The Wars of the Lord

10. And now, with the Lord’s help, we will return to our primary question: We asked you to tell us, according to the opinion of the kabbalists, to whom do we say our prayers, and make all of our blessings, and [dedicate] all our worship, and from whom do we ask for forgiveness and beg for atonement? And you answered grumpily with belligerent words. I claimed you owed me wheat and you admitted to owing me barley [i.e., your answers were irrelevant to my arguments; see m. Shevu’ot 6:3] and you denied that which is known and publicized to all in their books—like one who makes an oath regarding a man that he is a woman, or a woman that she is man, or a pillar of marble that it is gold [see m. Shevu’ot 3:8]. Your anger was kindled against the book Matsref ha-emunah (The Purifier of Faith) and you mocked it and disparaged it and called it masref [burning], etc. And in doing so you revealed that you revile the sages.

As to our question: Given that they [kabbalists] maintain that [the kabbalistic divine facet named] Ze‘ir Anpin is our God, and that it is He who sustains us and supports us, and it is Him whom we must serve, then, we ask the following: Who sustains and supports all of the worlds that are above the World of Atzilut [the uppermost world in kabbalistic metaphysics]? Does He convey their vitality and sustenance from below to above [i.e., from Ze‘ir Anpin to the upper worlds], and therefore they [the upper worlds] serve and bow to Him, or perhaps they [the upper worlds] are sustained and supported by their God, namely, the First Cause, and it is He whom they serve, whereas we serve Ze‘ir Anpin who sustains us and supports us [in the lower world]? And if so, is the God of the upper worlds the same as the God of the lower worlds (heaven forfend)?! This is the contradiction that we have noted and that we asked you to explain. But in response, you answered that the claim does not follow from the proof, and that one cannot bring evidence to refute a tradition of Moses from Sinai, referring to the kabbalists’ claim that this doctrine is what they received from Moses.

11. We are greatly astounded and amazed at your words and this answer of yours. Is it a law from Moses at Sinai to believe in many gods or worship gods other than the Lord our God, the first being and the Creator of all, who is the cause of all causes!? You gave these deceitful answers to brazen-hearted men, boastfully showing them these words of yours and telling them: Look how I refuted their words [i.e., the arguments of the anti-kabbalists] and rebutted their proofs—[while in truth you did so] with [arguments weak] as straw—and you have circulated your pamphlet among all present, and only after they have lauded and praised you for your wisdom and sharp wit, have you brought it to us. Now in fact it is full of fallacies, as if you did not understand to what our question referred!

Let us return to that false claim of yours [that kabbalah is a tradition from Moses]. It is an accepted maxim for deciding between halakhic authorities (stated by authors such as the Keneset ha-gedolah [Ḥayim Benveniste (1603–1673)], Rabbi David Ibn Zimra, and Sharvit ha-zahav) that whenever the kabbalah is at odds with halakhah, one is to follow halakhah—and this is a well-known principle in Israel. And if your words are true, that this kabbalah is a law of Moses from Sinai, can the law of Moses be rejected due to the argument of some mishnaic or talmudic sage? And even more so when it is disputed by a later [halakhic] authority (see below § 15)!? The burden of proof is upon you to convince us: Where have we ever found a mishnaic or talmudic sage who ever dared to dispute or rule against a law transmitted to Moses our master, peace be upon him? Such a person would surely be called either a fool or an evil braggart. And in several places in the Talmud, the rabbis would say as a matter of course, “If it is a [transmitted] law then we accept, but if it is a ruling [based on a logic] there is a refutation.”

12. Indeed, all your words are naught but exaggerations and intimidations, a means of bewildering the foolish and mad, they who love wondrous and impossible things. You do not speak with wisdom. And in deceit you refuse to recognize the Lord, like that which the prophet Jeremiah (peace be upon him) said in the Lord’s name: You dwell in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, says the Lord (Jeremiah 9:6). And one of the deceivers among you [kabbalists] has already admitted: “We know that the truth is with you, but why should you reveal it and publicize it to some of the students? Rather, it is better for you to leave them in their error,” which is exactly the approach of the evil son of the four sons [in the Passover Haggadah], who asks, “What is this observance to you?” Your own letter proves that your arguments are senseless, whereas you published the claim that the author of Matsref ha-emunah [The Purifier of Faith] is a heretic and an infidel, heaven forbid! And you called his book Masref ha-emunah [The Burner of Faith]. But “he walks innocently” and never veers left or right from the words of the Zohar, the Mikdash melekh, Kise Eliyahu, Rashab, Yosher levav, Sefer ha-brit, Rabbi Isaac Luria, and Rabbi Ḥayim Vital in ‘Etz Ḥayim, Naḥalat Yosef, and other [kabbalistic] books, as I will expound. And this will be explained below. But first I will bring you several proofs to demonstrate that this kabbalah [of yours] is not a law of Moses from Sinai.

Our sages have said in b. Ḥullin [141a–141b] that any tannaitic teaching not taught in the academy of Rabbi Oshaya is not a tannaitic teaching, and it cannot be used to refute the opinions of others, for it is corrupt. This means that any tannaitic teaching that was not spoken in the academy of Rabbi Ḥiyya or the academy of Rabbi Oshaya is not only excluded from being a law of Moses from Sinai, but it cannot even be used as evidence to refute the view of an Amora! And in y. Eruvin, Chapter 1 regarding [the halakhic status] of laths, it is stated as follows: “Rabbi Aḥa told him, so says Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: One does not use as support any mishnah which is not accepted by a group.” [ . . . ] And in an ancient treatise, from the works of the early sages, I found written in the name of Rabbi Se‘adya Ga’on: “We have no tradition regarding Shi‘ur komah [an ancient work on the stature of deity, attributed to Rabbi Yishmael] from the sages of our people. For it is neither quoted in the Mishnah nor the Talmud, and we do not have any evidence from which we could determine whether it was truly taught by Rabbi Yishmael, or rather by others, and it was only attributed it to Rabbi Yishmael—as they attributed many fabricated books to various famous sages.”