1

It's possible the question has already been asked here, but wasn't able to find. So please excuse me for posting this again.

The early Jewish philosophers/thinkers (Saadia, Ramabam, Bachya Ibn Pakuda in Shaar hayichud) stressed the absolute unity of God, i.e., that Hashem is absolutely one, a unified entity with no distinct parts or attributes. As we say in the Ani Maamin הוּא יָחִיד וְאֵין יְחִידוּת כָּמוֹהוּ בְּשׁוּם פָּנִים

The sefirot, the divine emanations, which are also in some way identified with the Godhead (Shechina for example is distinct from the ein sof, but paradoxically also identified with it), stand in direct contrast to the absolute unity of God. Some (see teshuvas Rivush 156) even went so far to compare this to the Christian concept of trinity.

My question is how did the early kabbalists (like the Ramban and Rashba, who were also philosophers and great thinkers) reconcile this belief with the belief in the absolute unity of God? Did they disagree with the concept that God must be an absolute single entity, or did they reconcile this in some other way?

Bach
  • 2,728
  • 14
  • 32
  • 2
    Possible duplicate https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/8920/759 – Double AA Jan 23 '24 at 20:14
  • 1
    While there are similarities, it is quite different. That question is mainly focused on how it is different from Christianity, and so are the answers. It's coming from a different prespective. I'm, on the other hand, not interested in how the sefirot might differ from the trinity doctrine, my only concern is how it can be reconciled with אחדות השם. – Bach Jan 23 '24 at 21:00
  • It's not just kabbalah, the sefiros are mentioned in midrash rabbah. How do non kabbalista explain the existence of the universe in place of the omnipresence of G-d? – Core of reality Jan 23 '24 at 21:00
  • @Coreofreality to the extent of my knowledge the midrash Rabbah does not mention the sefirot. It is mentioned first in the sefer Yesirah. The question of the omnipresence of God is a valid one, you should maybe ask it as a separate question. Omnipresence of God though is not one of the 13 ikrei emunah (Some Jewish thinkers even opposed it), whereas absolute unity of God is. – Bach Jan 23 '24 at 21:08
  • The rasag is one of the mefarshim on sefer yetzira – Dude Jan 24 '24 at 03:48
  • Might want to find out which course Deuteronomy went on. See this comment in particular: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/132030/did-nachmanides-believe-the-shechinah-is-god-and-uncreated#comment437502_132030 – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 13:55
  • This doesn't answer your question, but you quoted 3 philosophers who all dealt with Hashem's unity, and left room for things like the sefirot. For example, sefirot as actions, sefirot as names, and sefirot as active attributes. All similar explanations, and is quite likely that the "early Kabbalists" thought along similar lines, or didn't see an issue. The later Kabbalists also might have simply come to reveal what the earlier Kabbalists knew. – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 14:15
  • @RabbiKaii there's evidence that the early kabbalists (Ramban included) understood the sefirot to be more than just attributes, they were separate entites/ideas, some closer to the material earth and some closer to God, and that the separation of Shechina from God would cause great upheaval in this world etc. But again, if anyone can bring evidence and prove from their writings that they understood them to be just attributes/middot, nothing more than that, then that would be an acceptable answer, I suppose. – Bach Jan 24 '24 at 14:26
  • @Bach does this satisfy? https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Sefer_Yetzirah.1.4.2?lang=he – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 15:02
  • no it doesn't. And Btw it's attributed to him, but most likely this was written by R Azriel of Gerona, and wrongly attributed to Ramban. http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~kazhdan/Shneider/Ramban_on_SY_Scholem.Mehkarei.Kabbalah.1.pdf – Bach Jan 24 '24 at 15:25
  • Related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/132330/31534 – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 15:29
  • @Bach is the reason it doesn't satisfy because you aren't sure it is really Ramban, or because it still leaves room for doubt about whether Ramban considers the sefirot part of Essence? – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 15:32
  • yes because it is extremely vague. It just says it's not part of the sefirot, it doesnt explain what it is, and how it relates to the ein sof. – Bach Jan 24 '24 at 15:37
  • @Bach you might find this of interest if you haven't learnt it already: https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Exodus.3.13.2?vhe=On_Your_Way_New&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 15:37
  • Yitzchak of Acco explained the "bli-mah" of Sefer Yetzira has a gematria of 87, while Elokim is 86, to teach us that the sefirot are a step away from Hashem (i.e. not part of Him), but the first step. – Rabbi Kaii Jan 24 '24 at 15:41

1 Answers1

-2

If you're asking about the sefiros broadly, and not specifically the early Kabbalists - the answer is, they reconciled that idea using the inyanim of tzimtzum the Ohr Ein Sof. That is what the entirety of kabbalah is about. You can learn more in the first perek of Otzros Chaim, Shaar Ha'igulim. The sefer Bayam Darkecha had almost a hundred pages of R' Itche Meir Morgenstern's commentary on this perek, broken down in very clear language - I strongly recommend it.

Yehuda
  • 1,912
  • 6
  • 20
  • What makes you think he might not be asking about the early kabbalists specifically? It seems quite clear to me that he specifically was – Double AA Jan 24 '24 at 00:51
  • @DoubleAA additionally, I don't see how tzimtzum remotely resolves the problem. Seems to me like a deflection of the issue. – Bach Jan 24 '24 at 01:05
  • @DoubleAA Because OP mentioned in the comments about the interest in how the sefiros can be reconciled with אחדות השם, which is a question grappled with by the later Kabbalists. – Yehuda Jan 24 '24 at 02:16