesh is what receives destruction in its nature and substance of its creation, for since it is formed from the four elements, it has in it the aspect of corporeality, just as Rabbi Chaim Vital za"l wrote in his sefer Shaarei Kedusha, and this is his language: "In his body and in the forces of his elemental soul, and in them alone, is the aspect of corporeality." End quote. Thus it is explicit that there is an aspect of corporeality in this bitter {??? marah} soul. Therefore it is not called by the kabbalists by the name nefesh gemurah, but rather it is only called the force {koach} of the body, it and all that is in it, even the force of study {iyun} which is in it is within this designation, just as the Arizal wrote in Etz Chaim, and this is his language:

"And behold, all this nefesh is to be the force of the body. It is not called by the name nefesh gemurah, but rather is called the force of the body." End quote.

But, via the 613 commandments that the Israelite fulfills, or the 7 commandments that a righteous gentile fulfills, an everlasting remnant is acquired in this nefesh, and it remains living and existing forever as a reward for these commandments, as they za"l said, "the righteous of the nations of the world have a portion of the world to come." But those not of them remains its first nature, that it receives destruction, and his soul does not live. However, still the upper soul which is made {???} from heaven, which is in every man of Israel, that is called the nefesh gemura, and its nature and substance of its creation is that it does not receive destruction, for it has no corporeal aspect, and all the more so the ruach of formation and neshama of creation, and one need not say the aspect of life and unity {chaya veyechida -- two additional souls} which are from the world of emanation and from the world of First Man."

I {=the guest} said to him: Behold you see with your eyes that the opinion of the kabbalists does not agree at all with the opinion of the philosophers, for the philosopher says that one who does not study and become a philosopher, his soul is entirely cut off. And the kabbalist says that even if the elemental soul is cut off, behold in every man of Israel is the nefesh gemurah which exists in man.

The guest: This is an addition which the kabbalists added onto the words of the philosophers, in order to give honor to the children of Israel, and to flatter the ignorant so that they would not stone them. But what will you say about one who things that there is no living nefesh {nefesh chaya} except to the members of his nation, only? Is he a wise man or a fool? Or do you think that our teachers also believed this, for they said "you are called man {adam}? Say to me, please, my master, when Antigones asked Rabbi {Yehuda haNasi}, "when is it {=the soul} given into man, from the time of "visitation" {=when a man visits his wife} or from the time of formation," how did he not answer him "from the time that he is a Jew?"

But the truth is that the kabbalists took the positions of the philosophers who were in their days, and they switched around a few things in order to make them accord with our Torah and our faith, and they acquired them via changing them {as is an halachic concept}, and they called it after their name. And behold, the wisdom of kabbalah is indeed received in the hands of the kabbalists, but not from our forebears, but rather from the philosophers.

And also I will not despise that for what they did, for indeed their intent was good. For when they saw that most of those learning were drawn in their days after the corrupt Arabic philosophy, they labored to extract from it a few things, and to change a few of its matters a small bit, in order to bring close also the philosophers into the faith. And this is similar to what the greats the other nations did, each person to his language.

Kabbalah and Philosophy pt ii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) The author plugs one of his sefarim -- Kuntres Havdalos haNirdafim. The author and guest are in accord in their dislike of philosophical derash, into which pashtanim sometimes stray. In order to make philosophy accord with Judaism, they reinterpret Tanach, Mishna and gemara in a forced manner, and one which is not in line with the original intent of Chazal. Thus they abandon peshat and also corrupt the beliefs of Chazal. One case in point is the nature of the soul. And not only that, but kabbalists follow the philosophers in this as well. {The text in block print is not in the online scan at SeforimOnline, but is from my own copy of the book.} The text of the Vikuach follows:

But rather the opposite, together let us rejoice with love in words of Torah and wisdom, and let us laugh at wealthy men who increase their anguish, and in all their striving and effort, they do not find not recognize the rest of the spirit and the joy of the soul. And behold, with me are several things which I wrote about the wisdom of language and about the wisdom of Torah. I will bring them out to you, and you will examine them in the spirit of investigation which I see in you, and you will inform me of your opinion and your criticisms, and I will accept them in happiness.

And I brought him to my house and placed before him my kuntres havdalos hanirdafim {I would guess a pamphlet about the slight differences between synonyms} and he read in it, and also within the meal and after it, until close to midnight. And I found him to be ten times what I had estimated him to be before, and in no small amount did he offer to me his insights to fix afterwards that which I wrote. After this, the man went to his house of lodging. And I lay down and slept. And it was in the morning, and I was on my bed, and the sound of the man knocked and called my name, and I arose and opened {the door} to him, and I said to him: What is this that you have hurried, and I thought that you loved sleep, after all that you have complained about our custom to learn on the night of Hoshana Rabba.

And the man answered me and said: My master should not say words such as this, for if slumber is sweet to me, behold it is sweeter to me to learn Torah and to hear pleasant novelties as you caused me to hear yesterday. And now, don your clothing and show me your honor and your writings which are left for me to read, and afterwards we will go to shul.

And I did in accordance with his words, and he read my pamphlets until he finished them, another three hours, and afterwards we went together to the synagogue, and then together we left and returned to the house, and our heats feasted.

And I said to him: While is is indeed true, that I derive great enjoyment from the examinations I continuously make in the depths of our language and in the poetic phrases of our prophets, and that my soul also rejoices that my fathers left me a place to fence in, behold when I see the difficulty of the word, and its length and breadth, it is impossible that I not be aggrieved, how come our the sages and commentators and early composers, whose little finger was thicker than our waists, did not precede us to apply their hearts to dear examinations as these, to lighten from us a bit of this awesome burden. And what it especially wondrous in my eyes is the small number of those who seek peshat, among the many great sages who arise in the congregation of our nation after the closing of the Talmud. And even more that this I am astonished when I see that even the sages who cleaved to peshat did not cleave to it completely {גמורה}, such that they did not divert from it many times.

Behold Rashi, the head of the pashtanim, in many places distances himself from the peshat to got in the way of derash

and aggadah. And even if his intent was desirable, behold the Rashbam and the Ramban wage battle with him to establish the peshat in its proper place. And they themselves, though their words are sweeter than honey, behold their words only come on Chumash but not on the rest of the Biblical books (with the exception of Iyyov which the Ramban commentated upon).

And if we turn to the other great commentators -- Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, we find that in many places they lean from the path of peshat to another side -- is it not the philosophical derash.

And the man {=the guest} replied to me and said: You have spoken correctly. A great and grievous damage has the mixed up philosophy damaged us -- which spread in the world via the Arabs, who took Aristotle as head and chief, and in his name they swear, and they wish to make his words agree with their beliefs which they received from their fathers, and they innovated a confused wisdom which confuses the hearts - which when the kingdom of Ishmael spread in the lands, this {ideology}also spread, and confused the thoughts and ruined the beliefs.

And the chachmei yisrael also, in order to make the words of this philosophy agree with our Complete Torah, forced and pressed the words of the Torah, Neviim, and the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud in order that they say what they did not say and never entered their hearts in {all} their days. And in order to do this they {the chachmei yisrael} brought out the {tools of} derash, remez and mashal {allegory}. And they abandoned the peshat and did not serve it.

And if this philosophy served another purpose, it is this: To distance the souls from the Creator, Yisbarach. Behold in many other matters it damages, caused loss, ruined and corrupted our holy faith.

And the beginning of everything, in the matter of the soul {nefesh} of man, how much has philosophy damaged! And how much has it distanced the Jews from the belief of their forebears! There is no doubt that the belief of Razal was that the nefesh was a substance that stood by itself before the formation of the body, for they said (Chagiga 12b)
{ערבות שבו צדק משפט וצדקה גנזי חיים וגנזי שלום וגנזי ברכה ונשמתן של צדיקים ורוחות ונשמות שעתיד להיבראות } "Arvos, for there are ... spirits and souls which will eventually be created." And they said (Sanhedrin 91): "That she {=the nefesh} is given into man at the time of visitation." That is to say: at the time a man "visits" his wife. And they explicitly said that the infant in the womb of his mother has an intelligent neshama, for behold they say (Niddah 30) that in the 9 months of pregnancy they teach it the entirety of Torah. And even though they only said this thing by way of derash, still

they would not say this if they did not believe that the nefesh is something which stands on its own. And this nefesh, or neshama was not something separate from the substance by which the person lived and moved an felt, but rather they believed that life, movement and intellect were all in man via a single substance called nefesh or neshama, which is given in all people at the time of conception, whether he been good or bad. For behold they said (Sanhedrin 91), "the body says "the soul sinned, for from the time it separated from me behold I am left lying as a silent stone." Behold it is made clear that anyone who is not left lying as a silent stone has in him an intelligent neshama which exists in man, which is to be found before the body and is found after his death, just as they said "and the soul says 'the body sinned, for from the day that I separated from him behold I hover in the air like a bird.'"

And yet the philosophers do not say so, and explicitly we find that to Rambam in Moreh {Nevuchim} (chelek 1, chapter 69), that the neshama which remains after death is not the neshama which exists in man when he exists, for this existence at the time he exists is only potential {koach} and preparation. End quote.

The author: But they said that the neshama fixes the remnants via delving into wisdoms, then the intellect that was in it potentially returns to be active.

The guest: The matter is so, and what is derived from this it that one who does delve does not have remnants, and there is no punishment to the nefesh after death except that it is cut off and does not live. And also this we have found explicit to the Rambam in the laws of teshuva (perek 8): "The revenge, upon which there is no greater revenge, is that the nefesh is cut off and does not merit to that life {olam haba}."

And what extends from this is that there is no distinction between a completely wicked person and a person who sins at far-apart times and with minor sins.

The guest: Already many of the great Sages were aroused about this to save the Rambam za"l from this criticism.

The guest: I will not give a proper answer about the Rambam za"l, but I do say that this was the position of the philosophers and the opinion of anyone who was seduced after them.

And there is no doubt that this was the position of the author of the Akeida, and is made clear in his sefer, gate 6, that the nefesh at the beginning is only potential and preparation, and via study {iyun} and good traits it is raised up to a substance which stands on its own; and he says that this is not an opinion which is new from him, but rather it is an explanation of what the sages who say it are saying, quietly and in secret.

{This paragraph is from the next segment, but I repeat it here.}
And he {=the author of the Akeida} further said that this was the position of the sages of kabbalah, and he brings down a lengthy citation from the sefer ha-Zohar which establishes his opinion.

Kabbalah and Philosophy pt i

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) In this chapter, the guest will claim that many kabbalistic beliefs are at odds with the beliefs of Chazal and are instead drawn from philosophy. In this particular segment, the guest complains about his lot and the author tells him not to be aggrieved. This post includes scans which were accidentally omitted from the online Vikuach (in block print):

Day Two

And it was on the night of Shemini Atzeret, after Maariv, that I went to the place the man was sitting in shul and greeted him. And he went with me to come to my house, and he began to relate in my ears his story and the hardships which befell him, and his poverty and descent {?}, and I said to him: This is enough for you. Do not further speak to me about this matter, for why are you making me sad on a day of joy?

And if I were a wealthy man, you would be speaking well, but now that I am a teacher of children and sell a bit of my wisdom for small coin and a loaf of bread, what am I able to do for you?

And the little which is cast upon me to do according to my dues {?}, I already do with the poor of the city, and if I share with you my bread a day or two, is this not already a lot in that which is appointed for me?

And now, the only good thing is that you learn from me how it is fitting for a man to be happy with his lot, whether it be a little or much; and how it is fitting for a Torah scholar to be happy with his wisdom, and to rejoice and to be gratified in it much more that others rejoice in their silver and gold, and in their food and drink, and in their wives and concubines. Do you not see that I am killing the vessel that gives life to all {did not get married} (*) so as not to place the heavy burden upon myself of the troubling for livelihood and working in the world. And even though the killing of the aforementioned vessel, and the overcoming of that which intensifies every day is difficult as death and even more, behold the joy of bringing out the truth in Torah and wisdom overcomes all.

When it comes down to it, I fulfill for myself {Kohelet 7:14}:

יד בְּיוֹם טוֹבָה הֱיֵה בְטוֹב, וּבְיוֹם רָעָה רְאֵה; גַּם אֶת-זֶה לְעֻמַּת-זֶה, עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, עַל-דִּבְרַת שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אַחֲרָיו, מְאוּמָה.

14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God hath made even the one as well as the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.

for according to the events of the world which cause changes from day to day and from month to month, the wise one warns that a person, when he is in a good situation, should not be grieved
_____
Footnote:
(*) When I wrote this book I was, in the year 586 {=1826} I was unmarried, and only in Elul 588 {=1828}, when I was 28 years old, I took a wife.
_____

, lest the hour reverse upon him {and be the opposite}, but rather he should be joyful and happy with lot. Not so on a bad day, for then it is fitting for him to consider. That is to say, to cast his eyes and his heart on the reversals of the matters of the world, and to be comforted from his travail, saying: Perhaps in a bit, I will drink from the cup of salvations.

Therefore, you as well, my brother, since you are not sick not starving, and your bread {/food} is prepared for you for this day or two, be joyful and do not breach your soul and mine with the sufferings of tomorrow.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxxiii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) In the matter of (apparent) dispute amongst the kabbalists about the nature of the Sefirot, the author now pleads ignorance of kabbalistic subject matter and claims that one cannot make any sense of words in kabbalistic books, basing himself on Chavos Yair. The guest rejects this plea of ignorance. He notes that Chavot Yair himself suggests that the ideas of the kabbalists are not actually based on Chazal. In the footnote, Shadal discusses the identity, and confusion, of the Raavad who received kabbalistic secrets from Eliyahu haNavi. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: There is one answer to this, that I am not a kabbalist nor have I learned this wisdom from a kabbalistic sage. Therefore I do not understand these lofty matters. And similarly, I recall that I have seen from the great gaon, the author of Chavos Yair (siman 210) that he wrote that we, when we read the words of the Ari {also meaning lion} and his whelps, nothing understandable enters our thoughts, but only the reading of the words.

The guest: If so, who would give that I know why all these sefarim were written, if it is not possible to stand, from reading them, upon the matter intended by them. And who will give that I know further, why the light of intellect was given in man, if it is not in our ability to conclude that two opposites contradict each other, and cannot stand in the same subject at the same time.

And to me as well that teshuva from the gaon Chavot Yair is not unknown, whose entire purpose is to distance man from learning kabbalah, and he mentions as a plain and known matter that there is dispute between the kabbalistic sages, and changing of opinions in disparate matters. And there is written as well that even though the sefer haZohar and all the kabbalists say that many kabbalistic secrets are hinted to in the Mishna and Talmud, if it is tradition it is accepted {im kabbalah hi nekabel -- implying the possibility it is not}, but if there is no worry of sin in this, he would say that the kabbalists supported these secrets {sodot} on the words of Razal, just as the baalei mussar supported words of reproof on the laws of the shofar, which was something not intended by Chazal and which never entered their minds.

And he wrote as well that the words of the Mishnah which Rabbenu haKadosh from the words of the arguing Tannaim, and all the more so the Talmud which Rav Ashi composed by a great gathering of ages and great in-depth study {pilpul}, from where does it come to us that they intended sod {kabbalistic secrets}?

And furthermore, on what the rabbi Yosef Shlomo Rofeh {=Delmedigo} of Candia {=the Yashar of Candia} wished to answer to the words of the author of Bechinat haDat {? Eliyahu del Medigo}, in saying that there is no proof against the kabbalah from the fact that its secrets are not mentioned at all in the Mishna and in the Talmud, since those sodot were not the subject matter of the Mishna and Talmud, just as the work of woodchopping is not mentioned in medical book, he, z"l, (=the author of Chavos Yair} said that this is no answer at all, for behold in terms of the sages of the Talmud, we already find to them that they spoke of the wisdom of astronomy and of medicine, even those these matters are also outside of their main topic, z"l.

One other thing I saw brought down in sefer Chavos Yair, and this is the language of Rabbi Moshe Isserles, in sefer Toras HaOlah, and it suits you well as well as the opposing kabbalists, and they do not sense that they are opposing, and they believe that which has been disproven and do not recognize that which is improbable, and this is his language: And how much does the fool not feel ill or sense, who is naked of all of the nature of the improbable, and nothing whatsoever is difficult for him.

The author: After you have hurled words against the virtue of the geonim of the land, the kabbalists, I would not be astonished if also upon me you cast the cup of your blasphemies and imprecations. And also perhaps I am a fool that I brought you into my room and inclined my hear to the sound of your wonds.

And now, behold the day declines {see e.g. Yirmeyahu 6:4}, and I need to prepare myself for the Yom Tov which is coming upon us, and also you should do as well.

The guest: In truth I have no garment to wear other than what you see on my flesh. Also food {/bread- lechem} to eat I do not have if I do not take from the small amount of money in my purse for the purpose of the meal.

The author: Since the matter is so, behold you are called to me to eat food at my table all these two Yamim Tovim which come to us in peace. Since you are doing this thing, do not speak to me from good to bad in such matters as these which are loftier than the consideration of man, which are concealed from me and from you an absolute concealment.

The guest: Today I know that the men did not lie to me, who told me of your wisdom and straightforwardness of you ways, and that you love the truth and despise honor and the like, and like this many. Since because of this I filled my heart to come to speak to you thinks which are not said before a man of Israel in this interchange.

Is this wisdom not fitting to call it in truth the wisdom of truth, to love our fellow as ourselves, without considering at all the opinions in his heart, whether they agree, or not, with the opinions which are in out heart, in matters which do not touch ethics, and love of the good and upright.

May Hashem repay your deeds, and may your wages be complete from Hashem, God of Israel, as you have spread your cloak upon me and have not abandoned your loving-kindness from a pauper and disadvantaged person. And also I will endeavor, according to me ability, to make my company sweet with words of Torah and with dear investigations which perhaps will arise before your wisdom in a way you desire. And my master, peace.

The author: Go in peace, and after Maariv come back to me. (*)

(*) In the matter of what I brought above (page 12) in the name of the author of Avodat haKodesh, that Eliyahu was revealed to Rabbi David, father of the Raa"vid, know that that author of Avodat haKodesh called this Rav Dadid "av Bet Din." But Rabbi Shem Tov in sefer haEmunot (gate 4 chapter 10) says that Eliyahu was revealed to Rabbi Avraham (not to Rabbi David), the av bet din, and from him the great rav the Raavad, "rav pealim" {=who has done many deeds -- this is a title} received (and he was not his son). End quote.

And the author of Avodat haKodesh, after he erred and made the Raavad the son of the av bet din, he was required to call the rav, av bet din, by the name "David," for it is known that the Raavad, author of the gloss {hasagot haRaavad} was named Avraham ben David.
Rabbi Avraham the av bet din is also mentioned in sefer haYuchsin, and his father's name was Yitzchak. And the author of shalshelet hakabbalah brings down as well that he was the father-in-law of the author of the hasagot {thus, the father-in-law of the Raavad}.

And know that the title "Rav Pealim" which was given to the Raavid in sefer haEmunot is not given to a sage {but for other reasons}. Come and see the words of Rabbi Binyamin in his Masaot {=Masaot Binyamin}: "And there was a great yeshiva run by the great rav, Rabbi Avraham bar Rabbi David, zatz"al, a great sage in Talmud and halachic rulings, and they came from distant lands to him to learn Torah, and they found peace in his house and he taught them. And whoever did not have, he took out for them from his possessions and money for all their needs, and he was a very wealthy man." End quote. And about the matter of the secrets of kabbalah which he received from Eliyahu, Rabbi Binyamin does not relate to us at all.

{To perhaps clarify matters, there were three Raavads, and the two Shadal is discussing were related by marriage. There was a Spanish Jewish philosopher and historian, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Daud, Raavad I, who has no bearing on any of this. Shadal makes no mention of him.

Then, there is Raavad III, who was Rav Avraham ben Rabbi David, and he wrote the hasagos haraavad, and was wealthy and supported his students. Then there was his father-in-law, Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzchak of Narbonne, the av bet din, who is Raavad II, who wrote sefer HaEshkol.}

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxxii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxxi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Footnotes
_____

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxviii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxvii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxvi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xxv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

כ זֶה-הַשַּׁעַר לַה; צַדִּיקִים, יָבֹאוּ בוֹ.

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

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

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

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