CABBALA (Heb. qabbālāh “tradition”). — The term originally referred to the prophetic books of the Bible, but from the 12th century A.D. it designates the esoteric Jewish doctrine. The rise of this doctrine was more or less directly influenced by the theosophy of ma'äseli mer-kābāhā (“the work of the divine chariot,” Ezek. 1) and the Tannaitic cosmogony, ma'äseli bērēšīth (“the work of the beginning”) of creation, the commentary of the Gaon Sa'adjāh (v.) on the Book of Creation (séphēr jēšīrāh), the speculations on the divine names by Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Ezra, the doctrine of the will and the word drawn by the cabbalists (mēqubālāth) from Ibn Gabirol and Joseph ibn Ṣaddiq, the historical-philosophical speculations on creation by Abraham bar Ḥiyya, Neoplatonic emanationism (theory of the threefold scale of being: intellect, soul, nature), Neoplatonic psychology, the doctrine of the active intellect, Maimonides’ prophetology, and the hasidism or pietism that flourished in Germany and France in the 12th–13th centuries. The theory of the šēkhīmāh (divine immanence) of Sa'adjāh is here linked to speculations on the primordial man ('adhām qadhām) and the cherubim, deriving from the mysticism of the “chariot,” and to a particular theory of the “logos.”
The Kabbalah does not represent a mystical conception of God; ecstasy plays a secondary role in it, and the principle “I in Thee” is absent. Instead, it aims at a theoretical knowledge of the divine attributes, a knowledge of a contemplative character, derived from revelations that the master communicates in a reserved manner to his chosen disciples. Even the magical conceptions in the Kabbalah are not truly such. Magic appears only in practical Kabbalah (the *Kabbalah*), not in speculative Kabbalah, since it aims to influence the divine will without mastering II. Demonology is not truly such, for it does not regard demons as beings that oppose God, but as malevolent forces at God’s service. In general, the Kabbalah embraces the fundamental principle of biblical prophecy: “I and Thou,” combined with an element of national egocentrism: Israel depends entirely on God; the salvation of humanity and the entire cosmos, in turn, depends on the purity of the community of Israel. This idea—that nature suffers and decays with man and because of man, and with him rises again and renews itself—undergoes the most varied evolutions and ascensions throughout Sacred Scripture, from the first pages of Genesis to the letters of St. Paul (cf. P. H. M. Biedermann, *Die Erlösung der Schöpfung beim Apostel Paulus*, Würzburg 1940).
The literature of the Kabbalah is contained in many unpublished manuscript works (very many in Jerusalem). The ancient period includes the *Pirje hêkhâlôh* (“Celestial Palaces”), the book *Bâhîr* (“Brightness”; German trans. by G. Scholem, *Das Buch B.*, Berlin 1933). Most Kabbalistic works, including the famous *Zohar* (“Splendor”), were circulated as anonymous literature or under pseudonyms. Thus, the *Zohar* was attributed to a Palestinian doctor of the 2nd century A.D., Simeon ben Jôhâj. The *Zohar* is a collection of writings—the fundamental part in the form of a theosophical commentary on the Pentateuch—that became “the Bible” of Kabbalism. The “editor” was the Kabbalist Mosè de León of the 13th century. The *Zohar* seems to aim at counterbalancing the influence of Aristotelianism and its Jewish followers. Some of the writings included in the *Zohar* differ on important doctrinal points from the thought of Mosè de León. A critical edition of the *Zohar* is still lacking. The method followed in its exposition is allegorical. The symbol exists independently of the discovery of the object symbolized. In this way, the Kabbalah succeeds in preserving the entirety of the traditional material contained in rabbinic teaching.
At the center of Kabbalistic thought stands the doctrine of the ten *séphîrôth*, a term that J. Klatzkin (*Thesaurus philosophicus linguae hebraicae*, III, p. 109) explains as “powers (degrees, *madhrêghôth*) or qualities in the concept of ‘emanation’ and of creation.” The organic connection among the *séphîrôth* is presented graphically in the form of a tree or of the primordial man. Through knowledge of the intimate being of the *séphîrôth*, the pious man (saddiq) presents his spiritualized prayers and pious works before the Absolute, the *én sôph* (“Infinite”). The *séphîrôth* are related to the Decalogue and the ten words by which the world was created (*Abhôth*, V, 1; *Hagigah*, 12a). The canonical order in which the *séphîrôth* follow one another is: *kêther* (“crown”), *hôkhômâh* (“wisdom”), *bê-nâh* (“intellect”), *gêdhûlâh* (“greatness”) or *hêsedh* (“grace”), *gêbhûrâh* (“strength”) or *dîn* (“judgment”), *tiphîrêth* (“beauty”) or *rahâmûm* (“mercy”), *ne-sah* (“duration,” “splendor”), *hôd* (“majesty”), *saddiq* (“just”) or *jêsôdh* (“foundation of the world”), *malkhûth* (“kingdom”) or *âtârâh* (“crown”). Each of the *séphîrôth* also has other symbolic names, connected with scriptural verses.
From the 12th century onward, great centers of Kabbalistic studies arose in Provence. In Spain, the Kabbalah was fostered by Solomon ben Adret (v. ADRUMETO), though he was not active from a literary standpoint. An exponent of contemplative Kabbalah is Abraham Abulafia (13th century). His disciple Joseph Gikatila was influenced by the *Zohar*. The Kabbalistic doctrine of Isaac ibn Latif (end of the 13th century) has a philosophical character; that of Abraham ben Eliezer (from 1515 in Jerusalem) is apocalyptic. At the beginning of the 16th century, the city of Safed (Upper Galilee) assumed great importance for the development of the Kabbalah. Even the great codifier Joseph Caro was influenced by the Kabbalah. Famous was Moses Cordovero (1522–70), a systematic theologian of the Kabbalah; superior to him was only Isaac Luria, called Ha’ari (1534–72). Among the opponents of the Kabbalah was the noted rabbi of Venice, Leon Modena. The Kabbalah influenced two vast pseudo-messianic movements: Sabbatianism and Frankism.
Among Christians, Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) cites in his treatise *De christiana religione* the *Bâhîr* under the title “Lucido.” Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) cultivated Hebrew studies together with ALEMANNI (v.). In a letter addressed to Pico, Elijah sets forth the fundamental principles of the Kabbalistic system. In his work *Bêthîthah had-dâth* (“Examination of Religion”), Elijah maintains that the identification of God with the *séphîrôth* is contrary to Jewish faith; if one wishes to admit the *én sôph* as the first cause above the *séphîrôth*, one cannot speak of a true contrast with religion. Flavius Mithridates made Latin translations of Kabbalistic works for Pico. Pico was the first to bring the Kabbalah into contact with Christian thought; he frequently refers to it in his “Conclusions.” Johann Reuchlin (d. 1522) systematically presents the Kabbalah for Christian use in *De verbo mirifico* (1494) and in *De arte cabbalistica* (1517): the name of Jesus is the true “verbum mirificum.” Other Christian scholars of the Kabbalah in the 16th century were Cardinal Giles of Viterbo, Paul Riccius, and Peter Galatinus. The Protestant mystic Guillaume Postel translated the *Zohar* and the *Sefer Yetzirah* into Latin; the school of Jacob Böhme also turned to Kabbalistic studies.
Among the Jewish representatives of the Kabbalah in Italy, mention should be made of: in the 10th century, Shabbethai Donnolo of Oria (cf. D. Castelli, *Il commento di S. D. sul libro della Creazione*, Florence 1882); in modern times, the moralist Moses Hayyim Luzzatto (1707–46) and the rabbi Elia Benamozegh (1822–1900).
CABEZÓN, Antonio de
Spanish musician, born in 1510 at Castrillo de Matajudios, and died on 25 March 1566. He became blind as a child, and after spending some time with the bishop of Palencia, at the age of 18 he was already in the service of Charles V and Philip II; he later went to Genoa, Milan, Mantua, Trent, and perhaps even to England. His works display great inventiveness, and his art in playing the organ was marvelous.
A portion of his works—interludes, psalm settings, *tientos*, glosses, and variations, composed for the instruction of his numerous pupils—was collected by his son and presented to King Philip in 1578. He was admired as the greatest organist of his time. His works have been published recently by Felipe Pedrell in vols. III, IV, VII, and VIII of *Hispaniae Musica Sacra* (Barcelona 1895 ff.). Gregorio M. Suñol
CABEZUDO, Nuño Diego
Dominican theologian and polemicist, born at Villalón (Castile), died at Segovia in February 1614 while serving as prior. He entered religious life at 16 and soon distinguished himself for the acuteness of his intellect. He taught for 30 years in many houses of the Order, especially at the College of St. Gregory in Valladolid, where he was also regent. A profound connoisseur and clear expositor of the doctrine of St. Thomas, he was a strong defender of it against the Molinist Jesuit Antonio de Padilla (1594). As a result of these controversies, his fame grew greatly, and his word carried notable authority throughout Spain.
He wrote: *Commentarii ac disputationes in III partem Summae Theologiae D. Thomae Aquinatis, cum additionibus eiusdem nunc primum accurate juxta atque luculenter discustis* (2 vols., Valladolid 1601–1609, Venice 1612, Cologne 1630). In the following Cologne edition (1663), the work was given this title: *Divus Thomas explanatus sive… commentaria scholastica in III partem D. Thomae de Sacramentis*, and four new treatises were added: 1) *De auctoritate summi Pontificis et conciliorum*, 2) *De indulgentiis*, 3) *De auxiliis divinae gratiae*, 4) *De bulla cruciata dicta*. Another posthumous work of his is: *Tractatio in III partem Summae theologiae D. Thomae nunc primum in lucem edita, sed accurate recente cognita* (Rome 1682), which was published under the care of the future Master General A. Cloche.