Talk:Practical Kabbalah

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Grimoires of Kabbalah Maa'sit

I have not a deep knowledge about pratical kabbalah, but I think that books as Sefer Mafteah Shlomoh, Sefer Ha-Razim, Sefer Raziel, Sefer Ha-Levanah, The Veritable Clavis and least one hebrew version of Lemegeton's Goetia could be cited as perfect examples of old books about pratical kabbalah. And if I am not mistaken some jewish kabbalists consider Abulafia's work as pratical kabbalah too (and equaly avoidable).189.122.221.215 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if no one answer me soon, I will edit myself the article putting a brief reference to this grimoires. Seems strange to me that an article about pratical kabbalah doesn't have any pratical information at all... 189.122.212.105 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't

Meditative Kabbalah, not Practical-Magical Kabbalah? Moshe Idel's books: [1] on Abraham Abulafia/Ecstatic Kabbalah have revised the undercurrent influence of Abulafia to mainstream Theosophical Kabbalah development in academia. April8 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"Practical Kabbalah" the book

Some guy has apparently written a book called "Practical Kabbalah" and an editor has been going to some pains to point out in this article that the book is not the subject. But that's already clear from looking at the article. Readers coming across the book may assume from its title that it's about Practical Kabbalah, and if it's not, then silly Mr. Author for having chosen that name. But either way it's not really of any concern to us here. I don't see any reason to believe that it's a particularly

notable book

.

If someone looks for the book on Wikipedia, yes, they may find this article, but it will be immediately obvious it's not about the book. If the book really does deserve its own article, then it can have one, and we can put an "otheruses" tag at the top of this article to send our readers in the right direction. Until it is demonstrated to be worthy of its own article, though, I believe we don't need to worry about it and can ignore it altogether. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

(…) holy (Q-D-Š) and pure, tumah and taharah (…) – tumah means "impure", the opposite of taharah, so the sentence makes no sense. Perhaps someone tried to link "impure" to the article about "tumah and taharah"? 195.187.108.130 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]