Ah, comfort! Seems a lot better as an oracle deck than a kabbalah deck.
I guess its a case of you say tomato and I say tomato.
More like tomato or potato, or banana
More oracle than tarot i'd agree.
I like the idea of imagery as illustrating
a meaning of the Hebrew letters, though not always the execution of such.
Not keen on the hanged man, its direct relation to tarot iconography makes it stick out in context to the rest, which are more allusive in their tarotic relationships. The sephiroth cards leave me cold. The best cards for me are those which illustrate a meaning of the names of the Hebrew letters in a clear and straightforward fashion, e.g., alef - bull/ox with a bull, and the bull is the central object, gimel-camel, chet - fence/wall, heh-window. In some of them though you have to search for the reference, it is lost in extraneous or scenic detail. If they were all as clear as for example chet-wall I think they would work better as oracle cards.
I appreciate the ideas behind these cards,though I am a little puzzled by the attributions; except for the hanged man and sephiroth cards, I generally like the images and the idea of illustrating the meaning of the letters, but the 'kabbalah' is awfully confusing in it is at odds with any kabbalistic tradtion (Judaic, Christian or Hermetic). Nonetheless I can see they
may work as an oracle deck (albeit their symbolism is too loaded, in terms of what I would consider an oracle deck), but as Kabbalistic Cards I think they represent too personal and individual a view for anyone working within a Kabbalistic tradition, and I am not sure the kabbalistic references (traditional or otherwise) would appeal to anyone working with oracle cards...?
I find them a bit of a mess, somewhat in concept but even more so in execution, lacking identity, and thus wouldn't be able to use them in readings, for fear the confusion would be reflected in such. But perhaps the explanations in his book(s) would help clear up my confusion.