לכבוד הרב הגדול מופלא באנשים בוחן ובודק יסודות ושרשים מו"ה יחיה בן סלים אלקאפאח שליט"א.
שלום וברכה בקודש.
הגיעני מכתב כת"ר היקר, ובתחילה הקונטרסים שלו בהתנגדותו ליסודי הקבלה הידועה ביסודותיה על פי יחיד הדורות מלפני הרמב"ן ז"ל, ואח"כ על ידי הרמב"ן ז"ל וספר הבהיר והזוהר.
והנה בעניני הלכה יש כלל אחד שמביא מור"ם בשו"ע חו"מ סימן כ"ה ס"ב בהגה בשם מוהרי"ק, שכל מקום שדברי הראשונים כתובים על ספר והם מפורסמים והפוסקים האחרונים חולקים עליהם, כמו שלפעמים הפוסקים חולקים על הגאונים הולכים אחרי האחרונים ע"כ.
ואם נבא לדון על הביטויים איך שהם נראה בלא העמקת הענין, הלא זאת היא טענה גם כן נוגעת בענין בטויי הגשמיות שנתמשכו בהן התורה והנביאים והחכמים, ולדברי הרמב"ם בפ"ג מהלכות תשובה [הלכה ז] הלא זאת היא מינות גמורה, אפילו כשהוא אומר שיש רבון אחד שהוא בעל גוף ובעל תמונה, אלא שהראב"ד ז"ל התנצל על הטועים הללו "מפני שהטעו אותם המקראות, ויותר ממה שראוי באגדות המשבשות את הדעות", ותקשה עלינו למה דברה תורה וכן חכמים בסגנון כזה שעלול לשבש את הדעות, ובעל כרחם משתמשים בכל לשון שבעל הלימוד הזה מוצא אותו ראוי, וסומך שיבואו החכמים ויבררו הדברים ויפרשו לראויים, וההמון כולו ימשך על ידי הדברים ליראת שמים ולמוסר טוב, ונמצא ששני הסוגים יקבלו תועלת.
והרי הרמב"ם בפרק ל"ו מחלק הראשון [במורה נבוכים] כתב שמי שיאמר שד' יתברך גשם או בעל התפעליות הוא בלא ספק יותר רע מעובד עבודה זרה, ומ"מ סמכה התורה והנביאים וחז"ל אחריהם לדבר בחופש כל כך, בלשונות הנראים כהגשמה והתפעליות, וק"ו שאין שום חשש במקום הדרוש לביאור הענינים האלוקיים בטהרת ההשגה, שהשפה אינה יכולה לבטאם בשום אופן, להסגירן גם בסגנון כזה שנראה ח"ו כמו ריבוי וכיו"ב, וההמבין יבין את התוכן הפנימי, והאדם הפשוט יזדעזע בחרדה שיש כאן ענין מופלאה ותתווסף לו יראת שמים, וכמו שכתב בחובת הלבבות בפ"ב משער היחוד בשם הפלוסוף, שלא יוכל לעבוד עילת העילות ותחילת התחילות אלא נביא הדור בטבעו או הפלוסוף המובהק במה שקנהו מן החכמה.
ויסודי הקבלה היו מפורסמים בישראל ע"פ יסודות הספירות והאצילות הרבה דורות לפני פרסומו של ספר הזוהר, ויחוסו של ספר הזוהר לרשב"י שהוא כמובן ללמודיו וארחות השגותיו האלוקיות, אפילו אם נשתלשלו דורות רבים והיו בהם הוספות והערות מחכמים שונים, ואם אפילו נתערבו בהן איזה דברים שראויים לבקורת, כמו שעשה הגאון היעב"ץ במטפחתו, אין העיקר בטל בכך, שישנם שם למודים קדושים ונשגבים עטויים במסוה הסוד ובשפה עמוקה, והכל מכוון לגדולת מעשה השי"ת אחד יחיד ומיוחד ב"ה, אשר אין לו ראשית ולא תכלית ואין חקר לתבונתו, ועל כיוצא בזה נאמרו דברי רשב"ל "הרבה מקראות שראויין לישרף והן הן גופי תורה" בחולין ס' ע"ב.
ובמדרש רבה (בראשית רבה עט, ח) על הפסוק "ויצב לו שם מזבח ויקרא לו א-ל אלוקי ישראל": "אר"ל אמר אתה אלו-ה בעליונים ואני אלו-ה בתחתונים", ובילקוט שמעוני (בראשית וישלח רמז קלג) הגירסא היא להיפך: "אמר ליה אני אלו-ה בעליונים ואתה בתחתונים", וזה מסתבר יותר.
ומה שמרנן כת"ר על הלשונות בעניני תאורי זיווגים וכיו"ב איני יודע וכי כעורים הם הלשונות הללו יותר מהמעשים, ובגמ' יומא נ"ד ע"א: בשעה שישראל היו עולין לרגל מגללין להן את הפרוכת ומראין להם את הכרובים שהיו מעורין זה בזה ואומרין להם ראו חיבתכם לפני המקום כחבת זכר ונקבה.
וכל זה הוא בכללות הדברים, ועל הפרטים הנני אומר לכת"ר כמו שאמר החבר לכוזרי בסוף מאמר שלישי סימן ע"ג: ואני מודה לך מלך כוזר שבגמרא דברים שאינני יכול להטעימך בהם טעמים מספיקים, ולא להביאם בקשר ענין.
ויראה כת"ר בעץ חיים היכל א"ק שער ראשון ענף ב' שמדבר בענין הצמצום שהוא ההשגה היותר עליונה ושם בדבור המתחיל "ודע" יש הגה קטנה להגאון ר"מ בעל שו"ת פנים מאירות ז"ל שכתב: אמר מאיר בערכנו אמר הרב זה עכ"ל, ומזה יוכל לדעת שכל הדברים נאמרו בערכנו, כלומר לפי השגת הנבראים באופן היותר זך ויותר עליון.
ובאמת זהו שבחו וגדלותו של מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה שלהסביר קצה קצהו מגדולת מעשיו ביחוד הרוחניים השכליים והמוסריים, שהם הרבה יותר נפלאים מהחומריים והטבעיים, צריכים לזה התעמקות נוראה והסברות כל כך עמוקות לשון עד שיוכלו להמשיל על ידם איזו תפיסת ציור, לדבקה בו ית"ש באהבה וביראה ודבקות טהורה וקדושה, ובודאי מצד עצמותו ית"ש לולא חפצו ורצונו בעולמותיו ובבריותיו ועושי רצונו, לא היה אפשר כלל להמשיל שום משל ולדבק שום רעיון, וזהו מה שכיונו בכלל בתעלומות אין סוף, אבל מצד רצונו המקודש לחדש בריות לאין תכלית ולהדריך בעלי שכל ובחירה במעגל ישר של אור החיים, בשטח זה באים כל המשלים שאורם מתגלה לשרידים אשר ד' קורא איש לפי מעלתו, ואין ההבדל בין תוכן הקבלה בסתרה ובין טהרת השכל הישר והפשוט גדול כל כך ליודעי בינה המכוונים ליבם לאביהם שבשמים באמת ובתמים.
ותקותי חזקה בע"ה שכת"ר יחדור לתוך דברי, וישוב ויאמר אכן יש ד' במקום הזה של אור חכמת ישראל הנעלמת בקדושתה, כמו שקיימו וקבלו עליהם חכמי ישראל רובם ככולם, ו"סוד ד' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם".
מה שדבר כת"ר נגדם אנו דנים אותו לכף זכות כי כוונתו לשם שמים, והשי"ת יסלח לו ויקויים בכת"ר "ישובו לי יראיך ויודעי עדותיך".
והיה זה שלום כנפשו היפה ונפש ידידו מברכו מקדש באה"ר,
יעקב משה חרל"פ
In honor of the great Rav, distinguished among men, an investigator and scrutinizer of foundations and roots, morenu he-rav Yichye ben Salim al-Qafih, shelita.
Shalom u’verachah b’kodesh.
The precious letter of k’vod toraso reached me, along with, earlier, his pamphlets containing his opposition to the foundations of Kabbalah—whose principles are known via the singular master of the generations prior to the Ramban z”l, and later through the Ramban z”l, Sefer HaBahir, and the Zohar. Now, k’vod toraso has not innovated anything novel in this opposition; yet in the measure of acerbity in his expression, he is virtually unprecedented among the yere’im (God-fearing). For one cannot take into account those opponents of this Kabbalah who were simultaneously pokrim (apostates/heretics) regarding matters of the revealed Torah, both written and oral.
Now, in matters of halachah, there is a fundamental rule cited by the Rema in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat (siman 25, se’if 2, in the gloss) in the name of the Maharik: wherever the words of the Rishonim are recorded in a book and are renowned, and the later Poskim dispute them—just as the Poskim at times dispute the Geonim—the halachah follows the Acharonim, ad kan lashono. The rationale is that since the counterarguments were already heard and not heeded, we maintain that they found sound reason not to be apprehensive of them.
Regarding the claim against the foundations of Kabbalah in the matter of the Sefiros and Atzilus—that it ostensibly appears, chas v’shalom, to attribute multiplicity to the Godhead, which would constitute an undermining of the tenets of faith and an element of avodah zarah, rachmana litzlan—behold, the Rivash already addressed this in Teshuvos HaRivash (siman 157). Let k’vod toraso see how he spoke with humility and reverent awe, even though he kept his distance from Kabbalah. And regarding the disgrace of suspecting multiplicity in the Godhead regarding the Sefiros, the Rivash referred to the challenger who claimed that "the Christians believe in a trinity while the Kabbalists believe in a decad" as "one of the philosophizers," demonstrating that he showed no regard whatsoever for this opinion. The Rivash subsequently cited the explanation of Don Yosef ibn Shoshan—whom he respectfully terms "the elderly chacham"—that the matter is comparable to one who petitions the king to grant his request through a specific emissary appointed for that purpose, writing upon his words: "And behold, it is exceedingly good," harboring no concern whatsoever for even a trace of avodah zarah, chas v’shalom.
Moreover, the Acharonim, virtually all of them—who were holy, pure, and intellectual giants of the world—accepted the teachings of Kabbalah despite having seen the arguments of the dissenters. It is therefore evident that it was clarified to them beyond doubt that there is not the slightest trace of avodah zarah here, chas v’shalom, but rather an increase in closeness to Hashem and in kedushah.
If we come to judge expressions merely as they appear at face value, without delving into the depth of the matter, this very grievance applies equally to the anthropomorphic expressions (lashon hagashmah) employed throughout the Torah, the Nevi'im, and Chazal. According to the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah (chapter 3, halachah 7), this constitutes absolute minus (heresy)—even if one maintains that there is one Master, yet that He possesses a body and form. Yet the Ra’avad z”l excused these erring individuals, stating: "Because the verses led them astray, and even more so the aggados that confound one's understanding."
One might ask: Why did the Torah and Chazal speak in such a style that is liable to confound understanding? Perforce, they employed whatever terminology the teacher of that discipline found fitting, relying upon the chachamim to clarify the matters and expound them to those worthy, while the masses would be drawn through these words toward yiras Shamayim and upright conduct. Thus, both groups derive benefit.
Indeed, the Rambam in Part I, chapter 36 of Moreh Nevuchim wrote that one who asserts that Hashem, may He be blessed, is corporeal or subject to passions and affects (ba'al hispa'aluyos) is unequivocally worse than an idolater. Nonetheless, the Torah, the Nevi'im, and Chazal following them relied upon speaking with such liberty, using terms that appear to denote corporeality and change. Kal va-chomer, then, that there is no apprehension whatsoever when it is necessary to elucidate divine matters in the purity of comprehension—which human tongue cannot articulate under any circumstances—to convey them even in an idiom that superficially appears, chas v’shalom, like multiplicity or the like. The discerning will grasp the inner essence, while the simple person will be struck with awe that a wondrous matter lies here, and his yiras Shamayim will be enhanced.
This aligns with what the author of Chovos HaLevavos wrote in the second chapter of Sha'ar HaYichud in the name of the philosopher: that none can truly serve the Cause of causes and the Primal of all beginnings except the prophet of the generation by his nature, or the consummate philosopher through the wisdom he has acquired. Nevertheless, Hashem's lovingkindness is upon all His creatures, particularly Bnei Yisrael, His close nation: since they accept the unity of Hashem, may He be blessed, in accordance with the Torah, all their conceptions—even those that are unrefined—are purified in the inner recesses of their neshamah. For ultimately they know that the absolute truth of divine matters is far removed from human intellect, and beyond all conceptual depictions, they rely upon the matter being precisely as the Holy Torah intends.
Furthermore, the foundations of Kabbalah based upon the principles of the Sefiros and Atzilus were well known in Israel many generations prior to the public emergence of the Sefer HaZohar. The attribution of the Zohar to Rashbi refers, of course, to his core teachings and the ways of his divine perceptions—even if they were transmitted through many generations, accumulating additions and glosses from various sages, and even if certain matters warranting critical scrutiny became interspersed within them, as the Gaon Ya'avetz did in his Mitpachas Sefarim. The essential core is not nullified thereby, for contained within are holy and exalted teachings cloaked in the mantle of mystery and profound language, all directed toward the greatness of the deeds of Hashem—One, Singular, and Unique, blessed be He—Who has neither beginning nor end, and Whose understanding is unsearchable. Regarding matters of this sort, Reish Lakish stated: "There are many verses that appear deserving of being burned, yet they are the very bodies of Torah" (Chullin 60b).
Chazal were not hesitant to expound the verse, "Ascend to Hashem" (Shemos 24:1)—despite the challenge of the Tzedokim who argued that it should have stated, "Ascend to Me"—explaining that this refers to Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master; and Rashi commented (ad loc.): "Hashem—meaning that he too is called by the Name of Hashem." They harbored no concern that this implied multiplicity or an aspect of avodah zarah, because it is universally known and established that all are His servants, deriving their existence and their entire being from Him, blessed be He, and that He merely imparts of His honor and abundant kindness to each according to his station.
In Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis Rabbah 79:8) on the verse, "And he erected an altar there and called it El-Elohei-Yisrael" (Bereishis 33:20): "Reish Lakish said: [Yaakov] said to Him: You are God among the celestial beings, and I am god among the terrestrial beings." In the Yalkut Shimoni (Bereishis, Vayishlach, remez 133), the reading is reversed: "He said to him: I am God among the celestial beings, and you are a god among the terrestrial beings," which is more plausible. At any rate, Chazal were not concerned that even a trace of multiplicity or an aspect of avodah zarah would result, chas v’shalom.
Similarly, in Gemara Megillah (18a): "From where do we derive that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Yaakov 'El'? As it is stated: 'And he called it El-Elohei-Yisrael.' And he called Yaakov 'El'—and who called him 'El'? The God of Israel." Why must we seek out Chazal's statements on this when the Torah itself harbored no apprehension? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe Rabbeinu, alav hashalom: "And you shall be to him as a god" (Shemos 4:16), and "I have made you a god to Pharaoh" (Shemos 7:1). One who lacks understanding could err in this, chas v’shalom, yet the Torah had no apprehension, on account of the clear knowledge that all understand that "there is none else beside Him," blessed be He, and that all these expressions are merely allegorical explanations—not merely homonyms, as in the case of Metatron.
In Gemara Bava Basra (75b): "In the future, the tzaddikim will be called by the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated: 'Everyone that is called by My Name, and whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him' (Yeshayahu 43:7)." It further states there: "Three are called by the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and they are: tzaddikim, Moshiach, and Yerushalayim. Moshiach—as it is written: 'And this is his name whereby he shall be called: Hashem our righteousness' (Yirmeyahu 23:6); Yerushalayim—as it is written: 'And the name of the city from that day shall be: Hashem is there' (Yechezkel 48:35); do not read shammah [there], but shemah [her name]." Rashi explains: "That their name shall be Hashem." One who fails to understand or does not believe in the sanctity of these words could, chas v’shalom, cast aspersions and fault upon this, alleging that multiplicity in the Godhead is present, chas v’shalom. Exactly so is the matter concerning the unfamiliar allegories found in Kabbalah.
As to that which k’vod toraso complains about the expressions depicting unions (zivugim) and the like—I do not know: are these linguistic expressions more unseemly than the physical actions themselves? In Gemara Yoma (54a): "Whenever Israel ascended for the regel (pilgrimage), they would roll up the paroches (curtain) for them and show them the Cherubim, who were intertwined one with the other, saying to them: 'Behold your affection before the Omnipresent, like the affection of male and female.'" They also expounded (Yoma 54, end of page a) on the verse, "According to the space of each, with garlands (lavyos)" (I Melachim 7:36): "Like a man intertwined with his companion (l’vayaso)"; and Rashi explained (ad loc.): "Attached and embracing his wife with his arms."
Certainly, all of these are holy and pure depictions standing infinitely elevated above any trace of impurity or carnal desire, chas v’shalom. Rather, they are intimations of the sanctity of the Source of Life, for everything is encompassed within His absolute truth, blessed be His Name, from beginning to end; in His abode, everything exists in the ultimate degree of purity and refinement, beyond the grasp of any mortal contemplation. Were it not for the perception of holiness in every matter, elevated above all flaw, the prophet’s metaphor would likewise trouble us: "For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee" (Yeshayahu 62:5), and we would regard this, chas v’shalom, as unrefined language; yet from the vantage point of kedushah, everything is holy. Regarding this and similar matters, we say in the Mishnah (Yadayim 3:5): "Shir HaShirim is the Holy of Holies, and the entire world was not worthy of the day on which Shir HaShirim was given to Israel."
As the Rambam wrote in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah (chapter 2, halachah 9): "All existing things aside from the Creator, from the primal form down to a minute gnat at the center of the earth, exist solely through the power of His true existence. And because He knows Himself and recognizes His greatness, His splendor, and His absolute truth, He knows everything, and nothing is hidden from Him," ad kan lashono. If so, the most minute of creations—and consequently, the most minute movement in life—all exist through the power of His absolute truth, to the extent that through knowing Himself, blessed be He, He knows them all. There, in His supreme holiness, the reality of all existence is in consummate sanctity and purity, devoid of any blemish or flaw, chas v’shalom. Such is the comprehension of all the holy masters of Israel in their grasp of the wisdom of Kabbalah and the foundations of the holy Zohar. Heaven forbid that one should attribute fault or invalidity to them—far be it from being spoken—and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through the righteous, chas v’shalom; "the integrity of the upright shall guide them" (Mishlei 11:3).
All this applies to the generalities of the subject. Regarding the particulars, I say to k’vod toraso as the Chaver said to the Kuzari at the conclusion of the Third Treatise (section 73): "I concede to you, King of the Kuzars, that in the Gemara there are things for which I cannot provide you with sufficient rationales, nor connect them in cohesive context." See there what he argued regarding those matters, writing: "Yet the work loses none of its value on account of the aspects I mentioned."
Furthermore, not all authors who addressed Kabbalah are equal in their level of attainment or the nature of their expression. There are works that possess no authoritative standing whatsoever, such as the book Oz L’Elohim cited by k’vod toraso; if it is by the author Nechemiah Chiyun, he is well known as an illegitimate writer belonging to the sect of the false messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi, shem resha'im yirkav. (Perhaps in your region there is a book by this title concerning a different matter, and we bear no responsibility for it.) If individuals who have not attained inner discernment devote their labors to what is appropriate for them and within their grasp—in the plain sense (peshat) of our Holy Torah—how fortunate is their portion! Yet the greatest and holiest sages of Israel have throughout all generations venerated and sanctified it with wholeness of heart and with holy, pure emunah; would that our portion be amongst theirs.
Let k’vod toraso examine Etz Chaim (Heichal Adam Kadmon, Sha'ar 1, Anaf 2), which addresses the concept of the Tzimtzum—which represents the most elevated perception. There, on the passage beginning with the words "V'da", appears a brief gloss by the Gaon Rabbi Meir, author of the She'eilos U'Teshuvos Panim Me'iros z”l, who wrote: "Meir says: The Rav stated this relative to our perspective (b’erkēnu)," ad kan lashono. From this, one can know that all matters were spoken relative to our perspective—that is, according to the comprehension of created beings, in the most refined and elevated manner.
In truth, this itself constitutes the praise and grandeur of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He: to explain even the barest fraction of the greatness of His deeds—particularly the spiritual, intellectual, and moral realms, which are far more wondrous than the material and natural realms—demands profound contemplation and expressions in language so deeply layered, in order to illustrate through them some conceptual grasp wherewith to cleave unto Him, blessed be His Name, with love, fear, and pure, holy deveikus. Certainly, from the aspect of His Essence, blessed be His Name, were it not for His desire and will regarding His worlds, His creatures, and those who perform His will, it would be utterly impossible to draw any parable or attach any thought whatsoever; this is what was intended generally regarding the mysteries of the Ein Sof. Yet from the perspective of His holy will to continuously bring forth creations without end and to guide beings of intellect and free will along an upright path of the light of life—in this domain appear all the allegories whose illumination is revealed to the select few whom Hashem calls, each according to his spiritual stature. The disparity between the esoteric inner substance of Kabbalah and the purity of straightforward, sound intellect is not so great to those of discernment who direct their hearts to their Father in Heaven in truth and sincerity.
My firm hope is, b'ezras Hashem, that k’vod toraso will penetrate deeply into my words, and recant, saying: "Indeed, Hashem is present in this place" of the light of Israel's hidden wisdom in its holiness—just as the sages of Israel, virtually all of them, affirmed and accepted upon themselves; and "the secret of Hashem is to those who fear Him, and He will make them know His covenant" (Tehillim 25:14).
As for that which k’vod toraso spoke against them, we judge him favorably, for his intention was for the sake of Heaven. May Hashem, blessed be He, grant him forgiveness, and may there be fulfilled in k’vod toraso the verse: "Let those that fear Thee turn unto me, and those that know Thy testimonies" (Tehillim 119:79).
May this be for peace, according with his noble soul and the soul of his friend who blesses him from the sanctuary with great love,
Yaakov Moshe Charlap
