I didn’t understand how, if there are sefirot, then it’s suddenly “permitted” to describe Him positively.

When you speak about the sefirot according to the kabbalists, are you speaking according to the views that the sefirot are the essence of divinity and not vessels?

(Ma'arekhet Elahut, Asis Rimonim, Magen David, the Maggid of the Beit Yosef as brought in the Shelah, held that they are divinity; the tailor, Rikanati, etc., held they are vessels; of course each opinion accused the other of heresy; Rabbi Moshe Cordovero was “concerned” for both and combined them, so according to everyone he is a heretic.)

Because according to the view that they are divinity, then suddenly it really is permitted to describe Him with a positive attribute—but what about the prohibition? Even to say that He has sefirot at all (as they accused them above)? Is that pushed aside because of Aristotle’s prohibition against describing the Creator with positive attributes?

And according to the view that the sefirot are vessels, what have we gained by describing His vessels?

I knew I’d get tangled up with you. The sefirot are His garments, what represents Him outwardly. Like my body in relation to myself. The kabbalists argue that the sefirot can be described positively.

And how is it permitted to say that the Creator has garments? (I understand you didn’t mean this metaphorically, because otherwise, as you said about those who explain contraction not literally, there’s nothing here if it’s just a metaphor.)

I’ll just finish with the language of Aryeh Nohem, who raises exactly this difficulty, (but if it’s too long then skip it and just answer me how it is permitted to say that He has garments).

The wording of Aryeh Nohem:

“For my flesh became covered in goosebumps when I came to write what is the foundation of these believers, and I shattered the pen in my wrath and finished by speaking only in hint; therefore go and see the words of Cordovero, of blessed memory, in his Pardes, the gate of Essence and Vessels, where he brought the dispute whether the sefirot are the essence of the Creator, blessed be He, or whether they are vessels; and he brought the opinion of Rabbi Rikanati, of blessed memory, that they are vessels, and Rabbi David, of blessed memory, that they are essence, and afterwards his compromise, that the essence extends through the sefirot as a soul in a body, etc.
And he says that any judge among us should decide by reason from the objections, which he himself brings for this and for that, and explains there.
For if they are essence, one would have to ascribe to Him, blessed be He, division and multiplicity and change, Heaven forbid, and the words of the one who said would be justified: the Christians believe in threes, and the kabbalists in tens.
And if they are vessels, one who gives them divinity is recognizing the created thing as the Creator.
And if they are according to the compromise of Rabbi Cordovero, of blessed memory, like a body into which a soul has spread, then I say this implies envelopment in corporeality, like the belief of the Christians.
Understand this well with understanding, and answer me if you can. But with an answer, and not with distinctions and metaphors and mere sound of words.”

I didn’t understand what “permitted to say” means. There are things that relate to Him like clothing to a person, or like a body to a person. That’s all. Since I already have experience with these discussions, I’ll stop here.

If you gave a recorded or written lesson on this, I’d be happy for a reference there, or to anywhere you discussed it. I searched the whole site.
Because I really didn’t understand—give me a chance, try to explain and simplify such a strange and new thing for me.

A- How can it be that the Creator has something like a garment—so He is not “simple” but “composite”?

B- So this is certainly not like their own approach, since they went in the path of Maimonides and Aristotle; after all that’s how they began, that He is simple and not composite, etc., and how can He oversee composite beings, etc.? They wanted to exalt Him above every blessing and praise and description, etc.—so in the end they lowered Him even more? So basically it is as though He has a spiritual body and a spiritual garment?

Why aren’t you responding? What’s my fault that you discussed it with others and it isn’t on the site? (Not to be misunderstood—you don’t owe anything, but still…….)
I’m simply asking what it means that the Holy One, blessed be He, has a body or a garment (not as a metaphor, because otherwise it’s nothing, as stated).
What is a transparent body—as though He too is transparent, and His body and garment too?
Describe something here that is at least somewhat rational.
Thanks.

What, does He no longer pay attention to us either? You too already aren’t paying attention?

Yedai,
Michi is not bound by Maimonides’ assumptions that the Creator has no body. Who told Maimonides—did he see Him? Did Aristotle see Him? The Raavad also disagrees with Maimonides there, where he called such people heretics,
and said that greater and better people than him hold that way. Although I saw on Google that some explained that he meant greater and better than him in weight, I know of Moshe Teiku as well, who also held this way, based on what I read about him; he really fits the definition of greater and better in weight. (They say that the tanna from Safed, Yosef Ashkenazi, is no less crazy—he is his reincarnation.)

But Michi—even if in the past that also existed, someone greater and better in weight and height—it can certainly be said of Michi that he is no lesser philosopher than Maimonides.

Personally I also think the Holy One, blessed be He, has no body, but if someone like Michi thinks that it may be possible, then I understand that there are things I don’t understand. In my eyes he is not suspected of bias to justify even the Holy One, all the more so not the kabbalists.
Digest that. Even angels have a transparent body. It’s not for nothing that it says in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that one of the prophets saw Him as the likeness of a man sitting on the throne. Think too—if Moses asked to see Him, there was at least an initial assumption that He has a body. The plain sense of the verses also indicates that He has a body. On second thought, I really don’t understand what the problem is if He has a spiritual transparent body and garment. Who decides what is heresy? They accused Maimonides himself of heresy too.
I’m not saying that this is correct, but if you challenge the kabbalists you need to prove that He has no body.

Ahuva,
Where did this calf of yours come from? And I cannot give preference to the son (that calf mentioned above), beloved one.
It seems to me that both you and this calf definitely fit the definition of greater and better in weight, and may your words above contribute to the elevation—the elevation of the calf’s weight.

In any case,
in my opinion it would be fitting for Rabbi Michi to put out a separate post about this, also in his capacity as a halakhic decisor:
Why there is no problem of multiplicity in the Creator for those who claim that the sefirot are divinity, as the other kabbalists argued against them;
and why there is no problem of idolatry / dualism / worship of a created thing for those who hold that the sefirot are vessels, as the others argued;
and why there is no corporealizing of the Creator in Rabbi Moshe Cordovero’s compromise, as Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi argued.

Would that my words be accepted before the local rabbinic authority, in the manner of resembling the Creator in occasional instances (or in Yemenite instances).