Rabbi Saadiah Gaon wrote in his book Emunot v'Deot that Jews who believe in reincarnation have accepted a non-Jewish belief.
Maimonides (12th Century) discounted the mystical work Shiur Komah, with its starkly anthropomorphic vision of G-d,
which is a popular kabbalistic text even in modern times.
Abraham ibn Daud, around 1110 to 1180; rejected reincarnation.
Rabbi Avraham ben haRambam, like his predecessors, writes at length in his book Milhhamot HaShem that the Almighty
is in no way literally within time or space nor physically outside time or space, since time and space simply do not apply
to His Being whatsoever. His book is almost undeniably targeted at the forbearers of much of kabbalistic thought.
Leon de Modena rejected reincarnation.
Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven (The Ran), 1320-1380; reproved the Nachmonides (Ramban) for devoting too much to kabbalah and is said
to have been "no friend of mysticism."
Yedayah Bedershi, early 14th century; rejected reincarnation.
Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet (The Rivash), 1326-1408; he stated that Kabbalah was "worse than Christianity", as it made God into 10, not just into
Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas, 1340-1410/11; rejected reincarnation.
Joseph Albo, 15th century; rejected reincarnation.
Rabbi Leon Modena, a 17th century Venetian critic of Kabbalah, wrote that if we were to accept the Kabbalah, then the Christian trinity would indeed
be compatible with Judaism, as the Trinity closely resembles the Kabbalistic doctrine of sefirot.
Rabbi Yaakov Emden, 1697-1776, wrote the book Mitpahhath Sfarim (Scarf / Veil of the Books) which is a detailed critique
of the Zohar. He concludes that certain parts of the Zohar contain heretical teaching and therefore could not have been written
by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. Opponents of the book claim that he wrote the book in a drunken stupor.
Rabbi Samuel Strashun, 1794-1872, in Bava Metzia 107a, in his famous commentary to the Talmud, R' Strashun (the "Rashash" of Europe)
points out a Talmudic proof against gilgulim. A rebbi in Kol Torah put out a book called 'dvar yakov' on tractate
bava metzia. In commenting on this particular statement by the Rashah, the author of the book is goes off
on how the Rashash could contradict "kabbalistic masters."
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, 1808-1888, among other things, specified that belief in reincarnation is one of the major distinctions between
what were the religious opinions (hashqafa) of the Ancient Egyptions in contrast to the religious perspective
(hashqafa) of the Jewish Faith. He writes that reincarnation was central to the Egyptian Faith.
Rabbi Yihhyah Qafehh, an early 20th century Yemenite Jewish leader wrote a book called Milhhamoth HaShem, (Wars of the L-RD) against what he perceived as the false
teachings of the Zohar and "Lurianic Kabbalah."
Nechama Leibowitz, 1905-1997; renown modern scholar and commentator to the Tanakh - avoided making use of kabbalistic works in her
Yeshayahu Leibowitz 1903-1994, the brother of Nechama Leibowitz; he publically shared and supported views expressed in Rabbi Yihhyah Qafehh's book Milhhamoth HaShem that much of popular 'kabbala' is idolatrious; was against allowing
kabbalistic texts to influence halakhic practice.
Rabbi Yosef Kapach taught against allowing kabbalistic texts to influence halakhic practice.
Rabbi Jose Faur
CHAPTER LXXI of Moreh HaNevukhim by the Rambam:
KNOW that many branches of science relating to the correct solution of these problems, were once cultivated by ourforefathers,
but were in the course of time neglected, especially in consequence of the tyranny which barbarous nations exercise dover
us. Besides, speculative studies were not open to all men, aswe have already stated (Introd. P. 2, and 1. chap. xxxi.), only
the subjects taught in the Scriptures were accessible to all. Even the traditional Law, as you are well aware, was not originally
committed to writing, in conformity with the rule to which ournation generally adhered," Things which I have communicated
toyou orally, you must not communicate to others in writing." With reference to the Law, this rule was very opportune; for
while it remained in force it averted the evils which happened subsequently, viz., great diversity of opinion, doubts as to
the meaning of written words, slips of the pen, dissensions among the people, formation of new sects, and confused notions
about practical subjects. The traditional teaching was in fact, according to the words of the Law, entrusted to the Great
Tribunal, as we have already stated in our works on the Talmud. (Introd. toMishneh Torah and Introd. to Commen. on the Mishnah).
Care having been taken, for the sake of obviating injurious influences, that the Oral Law should not be recorded in a form
accessible to all, it was but natural that no portion of "the secrets of the Law" (i.e., metaphysical problems) would
be permitted to be written down or divulged for the use of all men.... [The underlined statement is in contrast to
the Oral Law, which was always permitted to be written down in the form of notes and was later permitted by the Sanhedrin to
be codified in written form for public use.] ....These secrets, as has been explained, were orally communicated
by a few ablemen to others who were equally distinguished. Hence the principle applied by our teachers," The secrets of the
Law can only been trusted to him who is a councillor, a cunning artificer, etc." The natural effect of this practice was that
our nation lost the knowledge of those important disciplines. Nothing but a few remarks and allusions are to be found in the
Talmud and the Midrashim, like a few kernels enveloped in such a quantity of husk, that the reader is generally occupied with
the husk, and forgets that it encloses a kernel.