The Tenth:
The pious Rabbi, the author of the Shela writes:
The third principle [of faith of the RaMbaM]: That [God]
has neither bildy appearance nor a body as it says, “for you did not see any
likeness.” The principle extends that which is stated above to say that even
though we analogously compared the secret of His Names to HIs Necessitated
Existence with that of a body to a soul, this analogy is not in fact
comparable, for God forbid [we should say He has a body], as He has neither
bodily appearance nor a body, and neither is He affected by that which affects
the body and what occurs to it, like movement, standing or other [bodily]
changes. (Rabbi Yosef Ergas, Second Debate, Section 35, Shomer Emunim: The
Introduction to the Kabbalah [trans. Avinoam Fraenkel; Jerusalem: Urim
Press, 2021], 466)
41:
Yehoyada: Proof brought that Arizal explicitly wrote that Tzimtzum is not
literal
The Arizal writes explicitly, as you said, as follows:
You already know that we do not have the ability to
involve ourselves with what happened before the emanation of the 10 Sefirot and
cannot imagine any form or likeness of it all, God forbid. However, so that it
can be related to in human terms, we must use an analogy
And a wise person will understand on his own that there is no existence of any
[such] form at all there, God forbid. However, it is [only] from the [level of
the] 10 Sefirot and below that it is possible to [meaningfully] speak in terms
of a parable and analogy.
therefore, even if we talk about the existence of form there above [the level
of the 10 Sefirot], it is not so and is only to enable relating to it in human
terms . . .
and I will start by saying that surely the Ein Sof has no form at all, God
forbid, as explained.
He therefore explicitly writes that even if we talk of
the existence of form above the level of the 10 Sefirot, that this is not so,
and we only speak this way to enable relating to it in human terms.
It is also written in Otzrot Chaim as follows:
Now, even though we refer [to Adam Kadmon] with
descriptions such as man, head, ears, eyes, and other similar descriptions, it
is only to enable relating to it in understandable human terms. Therefore, we
use these descriptive terms to relate to this high place.
And before this he writes:
We are not permitted to speak or involve ourselves with
the inner essence of this Adam Kadmon at all. We may only speak of that which
emanates from it, which [externally] impacts through its holes and windows
[i.e., external apetures] which are the era, nose, mouth, etc.
Therefore, anyone who can plainly understand will surely
see it explicitly stated in the words of the Arizal that the concept of
Tzimtzum is not literal.
Firstly, because he explicitly writes that the Ein Sof
has no form at all. God forbid.
and furthermore, he even writes about Adam Kadmon, which is [only] on the level
of an emanation, that we only talk of it in terms of form to enable relating to
it in human terms, and how much more so is the case with the Ein Sof [the
source of the emanation].
In addition, if we are not permitted to speak of the essence of Adam Kadmon,
but only in terms of the way it bestows to others [below it], how much more so
that nothing can be said of the Essence of the Ein Sof, and it is as I have
already told you that no being can perceive His essence at all.
Therefore, we must say that with our image of Him in the
form of a circle with the line inside it, that apart from it just being an
analogy to enable relating to it in human terms, it also only specifically
relates to the way in which [the Ein Sof] bestows [to others] and not to the
level of the Essence [of the Ein Sof]. (Rabbi Yosef Ergas, Second Debate,
Section 41, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to the Kabbalah [trans.
Avinoam Fraenkel; Jerusalem: Urim Press, 2021], 476, 478)
55. Yehoyada: Any name or description would
imply multiplicity in the Ein Sof
The reason is because with names and descriptions, some
relate to the essence of that being described, some relate to a part of it, and
some to its core properties.
Now, the fact that a name relates to the essence of a
thing, or to a unique quality that is part of it, is clearly stated as per the
verse, “and whatever the man [Adam] called the living creature, that is its
name,” meaning that the [creature’s] real name reflects its nature
and our Sages have already said, “that this naming involved much wisdom, such
that it was unattainable by the angels,” and this is because the naming was not
[assigned as a label] by consensus or wish, but rather as per [a reflection of[
the [entity’s underlying] nature.
Therefore, we cannot describe the Ein Sof with a name of its Essence that
relates to the essence of the hearer of the name, as the [Ein Sof’s] Essence is
not known to anything apart from Him.
It is for this same reason that we cannot partially describe [the Ein Sof] with
names, meaning that they cannot relate to just part of HIs Essence, as no
creation has any perception of His Essence, neither [of HIs] entirety nor any
part of [Him].
Also, the descriptions of [an entity’s] core properties,
such as “wise,” “mighty,” “healer,” “merciful,” “prone to anger,” etc., all
relate to a single quality that is found in the essence [of that entity].
[These descriptions] are superimposed. They are all
circumstances that only exist in respect of the way that [the entity] connects
to the subject matter.
For example, the description of “wise.” When the circumstance of wisdom applies
to a person, he is said to be “wise.” This is similarly the case with the
description of “mighty,” etc.
They are all concepts that are additional to the essence being described with
these descriptions.
Therefore, it is impossible to describe the Ein Sof with them because HE does
not have any multiplicity or any concept of something that is additional to His
Essence.
We are obligated to believe that [the Ein Sof] is entirely unaffected by
circumstances, even intellectual [circumstances], such as wisdom and
intellectual will.
Because, as He is Absolutely Infinite and all the levels that exist are
incorporated within His Essence, there is no scope with Him for any
circumstance to be applied to Him, as if so, they would not be incorporated
within His Essence.
Anyone who describes the Ein Sof using one of these three
types of descriptions, heretically blasphemes against HIs Sublime Unity, that
is abstracted from any form of superposition, circumstance or multiplicity. (Rabbi
Yosef Ergas, Second Debate, Section 55, Shomer Emunim: The Introduction to
the Kabbalah [trans. Avinoam Fraenkel; Jerusalem: Urim Press, 2021], 494,
496)