Path of AbrahamWhat is Kabbalah?See further: [What is Oral Law? ]    [What is Zohar's place in Judaism? ]  [TORAH 101: Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism ] [Kabbala and Halakha] [The Death of Reincarnation](Scroll Down for Growing List of Rabbis Pertinent to Topic) Kabbalah means "reception" or "that which was received."  This term was used in reference to the full body of Jewish Law, including Tanakh (Hebrew Bible /  O. T) and the Talmudic texts which the Jewish people had inherited (received) from their ancient ancestors.  The general meaning of the term remained unchanged until the late Middle Ages.  Beginning with the supposed "revelation" of the Zohar in the 1300's (which, by the way, means that it was not part of what the Jews as a people had   inherited  (ie: received [Kabbalah]) from their ancestors up unto that time), the term Kabbalah slowly began to be applied to mystical teachings as promoted by certain rabbis.  Over several hundred years this use of the term eventually caught on to such an extent that in our day, except among serious Torah scholars, the term Kabbalah almost automatically brings esoteric mystical knowledge to mind.  While there is no doubt that there is a true esoteric aspect to Torah learning -- referred to in Talmudic literature as Ma'aseh Merquva and Ma'aseh B'resheyth -- yet that which today is known as Kabbalah is neither learned nor taught according to the codified Talmudic laws (halakha) concerning how valid esoteric teachings are to be conveyed (see Hilkhoth Yesodei Torah); Nor does the modern idea of Kabbalah match the historical use of the term.  Historical Kabbalah referred to publically known and publically taught Torah teaching which had been passed down generation after generation from the time of the Sanhedrin in accordance with the laws by which these teachings were to be conveyed -- and all without secretes and without unrectifiable contradictions.  No concept of the modern Kabbalah (Zohar, etc...) was written about or referred to by any known Jewish leaders until the around the 1300's when this supposed pillar of Judaism was suddenly revealed to the world, without the authority of the Sanhedrin, needless to say.  After the revelation of the modern Kabbalah, many innovations began to "revitalize" the Jewish religion and enlighten the masses to the "true" and "deeper" meanings of the commandments and halakhot (rabbinic laws).  Consequently, over time certain rabbis and communities began to feel that they no longer needed to continue in particular practices long rooted in the Reception of Talmudic texts (historical kabbalah), since the deeper purposes of such laws may be achieved in more productive ways, or for other reasons.  So the situation continued, with the "Orthodox" Enlightenment slowly spreading through the Jewish world until modern times.  On this page I list the names of prominent Jewish leaders who are known to have spoken out against various aspects this "Orthodox" Enlightenment, whether in whole or in part.

The following is a list of some well-known Jewish leaders among the Orthodox world who cast doubt on major aspects of what today is commonly, though mistakenly, referred to as Kabbalah: 

Rabbi Saadiah Gaon wrote in his book Emunot v'Deot that Jews who believe in reincarnation have accepted a non-Jewish belief.Maimonides (12th Century) discounted the mystical work Shiur Komah, with its starkly anthropomorphic vision of G-d, which is a popular kabbalistic text even in modern times.Abraham ibn Daud, around 1110 to 1180; rejected reincarnation.Rabbi Avraham ben haRambam, like his predecessors, writes at length in his book Milhhamot HaShem that the Almighty is in no way literally within time or space nor physically outside time or space, since time and space simply do not apply to His Being whatsoever. His book is almost undeniably targeted at the forbearers of much of kabbalistic thought.Leon de Modena rejected reincarnation.Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven (The Ran), 1320-1380; reproved the Nachmonides (Ramban) for devoting too much to kabbalah and is said to have been "no friend of mysticism."Yedayah Bedershi, early 14th century; rejected reincarnation.Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet (The Rivash), 1326-1408; he stated that Kabbalah was "worse than Christianity", as it made God into 10, not just into three.Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas, 1340-1410/11; rejected reincarnation.Joseph Albo, 15th century; rejected reincarnation.Rabbi Leon Modena, a 17th century Venetian critic of Kabbalah, wrote that if we were to accept the Kabbalah, then the Christian trinity would indeed be compatible with Judaism, as the Trinity closely resembles the Kabbalistic doctrine of sefirot.Rabbi Yaakov Emden, 1697-1776, wrote the book Mitpahhath Sfarim (Scarf / Veil of the Books) which is a detailed critique of the Zohar. He concludes that certain parts of the Zohar contain heretical teaching and therefore could not have been written by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Opponents of the book claim that he wrote the book in a drunken stupor.Rabbi Samuel Strashun, 1794-1872, in Bava Metzia 107a, in his famous commentary to the Talmud, R' Strashun (the "Rashash" of Europe) points out a Talmudic proof against gilgulim.  A rebbi in Kol Torah put out a book called 'dvar yakov' on tractate bava metzia.  In commenting on this particular statement by the Rashah, the author of the book is goes off on how the Rashash could contradict "kabbalistic masters."Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, 1808-1888, among other things, specified that belief in reincarnation is one of the major distinctions between what were the religious opinions (hashqafa) of the Ancient Egyptions in contrast to the religious perspective (hashqafa) of the Jewish Faith.  He writes that reincarnation was central to the Egyptian Faith.Rabbi Yihhyah Qafehh, an early 20th century Yemenite Jewish leader wrote a book called Milhhamoth HaShem, (Wars of the L-RD) against what he perceived as the false teachings of the Zohar and "Lurianic Kabbalah."Nechama Leibowitz, 1905-1997; renown modern scholar and commentator to the Tanakh - avoided making use of kabbalistic works in her commentaries.Yeshayahu Leibowitz 1903-1994, the brother of Nechama Leibowitz; he publically shared and supported views expressed in Rabbi Yihhyah Qafehh's book Milhhamoth HaShem that much of popular 'kabbala' is idolatrious; was against allowing kabbalistic texts to influence halakhic practice.Rabbi Yosef Kapach taught against allowing kabbalistic texts to influence halakhic practice.Rabbi Jose Faur CHAPTER LXXI of Moreh HaNevukhim by the Rambam:(from http://www.mesora.org/guide.html)

KNOW that many branches of science relating to the correct solution of these problems, were once cultivated by ourforefathers, but were in the course of time neglected, especially in consequence of the tyranny which barbarous nations exercise dover us. Besides, speculative studies were not open to all men, aswe have already stated (Introd. P. 2, and 1. chap. xxxi.), only the subjects taught in the Scriptures were accessible to all. Even the traditional Law, as you are well aware, was not originally committed to writing, in conformity with the rule to which ournation generally adhered," Things which I have communicated toyou orally, you must not communicate to others in writing." With reference to the Law, this rule was very opportune; for while it remained in force it averted the evils which happened subsequently, viz., great diversity of opinion, doubts as to the meaning of written words, slips of the pen, dissensions among the people, formation of new sects, and confused notions about practical subjects. The traditional teaching was in fact, according to the words of the Law, entrusted to the Great Tribunal, as we have already stated in our works on the Talmud. (Introd. toMishneh Torah and Introd. to Commen. on the Mishnah).Care having been taken, for the sake of obviating injurious influences, that the Oral Law should not be recorded in a form accessible to all, it was but natural that no portion of "the secrets of the Law" (i.e., metaphysical problems) would be permitted to be written down or divulged for the use of all men.... [The underlined statement is in contrast to the Oral Law, which was always permitted to be written down in the form of notes and was later permitted by the Sanhedrin to be codified in written form for public use.] ....These secrets, as has been explained, were orally communicated by a few ablemen to others who were equally distinguished. Hence the principle applied by our teachers," The secrets of the Law can only been trusted to him who is a councillor, a cunning artificer, etc." The natural effect of this practice was that our nation lost the knowledge of those important disciplines. Nothing but a few remarks and allusions are to be found in the Talmud and the Midrashim, like a few kernels enveloped in such a quantity of husk, that the reader is generally occupied with the husk, and forgets that it encloses a kernel.

Path of AbrahamThe Zohar's Place in JudaismPREFACEThis is in response to the words that a certain rabbi made to an honorable Jew I know.  This is written in reply to the statements this rabbi made to this Jew, as it was reported to me, which propose that one who does not fully accept the Zohar is a heretic [apecoris].  It concerns the Zohar's place in Judaism.  Whether the Zohar is an essential foundation of Torah-Judaism, whether or not the Zohar is authentic; And the basis upon which one may have arrived to such a conception that the Zohar is such a fundamental basis of Judaism.  I write this coming from the perspective of an orthodox Jew who completely upholds the absolute authority of the Torah [the Law of Moses] as the specially revealed Will of the Almighty that He revealed to the people of Israel - a Jew who therefore strives to keep this Torah in accordance with the words of sages who were members of the court that was established under Moses as reported in the Torah (Deuteronomy 1; 17:8-13, etc..)  I am a Jew who strives to live according to the rulings of judgement and teachings of this court that have been preserved by their last students in the Talmudic texts.  I keep these rulings as codified in the Mishneh Torah of RAMBAM:

[See also 'The Zohar,' 'Reincarnation,' "Kabalah" and Halakhah,'   on mesora.org and Anti-Maimonidean Demons on chayas.com]

Yeyhhud [The Unity of haShem] - The Kuzari

We do not accept the words of philosophers who say that the 'Realm of Divinity' is divided into various levels of authority.  We believe there is only one Divine level of authority, only one 'G-d' who controles every corporeal thing.  Whoever is deceived by ther philosophic theories is considered heretical [apeyqores].

Whoever does not accept the Zohar is a heretic [apekores], even if he is neutral, neither rejecting or accepting.

 So, a person can be a heretic [apekores] even if he is not a wise scholar of the Torah [talmid hhakham]? (This goes contrary to common understanding that only very learned individuals can truly be classified as apekores.)  In any case, Rav Sa'adyah Gaon was a renownly wise scholar of the Torah, whom no one would call a heretic. But Rav Sa'adyah Gaon didn't know about the teachings of the Zohar, such as gilgul [reincarnation]. Then why would he see a need to mention his opinion on the issue of reincarnation to the Jewish community if he was unaware of people in the Jewish community being taught about reincarnation?  If Jews believed in reincarnation at his time, then certainly someone was teaching it.  If R' Sa'adyah Gaon [R'SG] wrote concerning it, then it must have had a connection to the observant community.  If the observant Jews were believing it, were there no rabbis teaching it?  And in any case, he most certainly was NOT even neutral on the issue, to say the least.  R' Sa'adyah Gaon [R'SG] lived around 1400 years ago. No one calls him a heretic, yet he taught that a Jew who believes in gilgul [reincarnation] has a belief from idolaters.  Can someone have an opinion about something of which he is unaware? Rav Mosha ben Maimon [RAMBAM] was likewise a renownly wise scholar of the Torah.  But RAMBAM didn't know about 'Kabbalah.'  Rav Mosha ben Maimon [RAMBAM], who lived in the 1100's, knew of the 'kabbalistic' book Shi'ur Komah, which is widely accepted by kabbalists even today.  He once believed this book to be authentic, but after he studied it, he rejected, even though it was already accepted by so many major rabbis of his own time.  He rejected this book because he considered it to contain pagan Greek ideas which are completely antithetical to fundamental Jewish teachings concerning the Oneness of the Almighty, etc...  So much for RAMBAM accepting non-Jewish ideas.  He quoted and referred to non-Jewish philosophers where he understood their words to be in support of concepts that he considered to have already been Jewish concepts, before the philosophers adopted or realized them.  Only in regard to scientific or medical knowledge did he possibly adopt new concepts from non-Jews -- as orthodox Jews continue to do today.  This is completely acceptable according to Jewish Law [the Torah], to accept scientific findings from non-Jews.  If something can be proved as true, or very likely true - as long as it doesn't contradict Torah, it most certainly does not matter who revealed the matter.  "Take the wisdom of the nations, but their 'torah' do not take."  See also Rambam's comment in Hilkhoth Shekhitah 10:13 concerning when new scientific knowledge seems to contradict Torah. So R' Sa'adyah Gaon and RAMBAM are heretics [apicorsim]?  No one in the orthodox community would claim such an outrageous thing.   Everyone MUST accept the Zohar because 'all' the great Torah scholars accept it.  At what point did all the great Torah scholars accept it?  Are you automatically excluding all the rabbis who do not accept the Zohar from being included among the 'great Torah scholars [gadolei haDor]?'  With this same logic I or someone else could exclude all scholars who do accept the Zohar from being included among the great Torah scholars [gadolei haDor].  RAMBAM wrote in the beginning of Yesodei haTorah that all Jewish communities must be made to accept the Talmud. (This is since the Talmud contains the legal decisions of the sages who were members of the Sanhedrin - which the Torah commands us to obey, and the clarification of these rulings by the immediate students of the sages of the Sanhedrin, immediately after the Sanhedrin was disbanded by the Romans.)  RAMBAM codified in his Mishneh Torah that the individual courts, which are not a part of the Sanhedrin, do not have authority that extends over all the Jewish people.  He wrote that their rulings cannot be forced or enforced upon all the Jewish people.  He wrote in a number of places that the majority of the great rabbis, the great Torah scholars of his time [reshonim], did things, which, from his understanding, violated the Torah, violated Jewish law.  RAMBAM did not accept these practices or ideas of the majority of the great rabbis of his age simply because it was the 'accepted practice' and 'majority opinion' among the great rabbis of his time.  Neither did he imply that anyone, Jew or non-Jew,

man or woman, big or small, should follow the majority when it is clear to that individual that the majority is wrong.  To the contrary, he taught the opposite idea throughout all his texts.  It is better to be alone in truth than with many in falsehood - even if the many includes great Torah scholars.  After all, if the people of Israel at their highest spiritual level in history could be horribly mislead under the leadership of the very first court of sages, even the majority, to make the golden calf and be lead to idolatry, during the time of people like Aharon, Joshua, and Moses [not that the 3 mentioned agreed with their folly], then HOW MUCH MORE SO is it possible for the majority to be mislead today, or at other times, whether the majority be mislead to a lesser or greater degree than the golden calf. It makes no difference how great the amount of Torah knowledge which leaders may possess; This does not affect whether or not they might be mislead, or inadvertently mislead others.  Knowledge is extremely important, but the greater the knowledge the more deadly when the knowledge is misapplied - used without consistent objectiveness, logic, or honesty.  RAMBAM even implied that most, if not all, other major rabbis in his age had no place in the world to come for having used the Torah as a source of income - receiving money for learning Torah without having any other occupation.  In this same place he is even so bold for what he understood to be the truth, even though it was completely against the majority of big rabbis, that he wrote that those other big rabbis of his time were knowingly deceptive in how they taught Jews regarding the issue of receiving money for learning Torah.  This is written in his commentary on Perkei Avoth.  Many of the practices that he condemned, that the majority followed in his day, continue unto our own day.  RAMBAM most certainly held that the majority opinion of rabbis (whatever makes someone a Rabi without smeekhah) apart from the Sanhedrin has no authority over all the Jewish people.  All the more so is such an opinion without authority when it is contrary to the rulings of the Sanhedrin, or could be found questionable by logic and reason.  "A logical argument is like law." If Jewish law [halakhah] simply goes with the majority opinion of rabbis, even outside the Sanhedrin, then why all the disagreement among Jews over unclear points of Jewish law in the Talmud, when we could just take a poll of the opinions of the majority of Rabbis?  The outcome of the poll would tell us which opinion is to be Jewish law [halakhah].  We wouldn't even need the Sanhedrin if this were acceptable -- but such an idea as this goes straight against the Torah [5 Books of Moses], which plainly teach concerning the establishment of the Sanhedrin (Deuteronomy 17:8-13).   Whatever knowledge the Sanhedrin may secretly know, I assume to be true, even if I don't know what it is, but whatever they decree to Israel as a ruling of judgment, I follow - for this is what the Torah [5 books of Moses] specifically command we do.  Whether the Zohar is true or not, the Sanhedrin is never recorded as proclaiming a decree that all Israel accept it as valid and live according to it, or whatever else.  Whatever the Sanhedrin decrees in accordance with the Torah which it received from it's predecessors (this is real Kabbalah), this I receive to follow, neither adding to that decree or taking away - turning neither to the right or left from what they revealed.  THIS is what the Torah commands in Deuteronomy 17:11-13. Where did RAMBAM write that if some 'secret text' which had been hidden and lost for 1000 years is one day to be revealed to the public WITHOUT a proclamation of confirmation from the Sanhedrin, that this text is authoritative, that one who views it with suspicion is to be considered a heretic [apekores]?  As stated, RAMBAM himself was suspicious concerning the widely accepted text of Shi'ur Koma.  He even rejected it.  I guess RAMBAM forgot to include this in his explanation of what makes a person a heretic according to Jewish law from the Talmud when he was writing the Mishneh Torah.  I guess he forgot to include this 'essential' - foundational - possibility when organizing the essential 13 principles of our faith.  Is RAMBAM a heretic for not including such essentials of Judaism in the 13 principles of our faith, or anywhere else in his codification of the rulings from the Talmud and laws of the Torah?!!   Even concerning the metaphorical parts of the Talmud, which hopefully we ALL accept, the Rishon Rabbi Shmuel haNagid wrote, as included in the 'AIDING TALMUD STUDY' by Aryeh Carmell, from Feldheim Publishers: Aggada [Aramaic: agadata]:  everything mentioned in the Gemara [Talmud] , which is not directly connected with the halakhic aspect of the commandment.  One should learn from such statements ONLY those things which our minds can grasp.  It is important to know that ALL MATTERS which our Sages established as LAW, in connection with the commandment transmitted by Moshe Rabbenu [Moses our teacher] who received it from the Almighty [**this is real Kabbalah, which means 'reception/to receive'--webmaster**], CANNOT   be augmented or diminished in any way. [This last statement refers to Deuteronomy 17:11-13]  HOWEVER, the [aggadic] explanations they rendered of biblical verses were in

accordance with their INDIVIDUAL VIEWS and the ideas WHICH OCCURRED to them .  We should learn from them insofar as our minds can grasp them;  but otherwise we SHOULD NOT build upon them . (Since we have not succeeded in understanding the deeper meaning of their words, we should NOT attempt to use them as the BASIS of our thinking .)   If this is true for the Talmud, how much more so is it true for Midrashim outside of the Talmud, and even much more true would this be for midrash which was supposedly lost for a thousand or so years, that was outside of Jewish hands during all that time, in addition to being outside of the Talmud, much less mentioned in the Talmud.  Certainly, if certain things in the Talmud itself should not be the 'basis for our thinking,' which of course means that such things should not be made into a foundation of our faith, then without doubt this can be applied to texts outside of the Talmud. Was Rav Yosef Caro [Author of the Shulhhan Arukh] mislead when he wrote that those who hold according to RAMBAM should be allowed to continue keeping Jewish law according to RAMBAM's codification of the Talmud, despite whether most other communities adopt the Shulhhan Arukh (or something else?  Did RAMBAM and Rav Yosef Caro forget to codify / write down the law that halakhah [Jewish law] on new issues go according to the majority even apart from and outside of the Sanhedrin?  Was RAMBAM lying when he wrote that the Mishna Torah contains all of the essential Torah, oral Torah included?  Was Israel's greatest codifier of the Talmud heretical - he who dedicated the first chapters of his codification to the absolute Oneness of the Creator and elaborated on the very definitions of what makes one a heretic or a non-believer?  Heaven forbid!  "Do not follow the majority to do evil." - Exodus 23:2; See last part of Rashi's comments on this verse.  It is Forbidden to read or associate with the Rabbi Mori Yosef Gafahh [Qafahh/Kafahh/Kapach].  Whoever does so is a heretic [apecoros].(Mori Yosef Gafahh is the grandson of Mori Ye'hheeyeh Gafahh.  Mori Ye'hheeyeh Gafahh is the author of the book Milhhamoth haShem/Wars of the L-rd.  This book addresses the major contradictions between the Zoharistic texts and the teachings of the Torah and Talmudic texts, as he understood it.)  Are the rabbis of England and all other major rabbis heretical [apecorsim] for not protesting, but rather allowing, the reading and publication of Mori Gafahh's books?  Are the rabbis who are members of the publishing company of haRav Kook, which publishes some of Mori Gafahh's books, also heretical [apercorsim]?  Are all the many rabbis great and small and their students who read and study Mori Gafahh's writings and commentaries and translations all heretics?  Are all the rabbis who are members of the publishing company headed by Rav Rasson/Ratzon Arusi all heretics for publishing Mori Gafahh's commentary on the Mishneh Torah of RAMBAM and for continuing to publish new books based on Mori Gafahh's teachings?    And if Rav Rasson Arusi is heretical, is then Rav Ovadyah Yosef also heretical [apekores] for associating with Rav Rasson Arusi in rabbinical councils?  And IF one wants to speculate that Rav Ovadyah Yosef might have only realized that Rav Arusi is a 'heretic' only after already having him to join the rabbinical council, and that Rav Arusi only remains on the council due to political reasons, then one must wonder why R' Ovadyah Yosef and others subject themselves more to politics than to the halakhah in Hilkhoth Sanhedrin that one who knowingly sets on a council with heretics are themselves considered like heretics.  I find it very hard to believe such things about Rav Ovadyah Yosef.  Who in the orthodox community would make such an outlandish claim?!  Many, or even most, many not agree with all the things we hold - people who keep Jewish law strictly as RAMBAM codified it in the Mishneh Torah,

and/or who have problems accepting the Zohar, but who in their right mind would make such outlandish claims that individuals who firmly base their faith and practice on the Torah [the 5 books of Moses] and the Talmudic texts, who fully uphold the 13 principles of our faith (which RAMBAM organized) are heretical??  The very reason why we have problems accepting the Zohar is because, from our understanding, the Zohar seems to conflict with very fundamental points of Jewish law -- most importantly the Unity of the Almighty [Yeehhud haShem]. If one chooses to accept the speculation that R' Ovadyah would not have accepted R' Gafahh onto the council had he known that R' Gafahh does not accept the Zohar (assuming he didn't know this about R' Gafahh), then this could serve to demonstrate how 'mass acceptance' of the Zohar spread among rabbis, after around 800 years;  If non-acceptance of the Zohar would mean not being included on rabbinical councils, it's easy to see how rabbis could be coerced into some kind of acceptance of the Zohar; Otherwise they would be alienating themselves from the majority recognized rabbinic authority of the time. All it would take is one giant influential rabbi who does accept it, to enforce its acceptance upon those who desire to sit on a council with him.  After all, Rambam writes in his commentary to Perqei Avoth, that he was reluctant to write against the majority, if not all, of the rabbis of his time, on a particular issue.  Yet Rambam himself was a giant of his own time.  How much less likely is it that more moderately great rabbis would have been fearful or pressured not to speak up against things they considered wrong, if Rambam, who was very likely the greatest rabbi of his period, was himself reluctant?  One should not talk to whoever does not accept the Zohar.  What happened to the idea / halakhah of being kind to the poor ignorant souls that have fallen prey to deceptive teachings of truly heretical sages/wise men, like the descendents of the original Karats who deny that there is Oral Torah completely?  RAMBAM writes that although Karaite belief against the Oral Law is a heretical belief, that the descendents of the original Karaites, having been raised in Karaite belief, not having learned enough to make a real choice in the matter, are therefore to be treated kindly by observant Jews.  How much more loving should a Jew be to a fellow Jew who happens to not embrace the Zohar with arms wide open but who fully accepts all the Talmudic texts which have continually been in the hands of the Jewish people since the time of the Talmud's compilation, and who uphold the 13 principles of the faith of Israel as Rambam organized in his commentary on the Mishnah?  Not only is it allowed to be kind to such Jews, but also it is a command to love and be kind to those Jews who uphold the 13 principles of our faith.   But you are not ignorant.  So why do you disregard anything I say, even if you see that what I say makes sense?  I do not mean to say that one must doubt the Zohar in order to have a place in the Olam haBah [the World to come / eternal life].  Certainly, however, if one accepts the Zohar, he has a great task at hand if/as he begins to learn the Zohar.  The manner in which he accepts it must be settled in his own mind as usurping or nullifying none of the laws in the Torah or in the Talmudic texts.  He must find a way to make the Zohar fit with the Torah and Talmud, and not make the Torah and Talmud fit

the Zohar.  He must fit the extreme anthropomorphisms of the Zohar to an absolute knowledge of the ONE Creator Who transcends all time, space, division, and change - Whose Oneness is incomparable to all other types of unities, with Whom there is no multiplicity, and to Whom no image or form can ever truly apply - whether a physical form or an invisible or even metaphorical form.  He must understand all such metaphors as referring to the Almighty ONLY through our imperfect perception of the revelation of His Will in the finite realm of created things.  This realm includes all things, which have a beginning - whatever exists in time or space, whether visible, or invisible, all created things.  To the Infinitely Transcendent Creator ALONE should be directed all the highest praise and honor.  No requests or supplication should be made to anything unseen but He; And to this Author of all compassion and guidance be given the greatest of trust, reliance, confidence, and submission.  Blessed be He Who is known by His mighty acts, justice and grace - the expressions of His Glorious Will which fill all space, which relate the honor of His Honor’s sake.  [See the Aramaic commentary which immediately follows of the phrase, "Holy, Holy, Holy.." as it appears in Kiddusha within the Shimoneh Esreh/Amidah.  See also Rambam's explanation of the phrase 'Ayn Od Meylvado' in his book Yesodei haTorah.  See also R' Avraham the son of Rambam's explanation in his book Meylhhamot haShem.]   See also the pages on use of the words 'fill' and 'place,' in reference to the Almighty. "'Holy, Holy, Holy, HaShem of armies, filled is the whole earth with His honor.  His honor and His praise fill all the world, and his ministering angels ask one another, 'Where is the place of Your Honour..'"  - According to Yemenite Nusahh and Nusahh Rambam. The Wars of the L-rd [Melhhamoth HaShem], by R' Avraham the son of RAMBAM, based on Fred Rosner's translation:  "...it is impossible that He occupy space, because all of space is itself a creation.  Since He is not spatial, He is also not corporeal, for a body can not exist without occupying space... 'Who dwells on high'....'Blessed be the honor of the L-rd from His place.' - [these are all] allegories about the loftiness of His eminence and the loftiness of His reality... 'His habitation in the heavens above'... refer to the loftiness of His eminence which is higher than the eminence of the heavens and their hosts....It is written, 'If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; If I lie down in the depth, behold, You are there.'  [This means that] He knows all places and what is in them, AS IF He dwells in them, as it is written, 'Can anyone hid himself in secret places that I shall not see him; Do I not fill heaven and earth?  Says the L-rd.'  ..... And Elisha the prophet said to Gehazi, 'didn't my heart go with you? etc...'  but his heart did not actually leave his body!  It is an allegory for his knowledge.  That which is written in the Torah, 'And I shall walk among you,' is an allegorical expression for the going of his knowledge, like the case of Elisha who said, 'Didn't my heart go with you...' ....'From afar the Lord appeared unto me.'  And 'every one of them will point with his finger..' is a metaphor for the specific knowledge that separates His holiness from the angels holiness.  This is the deeper meaning of the 'partition' which distinguishes Him from His creations."   In R' Azulai's Shem haGedolim, under 'Zohar' it is written: I have seen written by R. A. Revigo as follows:  I have found in an old manuscript of the Zohar, in the possession of my teacher Maram Zechut, as follows:  In truth, the Head of the kabbalists was R. Nehunia ben Hakana, who wrote Sefer haBahir.  After him R' Shimon ben Yohhai made the Sefer haZohar and conjoined it to some other of his compositions such as the Tikkunim.  When R' Shimon ben Yohhai, R'

Eliezer, and all that generation died, the wisdom of the kabbalah was lost;  until G-d made it come to pass that a king from among the kings of the orient gave an order to dig in a certain place, for monetary concerns, whereupon a chest containing the Sefer ha-Zohar was found.  He then sent for the sages of Edom [Rome], but they knew nothing of it, nor did they understand it.  He sent for the Jews who when they came and saw the book, said to the king, "This book was made by some sage, but it is very profound and we do not understand it."  He said to them, "Is there no Jew in the world who understands it?"  They said, "Yes, there is, in the country of Tuleitula in Spain."  So the king sent the books with his men to Tuleitula and when the wise sages of Tuleitula saw it, they rejoiced with great happiness and sent back many presents to the king.  It was from here that the 'kabbalah' became known in Israel.  This is how I found it accounted from the above mentioned rabbi.   In the Raavad's book Sefer Shalshelet haKabbalah, the following is written in the name of Sefer Yuhhsin: In about the year 5050 [1290 CE], there were some groups of men who maintained that the words of the Zohar in aramaic are those of R. Shimon bar Yohhai, but the words in the Holy Language are not his.  Others say that the Ramban (Rav  Moshe ben Nachman / Nachmonides) found it in the land of Israel and brought it first to Catalonia and then to Aragon where it came into the hands of Moses De Leon.  Yet others say that Moses De Leon was very intelligent and it was he who wrote all these explanations from his own mind;  But in order that the sages (of his time) would pay him a great price for them (the writings), he attributed it to R' Shimon bar Yohhai and his group.  Ramban (Nachmonides) wrote that "It is impossible to understand the words of [true] kabbalah from any book, but 'only from the mouth of a wise sage who has received it from mouth to ear..'"  [In other words, real 'kabbalah' (ma'aseh merkuva and ma'aseh bresheyth)  can only be understood from a direct line of oral tradition].   The Gaon, R' Yaaqob Emdin, wrote in the name of R' Yisshhaq of Akko in Mitpahhat Seforim, the following: 

In the year 5053 (1293 CE) - Moses De Leon was living in Avila  (Moah El-Hagra), for the sake of history I shall report what I found written:  - that R' Yisshhaq from Akko went to do research on the Sefer ha-Zohar;  for it seemed to him that its words were wondrous and drew from a higher source.  The words of the Jerusalem dialect of Aramaic he considered true kabbalah, but the words in the Holy Tongue he considered fraudulent.  He tells that he asked the students who possessed the Zohar about its origin, but there answers were inconsistent.  Some of them said that the Ramban found it in the Holy Land and had sent it to Catalonia, but there the 'spirit' brought it to Aragon where it fell into the hands of Moses De Leon.  Others said that it had never been in the composition of R' Shimon ben Yohhai, but that Moses of Leon knew the 'secret-name-of-writing' and by means of this name wrote the most marvelous things.  It was in order to be paid a high price that he attributed it to the great Tanai R' Shimon bar Yohhai, and his son etc...  .. Then I came to the city of Yaliadular (Tuleitula?) and there I found R'Moses De Leon who swore to me that the book of R' Shimon ben Yohhai was found in his yeshiva in Avila, and that he would show it to me when he would go there.  But in his returning home he died in Aribal.  Then I went to the city of Avila and there I found an old sage whose name was R' David Rassan, a relative of his.  I found grace with him and I had him take oath that he would tell me what he knew about the Zohar and if it was true or not.  The sage said that he knew most certainly that Moses De

Leon had himself created it by means of the 'secret-name-of-writing.'  The reason for his being convinced of this was that Moses De Leon used tow rite wonderful secrets for the rich people of that country and would receive many gifts of gold and silver for them.  On the same day that he received them, however, he would squander all his earnings.  Even until the day of his death no money at all was ever left over, and his wife and children went around hungry, thirsty, and naked for lack of funds.  He told, 'When I heard about his death, I arose and went to R' Yosef of Avila who was very rich and from whom Moses had taken money in his life-time.  I said to him, 'You have now a wonderful occasion to obtain the merit of possessing an important book.  You will be able to take it from the hand of his wife, but you must first send a fine covering for it, because it now lay uncovered.'  So he did.  He sent gifts with his wife to Moses' widow.  Moses' wife,' however, swore to her that her husband had never possessed such a book and that everything that he had written had come from his own heart and mind.  She said, 'I used to say to my husband, 'Why do you ascribe all your study to another sage?  Wouldn't it be better for you to say that you write it with your own intellect, so that they might praise you and benefit you?'  But my husband always answered me that if he would say that they were from his own mind, the others would not pay such high prices for them.  Therefore he attributed them to R' Shimon bar Yohhai, and the others.  -- "  Afterward I spoke to his daughter and her words corresponded exactly."  Such were the words that R'David said to...etc.." 

Rav Sa'adyah Gaon wrote concerning certain heretical views that affected the observant Jewish community of his time:

"The first category maintains that the Creator is extremely fine and spiritual matter, having very fine points such as dust etc..

The second category maintains that the Creator of material things created them from Himself. [meaning that He 'separated' part of Himself and in the separated part He created the universe]

I have found that these philosophers do not deny the Creator, yet their intelligence refuses to admit that something has come into existence after its having not existed previously.  And since there is 'nothing outside of the Creator,' they believe that He created all things from Himself [from His own 'substance.']  This second category is more foolish than the first, and I have seen fit to expose their mistakes in 13 aspects etc..

Another category, [chapter 7, maamar ha-ahdut], says that a small part of G-d has body and spirit.  These are guilty in equal measure to that category which says that 'everything is part of the Creator,' as well as to the category which says that 'His body and spirit are brought into existence and in them there is another spirit of the Creator.'  This would mean that this created body would come to be called G-d in conjunction with the 'divine' part which is in it.  They parallel this to the manifestation of His glory on Mount Sinai and in the burning-bush and the Tent and the Tabernacle.  But this obligates them to believe that the Tent and the Bush and Mount Sinai are G-d as well, and thus they add evil to their error!! 

 [This is the same mistake most Christians make.  They should serve the ONE "behind" the Voice which came out from the Burning Bush.  Do not serve the Bush itself, which is merely a manifestation / expression of the Creator, nor serve the created Voice that is heard coming from it.  Do not confuse the messengers, manifestations, and expressions for the ONE Who sent them all.]

 

The Talmud states in Sanhedrin:

Abahu said in the name of R' Yohhanan:  If a prophet tells you to transgress a commandment of the Torah (temporarily), transgress any one of them except idolatry, for even if he stops the sun in the middle of the sky, do not obey him.  In the Braitha Yosi haGalili said: Behold the extent to which idolatry reaches, for even if they stop the sun in the midst of the sky, do not obey.  Why?  Because 'this is the L-rd your G-d, Who is testing you...' -Deuteronomy.

 

Shevilei Emunah:

Let it not arise in your mind that you will be able to perceive G-d by trying to study or to search into the knowledge of the absolute reality of His essence, or of His Essential Reality, for this is impossible.  On the contrary, whoever attempts to enter into such a study is a blasphemer and a reviler.  For nothing that exists has the ability to understand this; how much more so one who is found in a material body.  Therefore the Sages of blessed memory warned us and said: 'Do not search into that which is too wondrous for you --'

Kabbalah and Jewish MysticismLevel:  Advanced

Mysticism in Judaism

When non-Jews ask about Judaism, they commonly ask questions like:  Do you believe in heaven and hell?  In angels or the devil?  What happens to the soul after death?  What is the nature of God and the universe?  The answers to questions like these define most religions; in fact, some people say that the purpose of religion is to answer these kinds of questions.  Yet from a Torah viewpoint, most of these cosmological issues are wide open to personal opinion.  The areas of Jewish thought that most extensively discuss these issues, Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism, were traditionally not even taught to people until the age of 40, when they had completed their education in Written Torah and Oral Torah (in other words, in Bible and practical Law).Mysticism and mystical experiences have been a part of Judaism since the earliest days.  The Bible contains many stories of mystical experiences, from visitations by angels to prophetic dreams and visions.  The Talmud considers the existence of the soul and when it becomes attached to the body.  Jewish tradition tells that the souls of all Jews were in existence at the time of the Giving of the Torah and were present at the time and agreed to the Covenant.  There are many stories of places similar to the Gentiles' heaven and hell.  The Talmud contains vague hints of a mystical school of thought that was taught only to the most advanced students and was not committed to writing.  There are several references in ancient sources to ma'aseh bereishit (the work of creation) and ma'aseh merkavah (the work of the chariot [of Ezekiel's vision]), the two primary subjects of mystical thought at the time.In the middle ages, many of these mystical teachings were committed to writing in books like the Zohar.  Many of these writings were asserted to be secret ancient writings or compilations of secret ancient writings, and some probably are.  It is important to remember, however, that such secret writings that are not the results of public debate in authorative rabbinical courts must never be understood (actually misunderstood) as contradicting the laws that were openly discussed and properly enacted.  All too many Jews as a practial matter have rejected the law and have prefered to practice their misunderstandings of Kabbalistic books or their rabbis' misunderstandings of them.  This is simply inexcusable:  The proper subject for such

writings is why we do what we do when we observe the Torah, not what we need to do to observe the Torah.Like most subjects of Jewish belief, the area of mysticism is wide open to personal interpretation.  Some traditional Jews take mysticism very seriously.  Mysticism is an integral part of Chasidic Judaism, for example, and passages from kabbalistic sources are routinely included in traditional prayer books.  Other traditional Jews take mysticism with a grain of salt.  One prominent Orthodox Jew, when introducing a speaker on the subject of Jewish mysticism, said basically, "it's nonsense, but it's Jewish nonsense, and the study of anything Jewish, even nonsense, is worthwhile".  While we do not say that Kabbalah is nonsense, many things said in its name are clearly nonsense.The mystical school of thought came to be known as Kabbalah, from the Hebrew root Qof-Bet-Lamed, meaning to receive, to accept.  The word is usually translated as "tradition".  In Hebrew, the word does not have any of the dark, sinister, evil connotations that it has developed in English.  For example, the English word "cabal" (a secret group of conspirators) is derived from the Hebrew word Kabbalah, but neither the Hebrew word nor the mystical doctrines have any evil implications to Jews.

Kabbalah:  The Misunderstood Doctrine

Kabbalah is one of the most grossly misunderstood parts of Judaism.  Some non-Jews (and even some Jews) describe Kabbalah as "the dark side of Judaism".  Many of these misunderstandings arose largely from distortions of the teachings of Kabbalah by non-Jewish mystics and occultists.  Kabbalah was popular among Christian intellectuals during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, who reinterpreted its doctrines to fit into their Christian dogma.  For example, one such source (the Kabbalah Denudata, commonly available in new age bookstores) states that the Ten Sefirot have something to do with the Christian Trinity because they are sometimes divided up into groups of three, despite that the Sefirot are divided up into many groups of varying numbers, that these groupings overlap, that the grouping he refers to is not comprised of a father, son, and spirit, but of a male, a female, and neutral, and so forth.  Others have wrenched kabbalistic symbolism out of context for use in tarot card readings and other forms of divination and magic that were never a part of the original Jewish teachings.We do not mean to suggest that magic is not a part of Kabbalah.  The most hidden, secretive part of Kabbalah, commonly known as "practical Kabbalah", involves use of hidden knowledge to affect the world in ways that could be described as magic.  The Talmud and other sources ascribe supernatural activities to many great rabbis.  Some rabbis pronounced a name of God and ascended into heaven to consult with the God and the angels on issues of great public concern.  One scholar is said to have created an artificial man by reciting various names of God.  Much later stories tell of a rabbi who created a man out of clay and brought it to life by putting in its mouth a piece of paper with a name of God on it.  Some of these stories are no doubt untrue, at least as understood literally; but some are true.  However, this area of Kabbalah is known by very few, and practiced by even fewer.  One great rabbi has said that these

practices should be totally avoided, except when the Temple stands; that seems very sound advice to us.

Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot

To give you an idea of the nature of Kabbalah, we will briefly tell about one of the better known, fundamental concepts of kabbalistic thought:  the concept of God as Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot.  This explanation is, at best, a gross oversimplification.The true essence of God is so transcendent that it cannot be described, except with reference to what it is not.  This true essence of God is known in Kabbalah as "Ein Sof", which literally means without end, which encompasses the idea of His lack of boundaries in both time and space.  In this truest form, the Ein Sof is so transcendent that it cannot have any direct interaction with the universe.  The Ein Sof is said to interact with the created universe through ten emanations from this essence, known as the Ten Sefirot.The Sefirot are not deities, as some think by taking this too literally.  They are God's separate created mechanisms for dealing with the world, and they are in contact with the universe in a way that the Ein Sof is not.  The Sefirot connect with everything in the universe, including humanity.  We would say that the point of the Sefirot is to give an explanation of how God really is ultimately in control of the world, sees all, and rewards and punishes as He sees fit; but he does this by way of these mechanisms, not directly.  And do not make the mistake of worshiping them or praying to them or by way of them, as all too many have, as that is idolatry punishable by death, exclusion from the Jewish people, and exclusion from the World to Come.

Suggested Reading

Readings in this area should be undertaken with extreme caution.  There is entirely too much literature out there under the name "Kabbalah" that has little or nothing to do with the true Jewish teachings on this subject.  Any book on the subject of practical Kabbalah should be disregarded immediately; no legitimate source would ever make such teachings available to a faceless mass audience.Unless you are an expert in both the whole of the Hebrew Bible and the whole of the Law as summarized in the Rambam's Mishneh Torah (both in the original Hebrew, not in English translation), you should not even bother about learning Kabbalah.If you are really serious about Kabbalah, once you have properly qualified yourself by learning Bible and the Law, you must get yourself a teacher that you can work with one-on-one, in person.  But be very careful about choosing a teacher, as some will teach you to worship idols in the name of our Holy Torah, as we have witnessed with our own eyes and heard with our own ears!  It is distasteful for us to mention this, but we would be irresponsible if we did not warn you.

Dor DaimFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, searchDor Daim, sometimes known as Dardaim, are adherents of the Dor Deah movement in Judaism. That movement was founded in nineteenth century Yemen by Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh, and had its own network of synagogues and schools. Its objects were:

1. to combat the influence of the Zohar and subsequent developments in modern Kabbalah, which were then pervasive in Yemenite Jewish life, and which the Dor Daim believed to be irrational and idolatrous;

2. to restore (what they believed to be) a rational approach to Judaism rooted in authentic sources, including the Talmud, Saadia Gaon and especially Maimonides;

3. to safeguard the older (Baladi) tradition of Yemenite Jewish observance, which they believed to be based on this approach.

Today there is no official Dor Dai movement, but the term is used for individuals and synagogues within the Yemenite community (mostly in Israel) who share the original movement's perspectives. There are also some groups, both within and outside the Yemenite community, holding a somewhat similar stance, who describe themselves as talmide ha-Rambam (disciples of Maimonides) rather than Dor Daim.Contents[hide]

1 History o 1.1 Background: Baladi and Shami rituals o 1.2 Formation of movement o 1.3 Dor Daim today

2 Beliefs o 2.1 Theology o 2.2 Attitude to Kabbalah o 2.3 Reincarnation; invocation of saints o 2.4 Jewish law

3 Practices 4 Similarities and differences with other groups

o 4.1 Mainstream Baladi Jews o 4.2 Talmide ha-Rambam o 4.3 Gaonists o 4.4 Mitnaggedim and followers of the Vilna Gaon o 4.5 Spanish and Portuguese Jews

5 Criticisms 6 See also 7 External links

8 Endnotes

[edit] History

[edit] Background: Baladi and Shami rituals

Since the early Middle Ages the Yemenite Jewish community generally followed the teachings of Maimonides on all or most legal issues, and their prayer book was substantially identical to the text set out in his "Laws of Prayer". This is attested by the writings of several well known Rabbis such as the Ramban, Rabbi Ovadyah Bartenura and the Maharitz.[1] The Yemenite tradition is therefore separate from both the Sephardi and the Ashkenazi streams in Judaism.In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the teachings of the Kabbalah, especially in the form advocated by Isaac Luria and his school, became increasingly popular in Yemen as in other countries. This did not always mean a change in the liturgy: Luria himself held that it was essential to keep to the form of prayers inherited from one's ancestors, so that one's prayers reached the gate in Heaven appropriate to one's tribe. However, many individuals and communities round the world (principally Mizrahi Jews but also Hasidim) discarded their ancestral rites in favour of the modified Sephardic rite used by Luria and his immediate circle, on the reasoning that this form of prayer reached a "thirteenth gate" for those who did not know their tribe.This division was reflected among Yemenite Jews. Some adopted the Lurianic-Sephardic liturgy to a greater or lesser extent, while others retained the ancestral liturgy, whether or not they accepted the Zoharic/Lurianic Kabbalah theologically.In the 18th century Rabbi Yihhyah Salahh, known as the Maharitz, introduced a new edition of the Yemenite Jewish prayer book which he created in order to lessen the schism between the two groups. This substantially followed the traditional Yemenite (Maimonidean) ritual, but made some concessions to the Kabbalists, for example by incorporating the hymn Lechah Dodi. This new standard became known as Baladi (meaning "of the country", i.e. Yemen). The Lurianic-Sephardic ritual by contrast was known as Shami (literally "northern", meaning Palestinian or Damascene). The distinction also affected questions of Jewish law, the Baladi community following Maimonides almost exclusively while the Shami community also accepted the Shulchan Aruch.Over time more and more Kabbalistic practices became popular among the Yemenite Jews to the point that the Baladi community became localized as a significant population only around the area of Yemen's capital city, Sana'a. Today, with the majority of Yemenite Jewry being outside of Yemen and in closer contact with Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, it could be perceived that the proportion with which the Dor Daim perspective is spreading (though in a milder form than the original) is not much different from the rate at which Yemenite Jews as a whole are giving up their unique traditions and assimilating into mainstream Judaism.

[edit] Formation of movement

Dor Daim emerged as a recognizable force in the later part of the 19th century. The Dor Daim movement was formed by individuals who were displeased by the influence of Kabbalah which had been introduced to Yemen in the 1600s. They believed that the core beliefs of Judaism were rapidly diminishing in favor of the mysticism of the Kabbalah. Displeased by the direction that education and the social development of

Yemen was taking, they opened their own educational system in Yemen (see Dor Daim and Iqshim). They were also unhappy with the influence that Kabbalists (mystics) were having on various customs and rituals (e.g. the text of the prayer-book), in addition to a strong superstitious influence, which they saw as working against social and scientific improvement in Jewish Yemen.The Dor Daim consider(ed) the Kabbalists to be irrational, anti-scientific, and anti-progressive in attitude and felt that they were thereby contributing to a decline in the social and economic status of the Yemenite Jews. The above-mentioned issues led Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh to spearhead the Dor Daim movement. Among its goals was the revival and protection of what it saw as the original form of Judaism as codified by the Sanhedrin during the 1st through 3rd centuries.The movement was not well received by some scholars in Yemen and Israel. Especially controversial were the views of the Dor Daim on the important book of Kabbalah known as the Zohar. These views are put forth in a book called Milhamoth Hashem (Wars of the Lord).[2] A group of Jerusalem rabbis published an attack on Rabbi Qafahh under the title of Emunat Hashem (Faith of the Lord), and measures were taken to ostracize members of the movement.From this time Yemenite Jews may be classified as Shami, mainstream Baladi and Dor Dai or "Rambamist". A term frequently used by Dor Daim for Yemenites who accept the Zohar is Aqashim (sometimes pronounced Iqshim or Igashim), meaning "obscurantists".An important later Yemenite authority was Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh's grandson, Rabbi Yosef Qafahh, who edited many important works by Maimonides and Saadia Gaon as well as issuing two new editions of the Baladi prayer book.[3] Unlike his grandfather he avoided expressing any opinion on the Zohar, beyond saying that it was preferable to draw one's spiritual sustenance from the works of Maimonides. There is therefore some doubt about whether Rabbi Qafahh junior should be regarded as a Dor Dai or as a mainstream Baladi. His intention was probably to reconcile the two groups, in the same way as the Maharitz tried to reconcile traditionalists and Kabbalists.

[edit] Dor Daim today

There is no official Dor Dai organization, and no watertight test for distinguishing who is a Dor Dai: many individuals are reluctant to identify themselves by that name for fear of persecution. Some of the original Dor Dai synagogues in Israel survive, but have moved nearer to the mainstream Baladi tradition in the same way as Rabbi Yosef Qafahh. Similarly there is no universally recognised leader for the movement. The successor of Rabbi Yosef Qafahh as leader of the Yemenite community as a whole is generally considered to be Rabbi Ratzon Arusi of Qiryat Ono.Today there exists a tendency with views similar to but distinct from the original Dor Daim; while its adherents have great respect for the Yemenite tradition in general and the Dor Daim in particular, they are not exclusively Yemenite in origin and generally describe themselves as "talmide ha-Rambam" (disciples of Maimonides) rather than as "Dor Daim". In 2005 there was a widely publicized gathering of hilltop settlers of Yemenite descent describing themselves as "Dor Daim", but it is unclear how far these represent the historic Dor Dai movement.

[edit] Beliefs[edit] Theology

Dor Daim place particular importance on the Jewish doctrine of the absolute unity of God, which they believe has been compromised by the popular forms of Kabbalah prevalent today. In support of this, they appeal to the philosophical writings of various Geonim and Rishonim such as Saadia Gaon, Rabbenu Bahya ibn Paquda, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi and Maimonides. The following points concerning the Almighty's Unity are in particular emphasized both by Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam:

He is Incomparable to any created thing He is neither male nor female, but due to the limitations of human speech we must use certain terms

allegorically and metaphorically to some extent in order to convey the fact that He DOES exist His existence is qualitatively different from all other existences, and all other existences depend

upon Him and are sustained by Him, while He remains infinitely and unfathomably distinct and independent from all creation

He is ONE Unity unlike any unity in creation; His Oneness is not a unity which can be divided or which is composed of parts, both of which could only be the case with a unity that is subject to time/space; Nor is His Oneness a one in the sense of a species or type.

No quality of creation applies to Him: not space, not time, not change, no concept of a body, form, or image, no concept of filling a body, form, or any location, nor any other factor of creation - for He is Perfect and Sufficient in Himself and has no need for any of these. He is not a force or a power which possess or fills something else, nor is there any aspect of multiplicity in Him - as would be the case were the world literally to be within Him. Any Biblical or Talmudic phrases which seem to imply that any quality of creation applies to Him must be understood as having some meaning other than its literal meaning, for He transcends all aspects of creation. None of them are applicable to Him.

The Splendor of the Reality of His Being is so great that no mind can grasp even the smallest part of it, for He has no parts, as it says, "..and to His Greatness there is no investigating." (Psalms 145:3) Therefore one must always be aware that the sublime Truth of His Being transcends anything we can ever express, but that all references to Him are either by speaking of what He is not or by way of literary tools such as metaphor.

[edit] Attitude to Kabbalah

In the book Milhamoth HaShem, one finds that possibly the most fundamental issue the Dor Daim had (and have) with the popularly accepted understanding of Kabbalah concerns the absolute transcendent Singularity/Oneness of the Creator and the laws against avodah zarah (forbidden forms of devotion/idolatry). The Dor Daim believe that the popular forms of Kabbalah prevalent today are contrary to the absolute and incomparable Unity of the Creator and violate various laws against idolatry and polytheism, in particular the prohibition against Ribbuy Reshuyoth (worshipping or conceiving of a multiplicity of reigns) referred to by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah.The issue is not the existence of Kabbalah as such. The word "Kabbalah" is used in older Jewish sources to mean simply "tradition" and need not refer to mysticism of

any kind. Furthermore, Dor Daim accept that in Talmudic times there was a secret mystical tradition in Judaism, known as Maaseh Bereshith (the work of creation) and Maaseh Merkavah (the work of the chariot); and Maimonides interprets these as respectively referring to something similar to Aristotelian physics and metaphysics as interpreted in the light of Torah. They simply reject the notion that this tradition is represented by the ideas popularly referred to as Kabbalah in our days.Neither Dor Daim nor talmide ha-Rambam are against mysticism per se. Rabbi Yosef Qafahh, for example, published the ancient mystical text Sefer Yetzirah together with his translation of Saadia Gaon's commentary. Likewise, Bahya ibn Paquda and Abraham son of Maimonides, sometimes described as "Jewish Sufis", are especially respected among Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam.In particular a Dor Daim is not bound to reject the theory of the ten Sefirot, as set out in the Sefer Yetzirah. In the Sefer Yetzirah, unlike in later Kabbalah, there is no question of the Sefirot being Divine entities or even attributes: they are simply the numerals, considered as the dimensional parameters used in the creation of the world, and the theory probably goes back to Pythagoras.What they view as the problem comes in with the Sefer ha-Bahir and the Zohar, where the Sefirot have become hypostatized as Divine attributes or emanations, and it seems that religious devotions can never be addressed directly to the En Sof (the Absolute) but only through one or other of the Sefirot; and in modern Edot ha-Mizrach prayer books each occurrence of the Divine Name is vocalized differently in a kind of code to show which Sefirah one should have in mind. This problem is compounded in the teachings of Isaac Luria as found in the writings of Hayim Vital, where it is held that as a result of some catastrophe in Heaven the Sefirot have fractured and re-formed into three, or possibly five, personalities within the Godhead known as partzufim (from Greek προσωπα, faces), and that the purpose of each religious observance is to assist in their reunification. This is felt as being uncomfortably close to the Christian Trinity, or indeed to Greek polytheism.The original Dor Daim, such as Yihhyah Qafahh, condemned the Zohar as an outright forgery and as filled with idolatry, and even organized ceremonial public burnings of the book. Today's Dor Daim usually take a somewhat more moderate stance, and allow that the Zohar may contain elements of authentic Midrash together with a great deal of later interpolation. They still consider the Zohar in its present form to be an unsafe guide, both to theology and to practice.Other segments of Orthodox Judaism which share this perspective of the Dor Daim, while not necessarily rejecting the Zohar itself, include most talmide ha-Rambam (disciples of Maimonides) and some followers of the Vilna Gaon, as well as portions of the Modern Orthodox community and others. Those among these groups who do not reject the Zohar assert that the Kabbalah as popularly taught today represents a distortion of the Zohar's intended teachings. However, the specific issues identified by the Dor Daim remain in all current and older editions of the Zohar.

[edit] Reincarnation; invocation of saints

Another matter of dispute between Dor Daim and the Kabbalists concerns the Dor Daim's rejection of reincarnation. It should be pointed out that as early as Saadia

Gaon (892-942), reincarnation had already been rejected as an authentic Jewish belief. This perspective is shared not only by non-Dor Dai disciples of Rambam (Maimonides) but also by many in mainstream Orthodox Judaism.Dor Daim also disapprove of requesting from any unseen force other than the Almighty. This means that they disapprove also of the practice of making requests from an angel or a Jewish leader who has since passed away. They disapprove of such practices regardless of one's location, and even if the individual desires that the angel or saint intercede with God. Dor Daim, indeed all Meqoriim, consider such practices absolutely antithetical to the most essential principles of what they believe to be historical Judaism: to serve the One Incomparable Creator without joining partners or mediators together with Him in our prayers and worship. This is based on their understanding of the books mentioned above, and specifically on the laws concerning mediator (sarsur) or an advocate (melitz) mentioned in the Mishneh Torah and the fifth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Prayer, in Judaism, is a form of worship: as the ancient sages of Israel are well known to have stated, "What is the service of the heart? This is prayer."In addition to the issue of invoking forces other than the Almighty, Dor Daim and Meqoriim in general disapprove of the common practice of visiting the graves, shrines, or monuments of saints, even if an individual does not request from a force other than the Almighty. Basing themselves on Talmudic sources codified in the Mishneh Torah, they believe this to be a prohibition instituted by the Sages of the Great Court established under Moses - the Sanhedrin. They generally consider this prohibition to have been instituted as a means to distance the people of Israel from the possibility of transgressing what Meqoriim consider to be the Biblical-prohibitions of establishing a "monument" (prohibited even without any connection to idolatry) and from invoking any force other than the Almighty. This, they point out, is the very same reason Jewish tradition explains why Moses' burial place was left unknown according to the Biblical record.

[edit] Jewish law

Dor Daim disapprove of what they believe to be an abandonment of a number of Talmudic practices on the part of a large portion of the Jewish world in favor of newer customs and innovations, some of which, in their opinion, are even contrary to Talmudic law. In particular this disapproval is aimed at customs derived from the Kabbalah, but it is not confined to them. In their view, and still more in the view of the talmide ha-Rambam, there is simply no constitutional authority in Jewish law to institute new rules or practices, whether in the direction of leniency or of severity, since the demise of the Sanhedrin in 425 CE, or at the latest the closure of the Talmud, and the role of later rabbis is confined to teaching and codification of the law as it stood at that date. They do not claim that this position is ideal, and would gladly see a revived Sanhedrin sort out the problems in Jewish law, provided that it was itself established in strict conformity to law.In their view, the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides is the most accurate and therefore most authoritative statement of Talmudic law, and is in itself a sufficient reference without resort to any other source. According to the arguments of Rabbi Yosef

Qafahh, it is unnecessary to consult the Talmud in order to understand the Mishneh Torah, as the Mishneh Torah was written to elucidate the Talmud and not vice versa. Furthermore, the current text of the Talmud is fairly corrupt with numerous textual variants; from this, coupled with Maimonides' indications that he had far more accurate and complete Talmudic texts available to him[4], they conclude that the Mishneh Torah provides the best access to what the Talmud must originally have intended.Unlike many of the later talmide ha-Rambam, the original Dor Daim were not committed to the view that all local custom, whether Sephardi or Ashkenazi or from any other source, is totally illegitimate to the extent that it differs from the exact views of Maimonides, so they preserved certain non-Maimonidean Yemenite peculiarities in minor matters.[5] However they did believe, in reliance on old authorities such as Joseph Caro [6] and David ibn abi Zimra, that the views of Maimonides ought to be authoritative not only in Yemen but also in Eretz Yisrael, Egypt and the Near East generally.There is a link between the Dor Daim's stance on Jewish law and on the other issues, as one argument for accepting the Mishneh Torah as the best restatement of Jewish law is that most of the later codifiers, including Joseph Caro, were believers in Kabbalah and should therefore not be accepted as authorities. As against this, many (e.g. Yeshayahu Leibowitz) argue that Caro and the others were operating within the rigorous rules of halachic reasoning and that their conclusions were in no way affected or invalidated by their personal theological views (just as, from the opposite perspective, Maimonides' status as a halachic authority is not affected by his acceptance of Greek philosophy). The Dor Daim reply to this is that Caro specifically allows the Zohar as a (limited and subordinate) source of rulings in Jewish law, so that his code includes practices found in Kabbalistic texts without basis in Talmudic texts.

[edit] PracticesThose aspects of Jewish/Talmudic law which Dor Daim may emphasize, be particularly passionate about, and/or consider to have been cast aside by large portions of the Jewish world include:

laws on 'avodah zarah' (forbidden forms of worship/idolatry) which they hold prohibits any use of intermediaries or mediators between oneself and the One Creator, prohibits praying or making requests to unseen forces such as past Rabbis or Sefirot, or supplicating to any unseen being other than the One Absolute Being - Y/H/W/H, and not doing any specific acts of religious devotion to any thing other than He;

laws of legislation relating to the function and necessity of the Great Court (the Sanhedrin)

laws concerning the settlement of the Land of Israel by the People of Israel as elaborated upon in Hilkhoth Melakhim u'Milhamotheham in the Mishneh Torah;

certain laws concerning kashruth, such as Halita - immersing meat into boiling water before cooking;

preservation of proper and exact pronunciation of all the Hebrew letters and Hebrew grammar (although there are minute differences even amongst the Dor Daim);

emphasizing memorization of the Humash (the Torah/Law of Moses); for example, each of the 7 individuals called up to read from a Sefer Torah (Torah scroll) reads out loud the particular section of that week's parasha (section) upon which he said a blessing, as opposed to other customs in which there is a single, set reader. (This custom arose from there existing some people who did not know the cantillations by heart, and would be embarrassed to read in public);

that unmarried females should also wear a head-covering, and not only married women.

that one should strive to wear a Tallit Gadol and or Tefillin as much as permitted by Talmudic law whenever possible. In various areas of Israel, including Jerusalem, one may see individuals wearing the Tallit Gadol during 'Erev Shabbat' (Friday night) hanging over or wrapped over their shoulders in a manner distinct from the majority custom, when almost no other Jews would be wearing a Tallit Gadol. Even children under 13 can be seen wearing a Tallit Gadol among them.

Dor Daim usually use Yosef Qafahh's edition of the Baladi prayer book. This is on the lines of the prayer book of the Maharitz, and therefore contains some Kabbalistic insertions, enabling the book to be used by mainstream Baladi Jews. However, these insertions are clearly marked by footnotes as being later additions. Dor Daim can therefore use this prayer book and simply omit these additions.

[edit] Similarities and differences with other groups[edit] Mainstream Baladi Jews

As previously explained, the Baladi/Shami distinction does not always coincide with the Dor Daim/Iqshim distinction. That is, while a Dor Dai is necessarily a Baladi, and a Shami is necessarily an Iqshi (Kabbalist), most Baladim occupy an intermediate point on the spectrum and may or may not accord some validity to Kabbalah.The distinguishing mark of a Baladi individual or community is the use of the traditional liturgy, regardless of the underlying theological or intellectual orientation. Some Baladim may sympathize to a greater or lesser extent with the Dor Dai distrust of Zoharic and Lurianic Kabbalah. Others may accept the Lurianic version of Kabbalah but retain the ancestral liturgy on the ground that, even according to Luria, this is the Kabbalistically correct thing to do. Others again may have no particular views one way or the other. However, Baladim of all shades uniformly accept the Mishneh Torah rather than the Shulchan Aruch as their authority on Jewish law.Outwardly the practices of Baladi Jews and Dor Daim are almost identical, apart from some Kabbalistic insertions to be found in the Baladi prayer book. However most Baladim, while holding that the Mishneh Torah is the best interpretation of Jewish law, are content to preserve it as the particular custom of their group and do not seek to

delegitimize the customs of other Jewish communities. (How far the Dor Daim seek to do this is a matter of debate.)Several of the above-listed distinctions between Dor Daim and the majority of world Jewry are shared by all traditional Baladi Yemenite Jews, and not just by Dor Daim. On matters of law and practice as opposed to theology, the only difference between Dor Daim and the rest of Baladi Yemenite Jews appears to be the level of zeal in preserving the above listed practices, although exceptions do exist.

[edit] Talmide ha-Rambam

Dor Daim are regarded as part of a wider trend within Judaism known as talmide ha-Rambam (pupils of Maimonides), not necessarily confined to the Yemenite community. It is important to note that although Dor Daim always identify with the Rambam's legal and theological perspectives on Judaism (hashkafa), Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam are not necessarily one and the same. That is, a disciple of the Rambam may or may not be a Dor Dai; however, a Dor Dai will always be (in a broader sense) a disciple of the Rambam.Today's talmide ha-Rambam differ from the original Dor Daim in two ways.

Talmide ha-Rambam do not necessarily reject the Zohar. However, their interpretation may differ more or less drastically from the Lurianic school or the currents of thought popularly referred to as "Kabbalah" today.

Talmide ha-Rambam tend to hold that the Mishneh Torah is the sole binding codification of Talmudic law, and that every divergence from it is logically inferior if not actually illegitimate. On points not explicitly covered by Maimonides, such as the exact mode of prostration during prayers, there is considerable competition to unearth the most authentic mode from among the various Yemenite practices found in recorded history. Dor Daim, by contrast, do retain some current Yemenite practices, even when (according to the talmide ha-Rambam) these diverge from the views of Maimonides (see under Jewish law above). For example, they do not follow Maimonides' recommendation to eliminate all prayers prior to the Kaddish and Shema in order to avoid 'unnecessarily burdening the congregation'.

In short, talmide ha-Rambam are less extreme than Dor Daim about the Zohar and more extreme about "Maimonides-only" jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the similarities between the two groups, as expressed in the list of beliefs and practices above, overwhelmingly outnumber the differences.Many members of the small and slowly growing Dor Dai community claim a fear of persecution and therefore maintain an almost secret existence. It is very likely that the entire movement of Dor Daim, together with some of their well-known leaders, has helped, and continues to help, fuel the rapidly growing community of talmide ha-Rambam. It is undeniable that, while there are sometimes differences between Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam as a whole—over certain details of practical Jewish law and the issue of the Zohar—the two communities continue to have strong links.As stated, talmide ha-Rambam differ from Dor Daim in that they are not confined to the Yemenite community and need not be committed to specifically Yemenite customs. Nonetheless Yemenite scholarship and practice are still a major resource for

them. Two good examples of this are seen in the works of the Rabbi Mori Yosef Qafahh (Kapach) and of Mechon-Mamre.org.

Rabbi Yosef Qafahh has made various contributions to Dor Daim, talmide ha-Rambam and the Jewish world as a whole. Examples of his contributions include his encyclopedic commentary to the entire Mishneh Torah set to the renowned Yemenite text of the Mishneh Torah, his translation of all of Maimonides' Commentary on the Mishnah from Arabic into modern Hebrew, as well as translations of the Guide for the Perplexed, Duties of the Heart, Sefer Kuzari, and a number of other works.

Mechon-Mamre.org has produced software for learning the Humash, Tanakh, Mishnah, the Talmudic texts, as well as the Mishneh Torah according to Rabbi Qafahh and its own accurate and scholarly text, intended to be beneficial to all. The Mechon-mamre.org website's "About" section states that most participants in the work of Mechon-Mamre are Baladi Yemenite Jews, although some of the more impacting individuals of Mechon-Mamre.org are not Yemenite or Dor Daim at all, but merely promote observance of Talmudic law as codified in the Mishneh Torah.

Dor Daim and "Rambamists" are most easily recognized by the manner in which their Tzitzit are tied (according to the Rambam, despite slight variations in understanding). Temani/Rambam Tzitzit can be distinguished from those of the many 'knitted kippa' youths who have adopted the same style, but have added Tekhelet. Rambamists and Baladim are also noticeable by the fact that they wear their Tallit in a different manner from other Orthodox Jews, and even wear it on Friday nights/Erev Shabbath, which is unheard of in the Orthodox world (apart from a handful of Hasidim in Jerusalem, referred to as Yerushalmis, who wear it very discreetly so as to not look arrogant).

[edit] Gaonists

Dor Daim as well as non-Yemenite or non-Dor Dai students of the Rambam all find a certain level of commonality with individuals who sometimes call themselves Gaonists. Gaonists aim at applying Jewish law in every day life according to the writings of the Geonim as a whole without singling out any one particular Gaon or codification of Jewish law over another. The commonality between all of these groups is sourced in their shared pursuit of living according to the original understanding of Talmudic law as much as possible with as little influence from the effects of almost 2,000 years of exile as possible. These groups together are sometimes referred to as Meqoriim (originalists/followers of the originals).

[edit] Mitnaggedim and followers of the Vilna Gaon

In many respects, the dispute between Dor Daim and Aqashim is similar to that between mitnaggedim and Hasidim, with the Vilna Gaon standing for strict Torah observance and rational scholarship in much the same way as Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh. It is doubtful, however, whether the Vilna Gaon in fact rejected Lurianic Kabbalah in toto, though he was accused of this by the Hasidim: see in particular the letters of Shneur Zalman of Liadi. On a more objective view it seems that the Vilna Gaon had great respect for the Lurianic system, though he did not hesitate to contradict Luria

when he felt the Zohar lent itself to another approach. The question of whether the Vilna Gaon's Kabbalah must be read as a different system or is ultimately in total accordance with the Lurianic approach is the subject of the forewords of the main texts of Lithuanian Kabbalah: the introduction, by Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, to the Vilna Gaon's commentary to the Sifra di-Tsniuta and Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik Chaver's Pitchei Shearim.Those of the Vilna Gaon's successors who were associated with the Volozhin yeshiva, such as the Brisker group and in particular Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, had a very high regard for the Mishneh Torah and regarded it as the best tool for the theoretical understanding of the Talmud and of Jewish law generally. When however it came to practical legal rulings, an activity of which they steered clear when possible, they adhered to the normative Ashkenazi version of Jewish law, as set out in the Shulchan Aruch and the glosses of Moses Isserles. On the whole they accepted the Zohar, but had a distinctive "intellectualist" understanding of it.[7]

There are various groups in Israel today which claim to follow the Vilna Gaon. These may be found in places as diverse as the Neturei Karta and the fringes of Religious Zionism, the latter group being represented by the Aderet Eliyahu yeshiva. In some ways their perspective is similar to that of the Dor Daim.Some Modern Orthodox thinkers of a mitnagged cast of thought, such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz, also reject Zoharic Kabbalah and praise the work of Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh.[8]

[edit] Spanish and Portuguese Jews

Dor Daim and other Yemenite talmide ha-Rambam like to compare themselves to the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, and think of them as "the other Rambam Jews". This is largely because of their shared scepticism about the Zohar. The resemblance has however been exaggerated.Spanish and Portuguese Jews preserve an early form of the Sephardic liturgy from before the expulsion from Spain, which reflected some, but only very limited, influence from the Kabbalah and the Zohar. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries they adopted a certain number of Lurianic observances in a piecemeal fashion, for example the Tu Bishvat seder. After the Sabbatai Zevi debacle these observances were largely dropped, because it was felt that Lurianic Kabbalah had contributed to the disaster. The arguments against the authenticity of the Zohar advanced by Jacob Emden and Leone di Modena were also influential. At the present day the general Spanish and Portuguese attitude to the Kabbalah is one of indifference rather than hostility. As Spanish and Portuguese communities act as hosts for Sephardi Jews of many other backgrounds, there would be no bar on individuals regarding Kabbalah more positively. In particular, the Lurianic Kabbalah had a following in the Jewish community of Livorno, which falls within the Spanish and Portuguese group but was the main point of contact between it and the Levantine Sephardim. The Spanish and Portuguese group's closest resemblance would therefore be not to Dor Daim but to mainstream Baladi Yemenites.Spanish and Portuguese Jews admire Maimonides and identify with the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain. However, they cannot be classified as "Rambamists" in the

sense required, as their religious law is based squarely on the Bet Yosef of Joseph Caro, subject to certain liturgical customs peculiar to themselves. It could even be argued that they follow Caro more closely than any other group, as many other Sephardim, especially the eastern communities influenced by the Ben Ish Chai, regard Isaac Luria as having equal or even greater authority than Caro.The above describes the attitude of traditional communities such as London and Amsterdam. In some newer communities, in particular among the followers of José Faur and Yaakov Oliveira[9], a more purist and principled attitude has evolved, which does place considerable emphasis on the Mishneh Torah; however they too accept the Shulchan Aruch as their authority on practical Jewish law.

[edit] Criticisms1. There are those who would claim that Dor Daim and even all students of the Rambam are heretics by reason of their non-acceptance of Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah.[10] This claim depends on the assumption that the Lurianic Kabbalah is a dogma of Judaism binding upon all Jews. Not only the Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam, but many other Orthodox groups, such as the followers of the Vilna Gaon and many Modern Orthodox, would disagree with this assumption, whether or not they personally accept the Lurianic Kabbalah.The Dor Dai response is that whether a person or school is heretical is a question of law, to be decided according to authoritative works of halakha: one is not a heretic simply for disagreeing with a widely held aggadic interpretation, unless the halakha specifically says so. The Mishneh Torah is comprehensive in scope and is, at the very least, one of the authoritative sources of halakha, so to follow it must be an acceptable way of doing Judaism. Accordingly, since the Dor Daim assert nothing that is not found within the four corners of the Mishneh Torah, and the Mishneh Torah cannot be interpreted as actually requiring belief in anything approaching Zoharic or Lurianic Kabbalah, they cannot be heretics - unless the Mishneh Torah itself is heretical, which is not held by any mainstream Jewish group.2. Others believe that the main problem is not that Dor Daim do not follow Kabbalah for themselves, but that they delegitimize those who do follow it. Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh, for instance, held that one must not use parchments written by, or eat meat slaughtered by, believers in Kabbalah because these are dedicated to Zeir Anpin (one of the partzufim of the 10 sephirot), a concept apparently distinct from the Unfathomable Almighty Creator.Few Dor Daim take such an extreme view today, as most consider that the above reasoning makes Jewish law too uncertain in practice. Those who do take such a view would argue that it is not at all uncommon in Judaism for one group to treat as invalid the ritual acts or objects of another for technical or doctrinal reasons. That does not amount to an attempt to exclude the other group from Judaism.3. A third criticism is that Dor Daim take works of Kabbalah too literally: it is intended to be myth and metaphor, and to subject it to rigorous analysis as the Dor Daim do is like trying to construe a Keats sonnet as if it were an Act of Parliament. Works of Kabbalah themselves contain warnings that the teachings should not be exposed to

common view or read too realistically, and that to do so is indeed to incur the danger of falling into heresy or idolatry.The Dor Dai response to this is that, however this may be in theory, these warnings have not been observed. Kabbalah, in its most literal and "realistic" sense, has in fact been extensively popularised, with the result that many otherwise pious Jewish groups are now permeated with superstition, so that the whole enterprise is now more trouble than it is worth. Further, the claim that these works, on their true interpretation, are harmless metaphorical imagery fully compatible with monotheism is disingenuous: the origins of most Kabbalistic concepts in pagan systems such as Neoplatonism and Gnosticism are too glaringly obvious to be ignored. (Dor Daim do not claim that Kabbalists are in fact polytheists: only that they are inconsistent.)4. A fourth criticism is that it is a stultification of Jewish law to regard any authority, even one as eminent as Maimonides, as final. The essence of Oral Law is that it is case law rather than code law, and needs to be interpreted in each generation: otherwise the Mishneh Torah could simply have been handed down as part of the written Torah. For this reason, it is a principle of Jewish law that "Jephthah in his generation is as Samson in his generation": one is bound by the current authorities, rather than by previous authorities however objectively superior.The Dor Dai response to this is that the acceptance of Maimonides in the Yemenite community has always been regarded as a legitimate version of Jewish law, and that they are no more stultified by the authority of Maimonides than other Jewish communities are by the authority of the Shulchan Aruch. From the practical point of view Jewish law as codified by Maimonides is as compatible with modern conditions as any later code: if anything more so, as later Jewish law has become enmeshed in many unnecessary intellectual tangles. If there are practical problems caused by this "static" view of Jewish law, that is part of the price of exile: the question is not whether a given reform would be desirable, but whether there is constitutional authority to make it, and in their view there is not.5. A final criticism is that the Dor Dai version of Judaism is disquietingly reminiscent of militant Islamic trends such as Salafism. Both started out as modernising movements designed to remove some of the cobwebs and allow the religion to compete in the modern world, and both have ended up as fundamentalist groups lending themselves to alliances with political extremism. Both disapprove of mysticism (Kabbalah or Sufism) and praying at tombs; both tend to dismiss more moderate coreligionists as unbelievers (see Takfir); both cut out centuries of sophisticated legal scholarship in favour of an every-man-for-himself "back to the sources" approach.The Dor Daim answer to this is:

1. Political militancy is no more characteristic of Dor Daim than of many Kabbalistically-inspired branches of Religious Zionism (e.g. the followers of Zvi Yehuda Kook). In fact the conditions for political or military action, as laid down in the Mishneh Torah, are extremely strict and limited.

2. Neither Dor Daim nor talmide ha-Rambam are against mysticism per se: see Attitude to Kabbalah above. The attitude to Kabbalah is based on much more specific factors: if there is an analogue to their opposition among other religions, it is essentially an opposition to the espousal of concepts such as incarnation, pantheism, and panentheism - apart from the opposition to idolatry in general, as understood in the context of the Mishneh Torah.

3. The antagonism shared by Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam against praying at tombs etc. is distinct from the Salafi view in a number of ways. First, in contrast to the Salafi view, the Dor Dai / talmide ha-Rambam view is that this prohibition is Rabbinic, meaning that it is not a direct command from the Almighty, but rather it is a "fence" to distance a Jew from the possibility of transgressing a more severe prohibition. They do not consider praying at or visiting a tomb to be idolatry, nor do they believe that this is prohibited to all people (i.e. non-Israelites), whereas the Salafi view is that this is forbidden to everyone as a very severe prohibition in itself.

4. It is wrong to accuse Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam of being extremists, or of dismissing more moderate coreligionists as unbelievers: see reply to 2 above. On the contrary, they often find more in common theologically with sectors of Modern Orthodoxy than they do with much of the Hasidic or Haredi communities.

5. The method of learning and religious observance aimed at by them is firmly rooted in Jewish rabbinic authority (see Jewish law above), and is about as far from an "every-man-for-himself" approach as it is possible to get. How far a similar accusation may be true of Salafism (which is itself an umbrella description for a great many trends) is an independent question, on which Dor Daim are not required to express a view.

6. Salafis typically reject Islamic philosophy of the kind propounded by Avicenna and Averroes. Dor Daim, by contrast, find strong inspiration in the closely related Jewish philosophies of Bahya ibn Pakuda and Maimonides.

7. Many Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam desire that the Jewish people as a nation will return to upholding the Almighty's Torah with the establishment of a central religious authority - a Great Court (Sanhedrin) reestablished according to Jewish law as only fully codified in the Mishneh Torah. That is one form of the Messianic aspiration implicit in any form of Orthodox Judaism. It cannot be compared to the desire of some Islamists to reestablish a Khilafah by violent means if necessary.

[edit] See also Dor Daim and Iqshim Yosef Qafih Hayyim Habshush Thirteen Principles of Faith Mishneh Torah

[edit] External links Torath Mosha Information about Torath Moshe (Judaism) in general, but specifically students of the

Rambam, Baladim, and Dor Daim. Milhamot Hashem Original text by Yihhyah Qafahh. Hebrew Emunat Hashem Reply to Milhamot Hashem by pro-Zohar Jerusalem rabbis. Hebrew Mechon-Mamre.org The Mamre Institute, by one particular group of students of the Rambam;

includes an especially accurate text of the Mishneh Torah, as well as all of the Tanakh, Mishnah, and other Talmudic texts.

"The 14 Fundamental Principles of our "RMb"M" Torah Tradition" Summary of beliefs of talmide ha-Rambam

Believing is Knowing A blog by a student of the Rambam which expresses sympathy towards the more common practices of Ashkenazi Jews

Machon Mishnat HaRambam Rabbi Ratzon Arusi's Machon Mishnat haRambam (Maimonides Institute) website. Rabbi Ratzon Arusi is chief rabbi of the Israeli town of Qiryat Ono as well as head of the Israeli Rabbinate's department of marriage. Hebrew

Biblical Monotheism contains information on Noahide Laws and reflective of philosophical beliefs in common with Dor Daim and talmide ha-Rambam

Anti-Maimonidean Demons Article by José Faur on the Maimonist/Anti-Maimonist controversy Maimonides Agonist: Disenchantment and Reenchantment in Modern Judaism Article by

Menachem Kellner contrasting Maimonidean with Zoharic Judaism.

[edit] Endnotes1. ̂ [1] 2. ̂ [2] which was written by Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh 3. ̂ Shivat Tziyon (1950s, 3 vols.); Siahh Yerushalayim (1993, 4 vols.). 4. ̂ Hilkhot Ishut 11:13; Hilkhot Malveh v'Loveh 15:2. 5. ̂ See excerpt from R. Qafahh's introduction to Mishneh Torah. 6. ̂ Responsa Avqat Rochel para 32: "Now the Rambam, is the greatest of all the legal authorities, and

all the communities of Erets Yisrael and the Arab-controlled lands and the West [i.e. North Africa] practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi; why pressure them to budge from him?"

7. ̂ Lamm, Norman, Torah Lishmah: Torah for Torah's Sake in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin and his Contemporaries: New York 1989, hardback ISBN 0881251178, ISBN 978-0881251173, paperback ISBN 088125133X, ISBN 978-0881251333.

8. ̂ [3] 9. ̂ O que é a qabalah? (in Portuguese). 10. ̂ See for example Chaim Kanievsky, Derech Emunah p.30.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Daim"

Yihhyah QafahhFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, searchYihhyah Qafahh (Hebrew: רבי יחיא בן שלמה קאפח also Yihhyah ibn Shlomo el Qafahh) (1853-1932) served as the Chief Rabbi of Sana'a, Yemen in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He founded the Dor Dai movement in Judaism, which intends to combat the influence of Lurianic Kabbalah and restore the rational approach to Judaism, such as is represented by the thought of Maimonides, Sa'adiah Gaon, et al., and to encourage strict adherence to the Halakha explicitly as formulated in the Mishneh Torah (Maimonides code of Jewish Law).Contents

[hide] 1 Controversy 2 Legacy 3 References 4 See also

5 External links

[edit] ControversyThe work for which Rabbi Qafahh is most well known is Milhamot HaShem (Wars of the Lord). In it he argues that the Zohar is not authentic and that attributing its authorship to the Tannaitic sage Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is to besmirch him. Perhaps more importantly, Milhamot HaShem maintains that the theology of Lurianic Kabbalah which he believes advocates the worship of Zeir Anpin (the supposed creative demiurge of God) and the Sephirot, is entirely idolatrous and irreconcilable with the historically pure monotheism of Judaism. This stance met with much opposition, and led the Rabbi to become embroiled in a dispute with Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of British Mandate Palestine, who was known for his emphasis on mysticism).[1] This dispute is still very much alive in the modern Jewish world, and contemporary Poskim such as Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky have also joined in and condemned Rabbi Qafahh's work as being heretical.[2]

[edit] LegacyRabbi Yihhyah Qafahh's grandson was Rabbi Yosef Qafahh. He was a prominent leader of the Yemenite community in Israel and perpetuated part of his grandfather's life's work by publishing corrected versions of Maimonides’s works based on centuries-old manuscripts preserved by his grandfather's family. Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh is known to have "spent huge sums in order to recover manuscripts, even fragments of manuscripts of his [Maimonides] works."[3]

[edit] References1. ̂ Tohar Hayihud - The Oneness of G-d in its Purity p. 40. 2. ̂ Tshuvos Derech Emunah , p. 30. 3. ̂ Rabbi Yosef Kafach - A Life Fulfilled by Matis Greenblatt

[edit] See also Dor Daim and Iqshim Dor Daim

Hayyim Habshush Yosef Qafih Mishneh Torah

[edit] External links Online text of the Milhamot Hashem Interview with Prof. Leibowitz wherein the Kook/Qafahh conflict is discussed. Tohar Hayihud - The Oneness of G-d in its Purity; A Defense of Qafahh Against His Detractors Rare photo of Rabbi Yihhye Ibn Shlomoh El Qafahh ZS'L

Complete Online VersionDownlaod entire book as PDFRead Embedded version hereAbout the BookIslam does not pose a threat to the West. Rather, Islamic terrorist organizations have been created to serve Western imperialistic objectives. These groups are intertwined with Western power through a network of occult secret societies. This is a relationship that dates back to the birth of the Kabbalah, in Babylon, in the sixth century BC, and a plot to seek world domination through the use of magic and deception.The conspiracy coalesced under Herod the Great, who incepted a series of dynastic relationships, that would cooperate, first, to impose a corrupt version of Christianity upon the Roman Empire, Catholicism, with which they would struggle ever since for supremacy over Western civilization. During the Crusades, these families associated with their counterparts in the East, members of the heretical Ismaili Muslims of Egypt, known as the Assassins. The basis of this relationship became what is known as Scottish Rite Freemasonry.With Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt, these Freemasons reconnected with their brethren in Egypt, sparking a relationship that was pivotal to the development of the Occult Revival of the late nineteenth century. It produced the Salafi reform movement of Islam, since promoted by Saudi Arabia, and the Nazis of Europe. Together, they collaborated to found the Muslim Brotherhood, a collective of Islamic impostors, operated by the CIA, to foment a Clash of Civilizations, towards implementing a New World OrderGenealogoical Charts

The House of Herod

Tracing ancestors of Charlemagne, King Arthur, and Constantine the Great and Odin, from Judah, the Heroes of the Trojan War, Alexander the Great, Herod the Great, Caesar, Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and the founding families of Mithraism, including Antiochus IV of Commagene, and the Priest-Kings of Emesa. [PDF]

Lineage of Stuarts and Sinclairs

From King David, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Odin and Guillame de Gellone. [PDF]

Lineage of the House of Guelph

From King David, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Odin and Guillame de Gellone [PDF]

The Stuarts, Sinclairs and the House of Guelph

The Combined Lineage, leading to the union of Elizabeth Stuart and Frederick V, Elector of the Palatinate of the Rhine, and George I, first Hanoverian King of England.

The Order of the Garter

Tracing genealogy of Queen of England, and leading members of the Order of the Garter, from George I, Count St. Germain, and the Ethiopian, Abram Petrovich Gannibal.

Essential Reading 

F REEMASONRY IN EGYPT Is it still around?

1951-1953, Egypt: Nasser, the "Moslem Billy Graham"

A Wolf in Sheikhs Clothing: Bush Business Deals with 9 Partners of bin Laden’s Banker

Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban

Book Review: Defrauding America

By Way of Deception?

EIR: The New International Terrorism

Final Warning: A History of the New World Order

Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 1)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 3)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 4)

Mossad Linked To WTC Bomb Suspect

SNOW JOB: THE CIA, COCAINE, AND BILL CLINTON

Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse

The Aquarian Conspiracy

The Body Politic

The CIA and the Sheikh

The CIA’s Jihad by Robert I Friedman

The Globalists and the Islamists

The Globalists and the Islamists Part 2

The Politics of Three – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel