Ari nohem (Roaring Lion)

Chapter Four

Although it is the way of philosophical inquiry to first know if the thing exists and only afterwards what it is, this time we shall do the opposite: for in our inquiry into what this knowledge is, it has become clear to us that it is impossible for you to find it; for you know the saying of the wise man, that names are sealed definitions, and the definition is a clarified name. Thus, we shall give precedence to its name, and afterwards we shall treat its definition. And we will see that it is an imaginary spirit of an idea, which has no existence in the intellect. Its name, which they call it, as I have seen in books and as I have heard it called, is “the science of the kabbalah.” Sometimes the meaning of the word science expresses the science of truth alone; and if we understand that which is before us, then it is not possible to call it science and kabbalah together, nor is it possible to call it one of these terms alone: science or kabbalah. I am not ignorant of all of those who have struggled in its study, but the conjunction of the two is not justified in any way. For science is the knowledge of a thing according to its causes, and it is from the first intelligible features that the ensuing secondary concepts are derived, by way of philosophical inquiry and speculation. Whereas kabbalah (i.e., a received tradition) is something that we have heard, which that our elders have told us [see Psalms 44:2]; all we can do is trust in their words without adding anything at all. There is a customary saying that “if it is an authentic received tradition [kabbalah], then we shall receive it, but if it is only a logical deduction, then there is a rebuttal” [see, e.g., b. Keritot 15b] that is, by way of reasoning and wisdom. Thus, science and kabbalah are two contradictory terms being applied to one subject.

In fact, neither one of them alone is suitable to use in relation to this form of knowledge, that is, it is not suitable to call it by the name science, and it is even less suitable to call it by the name science of truth, nor is it suitable to call it kabbalah, a received tradition from Moses, may peace be upon him, as passed down to our generation. For it is neither the former, nor is it the latter. It is not science, for science is the knowledge of something by way of philosophical inquiry and speculation into its cause, and is the derivation of secondary qualities from the first intelligible, as we have said. And yet, in regard to this form of knowledge, philosophical inquiry and speculation is forbidden, as Naḥmanides, may his memory be for a blessing, has said in the name of the kabbalists. He is the head of the new generation of kabbalists, the first among them to say: “reasoning concerning it [kabbalah] is foolishness.” Many of them took this idea from him in order to express a similar idea themselves. R. Meir Gabbai in particular, in the first chapter of his Avodat ha-kodesh concerning unification, states as follows:

And in the introduction to Tola‘at Ya‘akov, he expanded upon this, saying:

And they should not tell me that this is only forbidden in regard to the elements. This is also the case with the sefirot, emanations, and other such things, and one may not innovate matters based on the same principles, for they prohibited this in every possible way. One is not allowed to inquire into it by way of reason, and one cannot reflect upon it and innovate. If this is the case, then also in regard to homiletic explanations of the scriptures, letter combinations, and gematria, it is forbidden to innovate in regard to it, whether it is a matter big or small. Now, although these people know this matter, they violate it every day, always. For the life of me! The aforementioned R. Gabbai states as much, that everything he said in his books Tola‘at Ya‘akov and Avodat ha-kodesh he received entirely from his teachers and did not consider anything according to his own opinion. Be that as it may, he admits that one should not inquire into it, and one should not compare it to anything by way of reason, nor should anyone consider it at all by way of intellect; thus, this is not science. Certainly, the approving name science of the truth should not be applied to them.