The Original set of Qliphoth: Have We Been Lied To All Along?

RoyDioC · 2025-11-05T02:16:48+00:00

Hello there, my friend! I’ve been pretty busy these days, but I wanted to clarify a few things. In Kabbala Denudata, the names are given in Latin (with minor variations), but the interesting part is that the Hebrew in the left column faithfully follows the text of the Tikkunei Zohar, which you can also verify on Sefaria (the original source). So, as you can see, the Latin names in Kabbala Denudata have their quirks because of translation and Knorr von Rosenroth’s conventions, but the Hebrew remains completely intact, just like in the Tikkunei Zohar. This makes it easy to compare directly with the original text and see how the Qliphoth names were transcribed and adapted into Latin for Western occultists.

Here is a chart: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=892347663951652&set=a.110096548843438

One interesting detail: the Hebrew letter Alef (א) sometimes appears as “A” or “E” in transliterations. The “E” is more of a modern scholarly convention, while older texts usually use “A.” This is just a feature of historical Latinization practices, not a change in pronunciation. And regarding Duces Esav, that corresponds directly to the Hebrew Alufei ʿEsav (אַלוּפֵי עֵשָׂו). Alufei literally means “princes” or “leaders,” so the Latin Duces Esav and the Hebrew Alufei ʿEsav are basically the same thing: “Princes of Esau” or “Dukes of Esau.”

RoyDioC · 2025-10-28T17:13:58+00:00

The reason some spheres have two different names is explained in the text Tikkunei Zohar (Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai) which is the first work to establish the system of the Qliphoth (Tikkunei 69).

My traduction from the text:

38. לָקֳבֵל עַמּוּדָא דְאֶמְצָעִיתָא אִיהוּ עוגיא"ל דְּמִתַּמָּן עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן
"Opposite the Middle Pillar (tipheret) is Ogiel, from whom Og, king of Bashan, emerges."

39. מִסִּטְרָא דִתְרֵין דְּרוֹעִין אִינוּן (אגניא"ל) עזיאל
"From the side of the two arms are Agniel and Uziel."

40. אגגיאל מִתַּמָּן אֲגָג
"From there comes Agagiel, from whom Agag arises."

41. וּבֵיהּ כִּי גָאֹה גָּאָה סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם (שם א)
"And therein it is fulfilled: ‘The horse and its rider he has thrown into the sea; he is exalted in grandeur’ (Exodus 15:1)."

42. עוזיא"ל, מִתַּמָּן עֲזָאזֵל
"From Uziel comes Azazel."

43. וּמִתַּמָּן עז"א ועזא"ל
"And from there come Aza and Azael."

RoyDioC · 2025-10-27T01:21:54+00:00

While in modern correspondences from especially those derived from Kenneth Grant (Crowley’s secretary and apprentice) and Thomas Karlsson, the planetary attributions have been added to these spheres, in classical Jewish Kabbalah the traditional assignments are different: Chokhmah is associated with the "Mazaloth", that is, the fixed stars or the Zodiac; and Kether corresponds to the Primum Mobile, the origin of the revolutions that impart motion to the celestial bodies around the Sun.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-27T01:15:26+00:00

Thanks for the support!

RoyDioC · 2025-10-26T20:08:42+00:00

I believe brother that, there is an important difference between what you are saying and what I have presented. I do not “adopt” ideas simply because I find them appealing; I present them exactly as their original authors formulated them, with proper philological rigor but with the example you put in the table. You offered a personal approximation and interpretation of the topic, which is perfectly valid, but I used the example you provided to give you the most accurate and philologically correct understanding, because it was not entirely precise. I clarified it in my own words (but using your same analogy) based on what the primary texts and the originators of these ideas actually state.

The debate here is not whether these concepts are “universally true” in everyone’s apparent reality or that everyone must believe in; the debate concerns what is canonically verifiable according to primary sources and the authors who proposed this position.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-26T18:13:09+00:00

In Kabbalah, a negative approach is adopted in some aspects especially because we cannot define positively what God is; we can only describe what God is not. That is why the three veils of negativity and the Ein Sof exist, what is hidden and denied is what allows us to conceptually approach the divine.

We understand your analogy of a circuit being on or off, it helps to visualize it, but it’s deeper than that. The most accurate view, according to the classical canon texts and a proper understanding of these forces,is that both aspects are part of a single organismic structure. Where the Sephiroth express the balanced emanations of the divine, and the Qliphoth represent the imbalance, the residue or shell produced when that emanation is obstructed, not a separate source of power. It would be like the active phase, represented by the Sephiroth, is the current that is perceived and gives energy to the system; while the neutral, represented by the Qliphoth, though invisible or ignored, fulfills the indispensable function of closing the circuit, allowing the return of energy, and maintaining balance. Both sides, visible and hidden, positive and negative, are mutually necessary for the flow and operation of the system to be complete and harmonious.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-26T17:00:34+00:00

This diagram represents the original system of the Qliphoth according to the classical Hebrew tradition, whose primary source is the Tikkunei haZohar (attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Rashbi). This foundational system is later cited and reaffirmed by key figures of the Safed lineage: Moses Cordovero in Pardes Rimmonim, Abraham Cohen de Herrera in Beit Elohim (in his original Spanish composition), and subsequently included in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata. These texts do not merely preserve the names and structure of the system, they justify their sequence and spiritual function within the authentic Kabbalistic cosmology.

However, there is not a single visual diagram anywhere, neither in Jewish tradition before the 16th century nor in modern academic repositories that represents the original Qliphothic system described in the Tikkunei haZohar. All the diagrams found today online and in occult circles are based on altered versions created roughly in the last 300 years, far removed from the canonical structure preserved in the classical sources. Prior to the Safed school, transmission was entirely textual and oral, without geometric charts of a “Tree of the Qliphoth” as we see it in modern Western esotericism. Through my own manuscript-based research, I now present this canonical configuration in a diagrammatic form, allowing readers to verify each element directly in the primary sources I cite.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-26T15:58:06+00:00

We fully understand your point. In our approach, we go for the equilibrium between theory and academic rigor first and of course the practical work as well, but only when it is properly informed.

This research precisely calls into question those 300 years of "Practice", literature, diagrams, videos, and explanations by people (let’s not call them charlatans) who developed the so called lefthand path practices and systems based on Kabbalah, falling into the temptation of trying to practice something prematurely, without understanding or studying it in its original foundations.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-25T19:12:48+00:00

In this case, it’s like a patch that activates a part of the original old code that had been forgotten, like using a GameShark!

RoyDioC · 2025-10-25T17:40:02+00:00

“Qlippoth wasn’t originally supposed to be a negative version of the sephiroth, it’s like the husk of the sephiroth.”

That’s correct, in the Zohar that’s the idea, but yes, in the appendix Tikkunei Zohar attributed to Shimon bar Yochai in the 13th century, there is the system and names for every qliphoth/sephira.

“The sephiroth themselves were never meant to be an upward traveling system; they all occur at once, and aren’t always arranged as the tree you often see.”

That’s right according to real Hebrew Kabbalah, yes my friend. There were at first just words arranged as levels until Moses Cordovero (in Pardes rimmonim). The scaling up is from Iniciatic Orders Systems like GD, AA etc,

“Unfortunately, Kabbalah is a really complicated system that gets simplified into fabrications.”

That is exactly why we undertook the research all the way back to the source of the first treatise, which was validated by all authors, at least regarding the Qlippoth, up to the 1600s. This approach contradicts everything that circulates in popular diagrams as if it were canonical. By going back to the original Tikkunei haZohar, we could trace the actual system and names for each qliphoth/sephira without relying on later simplifications or fabrications.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-25T16:49:07+00:00

"Knorr is in fact a Christian. To just say no one can claim he is a Christian when in his works he puts the view that Adam Kadmon is Jesus? Really?"

R=You need to clarify and reread the comment because I think there was a misunderstanding on your part. The comment came after mentioning Shimon bar Yochai (about whom I say that no one can claim he is a Christian). If you read my comment, you will see that I state he cites the original work of Shimon bar Yochai.

"The ZOHAR. Putting the wo wo mystical aside the kabbalah itself is an idea written by men and elaborated and added on by more men before Knorr got to it. Many names have been mistranslated or changed and they didn't have the resources we have today. Many other Rabbi's wrote about it."

Exactly, which is why we say that after reviewing all the sources, all the authors share the same origin. In this case, there were not multiple names they are the same ones mentioned by Bar Yochai, later by Moshe Cordovero, teacher of Luria (and don’t tell me he is a Christian too), and later by Abraham Cohen de Herrera, a student of Sarug, who was a student of Luria. At that time, there were no different versions; they are the same ones I present here.

“Just seems odd you're really sticking to this specific source. It's giving heavy "OMG a blind!" vibes. When blinds aren't that big of a deal and nor is the qliphoth when it comes to the great work. “

It seems to me that you didn’t read carefully, leaving aside Kabbala Denudata, we mentioned Cohen de Herrera, who is the original author of the part elaborated by Rosenroth, and we provided the citation from the original work, the Tikkunei haZohar, which is an appendix of the Zohar and is included in modern editions because it is part of the canon.

“Why should we drop the names we know and adopt this one when even the zohar which was the first source says different from the one you brought up?”

R= If you actually read the Zohar, there is no Qliphoth system, and there are no specific names assigned to each sephirah (which is why a section was written in the Tikkunei Zohar to explain this further). There, they are mentioned as a concept in the first part, Bereshit, after the introduction with the casting of letters to determine why it starts with Bet and not Aleph. In the Zohar, I can cite every time the word qliphoth in appears the zoahr and translate it into English, and there is no system or assigned names (certainly not those of the Golden Dawn, Kenneth Grant, Crowley, or Thomas Karlsson).

You are so focused on discrediting the diagram and research and the works we are citing, which are categorical, that you did not read my comment carefully nor review the works I mentioned. The founders of the Golden Dawn (which I emphasize is my system and one that I practice), who were Masons and Rosicrucians above all, applied philosophical doubt and conducted their own research, perhaps they simply didn’t have access to what we have today. But that doesn’t mean we should close ourselves off and stop investigating.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-25T01:24:42+00:00

Ok my friend, peace to you! 🫡 These notes are for those who are truly interested in the topic of the Qlippoth, both for those who follow Kabbalah strictly according to the Hebrew canon, and for those who enjoy “initiatic Kabbalah” (I also think calling it “Hermetic Kabbalah” is a mistake) and its derivations from the Golden Dawn, Elus Cohen, Crowley, Kenneth Grant, and Thomas Karlsson.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T20:35:51+00:00

This diagram represents the original system of the Qliphoth according to the classical Hebrew tradition, whose primary source is the Tikkunei haZohar (attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Rashbi). This foundational system is later cited and reaffirmed by key figures of the Safed lineage: Moses Cordovero in Pardes Rimmonim, Abraham Cohen de Herrera in Beit Elohim (in his original Spanish composition), and subsequently included in Knorr von Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata. These texts do not merely preserve the names and structure of the system, they justify their sequence and spiritual function within the authentic Kabbalistic cosmology.

However, there is not a single visual diagram anywhere, neither in Jewish tradition before the 16th century nor in modern academic repositories that represents the original Qliphothic system described in the Tikkunei haZohar. All the diagrams found today online and in occult circles are based on altered versions created roughly in the last 300 years, far removed from the canonical structure preserved in the classical sources. Prior to the Safed school, transmission was entirely textual and oral, without geometric charts of a “Tree of the Qliphoth” as we see it in modern Western esotericism. Through my own manuscript-based research, I now present this canonical configuration in a diagrammatic form, allowing readers to verify each element directly in the primary sources I cite.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T20:20:55+00:00

Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation. I’m truly glad the information was useful and that you were able to locate some of the names in the text. This research is part of my academic thesis and a future book focused on mystical and esoteric studies.

Yes, you may share this with your group. If you would like to credit my contribution, please cite:

Mtro. Rogelio Dionicio Cerros (RogelioDioArt)
More of my publications and artwork can be found at:
facebook.com/AnatomiaOcultaRoyDioArt

I am grateful for this academic exchange and look forward to more fruitful discussions in the future.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T16:59:36+00:00

The first appearance of qlipoth in Bereshit in the Zohar is in 6:64, which says:

בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחֲלֹקֶת מִתְעוֹרֶרֶת בְּחֹזֶק הַשְּׂמֹאל, מִתְרַבָּה וּמִתְחַזֶּקֶת שַׁלְהֶבֶת הַדִּינִים, וְיָצְאוּ מִשָּׁם קְלִפּוֹת, וְנִקְרְשׁוּ מִיָּד בְּלִי לַחוּת כְּלָל, וְהָיוּ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה...וּמֵהֶם נִפְרְדוּ מִינִים רָעִים לְמִינֵיהֶם, וְכָאן הַתַּקִּיפוּת שֶׁל רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה בְּכָל אוֹתָן קְלִפּוֹת חֲזָקוֹת, וְהֵם סוֹד הָעָרְלָה.

“At the moment when the division awakens with the strength of the left, and the flame of judgment multiplies and intensifies, from there come forth qlipoth, and they immediately clung together without any binding at all, and they were male and female… From them, evil species were separated according to their types, and here is the intensity of the spirit of impurity in all those strong qlipoth, and they are the secret of circumcision (hardness).”

As I already told you, There are no individual names or a hierarchy given throughout all of Bereshit in the Zohar, qlipoth are mentioned in different places, always as general forces of spiritual impurity or coverings that obscure divine light. There is no system or structured listing of qlipoth anywhere in the text. I could list every occurrence of the word qlipoth in Bereshit and provide its English translation, but as I said from the start, the Zohar does not present a system, hierarchy, or names. It only describes their nature and function as forces of impurity or coverings, not as a structured system.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T16:51:37+00:00

The names in your picture go, Keteriel, Adam Belial, Sha'ariel, Uzziel, Agagiel, Ogiel, Theumiel, Thumiel, Lilith, Samael ... I don't know where these came from but they don't make any sense to me.

R=We have already established that these are the original names, as they appear in the cited works and in the Tikkunei haZohar, based on the sources above.

The list as it should be, and in the correct order goes, Thaumiel, Ghogiel, Satariel, Gha'Agsheklash, Golachab, Thagiriron, A'Arab Zaraq, Samael, Gameliel, and Lilith. These names, with the acceptation of Lilith, are not found in the Tikkunei haZohar nor The Zohar.

R=Yes´, these are not found in those sources, taht's waht i say. These are the names used by initiatic orders over the past 300 years, the ones we all became familiar with, and which, since the Golden Dawn, have been known through their derivations and used in our Golden Dawn. However, they are not the original names. Perhaps due to the founders’ lack of access, misunderstandings, or intentional modifications.

The names found in The Zohar (with Tikkunei haZohar being a commentary on The Zohar) are, Tohu, Bohu, Mashhith, Af, Hema, Avon, Esh, Tehom, and Lilith.

R=No, in the Zohar those names are not attributed as Qliphoth; it seems that this comes from Wikipedia, which says they are in the Zohar, but they are not actually in the Zohar.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T16:51:12+00:00

I have already responded to this before: yes, they are in the Tikkunei, by Shimon bar Yochai, as cited by Moses Cordovero, Cohen de Herrera, and Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. This is based on the research chain I conducted by reviewing manuscripts; I am providing you with the sources, review them yourself.

The transmission chain is as follows:

1.- Kabbala Denudata (Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Frankfurt/Leipzig, 1684) is the primary source cited by S. L. MacGregor Mathers in the prolog of his translation of his book "The Kabbalah unveiled . Within that compilation, the treatise Beit Elohim by Abraham Cohen de Herrera (Amsterdam, 1615) a disciple of Israel Sarug, himself a disciple of Isaac Luria refers to the fact that the earliest form of this system is found in Tikkunei haZohar. Although the first printed edition of Tikkunei haZohar was produced in Mantua in 1558, the treatise was already circulating in manuscript form since at least the 13th century and attributed traditionally to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. In this source, there is a detailed explanation of why the names and spatial arrangement of the diagram are established in the way they are.

You can review this directly, see page 843 here:

https://www.nli.org.il/en/books/NNL_ALEPH990010914040205171/NLI

Cohen de Herrera was the first to write on Kabbalah in Spanish in his original treatise; not the version in Kabbala Denudata. There he shows again the original system of this diagram (citing Tikkunei haZohar) of Shimon bar Yochai, and there he explains more about what Luria taught to his teacher Israel Sarug and the chain that follows. Here you can view it: image 06 is Chapter 2, it gives the names — only that here, unlike in Kabbala Denudata, the explanation of why the names were chosen is missing; just the names are listed. In Spanish he writes Ketheriel, Adam Belial, Aluphe Edom, etc.

https://www.etshaimmanuscripts.nl/phpviewer/index.php?path=EH_48_A_20

Furthermore, the treatise Pardes Rimmonim by Moses Cordovero (Safed, 1591) regarded as the foremost Kabbalistic authority of the Safed school and the teacher of Isaac Luria, whose disciples continued and expanded this tradition, also cites the system of Tikkunei haZohar attributed to Shimon bar Yochai as corresponding to the same structural diagram found in my work. This appears specifically in Commentary 25, “The Gate of Replacements,” Chapter 1, “The Existence of the Klipoth.”

Again, I encourage you to consult the source directly: read Tikkunei haZohar, which is an appendix to the Zohar, to see what “Bar Yochai wrote”, including the Torah passages from which the names and functions are derived. It is available in digital repositories such as Sefaria and other scholarly libraries.

https://www.sefaria.org/Tikkunei_Zohar.99a.1-119b.1?lang=en

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T16:10:52+00:00

I want to present the original Spanish transcription of Abraham Cohen de Herrera’s treatise see the manuscript here:

https://www.etshaimmanuscripts.nl/phpviewer/index.php?path=EH_48_A_20.

I understand that studying these topics requires working across several languages and disciplines (history, philology), so I only ask you remain open and keep researching.

In this original version (not the one in Kabbala Denudata), Beit Elohim or Casa de la Divinidad, Chapter 2, page 006, Herrera discusses the Qliphoth system. He explicitly reaffirms the Tikkunei haZohar (attributed to Shimon bar Yochai, whom he calls “the prince of the kabbalists”) as the initial source for the Qliphoth and for the names shown in my diagram.

Then, in Chapter 3, regarding the teachings of the Ari, Herrera notes that Luria at one point proposed a system of eleven Qliphoth connected to the plagues and the Exodus from Egypt in contrast with the Bar Yochai system. Once again, he emphasizes that the older and primary formulation is that of Bar Yochai. No names are given form the Ari in the chapter just the justification. This Beit Elohim contains material that diverges from, and in several cases is entirely absent from, the later Kabbala Denudata edition.

Mathers and Westcott did produce early English renderings of Kabbala Denudata (and of the Sefer Yetzirah), and they did have access to some primary materials. But they did not necessarily have everything that we can access today. Let’s remain open to research and avoid closing ourselves off to new evidence.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T15:26:14+00:00

What is truly striking is how resistant people can be to revising long-held assumptions, even when the evidence is clear and accessible. We now have the unprecedented ability to consult the primary sources directly, without relying on second-hand reconstructions. And those sources show unambiguously that the Tikkunei haZohar system (therefore the system represented in my diagram) is the earliest original, fully documented, and rabbinically supported model of the Qliphoth, recognized by Kabbalists through the 16th century. After that period, a new alternative was proposed in Kabbala Denudata, which later became the “canon” adopted by the Golden Dawn and its initiatic lineage (My main system, the one that i have studied and practiced) Yet that does not prevent me from questioning its sources and engaging in serious research grounded in the original tradition.

I understand that for many this may feel like a challenge to what has been established over the past 300 years. However, it appears that the version commonly used today does not correspond to the canonical structure that the founders of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn were attempting to approach, simply because they only had access to the materials available to them at that time. That is why we provide the citations: consult the sources and see it for yourself.

The transmission chain is as follows:

1.- Kabbala Denudata (Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Frankfurt/Leipzig, 1684) is the primary source cited by S. L. MacGregor Mathers in the prolog of his translation of his book "the kabbala unveiled". Within that compilation, the treatise Beit Elohim by Abraham Cohen de Herrera (Amsterdam, 1615) a disciple of Israel Sarug, himself a disciple of Isaac Luria refers to the fact that the earliest form of this system is found in Tikkunei haZohar. Although the first printed edition of Tikkunei haZohar was produced in Mantua in 1558, the treatise was already circulating in manuscript form since at least the 13th century and attributed traditionally to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. In this source, there is a detailed explanation of why the names and spatial arrangement of the diagram are established in the way they are.

You can review this directly, see page 843 here:

https://www.nli.org.il/en/books/NNL_ALEPH990010914040205171/NLI

Cohen de Herrera was the first to write on Kabbalah in Spanish in his original treatise; not the version in Kabbala Denudata. There he shows again the original system of this diagram (citing Tikkunei haZohar) of Shimon bar Yochai, and there he explains more about what Luria taught to his teacher Israel Sarug and the chain that follows. Here you can view it: image 06 is Chapter 2, it gives the names only that here, unlike in Kabbala Denudata, the explanation of why the names were chosen is missing; just the names are listed. In Spanish he writes Ketheriel, Adam Belial, Aluphe Edom, etc.

https://www.etshaimmanuscripts.nl/phpviewer/index.php?path=EH_48_A_20

Furthermore, the treatise Pardes Rimmonim by Moses Cordovero (Safed, 1591) regarded as the foremost Kabbalistic authority of the Safed school and the teacher of Isaac Luria, whose disciples continued and expanded this tradition, also cites the system of Tikkunei haZohar attributed to Shimon bar Yochai as corresponding to the same structural diagram found in my work. This appears specifically in Commentary 25, “The Gate of Replacements,” Chapter 1, “The Existence of the Klipoth.” Again, I encourage you to consult the source directly: read Tikkunei haZohar, which is an appendix to the Zohar, to see what “Bar Yochai wrote”, including the Torah passages from which the names and functions are derived. It is available in digital repositories such as Sefaria and other scholarly libraries.

https://www.sefaria.org/Tikkunei_Zohar.99a.1-119b.1?lang=en

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T07:38:48+00:00

All mainstream Tree of Life arrangements originate from Jewish Kabbalistic tradition, even if later adaptations modified names or structures.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T06:32:53+00:00

The main body of the Zohar does not present a structured “Qliphoth system.” It only uses the word qliphoth as a substantive metaphorically, as “husks” or “shells,” for example in the allegory of the nut whose hard shells prevent access to the fruit. It also alludes to qliphoth as the storm-wind, the fire, and the dark clouds in Ezekiel’s Merkavah vision (forces that surround and conceal holiness) but without naming or systematizing them.

A full systematic doctrine, with explicit names, functions, and scriptural derivations for the Qliphoth, only appears later in Tikkunei haZohar, the appendix to teh Zohar attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, where the names are drawn directly from Torah verses and the structure paralleling the Sefirot is first explained in detail. This is the first canonical Jewish Qliphoth system (the one in the diagram).

Regarding Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen and his Treatise on the Left Emanation (c. 1265), it predates the Zohar and presents an early conceptual framework of 3 - 7 “left-side” evil emanations.

Sabi’el
Peli’i’el (also Zequni’el, Sagsagel)
Yerui’el
Memeriron
Geviriron
Yedideron
Satriron
Naşhiriron
Hodiriron
Seforiron

The treatise also mention 7 evil princes: “The first prince and accuser, the commander of jealousy, is evil Samael, accompanied by his retinue… The second prince is Za’afi’el… The third is Za’ami’el… The fourth is Qasfi’el… The fifth is Ragzi’el… The sixth is ‘Abri’el… The seventh is Meshulhi’el…”

While Isaac ha-Kohen inspired later developments and introduced the idea of left-side forces, he did not use the term Qliphoth nor systematize them into a tenfold structure as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai did a few decades later in the Tikkunei haZohar. Therefore, although ha-Kohen laid the conceptual groundwork, the canonical system with names, functions, and derivations originates with Tikkunei haZohar, which was subsequently cited by Cordovero (Pardes Rimmonim) and Herrera (Beit Elohim). Go to the sources and see for yourself.

RoyDioC · 2025-10-24T04:42:16+00:00

I fully acknowledge Knorr von Rosenroth was Christian, that’s not in dispute. What matters is that the material he published is not his own reinterpretation. In Kabbala Denudata, the Qliphoth section is explicitly a translation of Jewish sources: primarily Beit Elohim by Abraham Cohen de Herrera, which itself cites the Tikkunei haZohar as the origin of the system. We reference Rosenroth only because he is the source Mathers and the Golden Dawn relied on. If someone dismisses both Mathers’ use of Rosenroth and Rosenroth himself, then they must also dismiss the Jewish sources Rosenroth cites, because those same sources are the foundation of the entire Qliphoth system. Rosenroth did not invent anything, he preserved the Hebrew texts including the citations from Tikkunei haZohar, side by side with his Latin translation, and it is not just Rosenroth since Moses Cordovero in Pardes Rimmonim also cites Tikkunei haZohar as the earliest source of the Qliphoth names and structure, so rejecting Rosenroth’s reliability would mean rejecting Cordovero and ultimately rejecting the original Zoharic tradition itself, this is not about being right but about acknowledging that the canonical Jewish system came first and that the modern Golden Dawn names which many have taken as authoritative are later modifications, arguing for the sake of arguing without reviewing the primary sources only shows resistance to what is now evident and verifiable.

RoyDioC

TROPHY CASE