← Volver a la ficha del textoLIBRARY OF JUDAIC LEARNING
UNDERSTANDING
JEWISH MYSTICISM
4 Source Reader
THE MERKABAH TRADITION
and
THE ZOHARIC TRADITION
By David R. Blumenthal
5 volume presents the texts of Sefer Yetsira, parts of the Pirkei
ikhalot, a few sections of the Zohar, and a page from a
janic Prayerbook, Many of these texts are translated here for
first time and all texts are accompanied by a commentary
{ by introductory and concluding notes which explicate the
t. The first unit introduces the Merkabah tradition, considers
Genesis story and Ezekiel’s vision, and then presents th +
er Yetsira and Pirkei Heikhalot texts, It concludes with a
Cussion of the character and subsequent history of this
ition, The second unit introduces the Zoharic tradition,
luding instructions on how to deciphera Zoharic text, Then,
ts on the themes of the persona! ty of God and the role of
n are presented, This is followed vy a chapter explaining and
Strating the Lurianic development of the Zohar and con
des with a discussion of the character and subsequent
tory of this tradition. In the Foreword and Afterword of
derstanding Jewis!i Mysticism such questions as the Jewish:
is of this material, its transcendent quality, the nature of its
gious language, the relationship of mysticism to spirituality,
1 the interplay between the mystical and the sabbinie tradi-
15 of Judaism are considered, The ~uthor identifies the terms
J images endemic to the subject and discerns the “mystical”
vell as the “Jewish” aspects of the traditions. His approach is
Hlicative (a background in Judaism is not required) and
prrogative
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Blumenthal occupies the Jay and Leslie Cohen Chair of
ale Stud at Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia,
UNDERSTANDING
JEWISH
MYSTICISM
A SOURCE HEADER
' "THE MERKABAH
PRADIFION AND THE
OHARIC TRADITION
HUNG
THE LIBRARY OF JUDAIC LEARNING
VOLUME II
EDITED BY
JACOB NEUSNER
University Professor
Professor of Religious Studies
The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies
BROWN UNIVERSITY
UNDERSTANDING
JEWISH
MYSTICISM
A Source Reader
The Merkabah Tradition
and
The Zoharic Tradition
by
DAVID R. BLUMENTHAL
The Jay and Leslie Cohen Professor of Judaic Studies
Emory University
KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC.
New York, 1978
© Copyright 1978
David R. Blumenthal
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Understanding Jewish mysticism.
(The Library of Judaic learning ; v. 2)
Bibliography: p.
Includes ind
1. Cabala—History. 2, Mysticism—Judaism, 3. Sefer Yezirah,
4. Hekhalot. I. Blumenthal, David R.
BMS26.US 296.1'6 78-6544
ISBN 0-87068-334-9
Manufactured in the United States of America
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ix
Preface .. xi
Foreword XV
UNIT | THE MERKABAH TRADITION
General intioditc Hon ov. «rarest ety tie aan eae beat 3
Doctrinal Summary
Introductione mastieeek ieee ateelete Sets ain aan 5
Jewish Mysticism .......... poreterer ge ie Lisa AES
The Secrets of Creation, Part One
Introduction .. . 9
10
12
The Secrets of Creation, Part Two
Introduction. 13
Sefer Yetsira: 15
Conclusion 45
The Visionary Ascent, Part One
Introduction .. . 47
Ezekiel’s Vision . ene 1. 49
Care) (eltTCi hs Tee Se es pee aa Fier tor cedar i 51
The Visionary Ascent, Part Two
Introduction ... 53
Pirkei Heikhalo 56
Conclusion 90
General Conclusion ..
28 be
UNIT Il THE ZOHARIC TRADITION
RIC MORANIHICOCHCIIONT. tc ctcetacse seine staat. (tsi aiiolera eres 101
Doctrinal Summary
Introduction
The Historical Setting and Literary Problems .. .
How to Decipher a Zoharic Text ...
The Personality of God
Ane Rose andthe: Ll Vig secacaiee yas atrad eae pate.
The Similitude of God .......
The Water and the Vessels .
The Luminous Glass
The Role of Man
MIROGUCUON ee miiean wrk Song werent eae tenes 141
The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil...
The Meaning of the Minyan
Sacrifice and the Heavenly Union . .
Conclusion ...
The Lurianic Development
Introduction
Introductory Note to a Lurianic Prayerbook
A Meditation Before Barukh She-'amar
Conclusion
General Conclusion ..
Afterword: :2i rss veadas deeds getdate at: eRe
For Further Reading ...
Index
For Ursula
Many women have done well
but you have excelled them all.
(Proverbs 31:29)
A good woman is a genuine gift.
(Talmud, Yevamot, 63b)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
‘The editor gratefully acknowledges permission to reprint excerpts from
various books as follows:
“Jewish Mysticism,”’ by G. Vajda, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th
edition, © 1974 by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.;
Selections from Zohar, The Book of Splendor, by G. Scholem, © 1949
by Schocken Books, Inc.;
The diagram of the sefirotic tree from Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism
by G. Scholem, © 1946, 1954; renewed 1974 by Schocken Books Inc.;
Selections from On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism by G. Scholem,
© 1965 by Schocken Books Inc.;
Selections from The New English Bible, © 1961 by the Delegates of the
Oxford University Press and the Syndics ‘of the Cambridge University
Press;
Selections from The Zohar by H. Sperling and J. Abelson, © 1934,
‘The diagram of the Sunset from an anonymous, uncopyrighted pamphlet
entitled Book of Formation: The Letters of our Father Abraham;
The diagram of the Circle from The Book of Formation by K. Stenring,
© 1970 by Ktav Publishing House.
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is threefold: first, to present in translation some of
the major texts of the Jewish mystical tradition; second, to help the
concerned reader reach an understanding of these texts without having to
cope with overly learned footnotes; and third, to deal with some general
questions about the nature of Jewish mysticism.
To accomplish the first purpose, I have chosen appropriate texts,
translating some of them from the original languages. Several of these texts
appear in English here for the first time.
To accomplish the second purpose, I have written introductory and
concluding notes which outline the problems of the texts and propose some
answers: Who wrote this text? For whom? Why? What kind of religious
experience motivated it? What is the nature of the language used? the
symbolism? What is the relationship of this text to previous texts in the
tradition? to other texts? What are the literary genres used in the text? And
so on. To help the reader reach an understanding of these texts, I have also
written an explicatory commentary to clarify the unknown terms, the
strange metaphors, the elementary textual problems, as well as to sustain
the conceptual continuity of the text. Depending upon the material, the
commentary is either interwoven with the text or presented as notes.
Throughout, I have tried to be scholarly without being inordinately
technical. I have also avoided lengthy presentations of the historical,
doctrinal, and literary-critical aspects of the texts because this has already
been done in a definitive way by G. Scholem in Major Trends in Jewish
Mysticism. No true understanding of the Jewish mystical tradition can be
attained without careful study of the works of this scholar. And in some
ways this book is intended as a reader to supplement the history of ideas
presented by Scholem. Thus, Unit I draws upon chapter 2 of Major Trends,
and Unit II draws upon chapters 5 and 6.
‘To accomplish the third purpose, I have asked the question: Tf one does
not arrange the material of the Jewish mystical tradition in chronological
order, how then should one arrange it? This, in turn, has led to another
series of questions; What are the characteristics of this material? What
xi
xii UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM,
sensitivities underlie it? What iy Jewish’ about Jewish mysticism? What
is “‘mystical’’ about Jewish mysticinm’? (These issues are also dealt with by
Scholem in chapter 1 of Major Trends.) How do Jewish magic and
theosophy relate (0 Jewish mysticism’? Is Jewish mysticism necessarily
personaliat’? What is the felationship between the mystic and the religious
Huthorition? And 90 Of. To insure that the answers will have some basis in
the data, and to involve the reader in the exercise of scholarly judgment, I
Have posed thene questions in the Foreword but I have answered them only
in the Afterword
The intelligent layman, the student of Judaic Studies, and the student of
Feligion should all find interest in this book, for it provides exposure to
original texts, with explicatory aids, and it deals with some of the general
Coneeptual problems peculiar to the study of religion.
This is nota book which can be read. It must be studied, for such is the
Mature of the material. Mysticism is itself an elusive and complex
phenomenon, and Jewish mysticism, because of its deep roots in Jewish
tradition, is a very difficult area to examine. The reader must be drawn into
studying, puzzling over, and then reflecting upon these texts. Otherwise,
he will not understand them or the people who wrote them. If the reader is
drawn into deeper study and consideration of these issues, the purposes of
this book will have been accomplished.
One may well ask: Why have I gone to so much trouble to make
available, at the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century, a
group of texts which are so remote from modern man, texts whose piety
and experience are probably very far from that of the reader. The answer
lies in the fact that religious traditions in general, and Judaism among them,
have many levels of existence, There is a certain sociological momentum to
a religious tradition because people and institutions have a tendency to
endure. There is also a certain intellectual momentum to a religious
tradition because ideas and the intellectual molding of reality are ongoing
processes. But ultimately the momentum of a religious tradition derives
from the irreducibly religious experiences that it generates. Some of these
experiences are more rarefied than others. Some are popular, and some are
for the elite. Yet in them all, there is the contact with the numinous, the
awareness of otherness, that is core and central to religious experience. As
I have written (in The Academic Study of Judaism, Second Series, by
J. Neusner, p. 88):
Manis a being who stands not only at the nexus of nature, the intellect,
and moral judgment but he is a being who stands at the nexus of the
mundane and the transcendent. Man stands not only in the sunlight of
this world but in the shadow of God. Man is not only the most powerful
Preface xiii
of the animals, he is also a little lower than the angels. Humankind is
the crown of Creation—the point where nature and society meet with
the Force that motivates them; where mind, feeling, and judgment
meet with the Presence which is their well-spring.
Or, as A. J. Heschel has so beautifully put it in Who Is Man (p. 66):
Existence is interspersed with suggestions of transcendence, and
openness to transcendence is a constitutive element of being human.
In presenting these texts—and they represent the experience of the elite,
not the masses—I hope that the reader will be able to grasp, even fleetingly,
some of the grandeur, power, and indeed some of the holiness that these
texts contain. The techniques and ideas may be strange to the twentieth
century, but some shadow of the experience should not be too far from our
awareness.
I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the many people who have helped
to make this book possible. I am grateful to my wife, Ursula, who supported
me inthe most discouraging moments, and who patiently typed the endless
drafts of this work. To her this book is dedicated. Iam particularly grateful,
too, to my inquiring, open, and intelligent students. Without their searching
hearts and minds, | should have become irited very early. | want also to
express here my special thanks to my teacher and distinguished senior
colleague, Jacob Neusner, who helped conceive the courses that generated
this book, who saved me from many errors, and who has consistently
encouraged and supported my efforts in this field. Life is a continuous
learning experience, and I cannot recount or repay all I have learned from
him.
Z
FOREWORD
The study of mysticism has a certain attraction for students in the last
quarter of the twentieth century. We live in an era in which we have very
little control over our destinies, and the prospect of some inner domain
which is truly our own is very engaging. We live in a world in which the
quantity of knowledge is so great that no one can master it, and the prospect
of a domain of personal consciousness which is truly ours, which is not
subject to the onslaught of complex modern living, is very tantalizing.
Perhaps this has always been the attraction of mysticism. Perhaps the holy
man or woman, the person who has mastered the pressures of everyday life
by discipline of the inner life, has always held fascination for the rest of us,
who see ourselves as suffering through existence. Yet it is not so. Perhaps it
was never so. Spirituality as a quality of living is won by hard work, by
knowledge, by practice. Talent helps, but it is not sufficient. One must be
haunted by the spiritual, fleeing it at times and greeting it joyously at others.
One must be pursued by the spiritual, seeking refuge from it as did Jonah,
and courageously confronting it as did Jeremiah. What is the “‘spiritual’’
which so many have sensed? What is the Reality from which so many have
flown, only to be pursued?
To define the ‘‘spiritual’” we must begin with language, for it is in words
that we communicate. We must begin by noting that mankind communi-
cates in many languages. I do not mean in many national tongues; I mean in
many languages—in the language of art, in the language of the body, in
music, in words. Yet evenin the realm of words, mankind communicates in
many languages—the language of beauty (aesthetics), the language of right
and wrong (morality), the language of organized thought (intellect), and
also the language of that which transcends human existence (the spiritual).
These languages are called ‘‘universes of discourse,’’ and each has its own
vocabulary. The words of each universe of discourse appear to define each
other, and they do not appear to be definable in terms of the other universes
of discourse. Thus, we would not normally try to define the beautiful as
right (i.e., by recourse to words from the universe of moral discourse). Nor
would we try to define the intellectual by describing it as beautiful (i.e., by
xv
a
xvi UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM,
recourse to the universe of aesthetics). A great deal of philosophy, in its
poorest sense, is devoted to an attempt to define one universe of discourse
by reducing it to another. It seems, rather, that the best method of
“definition” for any term is to determine the group of words into which it
best fits (its universe of discourse) a i then to see how it relates to other
terms within that realm. °°, 0%
Within the universe of felicia Bis spiritual) discourse, we, too, have
words. Ask yourself what the word awe means to you—being careful not to
reduce it to a psychological state or a social situation. Or ask yourself what
the word spiritual means, without reducing it to some stereotypic
definition. i yt ‘ail el
Do the same with wonder, mystery, faith, transcendent, /
blessed, joy, etc., always being careful not to be guilty of reductionism—
i.e., of reducing these words to the universes of psychology, philosophy,
anthropology, or some other realm. These are the words of the universe of
religious (spiritual) discourse.
The universe of spiritual discourse is also composed of images. What do
the following images convey: ‘‘He leadeth me beside still water,” ‘‘the
great Nothingness,”’ ‘'Throne,” ‘*Light,”’ ‘‘Universal Mind,”’. ‘the Be-
loved,” ‘‘Thou,” ” “Father,”’ etc.? These are images, and they too
comprise the universe of spiritual discourse, 1:3
All universes of discourse function by ‘ahalogy to our own experience.
We know “‘right”” because we have experiences of right and wrong. We
know ‘‘beautiful’’ because we have experiences of beautiful and ugly. And
we know “‘transcendent’’ because we have experiences, of greater and
lesser intensity, of the transcendent (and the demonic). Without experi-
ence, these terms are meaningless. With experience, they awaken an echo
in another human being such that he can respond to the word or image. The
other person can analogize from his own experience toward that which we
are saying. All such words, then, are indicative, allusive to an experiential
reality that is beyond them, Si 5A?
The word mysticism allude¢to one such realm. It alludes to the realm of
religious (spiritual) experience. It calls up the words and images of the
transcendent, the spiritual. And it is for this reason that mysticism
exercises its power. Its power derives from the experience—already had,
or anticipated—i psyche of the individual. As such, the word
mysticism is the wrong word. We really need the word spirituality, or
religiosity. This realm of discourse then is very broad, and it is sui generis.
It is a realm of experience and of language unto itself. How shall we
approach it?
We must approach the realm of the spiritual with a differentiation
between the “forms of spirituality” and the ‘‘dynamics of spirituality.”’
The ‘forms of spirituality”’ are those overt patterns of behavior which are
easily identified with the institutionalized forms of religion in a society
ay
n
\p
i
is
Foreword xvii
These patterns of behavior are no more than that: patterns, acts which the
external observer can observe and record. The ‘‘dynamics of spirituality,””
however, are the types of mental attitude and directing of inner energies by
which the individual establishes what he senses to be an awareness of, or a
contact with, transcendent reality. The “dynamics of spirituality” are, in
other words, the sum of attitudes and consciousness-directing techniques
by which the *‘forms of spirituality’’ are transformed from overt, mechani-
cal, social acts into acts with a transcendent dimension. These dynamics
are part of the consciousness of the person performing such an act, and they
are more difficult, but not impossible, for the external observer to identify.
W.C. Smith has caught this distinction nicely in his differentiation between
the “accumulated tradition’’ and the “‘living religious faith’’ within any
given tradition.
The “forms of spirituality”’ in rabbinic tradition are many: prayer, study,
mitsva, ethics, and so on. These “forms” can be acted out perfunctorily or
they can be infused with one, or more, of the ‘*dynamics of spirituality,”
and it is this infusion of mental attitude and directed inner energy which
makes the act of piety full of meaning for the rabbinic Jew. It is the “*Way”’
by which various external acts are transformed into religious experience.
Having in mind some notion of how we would go about identifying and
defining the “spiritual,” we can now propose the first problem which this
book is designed to solve. The first problem is the identification of the terms
and images of the spiritual (the transcendent) in these texts. The reader will
want to ask what words and images allude to the realm of experience that
we call “‘spiritual,”* “‘transcendent,’’ ‘‘religious’’? Are there differences
between the types of spirituality represented in each of these texts? What
is the underlying dynamic of spirituality in each case? How are they
different?
The second problem is the question when does the word mysticism apply
to this tradition? At what conceptual point, if there be any at all, can one
speak of Jewish mysticism as ‘‘mystical’’? Is there a difference between
spiritual experience and mystical experience? Are there analogies for such
acriterion from other traditions? These are very difficult questions, and not
every reader will be able to answer them.
There are other questions that must also be asked, and this book is
designed to provide answers to these questions too. What makes Jewish
mysticism ‘Jewish’? What elements seem to be distinctive to that
tradition? Or, to word the problematic more elegantly: What is the
relationship between Rabbinic Judaism and mysticism? How did mysti-
cism affect Rabbinic Judaism, and how did Rabbinic Judaism affect
mysticism? How does each element.circumscribe and set limits upon the
other? trea, 6"
These, then, are the problems of this book: (1) to identify the terms and
xviii UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM,
images in the texts which form the universe of spiritual discourse in the
Jewish mystical tradition and to distinguish the types of spirituality taught;
(2) to speculate upon the point at which one can legitimately use the word
mystical in relation to these texts; and (3) to determine what isJewish about
these texts, to determine the way they were influenced by, and in turn
influenced, Rabbinic Judaism. The reader should bear these problems in
mind throughout; in the Afterword, I will attempt some answers.
Unit One
The Merkabah Tradition
GENERAL/ INTRODUCTION
The world of Merkabah mysticism is one of the most dazzling of the
mystical worlds. It’ is a realm of fantastic heavenly beings, of bizarre
magical names, and of occult interactions between spirit and matter. In it,
closed gates to celestial palaces are opened by long, incomprehensible
incantations, and the dangers which rise up against man as he enters the
realm of the supernatural are met with seals of truth. It is also a world of
visions—visions which are terrifying and illuminating all at once.
The selections given here are samples of two types of this literature: one
deals with the secrets of Creation, and the other with the inner vision of the
mystic. Throughout, there are a series of questions that the reader ought to
bear in mind: First, for whom was this literature intended? And, how was it
sed? Second, what are its main characteristics? And what is its context?
hird, what motivated it? What feelings and human insights generated this
strange world? How and why did it become holy literature? And fourth,
what became of this literature? What is its place in later Jewish mysticism?
‘The General Conclusion to this unit will attempt some answers.
1
DOCTRINAL SUMMARY
Introduction
The period of Merkabah mysticism is quite extended. It may be said to
begin in the century before the turn of the eras, and it continued until the
tenth century of this era. Merkabah mysticism, then, covers approximately
a millennium. To appreciate this fact, one may recall that all of English
literature is barely a millennium old. Furthermore, the literature of
Merkabah mysticism is not uniform. It includes wild apocalyptic specula-
tion, monastic manuals, obscure numerological systems, magical incanta-
tions, as well as hy! Ke? diitaiaies. Different groups, at different periods,
under different influences, composed this literature. Also, many authors
and editors worked on each text over several centuries.
What is this literature? Who wrote it, and where? What are its main
themes? In this selection, Professor G. Vajda of the Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes in Paris, one of the leading authorities of this century in the
field of Jewish mysticism, presents his conclusions about the literature of
Merkabah mysticism. He sets forth its context and outlines its main
themes. The reader will want to make note of this framework and should
carefully list the technical terms used, as they are indispensable for the
comprehension of this material.
The scholarly problems connected with these texts are enormous: the
manuscripts do not agree, the meanings are not always known to us, and
the sources—Biblical, rabbinic, and Hellenistic—for specific materials are
not easily identified. The reader who wishes further information should
consult: G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, chapter 2; idem,
Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), and M. Smith, ‘Observations
on Hekhalot Rabbati,”’ in Biblical and Other Studies, ed, A. Altmann
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 142-60.
5
Sturge berry
Jewish Mysticism
by G. VAIDA
The centuries that followed the return from the Babylonian Exile in the 6th
century B.c.E. (Before the Common Era, or B.C.) witnessed the growth and
intensification of reflection on the intermediary beings between man and
God, of meditation on the divine appearances whose special place of
occurrence had formerly been the most sacred part of the Jerusalem
Temple, of speculation on the coming into being and organization of the
universe and on the creation of man. None of these themes was absent from
the Bible, which was held to be divinely revealed, but each had become the
object of a constant ideological readjustment that also involved the
infiltration of concepts from outside and reaction against them. The
speculative taste of Jewish thinkers between the 2nd century B.c.£. and the
Ist century c.£. took them in many different directions: angelology
(doctrine about angels) and its counterpart demonology (doctrine about
; mythical geography and uranography, description of the heavens;
speculation on the divine manifestations—which had as background the
Jerusalem Temple worship and the visions of the moving ‘*Throne”’ (the
“Chariot,’’ Merkava) in the prophecy of Ezekiel; on the double origin of
man, a being formed of the earth but also the “image of God’’; on the end of
time; on resurrection (a concept that appeared only toward the end of the
biblical period); and on rewards and punishments in the afterlife.
The literary crystallization of all this ferment was accomplished in
writings, such as the book of Btioch, of which Pharisaic, (rabbinica
Judaism—which became the normative Jewish tradition after the Roman
conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple (70
C.E.)—Tetained almost nothing and even the vestiges of which it tended to
obliterate in its own writings; the Talmud and the Midrash (rabbinical legal
and interpretative literature) touched these themes only with great reserve,
often unwillingly and more often in a spirit of negative polemic.
As early as the Ist century c.£., and probably even before the national
calamity of 70, there were certainly sages or teachers recognized by the
religious community for whom meditation on the Scriptures—especially
the creation narrative, the public revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai,
From G. Vajda, “Jewish Mysticism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. 10, pp
184-85,
Wa ase
The Merkabah Tradition Bc
the Merkava vision of Ezekiel, the Song of Solomon—and reflection on the
end of time, resurrection, and the afterlife were not only a matter of
exegesis and of attaching new ideas to texts recognized to be of divine
origin but also a matter of inner experience. It was, however, probably in
other circles that speculation on the invisible world was engaged in and
where the search for the means of penetrating it was carried out. It is
undeniable that there exists a certain continuity between the apocalyptic
visions (i.e., of the cataclysmic advent of God’s Kingdom) and documents
of certain sects (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the writings. preserved in Hebrew,
of the ‘‘explorers of the supernatural world” (Yorde Merkava). The latter
comprise ecstatic hymns, descriptions of the ‘‘dwellings’’ (hekhalot)
located between the visible world and the ever-inaccessible divinity, whose
transcendence is paradoxically expressed by anthropomorphic descrip-
tions consisting of inordinate hyperboles (Shi‘ur goma, ‘Divine Dimen-
sions’’). In addition, a few documents have been preserved that attest to
the existence of methods and practices having to do with the initiation of
carefully chosen persons who were made to undergo tests and ordeals in
accordance with psychosomatic criteria borrowed from physiognomy (art
of determining character from physical, especially facial, traits). Some
theurgic efficacy was attributed to these practices, and there was some
contamination from Egyptian, Hellenistic, or Mesopotamian magic. (A
curious document in this respect, rich in pagan material, is the Sefer
ha-razim, the ‘“Treatise on Mysteries,’’ which was discovered in 1963.) In
this extrarational domain, there are many similarities between concepts
reflected in unquestionably Jewish texts and the documents of contem-
porary non-Jewish esoterism, to the point that it becomes difficult,
sometimes impossible, to distinguish the giver from the receiver. Two facts
are certain however. On the one hand Gnosticism never ceases to exploit
in its own way biblical themes (such as the tale of creation and speculation
on angels and demons) that have passed through Judaism, whatever their
original source may have been; on the other hand, though Jewish esoterism
may borrow this or that motif from ancient gnosis or syncretism (fusion of
various faiths) and may even raise to a very high rank in the hierarchy of
being a supernatural entity such as the angel Metatron, also. known as
“little Adonai” (.e., little Lord or God), it still remains inflexibly mono-
theistic and rejects the Gnostic concept of a bad or simply inferior demiurge
who is responsible for the creation and governing of the visible world.
Finally, it is noteworthy that during the centuries that separate the Tal-
mudic period (2nd to Sth centuries A.D.) from the full resurgence of Jewish
esoterism in the middle of the 12th century, the texts that have been
preserved progressively lose their density and affective authenticity and
become reduced to the level of literary exercises that are more grandilo-
quent than substantial.
8 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
Sefer yetzira. Inthe ancient esoteric literature of Judaism, a special place
must be given to the Sefer yerzira (“Book of Creation’’), which deals with
cosmogony and cosmology (the origin and order of the universe). Creation,
it affirms with a clearly anti-Gnostic insistence, is the work of the God of
Israel and took place on two different levels: the ideal, immaterial level and
the concrete level. This was done according to a complex process that
brings in the ten numbers (sefirot, singular sefira) of decimal notation and
the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The ten numbers are not to be taken
merely as arithmetical symbols: they are cosmological factors, the first of
whichis the spirit of God—with all the ambiguities that this term ruah has in
Hebrew—while the nine others seem to be the archetypes of the three
elements (air, water, fire) and the spatial dimensions (up, down, and the
four cardinal points). After having been manipulated either in their graphic
representation or in combination, the letters of the alphabet, which are
considered to be adequate transcriptions of the sounds of the language, are
in turn instruments of creation.
The basic idea of all this speculation is that speech (that is, language
composed of words, which are in turn composed of letters/sounds) is not
only a means of communication but also an operational agent destined to
produce being—it has an ontological value. This value, however, does not
extend to every form of language; it belongs to the Hebrew language alone.
The universe that is produced by means of the sefirot and the letters is
constituted according to the law of correspondences between the astral
world, the seasons that mark the rhythm of time, and man in his
psychosomatic structure.
The “Book of Creation” certainly does not proceed entirely from
biblical data and rabbinical reflection upon them; certain Greek influences
are discernible, even in the vocabulary. What is important, however, is its
influence on later Jewish thought, down to the present time: philosophers
and esoterists have vied with one another in commentating it, pulling it in
their own direction, and adjusting it to their respective ideologies. Even
more important is the fact that Kabbala borrowed a great part of its
terminology from it (sefira, among others), naturally making semantic
adaptations as required.
The speculation traced above developed during the first six centuries of
the Common Era, both in Palestine and in Babylonia (later called Iraq);
Babylonian Judaism had its own social and ideological characteristics,
which put it in opposition to Palestinian Judaism in various aspects,
including esoterism as well as other manifestations of the life of the spirit.
The joint doctrinal influence of the two centres was to spread during the
period from the mid-8th to 11th century among the Jews established in
North Africa and Europe; mystical doctrines also filtered in, but very little
is known about the circumstances and means of their penetration.
2
THE SECRETS OF CREATION, PART ONE
Introduction
Jewish tradition begins ‘‘In the beginning,’ for in that moment, time and
eternity, spirit and matter, the infinite and the finite met. What happened
‘‘In the beginning’? How did it happen? Is there some way to lift the veil
and get a glimpse of the Absolute Power that brought being into being?
The author (or authors) of Sefer Yetsira did have an interpretation of the
process of Creation. No one can say, of course, whether it is ‘‘correct,’’ but
the author maintains that, using his interpretation, one can oneself become
a ‘“‘creator,”’ though on a much smaller scale. In other words, the Sefer
Yetsira proposes not only an interpretation of ‘‘In the Beginning”’ but alsoa
secret teaching of creative magic. It teaches, properly understood, the
secret of Creation and of creation, of the Maker and the maker.
In order to understand this teaching, we must begin ‘‘In the Beginning,””
and, so, the first reading is taken from Genesis 1:1—2:5. The questions to be
asked here are: What is missing from this account? Where do the angels
come from? Was the water created? What else seems not to have been
created? What motivated the process and moment of Creation? Why did
God do it? What is the “‘image’’ of God in which man was made? And,
perhaps most important: What does it mean to say **And God said’’? What
is speech? How did it operate? What earthly figure is the metaphoric
analogy of the God of Genesis?
Genesis
In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth
was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a
mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters. God said, “Let there
be light,” and there was light; and God saw that the light was good, and he
separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness
night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day.
God said, ‘‘Let there be a vault between the waters, to separate water
from water.’’ So God made the vault, and separated the water under the
vault from the water above it, and so it was; and God called the vault
heaven. Evening came, and morning came, a second day.
God said, ‘‘Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so
that dry land may appear’’; and so it was. God called the dry land earth, and
the gathering of the waters he called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Then God said, ‘**Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the
earth plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according
to its kind.’’.So it was; the earth yielded fresh growth, plants bearing seed
according to their kind and trees bearing fruit each with seed according to
its kind; and God saw that it was good. Evening came, and morning came, a
third day.
God said, ‘*Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate day from
night, and let them serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and
years. Let them also shine in the vault of heaven to give light on earth.’’ So
it was; God made the two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the
lesser to govern the night; and with them he made the stars. God put these
lights in the vault of heaven to give light on earth, to govern day and night,
and to separate light from darkness; and God saw that it was good. Evening
came, and morning came, a fourth day.
God said, ‘Let the waters teem with countless living creatures, and let
birds fly above the earth across the vault of heaven.** God then created the
great sea-monsters and all living creatures that move and swarm in the
waters, according to their kind, and every kind of bird; and God saw that it
was good. So he blessed them and said, ‘‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the
waters of the seas; and let the birds increase on land.”’ Evening came, and
morning came, a fifth day.
God said, ‘‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their
kind: cattle, reptiles, and wild animals, all according to their kind.”’ So it
was; God made wild animals, cattle, and all reptiles, each according to its
kind; and he saw that it was good. Then God said, **Let us make man in our
From The New English Bible, pp. 1-2.
The Merkabah Tradition aT
image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle,
all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” So God
created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and
female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “*Be fruitful
and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the
birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.”’ God
also said, ‘‘I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and
every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food. All
green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the birds of heaven,
and to all reptiles on earth, every living creature.”’ So it was; and God saw
all that he had made, and it was very good. Evening came, and morning
came, a sixth day.
Thus heaven and earth were completed with all their mighty throng. On
the sixth day God completed all the work he had been doing, and on the
seventh day he ceased from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and
made it holy, because on that day he ceased from all the work he had set
himself to do. 3
This is the story of the making of heaven and earth when they were
created.
Conclusion
The text of Genesis leaves many many questions unanswered: First, the
waters, the darkness, the abyss, the mighty wind, and the angels, devils.
and all the other heavenly ‘‘hosts” do not appear to have been created at
all. Were they co-eternal with God or did He create them? If He created
them, when did He do it? Second, how God created the world is not
specified except by the phrase ‘‘And He said.” But how did speech, which
is immaterial, generate a material world? The earthly analogy of the
Creator of Genesis is the fully autocratic king who commands and others
obey. But was He notalso an artisan, a craftsman, of His work? Third, we
know nothing of God’s motivation in creating the world from the Genesis
story. And fourth, we have nothing but sheer speculation to use as an
answer to the common element in man and God, the “image”’ of God in
which man was made.
The Sefer Yetsira tried to answer some of these unanswered questions
and we turn to it now. ;
3
THE SECRETS OF CREATION, PART TWO
Introduction
The term in Rabbinic Judaism for the theme of creation is Ma’aseh
Nereshit, which is bust translated as ‘The Labor of Creation” or “The
Mechanics of Creation.” It is a term which encompasses rabbinic
speculation on the mysterious beginning of all things as well as instruction
lov creative magic. Such speculation was kept very secret, and as a result,
only hints and fragments of it have come down to us. One such fragment is
presented here, the Sefer Yetsira, or Book of Formation. (For the
background to Sefer Yetsira and other such fragments, see chap. | above,
‘Doctrinal Summary,”’ and the sources cited there.) Before beginning to
study this book, we must understand something of its context, its purpose,
and its structure.
Sefer Yetsira has three important contexts. First, there is the Biblical
‘ontext, for Sefer Yetsira was, at least in part, intended as an explication of
the text of Genesis. Some of the unanswered questions of the Creation
story as told in the Bible were intended to be answered by the speculations
vontained in the Sefer Yetsira. Second, there is the context of late
wiliquity, for the Sefer Yetsira is replete with concepts and ideas that are
common to that milieu. Thus, numbers and letters have a central
importance here, as they had in the ancient Pythagorean schools. The full
estrapolation of this dimension still awaits further scholarly study. And
third, both these contexts are filtered through the rabbinic world-view, that
js, they are interwoven within the rabbinic view of the world as a spiritual
nd material order, governed by a divine Torah. Here, too, more scholarly
analysis is needed for a full appreciation of this synthesis.
The purposes of the Sefer Yetsira appear to be two: the explanation of
some of the aspects of the Genesis story, and instruction in creative magic.
Given these contexts and purposes, there are many questions to be
eked. First, by whom and for whom was this book written? Who would
write or read it, and why? Second, how does this book supplement Genesis
1? Does it make things clearer? What questions are still unanswered?
13
14 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
Where is God in all this? What earthly figure here is the metaphoric analogy
of God? Third, I have referred to this book as a text in creative magic. How
did that magic work? Why did it work? Who used it, and why? And fourth,
we want to bear in mind the general questions of this whole unit: What are
the characteristics of this material? What kind of impression does it leave
the reader with? And what motivates this kind of text? What is its secret?
The structure of Sefer Yetsira is as follows: Chapter | describes the
sefirot.. Chapter 2 describes the origin and function of the twenty-two
letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 deal with the three
types of letters contained in the alphabet and their respective functions in
Creation. Chapter 6 is the conclusion. Each chapter is broken down into
units, and each of these is called a mishna (pl. mishnayot), which simply
means, “‘a unit of study.” This is the same term used in the legal rabbinic
materials.
The translation given here is my own, based upon the Hebrew texts in
L. Goldschmidt, Das Buch der Schépfung (Darmstadt, 1969), and Sefer
Yetsira, anon. ed. (Jerusalem, 1964). I have also used the German
translation of Goldschmidt; the English translation of K. Stenring, The
Book of Formation (1923; reprinted., New York: Ktav, 1970); and the
English translation of an anonymous, uncopyrighted pamphlet which was
sent to me through the mail. The translation is accompanied by notes,
which are my own, and by diagrams where I felt they would be helpful. As
with many such texts, there are parts which I do not understand, and I have
indicated them in the notes.
Sefer Yetsira: Text and Commentary
CHAPTER 1
|, By means of thirty-two wonderful paths of wisdom, YH, YHVH of
Hosts, ELOHIM of Israel, Living ELOHIM, and Eternal King, EL
SHADDAI, Merciful and Gracious, High and Uplifted, Who inhabits
Eternity, exalted and holy is His Name, engraved. And He created
His universe by three principles: by border and letter and number.
2. There are ten intangible sefirot and twenty-two letters as a foundation:
three are Mothers, and seven double, and twelve simple.
Mustuna 1: There are three points to note here: (1) The thirty-two wonderful
(or hidden) paths of wisdom are the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew
viphabet plus the first ten numbers of the decimal system. (2) The
sultiplying of names and terms seen here is one of the characteristics of
sabbinic Hebrew style. Traces of it can also be seen in the liturgy and the
Jewal literature. Here, several names of God are enumerated. YHVH is the
Setragrammaton, i.e., the most holy and most personal name of God. It is
Weually rendered Yahweh or Jehovah in English. (3) The last three terms
san be translated many ways. This rendering is good, but one must
\nderstand ‘*border”’ to mean “boundedness.”’ It becomes clear, then,
that God created the world—i.e., made it bordered, bounded, finite—by
the use of letters and numbers. Bear in mind that letters and numbers, in
niiquity, are not just signs or symbols but have real existence outside our
winds and, in this case, are also holy.
Misuna 2: The Hebrew alphabet has twenty-two letters, and by the
ecepted rules of grammar, seven pairs of the letters have the same shape,
with one member of each pair having an (extra) dot in the middle. The dot
changes the pronunciation of the letter slightly (see below, chap. 4 of Sefer
Yetsir ‘hese are the ‘‘seven doubles.” By the accepted rules, twelve
letters have no dotted pairs. These are called “simple letters”’ (cf. below,
chup. 5 of Sefer Yetsira). That leaves three letters which the author chose,
hy means not clear to us, to single out. These he calls the “*Mothers”’ (cf.
chap. 3 of Sefer Yetsira).
15
16 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM,
3. There are ten intangible sefirot: the number of the ten fingers, five
opposite five, and in the center is set the covenant of the Only One with
the word of the tongue, and with the convenant of nakedness.
4. There are ten intangible sefirot: ten and not nine, ten and not eleven.
Understand with wisdom, and be wise with understanding, test them
and explore them, know, count, and form. Understand the matter
thoroughly, and set the Creator in His place. He alone is the Former
and Creator. There is no other. His attributes are ten and infinite.
5. There are ten intangible sefirot whose measure is ten without end:
depth of First, and depth of Last, depth of Good, and depth of
Evil, depth of Height, and depth of Abyss, depth of East, and
depth of West, depth of North, and depth of South.
Lord, Only One, EL, faithful King, rules all of them from His holy
Dwelling-Place unto Eternity
MisHNa 3: This mishna seeks to evoke some visual image although it is not
Clear what the image is. The “‘covenant of the Only One” or “‘covenant of
the Unique One” appears to be composed of the other two elements. One
clement is the ‘word of the tongue,’’ i.e., speech, and the other is the
“covenant of nakedness,” i.e., the circumcised male organ. The sym-
bolism, then, seems twofold: (1) the covenants of the flesh and of the spirit
are the main tools of creation, the one human, the other divine; and (2) the
Sex organ and speech are the metaphors par excellence for the creative
process.
MisHNA 4: This is a magical mishna. First, the number ten is precisely set
and proper wisdom evoked. Then, the reader is told “test” and “‘explore””
(and in some manuscripts also **know, calculate, and form”’)—i.e., to try to
combine letters and numbers and to ‘“‘create’’ as God did. Such activity
was, in fact, known in the Judaism of late antiquity. By it, some rabbis were
reported to be able to create small animals and homunculi (animated clay
men who cannot, however, speak). In performing these acts, the
practitioner ‘‘sets the Creator in His place,” i.e., becomes (in a small way)
like him. The other magical mishnayot are 2:4, 5; 4:5, 10; 6:7 (i.e., chap. 2,
mishna 4 and mishna 5, etc.).
MISHNA 5: Here, the basic dimensions and ‘‘borders’’ of reality are
delineated: the physical dimension bounded by the six directions of the
sphere, the temporal dimension bounded by beginning and end, and—
strange though it may sound to modern ears—the moral dimension of
reality, which is as basic as the physical and temporal dimensions. Note
that the temporal precedes the moral, and that both precede the physical.
The Merkabah Tradition 17
6, There are ten intangible sefirot whose appearance is like lightning and
whose limits are infinite. His word is in them in their to-and-fro
movement, and they run at His command like the whirlwind, and
before His Throne they bow down.
). There are ten intangible sefirot whose end is fixed in their beginning, as
the flame is bound to the coal. Know, count, and form. For the Lord is
the Only One, and the Former is One. He has no second, and before
‘one what can you count?
4. There are ten intangiable sefirot. Shut your mouth from speaking and
your heart from thinking. And if your mouth runs to speak and your
heart to reflect, return to the place, for thus it is said: *‘And the living
creatures ran and returned,”’ and upon this word a covenant is cut.
% ‘There are tén intangible sefirot. One: Spirit of living ELOHIM, blessed
and blest is the Name of Him Who lives forever. (Sound, sp it, and
speech, and speech is the Holy Spirit.) His beginning has no beginning,
and His end has no end.
oo aS
Mistina 6: The images here are taken from Ezekiel 1.
Misia 7; The first image here, ‘‘end . . . fixed in their beginning,” is
eusily decipherable: a circle, which is the perfect geometric form, is
generated. The second image—the flame and the coal—is a richer image:
11) Without the coal, there is no flame (i.e., God is indispensable to the
sefivot). (2) The flame is the coal in another form (i.e., the sefirot parti
{i the divinity of God in some way). (3) The flame fluctuates. And so on.
The reader can extend his literary imagination here.
Misuna 8: The Hebrew for ‘‘shut your mouth”? is belom pikha, and some
‘ommentators connect belom with belimah, the term used to describe the
sefirot. If this is correct, one should translate: “the ten ineffable sefirot”’
oy “the ten self-contained sefirot.”’ (The rendering ‘‘intangible”’ derives
from an artificial division of the word belimah into beli and mah, meaning
without any thing.”’) Two other points are worth making here: (1) Note
{ht i is the heart, and not the brain, which is the organ of thinking and
sonaciousness. This is true in other rabbinic sources too, where one is told
jo ‘direct one’s heart,” i.e., consciousness, to God. (2) The ‘*covenant”’ is
the agreement of the initiates not to speak openly of the mysteries. It isan
wath of secrecy.
Mini's 9: The enumeration of the sefirot begins. Each constitutes a realm
within which the Creator carries out a specific creative activity. The first
four follow the text of Genesis: ‘And the spirit of God hovered. . .”’ (Gen.
| 2), And God said,” i.e., He created with words (Gen. 1:3), the “water”
18 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
10. Two: Spiritual Air from Spirit. He engraved and hewed out in it
twenty-two letters as a foundation: three Mothers, and seven double,
and twelve simple, and they are of One Spirit.
11. Three: Spiritual Water from Spiritual Air. He engraved and hewed out
in it chaos and disorder, mud and mire. He engraved it like a kind of
furrow. He raised it like a kind of wall. He surrounded it like a kind of
ceiling. He poured snow over them and it became earth, as it is said,
“For He said to the snow, Be earth” [Job 37:6].
12. Four: Spiritual Fire from Spiritual Water. He engraved and hewed out
in ‘it the Throne of Glory, Seraphim, and Ophanim, and Hayot, and
Ministering Angels. And from the three of them He established his
Dwelling-Place, as it is said: ‘Who makes winds His messengers, the
flaming fire His ministers”’ [Ps. 104:4].
(Gen. 1:2, 6), and the “fire,” which, according to the rabbis, was created on
the second day (Gen. 1:6-8). The phrase in parenthesis is not in all
manuscripts and may be out of place.
MIsHNA 10: There are three terms here: “the Spirit of living Elohim”
(Ruah Elohim Hayyim), “Spiritual Air’? (Ruah), and ‘Elemental Air’’
(Ayir). The first term refers to the creative spirit of God, which is, however,
not identical with God Himself. The third term comes from standard
ancient physics. It refers to air, one of the “Four Elements”’ which encircle
the Earth (cf. chap. 3 of Sefer Yetsira). The middle term is complicated. It is
intangible, an offspring of Spirit yet different from it, and parallel to water
and fire. The function is clear; it is the realm in which the holy letters are
created. Accordingly, I translate ‘Spiritual air’? to capture its divine yet
pune properties and to set it in associative sequence with the other
sefirot.
MISHNA 11: Within this realm, the tohu va-vohu of Genesis 1:2 is created.
Note that, all through this section, the Creator’s activities are described as
“‘hewing and engraving” or, better perhaps, as ““hewing and stamping” (as
one stamps an image on a coin). The three metaphors may refer to different
visual images of the same action or to three different types of creative
activity. The initiates, presumably, knew.
Misuna 12: The Seraphim are fiery angels (Isaiah 6:2). The Hayot are the
complex holy creatures, and the Ophanim are the wheels with eyes, both in
Ezekiel’s vision. The rabbis taught that both prophets saw all the heavenly
beings. Note that God’s ‘*Dwelling-Place’’—i.c., the seven palaces of the
The Merkabah Tradition 19
|3, He chose three of the simple letters, sealed them with Spirit and set
them into His great Name, YHV, and sealed through them six
extremities. Fiv He turned upward and sealed it
with HYV. Eight: He sealed West; He turned backward and sealed it
with HVY. Nine: He sealed South; He turned right and sealed it with
VYH. Ten: He sealed North; He turned left and sealed it with VHY.
\4. These ten intangible sefirot are One— Spirit of Living ELOHIM,
Spiritual Air from Spirit, Spiritual Water from Spiritual Air, Spiritual
Fire from Spiritual Water, Height, Abyss, East, West, North, and
South.
seven heavens (cf.below, ‘The Chapters on Ascent’’)—are made from the
thee “spiritual elements.”*
Misa 13: Having generated the four realms (Spirit, Spiritual Air,
Spiritual Water, and Spiritual Fire), and having created within these realms
the letters, the primal chaotic matter of the universe, and the heavenly
snessengers, God now sets boundaries to space. He uses three letters of the
Jetragrammaton (His Holy Name), which He infuses with Spirit. He then
» senls'’—sets limits—to the six dimensions of space. Note that God faces
ean
(oncLupiNG Note: Whatare the sefirot and what is their role in Creation?
The sefirot are not stages in the progressive revelation of the Godhead.
Wuther, they are realms generated by God within which He performs His
various: tive acts. He acts within them as an artisan, forming and
shaping His products. These realms are real, and they are, at least partially,
divine. However, there are still several open questions. The text does not
jndicute where the sefirot come from, or how they proceed from one
another, We also cannot fully resolve the conflict of imagery between
mishna 5 and mishna 14.
What is the relationship of this chapter to Genesis 1? It supplies answers
io the following questions: Where did the ‘‘chaos’’ come from? (It is not
co-eternal with God. It was created out of Spiritual Water.) How did God
‘alk! (He didn’t, He created letters from Spiritual Air and used them, as
wy artisan, to build the world.) What happened before Creation? (God
generated the realms, the tools, and the boundaries of Creation.) Where do
nuels come from? (From the Spiritual Fire.) Is this version of Creation
More elegant in some way than that of Gen jd
Note that the initiate, too, can “‘create,” on a smaller scale.
CHAPTER 2
|. Twenty-two letters are the foundation: three Mothers, seven double,
and twelve simple.
lhree Mothers Aleph, Mem, Shin: their foundation is the scale of merit
and the scale of guilt, with the tongue being that which tips the balance
between them.
Three Mothers Aleph, Mem, Shin: Mem stands still, Shin hisses,
Aleph is Air which tips the balance between them.
Pwenty-two letters are the foundation: He engraved them, He hewed
them out, He combined them, He weighed them, and He set them at
opposites, and He formed through them everything that is formed and
everything that is destined to be formed.
\. Twenty-two letters are the foundation: He engraved them through
sounds, He hewed them out in Spiritual Air, He set them through the
mouth in five places:
Aleph, Chet, Hey, and Ayin in the throat,
Gimel, Yod, Kaf, and Kof on the palate,
Dalet, Tet, Lamed, Nun, and Tav with the tongue,
Zayin, Samech, Shin, Resh, and Tzade with the teeth,
Bet, Vav, Mem, and Pey with the lips
—
Misia 1: Neither of the images here is clear. The first seems to indicate
{hl guilt and merit are the basic moral dimensions of the universe (see
whap, 1c fer Yetsira) and that it is speech (the tongue) that determines
which shall prevail. The second image is even less clear. Some take itasa
\inuulstic reference. Perhaps some breathing technique is hinted at: breathe
out (Mem, and translate “‘is silent’), breathe in (Shin), and hold one’s
Hreath (Aleph, a glottal stop). Perhaps some incantational procedure is
meant
Misti a 3: The sounds of these letters are produced at the points indicated.
21
He —
22 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
58 oo fay Oe ee ee
eB of gh a8 yk a% ze? 28 2% 88
gf a2 of at n® 42 g8 38 9% 88
g8 gf ct at ne s% aF a2 2% 2?
g8 2 a% 2® x® a2 ak a® 08 38
93 af a8 23 8 st se 2° a8 3
of pt gh g3 a® s@ s? 2? 2% 2°
3h Ze fil A xe gf ae gh 28 38
gt gf ae up? ga? 5? a& 2% 5?
eB g2 gh ye xk n® a? 8% gh ye
z x@ a2 uf 2? a? e® gf gd ah 28
~ 99 2 g@ g2 sh 2? af Re 2% 88
gh gf g@ gf st g¥ a2 ge 8% 28
gf gf cf 2 ak 2% a2 gP 02 pe
gk of gh af wl a a? 28 28 8*
g® gh g2 2 a3 g® s2 28 gf 25
gh @ g2 g® ats a2 2? 3% 8%
of a® gE gh gt a8 a2 eg? 9? BF
of gf ce z% 38 g g2 2F 2% 2%
nh g@ gf 2% gf st 22 a® 98 3°
wo af gf a8 a8 a? a2 2% 98 g®
Br % Epp le liee ipa tog tone ei
gh w® gf gk gd oh ‘gh gt 9h
= 4 8
iT
:estaaez
pAPMIOF
NOLLWLOS
le
gONWAGY
t
TIVM SHL
The Merkabah Tradition 23
4, Twenty-Two letters are the foundation:
He set them in a wheel, like a kind ‘of wall, with two hundred and
thirty-one gates. And the wheel rotates forward and backward. And
the sign of the thing is:
there is no goodness above pleasure (NG) and
—there is no evil below pain (NG’).
§. How did He combine them, weigh them and set them at opposites?
Aleph with all of them, and all of them with Aleph,
fet with all of them, and all of them with Bet.
{t rotates in turn, and thus they are intwo hundred and thirty-one gates.
And everything that is formed and everything that js spoken goes out
from one term.
Misinayor 4 and 5: The “gates”” described here are the gates to creative
wetivity, and the assumption is that, ifone cancombine the letters properly,
one can reenact the creative process used by God Himself in the
formation of the world. To understand this text, one must distinguish
Hetween the “basic arrangement” of the letters in “combinations” and
Hyutes,”* and the ‘‘basic forms” by which the arrangement is presented, the
wall’) and the “wheel.”
The “combinations” are formed by combining each letter with all the
other letters in the alphabet. This yields 462 “combinations” (22 letters
1) other letters). By eliminating all the mirror images (€.8., AB, BA), one
aitives at the required 231 “combinations.” Alternately, one can combine
such letter of the alphabet only with all those letters which follow it. Using
thw [inglish alphabet, this generates the series: AB, AC, AD,..- BC, BD,
Wi... .XY,XZ.-- YZ. This is the meaning of the text + Aleph with all of
ihem, Bet with all of them,”’ etc. However, the text also says, “All ofthem
with Aleph, all of them with Bet,’’ etc. So one must construct another set of
‘combinations,” using the same principle but beginning at the end of the
aiphubet. Again using the English alphabet, this generates the series: ZY,
yx, ZW ... YX, yw, YV...CB, CA... BA. This pairing of letters,
forward and reverse, then, generates the “<combinations.””
The ‘gates’ are formed by pairing the pairs of the forward and reverse
sgmbinations.”” This js illustrated in Figure 1, where the upper line
fepresents the reverse ‘‘combinations,” and the lower line represents the
forward “eombinations.”” So much for the “basic arrangement’? of the
letters
Ax to the “basic forms,” the word ‘wall’ suggests a chart, and Figure 1
Miustrates tha The word *+wheel’’ suggests a spokelike arrangement, and
Pigures 2 and 3 show the forward and reverse combinations displayed in
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYST! The Merkabah Tradition
4
a
i
=
a
fs
oy
iS
g
i
g
2
mi
q
a
s
*e
ze Povonr™
% “oz ome —
Te OS eee,
26 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
6. He formed substance from chaos and made that which is not into that
which is. And He hewed out great columns from Air which is not
tangible. And this is the sign:
He looks and speaks, and He makes everything that is formed and
everything that is spoken with One term. And the sign of the thing
is twenty-two needs in one body.
that form. My thanks to Harry Sparks and Russ Burns of the Brown
University computer labs for their help.
But what is the key? Which is the magical chart (or magical position of
the wheels)? The text hints that when ‘NG and NG’ have been brought into
some kind of balance, the ‘‘proper”’ position has been found. By shifting
the ‘‘combinations”’ of the ‘‘gates”’ eighteen times to the right, one arrives
at the “‘proper’’ point, i.e., the point where "NG and NG’ appear. This is
illustrated in Figures 4, 5, 6 at the arrows. Again, my thanks to Harry
Sparks, who designed the program that provided the solution to this ancient
puzzle. (N.B. The transliteration of the Hebrew characters varies from
figure to figure because of the limits of the computer.)
The ‘‘one term” referred to here is probably the alphabet.
For another interpretation of this magic circle, see Figure 7, taken from
Stenring’s translation. | do not know how to read this diagram accurately
despite Stenring’s explanations.
MISHNA 6; Here, God begins to make concrete things from chaos. The first
thing He makes is columns to support the physical universe. These He
makes from “‘elemental air,”’ here called ‘Air which is not tangible’’ to
differentiate it from ‘atmospheric air.’ The twenty-two needs of the body
are not specified, although whatever they are, they correspond to the
twenty-two letters of the alphabet.
mower =
21
20
The Merkabah Tradition
mle fhe 2
oS = 3
gb gk g2 gh g&
Peer er ae ae
eB ak sf of
Be) acB Ge ee
® of a
eh af pS sS of
Roess oe
w ox come
eS of 2b s& x
ees tai he
Coe Sera Be
eS af pe eS xe
eae Beeb Pe Bo ire
ye oe em lees
of 9 si xE
RU aan eemeri oto
Gael ae ne
gS gf gb 58 xe
£° 8 See
v8 af 2S ah xX
Ae ee eam es eee
aioe: ee, cae
aa gh xk
eit tee che 6a ag
= oe
o8 of 2S wh xk
2708) Bee
Gi SOY wh Bio Se
R nm oS x&
Bee RMEE eee eS:
Pi are a el ats)
o6 of em sh xX
8 Bee es v6
me, tt
BS a8 wh ge xh
tomar io? “re haale “pseags)
98 af gf ps x8
on as &
te oe Lio
gS of 2k pS xf
See ee Oe
= a
oS 98 2 pd x&
BY) BF ho er
eo oe
oS af zZ aS xk
e OF Ou An ee
te re oie ore a
2
eo er ee
Rh mY On tt
BS nd pk aS oh
RO a Es” be
Ce ee eI
aS 8 g
SRE} erie
x
gS gh pk xf gk
Fig. 4
28
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYST!
v=
oa
o
oo
Foe
oro
60
oo
>a
SAZ-S.dxid) TASHM DIOVW SHL
The Merkabah Tradition
29
Fig. 6
‘al
30
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
THE WHEEL (ANOTHER VERSION)
Fig. 7
From K. Stenring, The Book of Formation (1923: reprint, New York: Kav, 1970) p. 21,
CHAPTER 3
|, Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin—their foundation is the scale of
merit and the scale of guilt, with the tongue being that which tips the
balance between them.
Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin—a great secret, wonderful and
concealed, and He seals with six rings. And from them go out, Air,
Fire, and Water. From them the Fathers are born, and from the
Fathers, the Progeny. Know, count, and form, for the fire bears the
water.
Mistina 2: The ‘‘six rings” are the six directions or borders, or the six
Sombinations of YHV.
‘The sequence in this chapter is as follows: The three Mothers rule over
tivee Elements. From them, basic physical reality (the Fathers) is
#eherated in three dimensions: in the physical universe, in the year (i.c., the
sensons), and in the body. From the Fathers, flows the rest of physical
feality. The following chart illustrates this (see Stenring, The Book of
fmation, for similar charts):
Mother s Shin
Pleinents
Pathers
i the universe
in the year
i the body
‘The wuthor presents this sequence from two points of view—in mishnayot
+f yom the point of view of the balanced triad, and in mishnayot 8—10
Tim the point of view of the creative process.
31
32 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
3. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin: He engraved them, He hewed them
out, He combined them, He weighed them, and He set them at
opposites, and He formed through them: Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem,
Shin in the universe, and Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin in the
year, and Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin in the body of male and
female.
4. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin: The product of [elemental] Fire is
the Heavens, the product of [elemental] Air is Air, and the product of
[elemental] Water is Earth. Fire is above, Water is below, and Air tips
the balance between them. From them the Fathers are generated and,
from them, everything is created.
5. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin are in the universe: Air, Water and
Fire: Heavens were created first from [elemental] Fire, Earth was
created from [elemental] Water, Air was created from [elemental] Air
and it tips the balance between them.
6. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin are in the year: Cold, Heat, and
Temperate-state: Heat was created from [elemental] Fire, Cold was
created from [elemental] Water, Temperate-state was created from
{elemental| Air and it tips the balance between them.
7. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin are inthe body of male and female:
Head, Belly, and Chest: Head was created from Fire, Belly was
created from Water, Chest was created from Air and it tips the balance
between them.
8. He caused the letter Aleph to reign over Air, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them:
Air in the universe, and the
Temperate-state in the year, and the
Chest in the body of male with Aleph, Mem, Shin,
and female with Aleph, Shin, Mem.
Throughout the Sefer Yetsira, the word for “body” is nefesh, which is
usually translated as “soul.”’ The context here and at the end of the book
calls for “body,” however.
MisHNA 4: The repetition here is due to manuscript irregularities. | have
not always included the explicatory word “‘{elemental],"’ so as to give the
reader a feeling for the text, but it is always intended.
The Merkabah Tradition 33
9, He caused the letter Mem to reign over Water, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them:
Earth in the universe, and
Cold in the year, and the
Belly in the body of male with Mem, Aleph, Shin,
and female with Mem, Shin, Aleph.
10, He caused the letter Shin to reign over Fire, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them:
Heavens in the universe, and
Heat in the year, and
Head in the body of male with Shin, Aleph, Mem,
and female with Shin, Mem, Aleph.
The Merkabah Tradition 35
5, Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav seven
and not six, seven and not eight, test them and explore them, and
understand the matter thoroughly, and restore the Creator to his place.
6. Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav are the
foundation. He engraved them, He hewed them out, He combined
them, He weighed them, and He set them at opposites, and He formed
through them:
Seven Stars in the universe,
Seven Days in the year,
Seven Gates in the body of male and female.
And from them He engraved seven heavens, and seven earths, and
seven Sabbaths. Therefore He cherished the seventh under all the
heavens.
CHAPTER 4
1. Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav, their
foundation is Life, Peace, Wisdom, Wealth, Gracefulness, Seed, and
PIN J. And these are the Seven Stars in the universe: Sun, Venus, Mercury,
Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars. And these are the Seven Days in the
year: the seven days of creation. And Seven Gates in the body of male
and female: two eyes, twoears, the mouth, and the two apertures of the
nose. And through them He engraved seven heavens, and seven
earths, and seven hours, therefore He cherished the seventh of every
object under the heavens.
2. Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav behave
with two sounds: Bet Bhet, Gimel Ghimel, Dalet Dhalet, Kaf Khaf,
Pey Phey, Resh Rhesh, Tav Thay, a construction of soft and hard,
strong and weak.
3. Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tay. are such ©
it speech and as opposites: The opposite of Life is Death. The opposite
of Peace is Evil. The opposite of Wisdom is Folly. The opposite of
Wealth is Poverty. The opposite of Gracefulness is Ugliness. The
opposite of Seed is Desolation. The opposite of Dominion is Slavery.
4 He caused the letter Bet to reign over Life, and
He tied a crown to it, and
ile combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Saturn in the universe, the first day in the
yeur, and the right eye in the body of male and female.
4. Seven double letters; Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav
correspond to seven extremities. Six extremities of them are: Above
and Below, East and West, North and South. And the Holy Temple is
: He caused the letter Gimel to reign over Peace, and
set in the middle and it supports all of them. e
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
Binns 5; Again, the magical testing is referred to.
Misiina 7: Note which are the ‘‘seven stars.” This is standard ancient
#ifonomy, with the Earth at the center of the universe and the various
Neavens revolving around it.
——— SS SS eee
MISHNA I: These are all blessings which are generated from these letters,
MISHNA 2: According to grammatical convention, the first letter of each of
these doubles has a dot in it called the ‘thard dot.’’ Hence, the letter is
“hard.”
MIsHNa 3: Note that the opposite of peace is evil. One manuscript reads
“‘war,”’ but the principle of lectio difficilior praestat (“the more difficull
reading has precedence’’) is operative on the grounds that no one woul ‘We double letters [Bet |Gimel |Daled |Kof |Pey |Resh |Tav
change ‘‘war’’ into ‘‘evil,”’ but someone might choose the easy way an .
emend “‘evil’’ into “war.”’ The reading “evil,” then, must be the more Dlensing
accurate because it is the more difficult to explain. Actually, the cont ae
may derive from Isaiah 45: lay of Creation
wate of the body
Mien &: The chart for this mishna is as follows:
34
36 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
He formed through them: Jupiter in the universe, the second day in the
year, and the left eye in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Dalet to reign over Wisdom, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Mars in the universe, the third day in the
year, and the right ear in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Kaf to reign over Wealth, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Sun in the universe, the fourth day in the
year, and the left ear in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Pey to reign over Gracefulness, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Venus in the universe, the fifth day in the
year, and the right nostril in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Resh to reign over Seed, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Mercury in the universe, the sixth day in the
year, and the left nostril in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Tav to reign over Dominion, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Moon in the universe, the Sabbath day in the
year, and the mouth in the body of male and female.
9. Seven double letters: Bet Gimel Dalet, Kaf Pey Resh and Tav through
which are engraved seven universes, seven heavens, seven earths,
seven seas, seven rivers, seven deserts, seven days, seven weeks,
seven years, seven Sabbatical years, seven jubilees, and the Holy
SS eee
Misuna 9: Every seventh year is a Sabbatical year according to the Bible,
Every seventh Sabbatical year is doubly holy, and the fiftieth year of the
cycle is called the Jubilee year. Note that here, as in Mishna 4, the Temple
serves as a microcosm. Note, too, that if God prefers the seventh of each
sequence, then He prefers the Tav (perhaps the mark of Cain), the blessing
of Dominion, the Moon, the Sabbath, and the Mouth (which, by the power
The Merkabah Tradition 37
Temple. Therefore He cherished the seventh ones under all the
heavens.
10. Two stones build two houses,
Three stones build six houses,
Four stones build twenty-four houses,
Five stones build one hundred and twenty houses,
Six stones build seven hundred and twenty houses,
Seven stones build five thousand and forty houses.
From here on go out and think what the mouth is
unable to speak, and the ear is unable to hear.
‘uf speech, creates). The manuscripts, however, differ on the sequence of
ihe blessings, with many ascribing Gracefulness to Tav.
Misiina 10: The anonymous translator has supplied the following diagram:
2 Stones: AB BA
1 Stones: ABG AGB
BAG BGA
GAB GBA
4 Stones: ABGD ABDG AGBD AGDB ADBG ADGB
BAGD BADG BGAD BGDA BDAG BDGA
GABD GADB GBAD GBDA GDAB GDBA
DABG DAGB DBAG DBGA DGAB DGBA
and so forth...
Ti) wet the next figure, multiply the sum by the next numeral. For
Jwenty-two letters, the number of permutations is 1,124 ,000,727.777,607,-
00,000 (that’s one sextillion . . .). By accumulating the sums, one can
sslulute the total number of permutations for the usual alphabetic
*equence. By varying the alphabetic sequence and then generating a new
+e) of permutations, one does pass beyond comprehensibility, Note,
wowever, that this Jewish creative magic does not compel God (as does
Pan magic). It has power only over matter and, perhaps, angels.
CHAPTER 5
1. Twelve simple letters: Hey Vav Zayin, Chet Tet Yod, Lamed Nun
Samech, Ayin Tzade Kof. Their foundation is sight, hearing, smelling,
speaking, tasting, sexual intercourse, work, movement, wrath, laugh-
ter, thinking, sleep.
2. Twelve simple letters: Hey Vav Zayin, Chet Tet Yod, Lamed Nun
Samech, Ayin Tzade Kof. Their foundation is the twelve borders of a
diagonal:
East-North border, East-South border, East-Above border,
East-Below border;
North-Above border, North-Below border;
West-North border, West-South border, West-
Above border, West-Below border;
South-Above border, South-Below border.
And they continually become wider for ever and ever, and they are the
arms of the universe.
Twelve simple letters: Hey Vav Zayin, Chet Tet Yod, Lamed Nun
Samech, Ayin Tzade Kof. He engraved their foundation, He hewed
them out, He combined them, He weighed them, and He set them at
opposites, and He formed through them:
Twelve Constellations in the universe,
Twelve Months in the year,
Twelve Organs in the body of male and female.
w
4, The Twelve Constellations in the universe are: Aries, Taurus, Gemini,
Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius,
Pisces.
eee
MisHNa 1: These are the twelve activities that characterize man. Again, the
manuscripts differ on the sequence.
MISHNA 2: The image here is of a person who is inside a cube which, in turn,
is inside a sphere. To picture it more easily, disregard the sphere. Facing in
any direction, the person imagines the plane which is parallel with his face.
He then imagines this plane intersecting with the perpendicular plane
coming at his face-plane from behind, on his right side. Then, from behind,
on his left side; then, from behind, above; and then from behind, below. He
is, thus, boxed-in in front, on two sides, above, and below by these planes,
The lines of intersection are the “borders” of the mishna. As the cube
grows to infinity, so do the lines of intersection,
38
The Merkabah Tradition 39
J The Twelve Months in the year are: Nisan, Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av.
Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tevet, Shevat, Adar, “a
6, The Twelve Organs in the body of male and female are: two hands, two
leet, two kidneys, gall, small intestine, liver, gullet, stomach, spleen.
He caused the letter Hey to reign over speech, and He tied a crown to
it, and He combined them with one another, and He formed through
them: Aries in the universe, and Nisan in the year, and the right foot in
the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Vav to reign over thought, and
He tied a crown to it, and ;
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Taurus in the universe, and lyar in the year.
‘nd the right kidney in the body of male and female. :
He caused the letter Zayin to reign over movement, and
He tied a crown to it, and ,
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Gemini in the universe, and Sivan in the
year, and the left foot in the body of male and female.
Ile caused the letter Chet to reign over sight, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Cancer in the universe, and Tammuz in the
your, and the right hand in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Tet to reign over hearing, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He for med through them: Leo in the universe, and Ay in the year.
iil the left kidney in the body of male and female. ‘
ins 7: The chart for this is as follows:
Het Ney |Vav |Zayin | Chet [Tet |¥od | Lamed [Nun |Semech |Ayin |Tzade |Kof
Sth |
Hytrin in Figure 8 shows the representation as a sunset, with the
1) AU" being an Aleph. Note that the sunset, wall, and battle images.
fepresenting the same creative process if
sa é ss, evoke comple:
hs mages. ‘he ig
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
40
vooy i
rerm é
UNWERSE H
z
|
f
Fowortion| 2
I
bo
io?
Bor Den Be
(ferences) it
1 : is
a
leprae H me
iG te
sromen ?
seamen é xe
Pag sad ar a "ore,
wacnrue toy a
=
se
@
£ sin mienr — Fine 66) — SELEOR—Hemtens | Hear, we
a
8 Yen
eee) re 1
“0 Jal
i
3
se Peep
se
a 2
2 3
2 3
2 i
Loe;
a
8
54
ae
more
The Merkabah Tradition 41
He caused the letter Yod to reign over work, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Virgo in the universe, and Elul in the year,
and the left hand in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Lamed to reign over sexual intercourse, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Libra in the universe, and Tishri in the year,
and gall in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Nun to reign over smell, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Scorpio in the universe, and Cheshvan in the
year, and the small intestines in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Samech to reign over sleep, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Sagittarius in the universe, and Kislev in the
year, and the stomach in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Ayin to reign over wrath, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Capricorn in the universe, and Tevet in the
year, and the liver in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Tzade to reign over taste, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Aquarius in the universe, and Shevat in the
year, and the gullet in the body of male and female.
He caused the letter Kof to reign over laughter, and
He tied a crown to it, and
He combined them with one another, and
He formed through them: Pisces in the universe, and Adar in the year,
nd the spleen in the body of male and female.
tle made them like a kind of sunset,
He put them in order like a kind of wall,
He set them in order like a kind of battle.
CHAPTER 6
1. These are three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin. There go out from them
three Fathers and from the Fathers are Progeny. Three Fathers and
their progeny, and seven stars and their hosts, and twelve borders ofa
diagonal. As proof of the thing are faithful witnesses in the universe,
year, body, and the law of the twelve, seven, and three. He assigned
them in the Dragon, the Diurnal Sphere, and the Heart.
2. These are three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin—Air, Water, Fire: Fire
above, Water below, and Air is that which tips the balance between
them. And this is the sign of the thing: the Fire bears the Water. The
Mem stands still, the Shin hisses, and the Aleph is Air which tips the
balance between them.
3. The Dragon in the universe is like a king on his throne. The Diurnal
Sphere in the year is like a king in the province. The Heart in the body is
like a king in battle.
MIsHNA 1: The original texts here are more obscure than usual. Stenring
(The Book of Formation, p. 27) lists several mishnayot before this one
which summarize the preceding chapters. I have chosen to pick up the
narrative at the point of greatest consensus. Note that this is the sig
chapter, corresponding to the sixth day of Creation. The author sum-
marizes the book in several ways and adds three new images: (1) the
Dragon—a constellation near the North Star, which swallows the sun and
the moon during cclipses, (2) the Diurnal Sphere—the outermost heaven,
which rotates once every twenty-four hours and sets the basic rhythm of
time, and (3) the Heart—the central organ of the body, which feels and
thinks. ,
Note, too, that nature is a witness, a proof, of the creative order.
MisHna 2: See above, 1:1.
MISHNA 3: The Dragon rules the material world. The Diurnal Sphere rules
time. And the Heart rules the body. The three metaphors are not clear.
42
The Merkabah Tradition 4B
4, Also ELOHIM made every object, one opposite the other: good
opposite evil, evil opposite good; good from good, evil from evil. The
good delineates the evil and the evil delineates the good. Good is kept
for the good ones and evil is kept for the evil ones.
. Three: Each person stands by himself: one acquits, one condemns, and
one tips the balance between them. Seven: Three opposite three and
one is that which tips the balance between them. Twelve: stand in
battle: Three love, three hate, three give life, and three kill.
Three love: the heart and the ears.
Three hate: the liver, the gall, and the tongue.
Three give life: the two apertures of the nose and the spleen.
Three kill: the two orifices and the mouth.
And EL, the faithful King, rules over all of them from His Holy
Dwelling-place unto Eternity.
One is above three, three above seven, seven above twelve, and all of
them connected with each other. The sign of it is: twenty-two needs in
one body.
6
. These are the twenty-two letters through which EHEYEH YH,
YHVH-ELOHIM, ELOHIM-YHVH, YHVH of Hosts, ELOHIM of
Hosts, EL SHADDAI, YHVH-Lord, engraved. And He made from
them three principles, and created from them all His universe, and He
formed through them everything that is formed, and everything that is
destined to be formed.
7, When Abraham our father, may he rest in peace, came: he
looked, and
saw, and
understood, and
explored, and
engraved, and
hewed out, and
succeeded at Creation as it is said, **And the bodies
they had made in Haran’’ [Genesis
ES aa aE
MISHNA 6: These are some of the combinations of God’s various names,
MIsHNA 7: The phrase “‘at Creation as...” is inonly some manuscripts, but
{{ does confirm that this is a magical text and that the word nefesh used here
iid throughout is intended to mean “‘living bodies.’’ Note that there are
{wo covenants—one for progeny and one for creative power—and that
both the tongue and the male organ can serve as images for either covenant.
The Sefer Yetsira has no real end. Rather, there are all sorts of endings.
This indicates that part of the secret of creative power as exercised by God
wd men was still consciously hidden,
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
The Lord of All—may His Name be praised forever—was revealed
to him, and
He set him in His bosom, and
He kissed him on his head, and ,
He called him “Abraham, my beloved” [Isaiah 41:8], and
He cut a covenant with him and with his seed forever,
as it is said “And he believed in YHVH, and He considered
it to him for righteousness” [Genesis 15:6], and :
He cut a covenant with him between the ten fingers of his hands,
and that is the covenant of the tongue, and between the ten
toes of his feet, and that is the covenant of the circum-
cision, and veh
He tied the twenty-two letters of the Torah in his tongue, and
He revealed to him His secret:
He drew them through Water,
He burned them in Fire,
He shook them through the Air,
He kindled them in the Seven Stars
He led them through the twelve constellations.
Ld
Conclusion
Our study of Ma’aseh Bereshit, ‘‘The Mechanics of Creation,’ as
represented by the Sefer Yetsira has shown us a world which is very
Atrange to modern minds. It is a world founded on intangible beings. Itisa
world created, and sustained, by animated letters and spiritual ‘‘ele-
ments.”’ Tt is a world of strange correlations and of an even stranger
sause-effect structure. Yet it definitely has a power and beauty of its own.
By whom and for whom was Sefer Yetsira written? It was written by
highly educated orthodox rabbis for other highly educated orthodox rabbi:
It was not intended for the masses. It is not written in simple style. In fact,
iter fifteen centuries of commentation, some of the key passages are still
fot clear. Why was this book written? It was written as an elucidation of
some of the problems of the Genesis Creation story and as an instruction in
ereative magic.
‘The Talmud, that great compendium of rabbinic literature, reports many
instances of magic as practiced by the rabbis. One example must suffice:
What [magic] is entirely permitted?
Such as [the magic] performed by R. Hanina and R. *Oshaia, who
Spent every Sabbath eve in studying the Laws of Creation, by means of
which they created a third-grown calf and ate it.*
The Talmud does not specify how or why the ‘‘Laws of Creation’ worked,
hit the Sefer Yetsira does. Creative magic ‘worked’ for the rabbis
hecause Creation itself was, after the formation of the sefirot and the
letters, a mechanical—a magical—process.
Hy this I mean that God, too, in Creation acted as an artisan who uses his
{oly and material and who, therewith, **creates’’ new objects. God used
Illy animated letters and spiritual elements, and once man had the
“Talmud, Sanhedrin 67a, cited inJ. Neusner, There We Sat Down (New York and Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 80,
45
46 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
knowledge and the spirituality, he too could use the same tools and the
same elements to create. Rabbinic magic was not a coercing of God into
doing the will of man. It was a parallel, though lesser, use of the same
Power. And for that reason, magic was “permitted”? within Rabbinic
Judaism only when practiced by a rabbi, that is, only when the creative act
was done with the same spiritual craftsmanship as the original Creative
Act. The rabbi, when pious and knowledgeable, shared part of God’s
Power. That was the ‘‘image”’ of God in which man had been created.
Finally, a study of Sefer Yetsira does yield answers to some, but not all,
of the unanswered questions of Genesis. First, Sefer Yetsira clearly states
that the ‘‘uncreated’’ elements of the Genesis text all were, in fact,
generated at their proper time and place in the unfolding of the universe.
Thus, the chaos, the abyss, the waters, the spiritual air, the angels. the
darkness, etc., all came into being after Creation had begun. Nothing was
co-eternal with God, Second, Sefer Yetsira clearly interprets the “‘image””
of God in which man was created as the power of “hewing and engraving,”
i.e., the power of Creation itself, on a lesser scale to be sure. Third, Sefer
Yetsira interprets the ““speech’’ of God inavery clear way. God did not talk
to Fimself, like an absolute monarch who wills and it is done. Rather, He
generated substance, from which He formed letters, out of which He
combined ‘twords,”’ which became things. God’s “speech” was not sound
bat a modeling of units of clay. He is the great Potter here, not the King.
Fourth, the gap between God, Who is pure spirit, and Creation, which is
matter, is here bridged by the various levels of spiritual matter and spiritual
beings. We still do not know how the transition from spirit to matter is
accomplished, except that it is done in stages. That is an important
contribution (right or wrong) to the understanding of what happened at
Creation. And last, Sefer Yetsira does not tell us anything of why God
created the world. Although it teaches us some of the setrets of how the
universe came to be, Sefer Yetsira still does not tell us why there was a
Beginning. Is this a more elegant version than Genesis? Iss it more spiritual?
And, in the end, do we really know more?
Ma’aseh Bereshit had a complement, Ma’aseh Merkabah. This latter
term encompassed the visionary, mystical experiences of the rabbis of late
antiquity. And it is to that realm of splendor that we turn now.
4
THE VISIONARY ASCENT, PART ONE
Introduction
Vat Judaism has a nonrepresentational mode of comprehending God has
become a truism, but, as with most truisms, it is only partly true. On the one
hand, Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism teach that God’s transcendence
precludes the possibility of depicting Him (cf. the Second Commandment
and Deuteronomy 4:12, 15). Yet, on the other hand, there is a well-
established tradition of the visible, physical Presence of God. Thus, for
example, Exodus 16:10 reports: “While Aaron was speaking to the
community of Israelites, they turned toward the desert and behold the
Kavod of God had descended in a cloud.”’ Similarly, at other crucial
moments in Moses’ career, the Kavod of God appeared (Exodus 24:16 and
Numbers 14:10, 16:19, 20:6). Furthermore, at the completion of the
Yabernacle in the desert and again at the completion of the Solomonic
Yemple in Jerusalem, the Kavod of God came to fill the sanctuary
(Leviticus 9:23, with I Kings 8:11 and II Chronicles 5:14; 7:2). tis also the
case that the Bible reports angels, cherubs, seraphs, and other heavenly
hosts (cf., e.g., Isaiah 6). The Psalms, too, some of which were written on
(or for) the pilgrimage, speak of visions of God (Psalm 63:3), of God’s
Kavod (Psalm 24), and of similar visual representations of the divine. There
js, thus, a component within Biblical tradition which recognizes such
iheophanies as legitimate, and, as we shall see, there is a distinct
/epresentational imagination at work in the rabbinic literature as well.
Perhaps the two most startling visual appearances of God in the Bible are
those described at the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel and in chapter 6 of
{saiah, In the former, the prophet, who is in exile in Babylon, is seized
forcibly by God and transported to the flat plains of the Euphrates Valley.
‘As he looks up, he sees a vision approaching him and begins to describe it.
ILis the Kavod of God, and this theophany constitutes the inaugural vision
of the prophet although the Kavod will be seen by him again (see Ezekiel 8,
10, and 11)
47
48 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
What exactly did the prophet see? To understand what the prophet saw,
the reader must remember the Ezekiel is describing something which is
approaching him. Hence, the descriptions tend to be repetitive, but with
more detail each time. Furthermore, because this is a visual, and not an
auditory, manifestation, the reader is well advised to try to sketch it. Begin
with the ‘‘vault of the awesome color of ice."’ The reader, with or without
his own sketch, must ask: What are these heavenly beings? Why do the four
Hayot (‘‘Creatures’’) have the faces they do? How many eyes does each
Hayah have? Why do the Ofannim (“Wheels”) have eyes? And, generally,
what is the impression this vision makes? Most important though: Is this a
mystic vision? And, if not, why not? Do the same with chapter 6 of Isaiah:
What are the Seraphim (*‘Fiery Beings'’)? Is that vision a recounting of a
mystic experience, and if not, why not?
Ezekiel’s Vision
On the fifth day of the fourth month in the thirtieth year, while I was among
the exiles by the river Kebar, the heavens were opened and I sawa vision of
God. On the fifth day of the month in the fifth year of the exile of King
Jehoiachin, the word of the Lorp came to Ezekiel son of Buzi the priest, in
Chaldea, by the river Kebar, and there the hand of the Lord came upon
him.
| saw a storm wind coming from the north, a vast cloud with flashes of fire
and brilliant light about it; and within was a radiance like brass, glowing in
the heart of the flames. In the fire was the semblance of four living creatures
in human form. Each had four faces and each four wings; their legs were
straight, and their hooves were like the hooves of a calf, glittering like a disc
of bronze. Under the wings on each of the four sides were human hands; all
four creatures had faces and wings, and their wings touched one another.
They did not turn as they moved; each creature went straight forward.
‘Their faces were like this: all four had the face of aman and the face of alion
on the right, on the left the face of an ox and the face of an eagle. Their wings
were spread; each living creature had one pair touching its neighbours’,
while one pair covered its body. They moved straight forward in whatever
(livection the spirit would go; they never swerved in their course. The
\ppearance of the creatures was as if fire from burning coals or torches
were darting to and fro among them; the fire was radiant, and out of the fire
came lightning.
As I looked at the living creatures, I saw wheels on the ground, one
beside each of the four. The wheels sparkled like topaz, and they were all
like: in form and working they were like a wheel inside a wheel, and when
they moved in any of the four directions they never swerved in their course.
All four had hubs and each hub had a projection which had the power of
sight, and the rims of the wheels were full of eyes all round. When the living
eveatures moved, the wheels moved beside them; when the creatures rose
{rom the ground, the wheels rose; they moved in whatever direction the
spirit would go; and the wheels rose together with them, for the spirit of the
living creatures was in the wheels. When the one moved, the other moved;
Vion The New English Bible, pp. 1005-6.
49
50 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
when the one halted, the other halted; when the creatures rose from the
ground, the wheels rose together with them, for the spirit of the creatures
was in the wheels.
Above the heads of the living creatures was, as it were, a vault glittering
like a sheet of ice, awe-inspiring, stretched over their heads above them.
Under the vault their wings were spread straight out, touching one another,
while one pair covered the body of each. I heard, too, the noise of their
wings; when they moved it was like the noise of a great torrent or of a
cloud-burst, like the noise of a crowd or of an‘armed camp; when they
halted their wings dropped. A sound was heard above the vault over their
heads, as they halted with drooping wings. Above the vault over their heads
there appeared, as it were, a sapphire in the shape of a throne, and high
above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness. I saw what might have
been brass glowing like fire in a furnace from the waist upwards; and from
the waist downwards I saw what looked like fire with encircling radiance.
Like a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day was the sight of that encircling
radiance; it was like the appearance of the glory of the Lorp.
When I saw this I threw myself on my face, and heard a voice speaking to
WS ini
Conclusion
The vision of Ezekiel contains images of two types of heavenly hosts: the
Hayot (sing. Haya), or Creatures, and the Ofannim (sing. Ofan), or Wheels.
Hach Hayah stands erect, has a torso and a pedestal of burnished copper,
covers its body with some of its wings, “flies” with the other wings, and
each has one head with four faces, representing the head of each kingdom
(the eagle of the birds, the lion of the beasts, the ox of the domesticated
animals, and man—according to other texts, a cherub—of the intelligent
beings). The Ofannim are sets of two gigantic wheels, intersecting at right
angles, which are also intelligent (i.e., they have eyes). In the midst,
lightning; around the vision, radiance. The divine Presence (the Figure on
the Throne) is seen. The impression is one of awe and transcendence, and
the prophet, realizing this, prostrates himself.
Fzekiel’s vision (like Isaiah's) is not, however, a mystic vision. It is
nothing that the prophet has sought. It is nothing he has built up to by
intellectual preparation and spiritual discipline. Rather, it is God Who has
seized the prophet and overwhelmed him with His majesty. Furthermore,
there is no ‘‘unification” of the prophet with God and no secret knowledge
conveyed. Rather, the prophet has felt humbled, and the communication he
has received is an ethical message for the people, a preachment.
And yet the prophet has been given a glimpse (as has Isaiah) of what life is
like ‘up there.”” He has been allowed a quick look at some members of the
heavenly hosts. The heavens have, indeed, been opened for him, fora short
time. Ezekiel has seen more than others, or at least he has described what
he has seen in greater detail than anyone else. His vision is shockingly
precise. And it is exactly this explicitness that caused later mystics to
ponder this chapter and to extrapolate it to new and greater heights. This
chapter, known to Ezekiel as the Kavod, became central to later Jewish
mystical tradition, and there it is known as the Merkabah. This theophany,
describing God’s **Chariot,’’ became the goal of the mystical efforts of the
rubbis, and itis to that effort and the literature it produced that we now turn.
51
i
THE VISIONARY ASCENT, PART TWO
Introduction
‘The term in Rabbinic Judaism for the theme of mysticism is Ma’aseh
Merkabah, whichis best translated as **The Labor of the Vision” or ‘The
Mechanics of the Vision.”’ It is a term which encompasses very precise
knowledge about the workings of the supernal world as well as precise
indications of how the mystic is to arrive at, and behave in, that realm. As
with Ma'aseh Bereshit, the Ma'aseh Merkabah was kept very secret, and
4s a result, only fragments have come down to us. One such fragment is
presented here, the Pirkei Heikhalot, or Chapters on Ascent. (For the
background to this and other such material, see chap. 1 above, ‘‘Doctrinal
Summary,”’ and the sources cited there.) Before beginning the study of this
text, we must know something of its context, its purpose, and its structure.
Pirkei Heikhalot, like Sefer Yetsira, has three important contexts. First,
there is the Biblical context, for Pirkei Heikhalot existed within the
framework of the great theophanic passages of Biblical literature, such as
lizekiel 1. Every glimpse of the heavenly court recorded in the Bible
became a springboard into the heavenly realm of the Merkabah literature.
Second, there is the context of late antiquity, for the Pirkei Heikhalot is
replete with concepts and ideas that are common to that milieu. Thus, the
plethora of heavenly beings, the use of name-seals, and the dangers of the
‘scent are all central ideas here as in the parallel literature of late antiquity.
Some scholarly work has been done on this, and more remains to be done.
And third, both these contexts are filtered through the rabbinic world-view,
which conceived all of reality as ordered by the will of the single,
transcendent God as embodied in His Torah.
The purposes of the Pirkei Heikhalot are two: to describe the kingdom of
the heavenly hosts, and to instruct the mystic on the proper approach to the
King. Itis important to note in this respect that the editor (or editors) of this
53
54 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
text justified the revelation of these secrets because they felt that the
continuity of the esoteric chain was threatened by persecution. It became
important, then, to commit it to writing.
Given these contexts and these purposes, there are many questions to be
asked. First, by whom and for whom was this text written? Who would
write or read it, and why? And how would such a person use this text?
Second, why are there so many angels? What do we learn from their
names? Which groups appear more powerful? How does the mystic
counteract their power? What are the danger points in the ascent, and why
are there such points? Third, concerning the mystical experience itself (as
reported in the text): What preparations are necessary? What type of
experience is it? What does the mystic say he experiences? What does he
report that he hears? sees? What do the heavenly hymns convey as a
literary genre? And fourth, we wantto bear in mind the general questions of
this whole unit: What are the characteristics of this material? What kind of
impression does it make on the reader? And what motivated this kind of
text? What sensitivities and feelings lie behind it? What is its secret?
The structure of the Pirkei Heikhalot is as follows:
Chaps. 15 and 16 — the “historical”’ justification for revealing the Way
and the prerequisites for mystic ascent
Chaps. 17 and 18 — the list of the names of the angel's and an adumbration
of ecstasy
Chap. 19:1-5S — instructions for passage through the gates of the first
five palaces
Chap. 19:6-20:4 — excursus on the dangers of the gates of the sixth
palace
Chap. 20:5-22:1 — instructions for passage through the gates of the sixth
palace
Chap. 22:2-3 — passage through the gates of the seventh palace
Chap. 22:4-24:2. — excursus on the dangers of the gates of the seventh
palace
Chap. 24:3-25 — ecstasy
Chap. 26:1-2 — dangers
Chap. 26:3-2: — further hymns
Chap. 28:5-29:5 — the beginning of God’s response to the mystic
A word about the text as presented here: It is a translation of chapters
15-29 of the Heikhalot Rabbati, based on the edition of S. A. Wertheimerin
his Batei Midrashot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1968), vol. 1,
pp. 90-114. The translation was prepared by Ms. Lauren Grodner and was
edited and annotated by me. The following sections have been adapted,
with changes, from other translations: 15:1 from M. Smith, ‘‘Observations
on Hekhalot Rabbati,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann
The Merkabah Tradition 55
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 144; 17:8-18:2 from
G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tra-
dition New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), pp. 31-32; 20:2-3
from ibid., p. 11; 24:1 from ibid., p. 62; 28:1 from Scholem, Major Trends in
Jewish Mysticism, pp. 58-59. The essays listed above provide a great deal
of the background to this material, although a full scholarly study of this
material remains to be done. The world of scholarship looks forward
eagerly to the scholarly translation and annotation of the entire Heikhalot
Rabbati by M. Smith, Other materials from this period include The Visions
of Ezekiel being prepared by L. Jacobs.
Pirkei Heikhalot: Text and Commentary
Translated by L. Grodner, edited by D. Blumenthal
CHAPTER 15
1. Rabbi Ishmael said, When R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah saw Rome was
planning to destroy the mighty of Israel, he at once revealed the secret
of the world as it appears to one who is worthy to gaze on the King and
His Throne in His majesty and His beauty: [upon] the Hayot of
holiness, the Cherubim of might, and the Wheels of the Shekhina
{which are] as lightning mixed with awesome electrum; [upon] the
beauty which is around the Throne; [upon] the bridges and the growing
chains which rise between the bridges; [upon] the dust, smoke, and the
wind which raises the dust of the coals for it conceals and covers all the
chambers of the place of Aravot-Raqi’a with the clouds of its coals; and
[upon] Surya, the Prince of the Presence, the servant of Totarkhiel-
YHVH, the proud one.
| —aouMi— i __
Misuna 1: This mishna sets the stage for the revelations which will follow.
Note that the author (or authors) uses the images from Ezekiel. Aravot and
Raqi'a are two Biblical terms referring loosely to some part of heaven.
Here they are telescoped into one term and are understood as referring to
the highest of the heavens. This meaning of the term remained, although the
place designated by it changed in later Jewish tradition. The ‘mighty’ here
are the Sages. The ‘‘chains’’ are tongues of fire. R. stands for “‘Rabbi.””
The historical setting chosen by the author is that of the Roman
persecutions of the Jews in the years 120-135 c.E. Modern scKolars do not
usually accept this as the actual date of these texts.
One more important note is sounded here: The angels are divided into
two ‘“‘families’’—that of Surya, and they will be called Angels of the
Presence, and that of Totarkhiel, and they will have the Tetragrammaton
(YHVH) appended to their names, This becomes important later on.
56
The Merkabah Tradition 57
2. What is it like [to know the secret of Merkabah]? It is like having a
ladder in one’s house [and being able to go up and down at will. This is
possible] for anyone who is purged and pure of idolatry, sexual
offenses, bloodshed, slander, vain oaths, profanation of the Name,
impertinence, and unjustified enmity, and who keeps every positive
and negative commandment.
3. R. Ishmael said, R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah said to me: Son of the
Proud Ones, happy is he and happy is the soul of everyone who is
purged and pure of those eight vices, for Totarkhiel-Y HVH, and Surya
his servant despise them.
4. He who ‘‘goes down”’ looks with a wondrous proudness and a strange
powerfulness, with the proudness of exultation and the powerfulness
of radiance, for these [two emotions] are stirred up before the Throne
of His Glory [three] times each day, on high, ever since the world was
created until now, to praise [Him], for Totarkhiel-YHVH acts thus on
high.
MisHNa 2: The requirements are very rabbinic and involve moral purity,
ritual obedience, and, by implication, study or intellectual ability. Note, no
women allowed.
MisHNa 3: The ‘Proud Ones’? (Heb. Ben Ge’im) is a term which refers to
the practitioners of this type of mysticism, i.e., to the initiated. Note that
even Totarkhiel-YHVH is one of them. The meaning is that the initiated
and the angels share in the majestic pride that God has in His Creation. The
word “‘proud,”* thus, has no pejorative moral overtones. Does the phrase
“Six for the six proud walkers’? of the popular English folksong ‘‘Green
Grow the Rushes, Ho"’ refer to some such mystical group?
MisuNa 4: This mishna repeats itself, and it has a wonderful rhythm which
is difficult to catch. The reference to ‘‘three times each day”’ is areference
to the number of times that prayers (praises) are recited in heaven, and this
number parallels the number of times that a Jew prays each day.
To ‘‘go down” is a strange and perplexing term, especially when taken
with 23:2; 23:4; 2:3, and 16:4, where the term ‘‘go up”’ also occurs. There
are several possibilities: (1) The terms are purposeful double-talk, a
phenomenon not unusual in mystic literature. (2) The terms have no special
mystical meaning, and, indeed, they are common verbs meaning “to go’ in
rabbinic Hebrew. (3) They are mystical nuances to the two usual liturgical
terms ‘to go down to the prayerstand [and lead the congregation in
prayer]”’ and ‘‘to go up to the [ritual] reading of the Torah.” (4) One term
means to ascend the mystical ladder, and the other to descend. And (5),
some mystical techniques are meant—either breathing techniques or
tional techniques for gaining *‘mystical space"’ by turning inward/
outward. No one knows for sure.
CHAPTER 16
1. R. Ishmael said, When my ears had heard this warning, my strength
ebbed and I said to him: My Rabbi, If this is so, there is no end to the
matter, for there is no man in possession of a soul who is so purged and
pure of these eight vices. He then said to me: Son of the Proud Ones,
perhaps not. Go and bring before me all the courageous members of the
group (havura) and all the mighty ones of the academy (yeshiva) so that
I may recite in their presence the secrets and mysteries which have
been suppressed, [the] wonders and the weaving of the tractate upon
which the betterment of the world, the setting (of the world) on its path,
and the beautification of heaven and earth depend, for all the ends of
the earth and the universe and the ends of the upper heavens are bound,
sewn, and connected, dependent upon it [i.e., the secret knowledge].
And the path of the heavenly ladder whose one end is on earth and
whose other end is in heaven at the right foot of the Throne of Glory
[depend on it too].
2. R. Ishmael said, | immediately went and gathered together every great
and small Sanhedrin to the great third entrance of the House of God. I
sat on a bench of pure marble which my father, Elisha, had given me
from the estate of my mother, who had so stipulated in her marriage
contract.
Misuna 1: Here we have the classic statement of what a ‘gnosis’ is: It is a
secret knowledge. Its content is the system by which the whole cosmos is
put together. And by proper use of it (“‘praxis’’), the universe can be
manipulated and even put into better order. Note that the havwra is the
mystic fellowship composed of an inner elite of the Sages. The modern use
of the term havura to denote ‘‘a religious fellowship’ has its roots here.
For the ladder, see Genesis 28:12.
MisHNA 2: ‘‘Sanhedrin”’ is a court. The **House of God”’ is the Temple,
and since it had been destroyed, R. Ishmael means that he gathered
everyone to the spot where the third gate had stood. Was the Jerusalem
setting just a literary device? Even if so, the scene was still impressive.
59
60 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
3. Then, the [following men] came: Rabban Shimon b. Gamlicl, R. Eliezer
Ha-gadol, R. Elazar b. Damah, R. Eliezer b. Shamua, R. Yohanan b.
Dahavai, Hananya b. Chanichai, Yonathan b. Uziel, R. Akiba, and R.
Judah b. Baba. We [all] came and sat before him while the mass of com-
panions (haverim) stood on their feet, for they saw that globes of fire
and torches of light formed a barrier between them and us. R. Nehunya
ben Hakkanah sat and set in order for them [i.e., the whole group] all
the matters of the Merkabah: the descent to it and the ascent, how to
descend, who should descend, how to ascend, and who should ascend.
4. When anyone would want to ‘‘go down to the Chariot” he would call
upon Surya, the Angel of the Presence, and make him swear [to protect
him] one hundred and twelve times in the name of Tootruseah- YHVH
who is called Tootruseah Tzortak Totarkhiel Tofgar Ashrooleah
Zevoodiel and Zeharariel Tandiel Shoked Hoozeah Dahivoorin and
Adiriron-YHVH, Lord of Israel.
MISHNA 3: These men could all have sat together. On the meanings of
ascend and descend, see 1:4. The ‘‘globes of fire and torches of light’’ are
supernatural phenomena which divide the elite of the elite from the others.
MISHNa 4: For the meaning of this oath, see the next mishna. A whole book
could be written about the meaning of the names of the angels. | shall
comment on only three names. The name Tootruseah is composed of the
Greek word for ‘‘four’’—#etra (referring to the four-letter Name of God,
YHVH, known as the Tetragrammaton)—plus the Greck word for ‘‘es-
sence” or ‘‘being’’—ousion. It is, thus, a compound word meaning “the
essence of the four-[lettered Name].” Similarly, the name Totarkhiel is
composed of tetra plus the Hebrew word ‘EL (which is one of the powerful
names of God). The kh sound is for phonetic purposes. To Totarkhiel the
YHVH is usually appended. The name Zeharariel is composed of two
Hebrew elements—zohar, meaning ‘‘radiance,”’ and ’E/ (one of the
powerful names of God), plus an additional r for phonetic reasons. These
angel names, then, (1) usually have a divine element added to them, (2)
often are composed of Greek and/or Hebrew elements. Some of them,
however, are completely obscure.
The Merkabah Tradition 61
5. He may not do it more than one hundred and twelve times, or less, for
he who adds or subtracts has his blood on his own head. Rather one’s
mouth brings forth the names and one’s fingers count one hundred and
twelve times. He then immediately goes down and [successfully]
masters the Merkabah.
MisHNa 5: The mystical ascent is a very dangerous procedure. A misused
name would cause the cosmos to be modified in some inopportune way
since the Names are creative forces, as we saw in Sefer Yetsira.
Furthermore, the heavenly realm is one of great purity and cannot be lightly
breached. The practitioner, then, must cause Surya, a very powerful angel,
to swear to protect him during the ascent. That oath is the subject of these
two mishnayot.
There are seven palaces with eight guards each (four on each side of the
gate) = 56 names of the guards of the gates. Since the mystic must ascend
and descend, there are 112 guards whose power must be neutralized.
Hence, the mystic must administer 112 oaths to Surya.
How was this done? The text does not say. Perhaps the mystic said
something like: “I adjure you, Surya, Angel of the Presence, to protect me
from the power of . . . ,”’ changing the name each time. It is possible, but
not likely, that the mystic simply repeated the full set of Surya’s names over
and over. That kind of technique is well known in mystical circles but it is
used to induce a trance. Here, an oath of protection is administered. Note,
though, that upon completing the oath, the mystic does enter a trance
(‘successfully masters the Merkabah’’).
CHAPTER 17
1. R. Ishmael said: Thus said R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah: Tootrusea-
YHVH, Lord of Israel, dwells in seven palaces, in the innermost room
thereof. At the gates of each palace, there are eight guardians: four to
the right and four to the left.
2. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the first palace:
Dehaviel, Kashriel, Gahoriel, Botiel, Tofhiel, Dehariel, Matkiel,
Shuiel, and some say Sheviel.
3. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the second palace:
Tagriel, Matpiel, Sarhiel, Arfiel, Sheharariel, Satriel, Regaiel, and
Saheviel.
4. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the third palace:
Shevooriel, Retzutziel, Shulmooiel, Savlicl, Zehazahiel, Hadariel, and
Bezariel.
5. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the fourth palace:
Pachdiel, Gevoortiel, Kazooiel, Shekhiniel, Shatkiel, Araviel, Kafiel,
and Anaphiel.
6. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the fifth palace:
Tachiel, Uziel, Gatiel, Getahiel, Safriel, Garafiel, Gariel, Dariel, and
Falatriel.
MisHna 1: No one truly knows how to read the names which follow for
two reasons: (1) the manuscripts do not agree on the spelling, and (2)
written Hebrew has very few vowels. The rendering here is as close as the
translator and I can come. As noted above, some have meaning and some
do not.
Misuna 4: There are only seven names here and there should be eight.
Conversely, in mishna 6 there is one name too many.
62
The Merkabah Tradition 63
. And these are the names of the guards of the gates of the sixth palace:
Roomiel, Katzmiel, Gehaghiel, Arsavrasbiel, Agroomiel, Faratziel,
Mechakiel, and Tofariel.
. At the gate of the seventh palace, they stand angry and war-like,
strong, harsh, fearful, terrifying, taller than mountains and sharper
than peaks. Their bows are strung and stand before them. Their swords
are sharpened and in their hands. Bolts of | lightning flow and issue forth
from the balls of their eyes, and balls of fire [issue] from their nostrils,
and torches of fiery coals from their mouths. They are equipped with
helmets and with coats of mail, and javelins and spears are hung upon
their arms.
MisHNa 8: These are the fiercest guards. Note that R. Nehunya did not give
the names of the guards of the gates of the seventh palace. This sets the
stage for 22:4-23:4.
CHAPTER 18
1. The horses upon which they ride stand beside mangers of fire, full of
coals of juniper, and they eat fiery coals from the mangers, [taking] a
measure of forty bushels of coals in one mouthful. And the measure of
the mouth of each horse is as three mangers, such as a manger of
Caesarea, and the measure of each manger is as the measure of the gate
of Caesarea,
2. There are rivers of fire beside the mangers and their horses drink the
measure of the fullness of the water-pipe which is in the Valley of
Kidron, which brings and contains all the rain water of all Jerusalem.
And there is a cloud over their heads which drips blood [into the air]
above the heads of the horses and the guards. This is the sign and the
measure of the guards of the seventh palace and of the horses of each of
the other gates of each of the palaces.
3. All those who go up to the Merkabah are not harmed even though they
see this entire [set of] palaces. And they descend in peace, returning
and standing up to testify to the awesome, terrifying sight they have
seen, the like of which cannot be seen in any of the palaces of flesh and
blood. They, then, bless, praise, extol, exalt, laud, and give glory,
tribute, greatness to Tootrusea-YHVH, Lord of Israel, who rejoices
with those who descend to the Merkabah. [Indeed,] he sits and waits
for each and every Israelite when he comes down in wondrous
\proudness and in strange powerfulness, a proudness of exultation and
the powerfulness of radiance as these are aroused before the Throne of
Glory three times daily, in heaven, from Creation until now to sing His
praise [to]:
Misuna 1: ‘*Manger of Caesarea” refers to the stables of the Roman legate
to Judaea, the most impressive stables in the country. The heavenly horses,
however, exceeded those of the Roman officials. The ‘‘gate of Caesarea" is
the gate to the imperial city. The next mishna refers to the aqueduct of the
city of Jerusalem,
64
The Merkabah Tradition 65
4. The King who is direct; faithful King, beloved King. beautiful King,
supportive King, the King who is hurt (by the sins of men], modest
King, righteous King, pious King, holy King, pure King, blessed King,
proud King, courageous King, gracious King, merciful King, the King
of the king of kings.
5. And the Master of the Crowns yearns and waits for Tootrusea-YHVH,
Lord of Israel, as he yearns for the Redemption and the time of
Salvation that is stored up for Israel following the destruction of the
Second, the last, Temple. [He also yearns for] those who go down to
the Merkabah when they go down, when they see the exultation on
High, when they hear the Salvation of the End, when they see that
which no eye sees, and when they reascend to tell the seed of Abraham,
his lover, [what they have seen and heard].
CHAPTER 19
1. R. Ishmael said: When you come and stand at the gate of the first
palace, take two seals, one in each hand—[the seals] of Tootrusea-
YHVH, Lord of Israel, and of Surya, the Angel of the Presence. Show
the seal of Tootrusea-YHVH, Lord of Israel, to those who stand on the
right, and [the seal] of Surya to those on the left. Then, Bahbiel—the
angel who is in charge of the gate of the first palace, is appointed over
the palace [itself], and who stands on the right—and Tofhiel—the angel
who stands to the left of the threshold—grab you [the initiate], give you
peace, and send you forth with radiance (mashlimin u-mazhirin
alekha) to Tagriel, the angel who is in charge of the gate of the second
palace and who stands to the right of its threshold, and to Matpiel, who.
stands with him to the left of its threshold. a i
2. Show them, then, twoseals—one of Adriharon-YHVH, Lord of Israel
and one of Ouzia, the Angel of the Presence. Show the one of
Adriharon to the [guards] standing on the right and the one of Ouzia
the Angel of the Presence, show to those [guards] standing on the left.
Immediately, they grab you—one on your right and one on youn
left—as they accompany you, hand you over, give you peace, and send
you forth with radiance to Shevooriel, the angel who is in cree of the
gate to the third palace, and who stands on its right threshold, and
Retzutziel, the angel who stands with him on its left threshold. ‘
MIsHNa 1: This chapter contains the instructions for pas
gates of the first five palaces. In each case, a spate es A
Israel” family is shown to the guards on the right, and a seal from th
Angel of the Presence” family is shown to the guards on the left. The
guards are impressed. They cause radiance todescend upon the ate anal
send him on to the next gate. Things get more complicated at the gate to the
sixth palace. Note well that R. Nehunya is talking in his trance and that the
initiate must know all the names and requisite seals before “starting out.””
66
The Merkabah Tradition 67
3. Show them, then, two seals—one of Tzoortak-YHVH, Lord of Israel
and one of Dehavyoron, the Angel of the Presence. Show the one of
Tzoortak-YHVH, Lord of Israel, to the [guards] standing on the right,
and the one of Dehavyoron, the Angel of the Presence, show to those
[guards] standing on your left. Immediately, they grab you, one on
your right and one on your left, and they cause two angels to march in
front of you and two in back of you. They give you peace and send you
forth with radiance to Pahdiel, the angel who is in charge of the gate to
the fourth palace, and who stands on its right threshold, and Gevoor-
tiel, the angel who stands with him on its left threshold.
4, Show them, then, two seals—one of Zvoodiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel,
and one of Margeyoiel, the Angel of the Presence. Show the one of
Zvoodiel to the [guards] standing on the right and the one of
Margeyoiel, the Angel of the Presence, show to those [guards] standing
on the left. Immediately, they grab you, one on your right and one on
your left, as they accompany you, hand you over, give you peace, and
send you forth with radiance to Tahiel, the angel who is in charge of the
gate to the fifth palace, and who stands on its right threshold, and Uziel,
the angel who stands with him on its left threshold.
Show them, then two seals—one of Totarviel-YHVH, Lord of Israel,
and one of Zahpeniriya, the Angel of the Presence. Show the one of
Totarviel-YHVH, Lord of Israel, to the [guards] standing on the right,
and the one of Zahpeniriya, the Angel of the Presence, show to those
[guards] standing on the left. Immediately, they grab you, three angels
in front of you and three angels behind you, [as they accompany you,
hand you over, give you peace, and send you forth with radiance to
Roomiel, the angel who is in charge of the gate to the sixth palace, and
who stands on its right threshold, and Katzmiel, the angel who stands
with him on its left threshold].
=
6. Now, the guards of the sixth palace make a practice of killing those
who *‘go and do not go down to the Merkabah without permission.”
They hover over them, strike them, and burn them. Others are set in
in their place and others in their place [and the same thing happens].
The mentality [of those who are killed] is that they are not afraid nor
MIsHNA 3: The movement here turns into a procession and continues to get
more complicated as the passage goes on.
Misuna 6: From here to 20:4 is the description of the dangers of the passage
through the sixth palace. Rabbi Nehunya tells of the danger rather
68
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
guards is that they do not ask:] “What profit do we have that we kill
thos E
se ee and do not go down to the Merkabah without per-
nis ? evertheless, such is the mentality of the guards
at guards of the
cryptically, and in the next chapter, the men who are learning the secrets
from him decide to recall him from the € to have him explain what he
m the trance to have hi hat hi
CHAPTER 20
1. Rabbi Ishmael said: The members of the Havura, then, said to me: Son
of the Proud Ones, you are as much a master of the light of Torah as R.
Nehunya ben Hakkanah. See if you can bring him back from the
visions which he has glimpsed to sit with us and to tell us the difference
between ‘those who go down to the Merkabah”” and ‘“‘those who go
and do not go down to the Merkabah without permission,”’ such that
the guards of the gate of the sixth palace strike down the latter but do
not touch the former at all. What is the difference between them?
Misuna 1: Puzzled by R. Nehunya’s remark, the members ask R. Ishmael
to recall him. The problem is how to do it, and there are two principles
acting here: (1) Contact with impurity will render R. Nehunya impure, thus
terminating the trance. And (2) to become grossly impure would cause a
sudden and violent termination, thus endangering R. Nehunya’'s life. The
rabbi-mystics must, then, design a way to render him impure, but only in
the very slightest degree. (lam indebted to my colleague L. Schiffman for
the analysis here although Scholem has touched upon it in Jewish
Gnosticism, p. 10.)
The rabbinic rule is as follows: A menstruating woman is impure Atthe
end of her period, she must bathe ritually. If she has doubts about her
purity, she may check to see if there is still some blood present by wrapping
a cloth around her finger and inserting it. If it stains, she is still impure.
The case described in mishna 2 is the subtlest possible case. The woman
has stopped menstruating. She has bathed ritually once but, for technical
reasons, must do it again. She bathes ritually a second time and is, thus,
ritually pure. This womanis then asked to ‘‘check” herself but to do it very
gently. No trace of staining is found—i.e., she is still pure. But one very,
very strict rabbi might still claim she is impure because of possible
irregularities in her menstrual cycle. We have, thus, a woman who is
ritually pure except in the remotest sense of the word, and we have an
object (the cloth) which is ritually impure in the very least degree possible.
R. Nehunya, upon touching it, thus becomes as minimally impure as
possible,
69
70 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
n
. Immediately I took a piece of very fine woolen cloth and gave it to R.
Akiba, and R. Akiba gave it to a servant of ours saying: Go and lay this
cloth beside a woman who immersed herself and yet had not become
pure, and let her immerse herself [a second time]. For if that woman
will come and will declare the circumstances of her menstrual flow
before the company, there will be one who forbids [her to her husband]
and the majority will permit. Say to that woman: Touch this cloth with
the end of the middle finger of your hand, and do not press the end of
your finger upon it, but rather as a man who takes a hair which had
fallen therein from his eyeball, pushing it very gently.
3. They wentand did so, and laid the cloth before R. Ishmael. He inserted
into it a bough of myrtle, full of oil, that had been soaked in pure balsam,
and they placed it upon the knees of R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah.
Immediately they dismissed him from before the Throne of Glory
where he had been sitting and beholding:
A wondrous proudness and a strange powerfulness,
A proudness of exaltation and a powerfulness of radiance,
Which are stirred up before the Throne of Glory,
Three times each day, in the height, ;
From the time the world was created and until now, for praise.
4.. Then we asked him: Who are those who are among those who descend
to the Merkabah and [who are] those who are not? He said to us, Those
{who *‘go and do not go down to the Merkabah’’] are the men whom
those who do go down take with them, whom they then establish above
and in front of them, and to whom they say, “‘Look carefully, see, hear,
To further protect R. Nehunya several magical items and acts are
performed (mishna 3): From other rabbinic texts we know that certain oils
and balsam were said to be poured over the initiate by the angels in order to
purify him for his final vision. Similarly, myrtle boughs were used as
“magical wands."’ Knowing this, R. Ishmael takes the cloth, which is
impure only in a minimal way, and inserts it into a purifying, protective
case. He thus minimizes the impurity further and, hence, affords R.
Nehunya even greater protection. R. Nehunya is dismissed and answers.
the question.
MISHNA 4: The answer is that the mystic can “‘take along’ others and it is
they who are in danger at the gate of the sixth palace because they are not
genuine mystics. Who are these others? M. Smith (“Observations on
Hekhalot Rabbati,”’ p. 154) has suggested that they are secretaries who, by
some group-mysticism, have been ‘‘brought along,’’ and whose job it is to
The Merkabah Tradition oa
and write all that I say and all that we hear in the presence of the Throne
of Glory.’’ These men, if they are not worthy of the task, are those who
are attacked by the guards of the sixth palace. Be cautious, therefore,
to choose men who are fit and tested haverim.
5. When you come and stand before the gate of the sixth palace, show the
three seals of the guards of the sixth palace to Katspiel, the prince,
whose sword is unsheathed in his hand. From it lightning shoots
outward, and he raises it against anyone who is not worthy to gaze
upon the King and His Throne. And there is no creature who can stop
him, His drawn sword shouts: “Destruction and annihilation are on the
threshold of the right.”*
6. And [show one seal to] Dumiel. Is Dumiel really his name? Is not Abir
Gahidariham his name? Why is he called Dumiel? Rabbi Ishmael said:
Thus said R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah: Every day, the echo of a voice
goes forth from the uppermost of the heavens and announces: The
heavenly court has said: Te’°om bar Mautsa Zapokhe Gashash
Ga’ashot-YHVH, Lord of Israel, call him Dumiel with My name [in
his] for, as I see and am silent, so Dumiel is my agent on the threshold of
the right and with him is Katspiel and he bears him no hatred, enmity,
jealousy, and competitiveness. Rather, both are for My glory.
record what transpires. After his answer, R. Nehunya goes back into his
trance and continues his narrative.
MIsHNa 5; We seem to have two versions of what happens at the gate of the
sixth palace. The first version (20:5-21:2) seems to be the usual showing of
the seals plus the presentation of a gift, The second version (21:3-22:1)
seems to indicate that a heavenly quizzing of the initiate took place.
Perhaps it is only one version poorly told. For our purposes, it does not
~ matter.
MISHNA 6: Scholem Vewish Gnosticism, p. 33) has explained that the
longer name is a combination of Greek words but that Dumiel is a Hebrew
name, meaning literally ‘‘the silence of God” and referring to the mystical
silence.
CHAPTER 21
1. Someone should show these two seals of Zohararie] and the works of
his works to Katspiel. And show Baroniya to Dumiel, the prince—the
prince who is direct and is hurt [by the sins of men]. Immediately,
Katspiel, the prince, puts up his bow and sheathes his sword and brings
for you a great storm wind. He seats you ina wagon of radiance and he
blows the equivalent of eight thousand myriad horns, three thousand
myriad shofarot, and four thousand myriad trumpets. Dumiel, the
prince, takes the [special] gift and goes before you.
2. What is the [special] gift? Rabbi Ishmael said: Thus said R. Nehunya
ben Hakkanah, my teacher: The gift which Dumiel, the prince, holds
before the wagon of the man who is worthy to go down to the Merkabah
is nota gift of silver or of gold. Rather, they [the guards] would leave it
for him and would not ask him [for it] neither at the first palace, nor at
the second, nor at the third, nor at the fourth, nor at the fifth, nor at the
sixth, nor at the seventh palace. He would only show them his seals and
they would leave him alone and he would enter. _
3. At the gate to the sixth palace, Dumiel the prince, guardian of the
threshold of the right of the sixth palace, sits on abench of pure yetok in
which is the radiance of the lights of heaven as at the Creation of the
world, Adastan Iran Adastan Kafino Shamnush Akhshene-YHVH,
Lord of Israel, and Dumiel, the prince receive him [i.c., the initiate]
with a kindly manner and set him ona bench of pure yetok and sit next
to him on his right.
S
He says to him: I warn and testify before you concerning two things:
No one [successfully] goes down to the Merkabah who does not have
the following two virtues, He must have repeatedly studied the Torah,
the Prophets, and the Holy Writings, and he must have repeatedly
studied Mishna, Halacha, Aggada, and the rendering of legal decisions
on what is pet ible and forbidden. Also, he must have observed all
of the Torah in its entirety, observing all the warnings, the statutes, the
judgments, and the teachings which were given to Moses on Sinai.
MISHNA 2: We do not know what the gift was.
MISHNA 3: This, according to Smith (‘Observations on Hekhalot Rab:
bati,"’ p. 149) starts the alternate account of the happenings at the gate of
the sixth palace. Note the very rabbinic requirements listed in the next
mishna.
72
CHAPTER 22
1. And if one says “I have these two virtues,”’ immediately Dumiel, the
prince, becomes attached to him. Gabriel, the scribe, writes on the
parchment of the carriage of that man, saying, ‘Such is the knowledge
of this particular person and such are his deeds and he requests to enter
before the Throne of Glory.””
i)
. As soon as the guards of the gate of the seventh palace see him, with
Dumiel and Gabriel and Katspiel proceeding in front of the carriage of
that man who is worthy and descends to the Merkabah, their faces,
which were wrathful, are paled, they loosen their taut bows and return
their sharp swords to the sheaths. Nevertheless, one must show them
the great seal and the awesome crown of Ayir, Suber, Metzugeyah, and
Beshpitash-YHVH, Lord of Israel. They then conduct him before the
Throne of Glory. They bring before him all types of music and song,
and they make music and a parade before him until they raise him and
seat him near the Cherubim, near the Wheels, and near the Holy
Hayot. He sees wonders and powers, majesty and greatness, holiness
and purity, terror and meekness and righteousness, at the same time.
3, Rabbi Ishmael said: All the haverim |i.e., the initiated] liken this to a
man who has a ladder in the middle of his house, who ascends and
descends on it and there is no creature who stops him. Blessed are you,
Lord, God Who knows all secrets and is the Lord of hidden things.
Amen. Amen.
MISHNA 2: The narrative of the ascent is resumed here and continues to
24:3. The initiate has passed the test of the sixth palace, and now the
terrifying guards of the seventh palace (cf. 17:8-18:2) let him pass un-
harmed, Note the full Ezekelian panoply of heavenly beings.
MisHNA 3: The ladder theme has occurred before in 15:2. The blessing is
very rabbinic in style and occurs again in 25:4 and 28:2.
B
74 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
4. R. Ishmael said: R. Shimon b. Gamliel became angry with me and said:
There was almost destruction in our vineyard. This [refers] to
Patria-YHVH, Lord of Israel. Why did you unknowingly err with us?
Did you believe that Yonathan b. Uziel was an insignificant man in
Israel? What if he came and simply stood before the gate of the seventh
palace?
5. R. Ishmael said: I immediately went and was angry with R. Nehunyab.
Hakkanah and said: Oh, prince of anger, why do I yet live? And he said
tome: Son of the Proud Ones, if it [has come to] this, what [good] is my
presence among you? I have put into your mouths the Torah, the
Prophets, and the Holy Writings; the Mishna, the midrash of laws and
legends, the legal decisions of the permissible and the forbidden. Yet
were it not for the secrets of Torah which | have hidden from you,
would you have come and appeared before me at all? I know why you
have come. You only came to hear about the guards of the seventh
palace.
MISHNA 4: This section (22:4-23:5) picks up the fact that in 17:8 R.
Nehunya did not specify the names of the guards of the gate of the seventh
palace although he did describe them as fierce. Not knowing these names
could be very dangerous, for one would not be able to counter their power,
R. Shimon ben Gamliel is the Nasi, the patriarch of the Jews recognized by
Rome and the head of the community and the court. He notes the absence
of the names and indicates that even the very pious Yonathan b. Uziel
would be subjected to danger without the names. R. Nehunya, as the next
mishna indicates, is reluctant to divulge the names. His conversation with
R. Ishmael seems to take place during the trance.
CHAPTER 23
1. Go tell the Nasi: Concerning all of the guards of the gates of the six
palaces one has authority to make mention of the names of God and to
use them [magically], but as for the guards of the gates of the seventh
palace, the very hearing of these names causes a man to be thrown into
a panic as to how to use them, because the name of each and every one
of them is derived from the name of the King of the Universe and I have
not specified them. Now that you say to me “Specify,” come stand on
your feet, every one of you. When the name of each [guard] comes forth
from my mouth, bow down and fall on your faces. Immediately, all the
mighty men of the Aavura came and all the mighty of the yeshiva stood
on their feet before R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah. They would fall while
the scribes would write [whenever a name was mentioned].
Misuna 1: A rabbinic Jew bows down to the ground only on the New Year
and the Day of Atonement. The origin of this custom is the report that on
the Day of Atonement, in Temple times, the high priest would enter the
Holy of Holies to atone for the sins of the people. In the course of the
sacrificial service, the high priest confessed three times, and as part of each
confession, he would recite a verse from the Bible with the Tetragram-
maton in it. At that point, and only at that point, was the Tetragrammaton
pronounced properly, i.e., according to the ancient Tradition. At all other
times, according to the rabbis, some substitute was used so as not to use the
real pronunciation in a profane setting. When the Tetragrammaton was
pronounced on the Day of Atonement in the Temple, the people who heard
it fell on their faces in prostration and reverence. It may be this which
occurs here as R. Nehunya mentions the names of the guards of the gate of
the seventh palace.
15
16
>
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
. These are the names of the guards of the gate of the seventh palace
specified by the ascent: [1] Horpaniel Zehaftria-YHVH, Lord of
Israel—a revered, esteemed, and awesome prince; [2] Avirzahia
Kavpiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel—a revered, esteemed, and awesome
prince; [3] Atargiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel; [4] Hatrogiel Bangiel-
YHVH, Lord of Israel Hash—a revered, esteemed, and awesome
prince, terrifying, noble, glorified, powerful, and mighty; [5]
Sastetiel- YHVH, Lord of Israel—a revered, esteemed, and awesome
prince, terrifying, noble, glorified, powerful, mighty, and valiant; [6]
Anaphiel-YHVH, Lord of Israel—a revered, awesome, terrifying,
noble, glorified, powerful, mighty, and valiant prince whose name is
mentioned before the Throne of Glory three times every day, in the
heavens, from the day the world was created until now, in praise,
because the signet ring of the heavens and of the earth is given into his
power.
_ Andas soonas everyone in heaven would see him [i.e., Anaphiel], they
would fall on their faces and prostrate themselves before him. This,
however, was not usually done in heaven. For if you reason that they
[all the angels] bow only to the Angel of the Presence [and not to
Anaphiel, this is not the case. Rather] only those who stand outside
{the presence] of the Throne of Glory bow down [to the Angel of the
Presence while those who do stand in its presence] do not bow down to
the Angel of the Presence. But [even] they fi.e., those in the
Throne-room] bow down to Anaphiel, the prince, willingly and with
the permission of Atratas, the great master, Aphimiel Shama Birtsa-
YHYVH, Lord of Israel.
_ These are the names of the guards of the gate of the seventh palace
specified by the descent. Those which were separated were the names
of Tofiel and Liviel. [1] Trapiel-YHVH—an exalted, commanding,
—_
MISHNA 2: There is one set of guards for going in and one set for going out.
Or, if ascent and descent indicate different mystical techniques, each
technique has its own guards. Note that the names are more complex than
the others, and that this is the *YHVH, Lord of Israel’’ family but that
there appear to be only six guards (and not cight). Anaphiel clearly
outranks them all.
Misuna 3: The ‘““YHVH” family appears to outrank the “Presence”
family, for those inside the Throne-room bow down to the former and notto
the latter.
Misuna 4: Again, only six names. Again, all YHVH names. I do not
know what ‘‘separated’’ means here. Is it meant to round out one of these
numbers to eight?
The Merkabah Tradition 77
awesome prince named Abirazhaya-YHVH; [2] Dalkukiel-Y HVH—
an exalted, commanding, awesome prince named Livavpiel-YHVH;
[3] Yikriel-Y HVH—an exalted, commanding, awesome prince named
Atargiel-YHVH; [4] Yasheshiel-YHVH—an exalted, commanding,
awesome prince named Binana-YHVH; [5] Trafiel-YHVH—an
exalted, commanding, awesome prince named Zohaliel-YHVH; [6]
Anaphiel-YHVH—an exalted, commanding, awesome prince named
Shofsiel-Y HVH, strong, righteous, and valiant.
5. Why is his name Anaphiel? It is because of the branch of the crown of
crowns that rests on his head, covering and veiling all the chambers of
the palace of Aravot-Rakia. He is like the Creator of the World for, just
as it is written about the Creator of the World, “his glory covered the
heavens”’ [Habakkuk 3:3], so Anaphiel is the attendant prince who is
cited by the name of his master. Why, then, is he the most beloved ofall
the guards of the gates of the six palaces? It is because he opens the
gates of the seventh palace. There are two hundred and ninety-six faces
of the Holy Hayot opposite the gate of the seventh palace.
Misuna 5; Anaphiel means ‘‘the branch of God,’’ The analogy is with the
figure of the Yotser Bereshit, which, as Scholem has pointed out, is a
demiurge—i.e., a very highly placed heavenly figure who actually does the
work of forming and creating (cf. Sefer Yetsira and the conclusion to this
unit), The analogy seems to be that both are very highly placed servants,
both have divine elements in their names (Yotser—creator, ‘El—God), and
both shield reality from the intensity of the divine Presence. Not even the
highest of the angels can stand before His total Presence. Therefore,
Anaphiel must shield them from God.
Several manuscripts read 296 and several read 256. The latter may be
correct as follows: There are four Hayot (cf. Ezekiel 1). Each has four
faces, here taken as four heads. Each head has four faces. Each face has
four profiles (two sides, front and rear). This yields 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256.
. As soon as that man [i
CHAPTER 24
. The greatest [terror] of them all is the five hundred and twelve eyes of
the four Holy Hayot opposite the gate of the seventh palace. [There are
also] faces of human shape—and each ‘‘face”’ has sixteen faces—on
each Hayah opposite the gate of the seventh palace.
.. the initiate] entreats to descend to the
Merkabah, Anaphiel the prince, opens the doors of the seventh palace
and that man enters and stands on the threshold of the gate of the
seventh palace and the Holy Hayot lift him up. Five hundred and
twelve eyes, and each and every eye of the eyes of the Holy Hayot is
hollow like the holes in a sieve woven of branches. These eyes appear
like lightning, and they dart to and fro. In addition, there are the eyes of
the Cherubim of Might and the Wheels of the Shekhina, which are
similar to torches of light and the flames of burning coals.
. This man then trembles, shakes, moves to and fro, panics, is terrified,
faints, and collapses backwards. Anaphiel, the prince, and sixty-three
watchmen of the seven gates of the palace support‘him, and they all
help him and say: ‘‘Do not fear, son of the beloved seed. Enter and see
the King in His magnificence. You will not be slaughtered and you will
not be burnt.””
MisHna 1: Imagine: the gates to the seventh palace open, and you see the
four Ezekelian Hayot, all of towering proportions. There are 256 faces and,
hence, 512 eyes staring at you. Note the vivid description of the eyes,
Remember that Ezekiel’s Wheels are intelligent, i.c., have cyes.
MISHNA 3: The mystic is overwhelmed by fear as well as by awe. Such is
the nature of the truly spiritual. He is saved, however, by the merit of his
chosen-people ancestry.
78
The Merkabah Tradition 79
4. Illustrious King, glorious King, masterful King, blessed King, chosen
King, luminescent King, distinguished King, heroic King, sublime
King, omniscient King, remarkable King, disciplining King, splen-
diferous King, majestic King, affluent King, eternal King, aristocratic
King, infinite King, memorable King, worthy King, radiating King,
living King, merciful King, pious King, valuable King, chaste King,
righteous King, esteemed King, redeeming King, astounding King,
adorned King, worshipped King, sympathetic King, commanding
King, fervent King, comprehending King, possessing King, prosper-
ous King, gilded King, faithful King, resplendent King, secretive King,
wise King, modest King, benevolent King, patient King, embellished
King, rescuing King, virtuous King, joyous King, radiant King,
sanctified King, esoteric King, commended King, revered King,
compassionate King, moderate King, attentive King, tranquil King,
serene King, ornamented King, perfect King, supportive King.
Blessed be He.
5. They give him strength. Immediately, they blow a trumpet from
“‘above the vault which is over the heads of the Hayot” [Ezekiel 1:25].
And the Holy Hayot cover their faces and the Cherubim and the
Wheels turn their faces away and he stands erect, turns, and poses
himself before the Throne of Glory.
MISHNA 4: This is one of the many hymns that follow. It is an acrostic
(which cannot be captured in the English) and has a hypnotic rhythm
(which also eludes translation). Scholem has called the effect one of a giant
flywheel. Perhaps this (and the other hymns) have some musical analogy in
Bach’s rendering of the doxology of Isaiah 6.
MISHNA 5: To be actually before the Throne of God Himself!
CHAPTER 25
1. As soonas he stands before the Throne of Glory, he begins to chant the
hymn that the Throne of Glory recites every day: a prayer, laud, song,
blessing, praise, extolment, exultation, appreciation, acknowledg-
ment, victory, melody, meditation, homage, joyfulness, celebration,
rejoicing, worship, gracefulness, modesty, luster, magnification, faith-
fulness, righteousness; virtuous, treasured, decorated, valorous, ju-
bilant, elated, superior, contented, restful, consoled, tranquil, serene,
peaceful, benevolent, invincible, valued, compelling, compassionate,
graceful, magnanimous, elegant, embellished, adored, revered, merci-
ful, luminescent, resplendent, privileged, brilliant, phenomenal,
crowned, glittering, far-reaching, distressed, miraculous, liberating,
redolent, illuminating, royal, remedying, daring, dynamic, grandiose,
precious, powerful, commanding, valiant, pleasurable, majestic,
splendorous, courageous, heroic, sanctified, chaste, pure, proud,
eminent, magnificent, royally dignified; honor and splendor to
Harariel-YHVH, Lord of Israel, a King Who is adorned and or-
namented with embroidery of hymns, the One Who is beautified in
splendor, esteemed in glory, reverence, and beauty, abundant in
majesty, an awesome crown Whose Name is sweet to Him and whose
memory is pleasing, and a beautiful crown. To Him they give thanks.
He is exquisite, and His palace glorifies Him. His attendants sing
pleasingly to Him, and the righteous [sing pleasingly] of His power and
wonders:
King of the king of kings, God of Gods, and Lord of Lords,
Who is surrounded with chains of crowns,
Who is encompassed by the cluster of the rulers of radiance,
Who covers the heavens with the wing of His magnificence,
And in His majesty appeared from the heights,
From His beauty the deeps are kindled,
And from His stature the heavens are sparked.
His stature sends out the lofty,
The Merkabah Tradition 81
And His crown blazes out the mighty ,
And His garment flows with the precious.
And all trees shall rejoice in His word,
And herbs shall exult in His rejoicing,
And His words shall drop as perfumes,
Flowing forth in flames of fire,
Giving joy to those who search them,
And quiet to those who fulfill them.
. A king beloved and adored by them, faultless and proud, One who
takes pride in the Proud Ones and strengthens all mortals. He glorifies
kings, praises youths, and makes modest the arrogant. He isajoy inthe
mouth of all who call Him, sweet to all who wait expectantly for Him,
superb in all His ways, upright in all His deeds, lucid in counsel and
knowledge, clear in understanding, and unequivocal in judgment of all
flesh. He is a witness in all cases. He is the judge of everything. Mighty
in knowledge and in every mystery, and glorious in sanctity and purity.
. A true and solitary King, a King perfect in His deeds and one Who
nourishes His creations, an enduring King, a King Who brings death
and life, a King Who creates every blessing and establishes all good. A
blessed King, a King Who is unique, exalted, mighty. A distinguished
helper, patient, holy, pure, righteous, true, upright, faithful, and
vigorous. A King Who is outstanding in that He loosens the knots of
exaltation and is set above the pillars of sublimity, the chambers of the
palace. He watches secret places and understands profundities. He
beholds the dark places wherever He is and He does not renege on His
own words and desire. He does not change location to flee from him
[man] and does not hide to conceal Himself from his [man’s] presence.
. You will rule forever—merciful, gracious, forgiving, lenient King Who
causes [time] to go on and pass away. You will be revered in every
hymn, exalted on Your Throne of Glory. Treasured is Your every
grace, lauded in every exultation, praised in every magnification,
applauded in every prayer, glorified forever, sanctified forever unto
Tootrusea-Y HVH, Lord of Israel. Lord, King of existence, master of
MISHNA I: These celestial hymns must be appreciated as best as is possible Mista 2: What is the mood of this hymn? Is it different from that of the
in translation. Note the terms which form the “universe of religious previous one?
(spiritual) discourse,” the language of religion. What do these words mean MisuNa 4; Here, Tootruseah-Y HVH seems to be God Himself or, at least,
to you? the being perceived on the Throne. What is so strange about that? Why
are these properly call hymns, and not poems?
80
82
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
all deeds, wise in all secrets, ruler in all generations, sole God Who
since eternity has been King alone, Who is forever and ever. Selah.
Who is like unto you Tootrusea-Y HVH, Lord of Israel, master of the
mighty? To you, Tootrusea-YHVH, Lord of Israel; they praise the
Throne of Your Glory. To you they give majesty and much strength
and adornment. For you they are courageous, for you they are heroic,
for you they are joyous. They sing to you, they meditate on you. They
bless you, they flatter you, they exalt you, they adorn you, they uplift
you, they glorify you, they make you majestic, they revere you, they
worship you, they sanctify you, Tootrusea-YHVH, Lord of Israel.
Your attendants will crown You with a diadem and sing a new hymn to
You. You will rule forever and be called One forever, because You are
God, Lord of Israel, mighty, abundantly redeeming, a God wise in
Your rule and wise in Your realm. Blessed are you, Lord, God of
Israel, wise in secrets and Lord of hidden things. Amen. Amen.
CHAPTER 26
1. I saw one “‘like the lightning’’ [Ezekiel 1:27] who examines if one is
worthy to descend to the Merkabah or not. If one is worthy to descend
to the Merkabah, when they say to him *‘Enter,”’ he does not enter.
They repeat it to him, ‘‘Enter,”’ and he enters immediately. They
praise him as though to say, certainly this is one of the descenders of
the Merkabah. But if he is not worthy to descend to the Merkabah,
when they say to him ‘‘Enter,”’ he enters immediately. They then
throw thousands of iron bars on him.
. The guards of the gates of the sixth palace make a mirage for him of a
million waves of water and there is not any water there, not even a
drop. And if one says: ‘‘What is the nature of this water?’’ they
immediately run after him, stoning him and say: *‘Numbskull, perhaps
you are from the seed of those who kissed the Golden Calf; you are not
worthy to see the King and His Throne of Glory.” He does not move
from there until they throw a million bars of iron on him.
3. You perform valorous deeds and make new works. He renews His
creatures every day. He causes His attendants to be excited and shine
in the midst of the myriads. You reject hatred, jealousy, hostility, and
rivalry. You are slow to anger, You annul the quarrelsome wrath of all
living things. The best of the Cherubim of Your Glory are made of fire
but He is above the Cherubim of fire, above the blazing Seraphim,
surrounding Your Throne of Glory, standing one next to another. They
announce: ‘‘Clear a pathway for Him Who rides above the universe”
[Psalms 68:5]. Much blessing and praise and homage, hymn, apprecia-
tion, acknowledgement, adornment, charm, humility, lovingkindness,
strengthening, making bold, making lordly, separating, choosing,
testing, making heroic, making proud, making exalted. In their mouths
are hymns and songs, on their tongues are rejoicings. They do not
slumber, not at night or during the day, but are like a light that shines
forth song and praise.
Misuna I: This, together with the next mishna, is a flashback to the
dangers of the gates of the sixth palace. Mishna 3 picks up the hymns again,
83
84
4.
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
You are a king who is great, heroic, awesome, blessed, valiant,
prominent, splendid, distinguished, meritorious, active, chaste,
worthy, tremendous, fascinating, destructive, captivating, mysteri-
ous, patient, redeeming, joyous, sanctified, merciful, concerned,
supportive, forbearing, magnanimous, and faithful.
You are Lord, God of Gods, Lord of Lords. You are great—all the
great aggrandize You. You are mighty—all the mighty declare You
great. You are awesome—all the awesome fear You. You are
righteous—all the righteous declare You upright. You are pious—all
the pious long for You. You are sanctified—all the sanctified conse-
crate You. You are faithful—all the faithful believe in You.
nv
CHAPTER 27
1. Youare the One Who revealed the secret to Moses and did not conceal
from him all Your heroic deeds. When the words were departing from
Your mouth, the heavens trembled and stood in panic [before You]. All
were burnt in the blazes of fire. You test the kidneys and the hearts
[emotions and intellect], and prefer the trustworthy. You dwell in the
flame, an image in the flame of fire, forming as does the flame of a fire.
You are mighty and proud above all the boastful, and exalted above all.
‘You humiliate the arrogant and raise up the humble. Blessed be He.
. The most proud among the creatures in man. The likeness of man have
You set into Your Throne of Glory: They [the Cherubim] have the face
of a man and a man’s hand is under their wings. They run like a man,
labor like a man, sow, and bow in prayers [like a man]. And awe of You
is King over them.
3. The most proud among the domesticated animals is the ox. The like-
ness of an ox have You set into Your Throne of Glory: They [the
Cherubim] have the face of an ox. They run like an ox, they work like
an ox, and they stand in their place like an ox. And awe of You is holy
over them,
4. The most proud among the wild animals is the lion. The likeness of a
lion have You set in Your Throne of Glory: They [the Cherubim] have
the face of a lion. Their roar is like a lion’s, the fear [the cast] is like
alion’s, and the power of their arm is like alion’s. And awe of You is
powerful over them.
5. The most proud among the birds is the eagle. The likeness of an eagle
have You set into Your Throne of Glory: They [the Cherubim] have
the face of an eagle. Their speed is like an eagle’s, their wrath is like an
eagle’s, and their flight is like an eagle's. And awe of You is pure over
them. All these declare Your holiness three times [daily] with the
threefold sanctification as itis said: “Holy Holy Holy is God, the Lord
of Hosts, the whole world is full of His Glory”’ [Isaiah 6:3].
Misuna 1: Th
based on Ezekiel 1.
85
CHAPTER 28
1. Excellence and faithfulness—are His Who lives forever
Understanding and blessing—are His Who lives forever
Grandeur and greatness—are His Who lives forever
Cognition and expression—are His Who lives forever
Magnificence and majesty—are His Who lives forever
Counsel and strength—are His Who lives forever
Luster and brilliance—are His Who lives forever
Grace and benevolence—are His Who lives forever
Purity and goodness—are His Who lives forever
Unity and honor—are His Who lives forever
Crown and glory—are His Who lives forever
Precept and practice—are His Who lives forever
Sovereignty and rule—are His Who lives forever
Adornment and permanence—are His Who lives forever
Mystery and wisdom—are His Who lives forever
Might and meekness—are His Who lives forever
Splendor and wonder—are His Who lives forever
Righteousness and honor—are His Who lives forever
Invocation and holiness—are His Who lives forever
Exultation and nobility—are His Who lives forever
Song and hymn—are His Who lives forever
Praise and glory—are His Who lives forever
Misuna 1: This hymn is still part of certain rabbinic liturgies. It, too, isan
acrostic and it rhymes.
86
The Merkabah Tradition 87
2. Who can relate one of the billion, one of the myriad of myriads of Your
mighty deeds. O King of the kings of kings, Blessed be He. For the Holy
Hayotare present and stand erect before you. They are the “‘still small
voice”’ [I Kings 19:12]. Fire is their way, the fire of furnaces, and they
are in awe of the fire, lest they be burned in the blazing fire. They
surround You, they encircle You; near them, hidden in Your midst,
they meditate on the secret and the profound. They are girded with
might; they are enveloped in grandeur. The eye does not gaze upon
Your sword, because You are a sanctified King, ruler of the ones above
and the ones below, of the ancestors and the descendants. There is no
one among the ones above and the ones below, no one of the ancestors
and of the descendants who is able to understand Your actions and
examine Your mighty deeds. How many there are who cannot see
Aleph, Bet, and Gimel, and none of them [can see] Metatron, whose
name is cited by eight names: Margiyiel is his name. Geyotiel is his
name. Zeyotiel is his name. Achahiel is his name. Keyoiel is his name.
Yehoiel Oziheyah Ozehoiel Sagnesgiel Sagdiel is his name. Sag-
nasyeriah Sagnesgiel Sagnesoilah is his name. And because of the love
with which they love him in heaven, he is called: Metatron, the servant
of God in the Holy Army, forbearing and renowned for benevolence.
Blessed are You, God, wise in secrets and Lord of hidden things.
Amen. Amen, Selah. Selah.
3. Rabbi Ishmael said: Thus said Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi
Eliezer, the great: From the day that the Torah was given until the
Second Temple was built, the Torah had been given but her splendor,
her dignity, her greatness, her honor, her magnificence, her fear, her
terror, her awe, her riches, her majesty, her excellence, her might, her
glory, and her reverence had not been given forth until the Second
Temple was built. [But] the Shekhina [Divine Presence] did not dwell
in it. [Variant: for the Shekhina (Divine Presence) did dwell in it.]
MIsHNA 3: Something is wrong here.
Conclusion
Our study of Ma’aseh Merkabah, ‘The Mechanics of the Vision,” as
represented by the Pirkei Heikhalot has revealed to us a very strange
world. It is a world of strange beings with strange powers. It is a world of
mystery and complexity. And it is a world of danger, sublime beauty, and
awesomeness.
By whom and for whom was this text written? Like Sefer Yetsira, the
Pirkei Heikhalot was written by well-educated orthodox rabbis for other
well-educated orthodox rabbis. The names of the sages mentioned in the
text, their use of rabbinic law to draw R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah out of his
trance, and so on, indicate a decidedly rabbinic context. As to its use, this
book was probably the text from which one learned the names of the
angel-guards, the magic seals, and the kinds of situations one could
anticipate encountering in the ascent.
What do we learn about the heavenly hosts? We learn that they all have
names (most of which contain a divine element), that they all have assigned
places and tasks in the supernal hierarchy (some being more powerful than.
others, i.e., closer to the Throne), and that they all have power (power to:
guard, power to destroy). Hence the mystic needs power, and his power
stems from the seals which contain the names of the highest orders of
angels, those who ‘‘outrank”’ the angel-guards. Therefore, the name-seals
work.
The mystical experience itself (as reported in the text) presupposes
moral purity, rabbinic learnedness, ritual purity, and thorough mastery of
the special knowledge necessary to negotiate the supernal realm. In the
end, the mystic reports three things: that he faints but is supported, that he
hears the hymns chanted before the Throne, and that he hears a message
from God. He does not tell us what the Throne looks like nor does he report
what (if anything) sits on the Throne. Rather, he specifically states that the
Ultimate is veiled by the wings of Anaphiel. The hymns he records are
certainly hypnotic, generating a momentum of their own (which cannot
really be caught in translation).
90
The Merkabah Tradition 91
What type of mystical experience is it? It is not a unification of the mystic
with God. It is not even a separation of the soul from the body, or areturn of
the separated soul to its Source. It is an ecstasy, not in the proper sense of
the word (“‘standing outside oneself’’) but in the general, sublime sense of
the word. It is not a descent into one’s own self or a voyage into nothing-
ness, but a coming-before the King. Properly put, this type of mysticism is
a ‘visionary mysticism’’—‘‘visionary”’ because the mystic sees and hears
something of the supernal world, and ‘‘mystical’’ because he must prepare
for it and work toward it. One other very significant note: This is a form of
group mysticism. The rabbi takes his amanuensis, his pupils, and his
colleagues with him. He can do it alone, in his house, but it is also usable in
small groups.
Having studied these two texts, we are ready to deal with the general
questions about the audience, context, use, and ambiance of this type of
literature. We turn to that now.
6
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Now that the drama of the Ma'aseh Bereshit and the Ma'aseh Merkabah
has, in part, been unfolded before us, we must turn to the task of reflecting
upon this material, and several general questions must be answered.
Whois the readership for such materials as we have encountered in Sefer
Yetsira and Pirkei Heikhalot? As stated before, the authors, editors,
readers, and practitioners of this material were all well-educated orthodox
rabbis. As such, this material is as much a part of rabbinic literature as its
more well known counterparts: the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Liturgy.
Yet not every orthodox rabbi was either fit or willing to be exposed to this
material. It is, thus, intended for an esoteric elite within the scholarly
community of rabbis. Actually, this is strange, for in other cultures, the
primal powers of the universe can be touched by the nonscholarly. The
‘‘mana’’ is not usually confined to an esoteric elite of a scholarly class. Yet
it was so in Rabbinic Judaism.
What are the contexts of this material? As indicated, the contexts of
Sefer Yetsira and Pirkei Heikhalot are two: the Biblical, for both are an
extension of their respective Biblical ‘tsources,”’ and the Hellenistic. Such
elements as the Greek words which serve as names of God, the alphabetol-
ogy and numerology, the mass of beings arranged ina hierarchy, and so on,
are evidence of this. There are also parallels from early Christianity and the
Dead Sea Scrolls; the interested student must follow this further. And,
-again as indicated, all these ‘‘influences”’ are subsumed under the theology
of Rabbinic Judaism.
What are the main characteristics of this material? First, there is the
magical element. We have seen this in the letters and the sealed dimensions
of Creation, inthe instructions for man-made creation, in the name-seals of
the ascent, and even in the very structure of the names of the angels and in
the formulaic pattern of the hymns. Also, because it is a magical world, it is
a mechanical world, a world of forces seeking balance. Second, this is a
system torn between secrecy and explicitness, between the need to conceal
and the need to reveal. Thus, the secrets are revealed, but only reluctantly
and then only in part. Thus, too, the imagery is shockingly anthropomor-
phic and concrete, yet the Ultimate is veiled. One aspect of this dialectic is
93
94 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
the pseudepigraphy: Sefer Yetsira is ascribed to Abraham, and Pirkei
Heikhalot to R. Nehunya ben Hakkanah, thus attempting to generate
layers within layers of authoritative tradition which justify revealing the
secrets. Third, this is a very dynamic system. There is a lot of
movement—of letters, of angels, of hymns. There is a lot of hustle and
bustle on high. Fourth, we learn from this literature that Merkabah
mysticism was both a body of knowledge and a Way, a “gnosis” and a
“‘praxis”; that, as the following story indicates, this knowledge was not a
body of abstract ideas held together only by the mind. Rather, it was 4
knowledge that was intimately intertwined with concrete mystical activity.
Once Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was riding on an ass, when going
on a journey. Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh was driving the ass from
behind.
Rabbi Eleazar said to him, ‘*Master, teach me a chapter of the work
of the chariot.”
He answered him, ‘‘Have I not taught you thus, Nor may the work of
the chariot be taught in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and
understands of his own knowledge?”’
Rabbi Eleazar then said to him. ‘Master, permit me to say before
you something which you have taught me.””
He answered, ‘‘Say on!”
Forthwith, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai dismounted from the ass,
wrapped himself up in his cloak, and sat upon a stone beneath an olive
tree.
Said Rabbi Eleazar to him, ‘‘Master, why did you dismount from the
ass?””
He answered, ‘‘Is it proper that I should ride upon an ass while you
are expounding the work of the chariot, and the Divine Presence is
with us, and the ministering angels accompany us?”
Forthwith Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh began his exposition of the
work of the chariot. Fire came down from heaven and encompassed
all the trees of the field. All the trees began to utter song.
And what was the song they uttered? Praise the Lord from the earth,
you sea monsters and all depths, fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy
wind fulfilling his command, mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all
cedars (Ps. 148:79).
An angel then answered from the fire and said, ‘‘This is the very
work of the chariot.””
Thereupon Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai rose and kissed him on his
head and said, *‘Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, who has given @
son to Abraham our father who knows to speculate upon and to
investigate and to expound the work of the chariot. There are some
The Merkabah Tradition 95
who preach well but do not perform well. Others perform well but do
not expound well! But you expound well and perform well. Happy are
you, O Abraham our father, that Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh has come
forth from your loins.’’*
Ma’aseh Merkabah was practiced as well as preached. This body of
knowledge was accessible to man through tradition, reflection, and
experience.
Of what did this body of knowledge consist? It consisted, in the first
instance, of a view as to the nature of reality. In this view, reality forms one
continuum from the inert stone to the divine Throne. There is no sharp
division between nature and supernature. Rather, reality is an order of
beings which includes the physical world, man, the celestial worlds, and
the supra-celestial realms of the angels and the other heavenly beings. This
entire range of beings is, however, secondary with respect to the utterly
transcendent, the numinous reality which is beyond even mystical visions.
Furthermore, reality, as it is known to the mystic, is created (or generated),
And throughout, even in its uppermost reaches, reality is motivated by
spirit, by the word, by the name. Word, name, and number form the real
substructure of the world. Names, and even sounds, are the true keys to the
gates to the infinite. Supernal, like mundane, reality is fraught with danger,
and both are shaped by the power and the order of the spirit.
The body of knowledge of the Merkabah mystic, therefore, comprised a
cosmological theory rooted in the spirit plus a practicable knowledge of the
paths into that realm. The mystic needed to understand how reality was
formed of names, words, letters, sounds, and numbers. He needed to know
the sequence of the heavenly palaces, with their guards. And he needed to
know what was expected of him and what was forbidden to him in this
world and in that one.
The mystic, then, took this body of knowledge, this ‘‘gnosis,"” and used
it, making it into a ‘‘praxis.’’ With it he could often perform what appeared
to the common man as miracles. He could “‘create.”” And with it he could
transcend his earthly bounds and enter the realm of the spirit. It was not
ethics, law, theology, or preaching that the Merkabah mystic generated. It
was reports of the heavenly realms and the creative acts of man.
What is the implied theology of this literature? God is absolutely
transcendent. Monotheism is supreme. No magic compels God. No angel
outranks God. He is not even perceived; only His minions and His Throne
can be seen, through the veils. Also, God does not reach out to man. Man
approaches Him. Man, when properly prepared, can approach God at will.
He can ascend the ladder or take up the letters. But it is man who initiates
here, not God.
*Cited from J, Neusner, First Century Judaism in Crisis (New York and Nashville: Abingdon.
Press, 1975), pp. 127-28.
96 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
What motivated this literature? What sensitivities, feelings, and human
interests generated this strange world? The texts as we have them are not
motivated by an intimacy with God. On the contrary, man and God are far
apart. Neither the creative act nor the mystical act is a moment of love or
devotion. Why, then, did these rabbi-mystics and rabbi-magicians occupy
themselves with this complex material? There are several reasons. First,
there is a certain curiosity, a search for knowledge, that leads people to
explore the hidden. Second, the Biblical texts did require explication and
expansion, and in the context of a general salvific theology based
on study and practice, mystical knowledge and activity were seen as an
integral part of the divine plan of Redemption. To get to know God and His
ways—esoteric as well as exoteric—was to come a step closer to personal,
national, and cosmic salvation. But third, and most important, these texts
reflect man’s preoccupation with the holy. It is the numinous itself which
attracts people’s minds and efforts. It is the mysterious powerfulness of the
realm of the Other that rivets man’s attention upon such phenomena and
such texts. These esotericist rabbis comprehended the numinous in the
framework of their time, but the wrestling with it is as old as man’s spiritual
sensitivity and insight. To study and practice Scfer Yetsira or Pirkei
Heikhalot was to deal with the numinous, and that was reason enough.
If | were to characterize this mysticism, in its creative and its visionary
forms, with one word, I would call it * power mysticism.’’ This is because
the core of these bodies of knowledge, experiences, and activities is a
moment of power—power to create, power and counterpower during the
ascent, and, ultimately, the power of God. The vision is a royal vision; the
expression, an expression of power.
To the best of my knowledge, these mystical ascents and creative acts
are no longer practiced, and these visions are no longer seen by men. What
happened? What was the fate of this ‘power mysticism’’? First, the
literature was destined to survive. Fragments, some badly mutilated, have
been transmitted over the centuries, and they are only now receiving
another life from the hands of scholars. Second, certain themes were to find
their echoes in later mystical literature. Thus, the Merkabah, with all its
accompanying celestial hosts, takes its place in the Zoharic scheme of
things, and even in late Hasidic thought it is an integral part of the
ontological hierarchy. The Shi'ur Qomah literature, which comes from this
period and describes the ‘‘body” of God as of colossal dimensions, is fully
exploited in certain parts of the Zohar. Third, the use of magical names and
seals generated a tradition of ‘practical Kabbalah’’ that has lasted until the
modern period and still survives in certain sectors of the Jewish commu»
nity. One need only examine the obverse side of the parchment of most
mezuzot to find a magical inscription which uses a reverse alphabet. (An
excellent study of Jewish magic for the medieval period is J. Trachtenberg,
The Merkabah Tradition 97
Jewish Magic and Superstition [1939; reprinted, New York: Atheneum,
1970}.)
The most important trace of Merkabah mysticism, however, is to be
found in the liturgy of Rabbinic Judaism. Thus, the hymn **Excellence and
faithfulness are His Who lives forever” (Pirkei Heikhalot 28:1) is actually a
part of the liturgy. Similarly, some of the poems utilized on the High
Holidays are of the Heikhalot form and tone, and even the daily liturgy
makes use of the multiplicative, hypnotic style of the Heikhalot literature.
Also, the occurrence of certain phrases, such as **Creator of creation”
(Yotser Bershit), and “‘He is beautiful in glory on the Merkabah”’
(ve-nehedar bi-khavod ‘al ha-Merkabah), and ‘it is not possible to estimate
the Merkavot of Your Name, nor to explain Its hiddenness,”’ is evidence of
Merkabah influence in the liturgy. More subtly, the angelology of the
morning liturgy and the doxology (known as the Kedusha) are evidences of
an attempt by the liturgists to somehow allude to the mystical experiences
of the Merkabah tradition. Similarly, the theme of *‘parallel doxology””
(that the earthly doxology parallels the celestial one) and perhaps even the
entire theme of God’s kingship—which constitutes one of the central
insights of Rabbinic Judaism (see, e.g., M. Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind
{New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1953])—are indicative of the
efforts of the liturgists to come to terms with the insights and experiences of
this mystical realm.
It must be added that these Merkabah elements were not simply added
to, or incorporated into, the rabbinic liturgy. A close comparison of these
two types of texts shows that the rabbi-liturgists acted upon the material in
three important ways. They eliminated the ascent and the name-seal
themes, and they greatly attenuated the splendor of the celestial personnel
and hymns, thereby creating a truly modest and more subtle rendition of
the mystical element in worship. They also intertwined the mystical themes
with other rabbinic themes, such as the Torah, study, purity of heart,
redemption, history, etc. In so doing, the rabbis added a subtle mystical
clement to Rabbinic Judaism, and they ‘‘saved’’ Merkabah mysticism from
becoming a historical curiosity. By “taming” Merkabah mysticism, the
rabbis made it part of the living religious tradition of the people.
Certain elements of the Merkabah tradition, however, were destined to
die out. The whole world-view of late antiquity, of which it is so much a
part, dissipated in the face of the new Islamic-Hellenistic synthesis. More
elegant conceptions of the supramundane world were to arise. More
sophisticated articulations of the nature of divinity were just under the
horizon. And, new and more profound mystical techniques were to appear
that were to render the Merkabah tradition inadequate as an expression of
the ultimate that man can experience of the divine. It is to one such new
synthesis that we now turn.
||
1]
||
Unit Two
The Zoharic Tradition
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The Zohar is a book—a commentary to the Torah, to be exact—written at
the end of the thirteenth century in Spain. Yet it is much more than just a
book, for within a little more than a century of its publication, the Zohar
succeeded in capturing the religious intellect and imagination of vast
segments of the educated Jewish community. The Zohar became the “third
Bible” of the Jews, second in importance only to the Bible itself and the
Talmud. This feat was all the more remarkable because the readership was
a sophisticated, educated elite accustomed to dealing with very difficult
texts, as we have seen. And yet the Zohar did succeed in carving out a place
for itself in the forefront of Jewish thought and practice. We can even say
that the Zohar succeeded in creating an entire tradition of its own, an entire
stream within the river of the Jewish mystical tradition. How did this
happen, and why did it happen? What is the power of the Zohar, and whatis
the nature of the tradition that is created? How did the Zohar speak to the
deepest needs of religious people, acquiring such prominence, so fast, in
such sophisticated circles, and generating such profound thought and prac-
tice for so many centuries? What were the later developments? How did
they modify the teachings of the Zohar? Why? For whom was this literature
written, and how was it transmitted? These are the questions of this unit.
The selections presented here are only samples. The sea is vast, and we
can walk but a small distance along one shore. Chapter 7 explains how to
read the Zohar. Chapter 8 scts forth the teachings of the Zohar on the
personality of God. Chapter 9 presents the Zoharic view of the role of man.
Chapter 10 traces a later development of these ideas which radicalized them
considerably. And Chapter 11 seeks to evaluate the overall impact of
this stream of thought.
The ideas contained in this unit are very different from those taught in
Sunday school (and certainly from those taught in parochial school). Often
they will seem far-out, even heretical, over against the usual received
knowledge. In fact, if they do not startle you, you have not fully understood
them. Yet these ideas have deep value, for they will teach you something
about, and deepen your appreciation of, mystical theology and mystical
experience.
101
7
DOCTRINAL SUMMARY
Introduction
There are three problems which must be resolved before one can even
approach the text of the Zohar: (1) the problem of the historical setting and
literary structure; (2) the problem of the general intellectual structure, that
is, the main ideas; and (3) the problem of how to decipher a Zoharic text.
The core of the historical and literary problem is very simple. The Zohar
is a forgery—more exactly, itis pseudepigraphy. The questions arise: How
do we know this? Why did the author, who wrote it in the thirteenth
century, ascribe it to a second-century figure? Why did he use an artificial
language? What streams of thought was the author heir to? These questions
have been dealt with in great detail by G. Scholem in several of his works,
and a short reading which summarizes his conclusions is presented here.
For a fuller discussion of the evidence and methods, the reader should
consult Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, chapter 5.
The remaining two problems are dealt with in ‘‘How to Decipher a
Zoharic Text’ (below, p. 113).
103
The Historical Setting and Literary Problems
by G. Scholem*
The book of Zohar, the most important literary work of the Kabbalah, lies:
before us in some measure inaccessible and silent, as befits a work of secret
wisdom. Whether because of this, or in spite of it, among the great liters
products of our medieval writings, however much clearer and more familiar
than the Zohar many of them seem to us, not one has had an even
approximately similar influence or a similar success. To have determined
the formation and development over a long period of time of the religiot
convictions of the widest circles in Judaism, and particularly of those mo:
sensitive to religion, and, what is more, to have succeeded in establishi
itself for three centuries, from about 1500 to 1800, as a source of doctri
and revelation equal in authority to the Bible and Talmud, and of the sai
canonical rank—this is a prerogative that can be claimed by no other wot
of Jewish literature. This radiant power did not, to be sure, emanate at
very beginning from “‘The Book of Radiance”’ or, as we usually render tl
title in English, “*The Book of Splendor.’’ Maimonides’ ‘‘Guide to tl
Perplexed,’’ in almost every respect the antithesis of the Zohar, influent
its own time directly and openly; from the moment of its appearance
affected people’s minds, moving them to enthusiasm or to consternati
Yet, after two centuries of a profound influence, it began to lose it
effectiveness more and more, until finally, for centuries long, it vanish
almost entirely from the consciousness of the broad masses. It was only
the end of the 18th century that the Jewish Enlightenment again brought
into prominence, seeking to make it an active force in its own struggle,
FromG. Scholem, Zohar: The Book of Splendor, rev. ed. (New York: Schocken Books, 1972),
pp. 7-21.
104
The Zoharic Tradition 105
It was different with the Zohar, which had to make its way out of an
almost complete, hardly penetrable anonymity and concealment. For
ahundred years and more it elicited scarcely any interest to speak of. When
itcame on the scene, it expressed (and therefore appealed to) the feeling of
avery small class of men who in loosely organized conventicles strove fora
new, mystical understanding of the world of Judaism, and who had not the
faintest notion that this particular book alone, among the many which
Sought to express their new world-view in allegory and symbol, was
destined to succeed. Soon, however, the light shadow of scandal that had
fallen upon its publication and initial appearance in the world of literature,
the enigma of the illegitimate birth of a literary forgery, disappeared and
was forgotten. Very slowly but surely the influence of the Zohar grew; and
when the groups among which it had gained dominion proved themselves in
the storms of Jewish history to be the bearers of anew religious attitude that
not only laid claim to, but in fact achieved, authority, then the Zohar ina
late but exceedingly intensive afterglow of national life came to fulfil the
great historical task of a sacred text supplementing the Bible and Talmud
and a new level of religious consciousness. This inspirational character has
been attached to it by numerous Jewish groups in Eastern Europe and the
Orient down to our own days, nor have they hesitated to assert that final
conclusion which has since earliest times been drawn in the recognition ofa
sacred text, namely, that the effect upon the soul of such a work is in the
end not at all dependent upon its being understood.
It was only with the collapse of that stratum of life and belief in which the
Kabbalah was able to represent a historical force that the splendor of the
Zohar also faded; and later, in the revaluation of the Enlightenment, it
became the ‘*book of lies,"* considered to have obscured the pure light of
Judaism. The reform-tending polemic in this case too made haste to
become an instrument of historical criticism, which, it must be said, after a
few promising starts, showed itself weak and uncertain in the carrying out
ofits program, sound as its methods and true as many of its theses may
have been. *
Historical criticism, however, will survive the brief immortality of that
“genuine” Judaism whose view of history and whose hierarchy of values
save rise to it. Freed from polemic, and concerned for a more precise and
objective insight into its subject matter, it will now assert itself in the new
(und in part very old) context in which we begin to see the world of Judaism,
and Judaism’s history.
LITERARY CHARACTER
The Zohar in its external literary physiognomy seems far from being
conceived'and constructed as a unified composition. Still less can it be
regarded as any kind of systematic exposition of the world-view of the
Kabbalah, like many such which have come down to us from the period of
the Kabbalah’s origin and even more from later times. It is rather, in the
printed form that lies before us, a collection of treatises and writings that
are considerably different from one another in external form. Most of the
sections seem to be interpretations of Bible passages, or short sayings or
longer homilies, or else often artfully composed reports of whole series of
homilies in which Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, a famous teacher of the 2nd
century, and his friends and students interpret the words of Scripture in
accordance with their hidden meaning, and, moreover, almost always in
the Aramaic language. Other sections, though these are few, have been
preserved in the form of anonymous and purely factual accounts in which
there can be recognized no such settings of landscape and persons as those
described with so much care elsewhere in the work, often in highly
dramatic fashion. Fairly often the exposition is enigmatically brief, but
frequently the ideas are very fully presented with homiletical amplitude and
an architectonically effective elaboration. Many sections actually appear
as fragments of oracles and as reports of secret revelations, and are written
ina peculiarly enthusiastic, a solemn, ‘‘elevated”’ style; so much so that the
detached reader is apt to feel they have overstepped the bounds of good
taste inthe direction of affectation and bombast. While often the exposition
has an only slightly elevated tone and is pregnant and realistic, we do find in
acertain number of passages a passion for the association of ideas which is
pushed to an extreme, degenerating into a flight from conceptual reality,
Externally, also, many parts are set off from the rest by special titles as
more or less independent compositions, and this not without very good
reason.
The main part of the Zohar, which is arranged by Pentateuch portions,
purports to be an ancient Midrash, and in many details it imitates the form
of the ancient midrashic works of the first centuries c.r. On the whole,
indeed, it breaks through this form and assumes the quite different one of
the medieval sermon. Such extended compositions, constructed on 4
definite plan, as we find in the Zohar to the length of fifteen or twenty of
even forty pages, are quite foreign to the ancient Midrash. Here a different
principle of composition obtains. The same is true of the parts called
Midrash ha-Neelam (The Secret Midrash) and Sitre Torah (Secrets of the
Torah), which in a large number of Pentateuch portions, especially in thé
first book, provide parallel pieces to the “main parts.””
The Secret Midrash, tobe sure, has much to say about Simeon ben Yohal
106
The Zoharic Tradition 107
and his circle, but almost completely avoids genuinely mystical and
theosophical trains of thought; instead, in its most important sections, it
presents radical allegorizations of the patriarchal stories as indicative of: the
fate of the soul before and after death. These allegories very clearly reveal
their Kinship to the philosophical homiletic of the 13th century. The Secrets
of the Torah, on the other hand, which in the main was composed without
the use of the Midrash form or the addition of names, represents the
(ransition from philosophical-eschatological allegory to genuinely mystical
exegesis.
The Idra Rabba (The Great Assembly) describes, on an excellently
eonstructed plan, the mystical “figure” of the Deity in the symbol of Primal
Min, and Simeon ben Yohai treats the same theme a second time in a
Monologue before his death, an event which is most vividly described in
Mra Zutta (The Smal! Assembly). Anonymous ““Mishnayot”’ and ‘‘Tosef-
fot,” intended as introductions to other longer sections, expound oracles
soncerning the world and the soul. In Raya Mehemna (The Faithful
Shepherd), Moses and Rabbi Simeon converse about the hidden reasons
for the commandments. The Tikkunim again give a detailed interpretation
Of the first section of the Pentateuch, and thus we have more than a total of
{en great and small parts that are evidently separate units. It is no wonder,
therefore, that the question of the unity of the Zohar has found very
ncertain answers.
ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP
While the different points of view in Zohar criticism cannot be fully gone
into here, the present status of research can, at any rate, be briefly
Summarized. The most radical opinion was put forth by Heinrich Graetz.
He declared all parts of the Zohar without exception to be the work of the
Spanish kabbalist Moses de Leon, who died in 1305, and the great historian
emptied the vials of an exceedingly vehement wrath over him. Very few
feputations have come down to posterity from the school of Graetz in so
battered and pitiable a state as has de Leon’s. Far from recognizing the
wenius that must have been at work in the Zohar, if it was the production of
‘single man, Graetz saw in it only deception and charlatanism.
In contrast to this view, the Zohar has been regarded, especially in the
preceding generation, asa work altogether without unity, or else as one that
jew anonymously in the course of time, and in which the most varied and
utten contradictory forces of the kabbalistic movement found expression.
11) either case, Moses de Leon was in this view regarded as the redactor of
Wicient writings and fragments, to which he may perhaps have added
something of his own. The theory that “‘primitive’’ sources and documents
108 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
have been preserved in the Zohar, although admittedly in revised form, is
today widespread. Thus the Zohar (and this is undoubtedly what has gone
to make this view so attractive though it lacks all proof) would really be,
even inits external beginnings, a deposit of the creative folk-spirit and, like
the Bible and Talmud, the anonymous work of centuries. And it may be
taken as an indication of the enduring influence of the school of Ahad Haam
that the lack of proof for this theory—and in its behalf not even the shadow
of philologi ‘itical evidence has been brought forward—has in no way
seriously hindered its spread. What is plausible can do without proof.
Every attempt to establish, through the working out of exact criteria, that
certain layers and parts of the Zohar go back to a time before the middle
the 13th century turns out to be new evidence to the contrary. This fact has
been vividly experienced by the present writer. After devoting many yeal
to just such an analysis, he found the unequivocal result to correspond si
little to the expectations with which he started out, refuting them in fact.
thoroughly, that he ventures to state with assurance the followi
conclusions.
The Zohar is, in the main, a unified book, although not so unified
Graetz imagined. Among the separate parts there are no strata or anciet
material from mystical Midrashim unknown to us; on the contrary, the:
parts came out of the heads of their authors just as they are, except thi
many parts are undoubtedly missing, having disappeared from the mani
scripts as early as the 14th century. Much of the printed text is wrongl
arranged, where the manuscript, however, retains the correct ord
Finally, a few shorter pieces were added still later in the 14th century. T|
separate parts do not relate to a corresponding number of strata or autho!
but the whole corpus of Zohar literature was in origin made up of thi
strata. These, in themselves predominantly unified, are:
1. Midrash ha-Neelam.
2. The main part of the Zohar with the Idra Rabba, Idra Zutta, Si
Torah and most of the other short treatises.
3. Raya Mehemna and the so-called Tikkune Zohar, both of which had:
single author.
Certain it is that the author of the third stratum, who had the seco
before him in completed form and cites it and rather unsuccessfully imitat)
it, is not the author of the first two. Everything speaks against this being
the linguistic character of the third, its strongly apocalyptic tendencies,
laborious construction, its divergent views, and its way of using soure
One might perhaps propose the rather hazardous thesis that we are he!
dealing with the work of the old age and decline of the chief author, wh
early talents had left him and who was imitating himself, were it not for t
fact that too much of an independent nature inheres in the book Tikkunim
The Zoharic Tradition 109
make this thesis tenable. This last group of writing was composed around
1300.
‘The first two strata, on the other hand, are in all probability by a single
author, whose development from the composition of the first to the second
is still clearly traceable, and thus it becomes gratuitous to assume any break
in the identity of the person who stands behind the whole production. The
Secret Midrash, which has hitherto been customarily regarded as the latest
part of the whole work because of its free use of philosophical terminology
4s well as its partial use of the Hebrew language, is in all probability the
earliest part.
Behind the whole stands the living personality of a mystic who, starting
with the philosophical and talmudic education of his time, lets himself be
ever more deeply drawn to the mystical and gnostic ideas of the Kabbalah,
nd finally gives up his philosophical interests altogether, developing
instead a truly astonishing genius for mystical homiletics; indeed, half a
millennium had to elapse before Jewish literature was again able to show
\nything comparable. For such is the author of these most important parts
of the Zohar—no redactor or collector but a homiletic genius. It was
Kabbalah, as it had developed before his time, and having become his
spiritual home, which he, with unexpected and impressive power, con-
\tructed from out of the text of Scripture and the ancient haggadic motifs of
the Midrash.
Thus although his world of thought and concept was not novel, his
Mystical sources were by no means forgotten tomes and apocrypha from
obscure centuries, They were the literature of the Kabbalah to the time of
Moses ben Nahman (1195-1270) and his circle, a literature which has been
in large part preserved and is today quite well known. The manner in which
this Zohar author’s mystical world was constructed reveals to us very
precisely the only period of time in which he is to be correctly placed in the
ilevelopment of the Kabbalah; in addition to which a whole series of
linguistic and factual criteria, quite independent of one another, point to
exactly the same time. It was certainly around 1280 that these main parts of
the Zohar were composed in Spain by a kabbalist who had not seen
Palestine, In ever new guises and externally different literary and stylistic
forms this work erupts from an author who seems to have deeply
experienced his conversion to kabbalism. But in spite of all the masks
which he is fond of putting on, the inner form and the personal style are
Always identical.
But what about these masks? What about this whole Galilean landscape,
Which dissolves into unreality, and Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, his family and
friends, and all the other trappings of a Midrash-like finery, in which the
Author seems to find so much pleasure, as if enjoying himself in the play of
fantasy? This flight into pseudonymity and romantic backdrop evoked in
110 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
the critical writings of the 19th century a literary excitement—angry
attacks and moralistic condemnation, as well as a circumspect and
sometimes vociferous apologetic—which seems to us today to have been
considerably exaggerated. For a long time we have known that literary
forgeries represent a flight into anonymity and pseudonymity just as often
as they indicate trickery; and not for nothing have we retained the foreign
word ‘‘pseudepigrapha”’ to designate in particular a legitimate category of
religious literature, by a term devoid of the moralistic undertone of
reprobation which echoes in the English word ‘‘forgery.” Important
documents of our religious literature are in this sense forgeries; also, the
mystical literature which the author of the Zohar may have read consisted,
to a considerable extent, of earlier pseudepigrapha.
We are not even sure whether the author, who handles the technique of
pseudepigraphy with so much virtuosity and permits the persons of his
dialogue a profusion of invented book titles and citations, took the literary
form of the kabbalistic pseudepigrapha very seriously. Certainly, in a
whole series of imitations of the Zohar which appeared during the first
hundred years after its publication, it is clear that their authors did not by
any means take the masquerade for the real thing. The masquerade served
as a welcome means of letting the chance name of an author who foun
himself in possession of secret wisdom disappear behind his material, a1
if the framework is sometimes overdecorated by wilful or, it may be,
reckless hands—and the Zohar is the most important but by far not the onl}
example of such love of masquerade in Jewish literature—still this was onl}
an added touch. Only later were these things more crudely conceivi
when the disguise became a historical reality.
How playfully the author of the Zohar himself used this form is shown.
the noteworthy fact that together with this book he composed still oth
shorter pseudepigraphic works, of which one, the so-called ‘Testament
Rabbi Eliezer the Great,”’ has enjoyed the good fortune of being among t
most widely circulated Jewish folk-books, although its true origin has got
generally unrecognized. Graetz, indeed, has pictured Moses de Leon to
as forging the Zohar out of greed for profit, in order to make money out
the gullible rich after the books published under his own name had ceasi
to yield him sufficient gain. This storybook figure of a cunning rogue wou!
be unacceptable to historical criticism even if we did not have conclusive
proof that the main part of the Zohar was in existence before 1286, the ye!
that Moses de Leon wrote his ‘‘own’’ first book, which was entirely basi
upon the Zohar. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of hi
having written the Zohar himself previous to that year.
But was Moses de Leon in fact the author of this very Zohar, as even hi
own contemporaries long ago suspected? We may now say with a fil
amount of philological certainty that Moses de Leon must indeed
The Zoharie Tradition 111
considered the actual author of the book. True, while much former
evidence bolstering that hypothesis has been disproved, there has now
come to light certain entirely new evidence to speak decisively for Moses
de Leon’s authorship. This much is certain: Moses de Leon was in
possession of the original work and circulated it from 1280 on, so that a
countryman of his, Isaac ibn Sahula of Guadalajara read The Secret
Midrash as early as 1281. From 1286 on Moses de Leon composed his
‘own’? writings in very considerable number. These books reveal an
{uthor who lives and moves wholly in the specific world of the Zohar and
not merely in the general world of the contemporary Kabbalah, so that we
have only the choice of saying either that he entirely surrendered himself to
the stronger personality of the nameless author of the Zohar, to the extent of
giving up his own personal traits, or that he himself was the author. For the
latter view there is a noteworthy chronological indication, Up until
recently, no one knew how old Moses de Leon was when he began to write,
or whether it was at all possible to fit into his ‘*pre-history,”’ before he
began to write under his own name, those ten to twenty years which must
have been at the very least required for the conception of a work of the kind
to which the first two strata of the Zohar belong. But before the First World
War, there was found in Moscow a manuscript which by a strange
coincidence was none other than one of the scripts of Maimonides’ ‘‘Guide
to the Perplexed,”’ and had been written for Moses de Leon in 1264, These
twenty ‘tempty”’ years (1264 to 1286) preceding his public appearance fit in
very strikingly indeed with the period of the origin of the Zohar, which has
been determined through quite different connections and criteria. Would
not the path that led from the reading of the “Guide to the Perplexed” tothe
eschatological mysticism of Moses de Leon’s ** Book of the Rational Soul"*
be the very one which was described above as that of the inner
development of the Zohar’s author, from half-philosophical allegory to the
mystical-theosophical interpretation of Scripture? We may say with
certitude that no one of the other Spanish kabbalists of that period who are
within our ken and appear before us with their individual spiritual traits can
be brought into the question as a possible author of the Zohar. Neither
Abraham Abulafia nor Moses of Burgos, neither Jacob of Segovia nor
Joseph Gikatila shows that unmistakable physiognomy. And whoever is
\nwilling to believe in the Great Unknown who has so successfully eluded
all attempts to trace him, must give his adherence to Moses de Leon, if he
wishes to succeed in the reconstruction of one of the most significant and
clearly marked figures of Jewish religious history.
Something must here be said about the language of the Zohar, which has
proved to be one of the most important factors in its influence. The
sustained chiaroscuro of this peculiar Zohar-Aramaic has overlaid with a
venerable patina and a luster of restrained enthusiasm ideas which, if they
112 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
had been expressed in the sober Hebrew of the 13th century, would have
had to speak by themselves; in the form which they assumed, they have,
one might say, found their native idiom. This linguistic achievement is the
more admirable in that the medieval Hebrew, as is evident to a keen eye,
shows through the Aramaic on page after page, in word order, syntax and
terminology; and the more admirable also, considering that the Aramaic
vocabulary of the author evidences a curious poverty and simplicity. As
soon as one has read thirty pages of the original, one knows the language of ©
the whole book well enough, and in this same respect it is astonishing with
what modest resources so much has been expressed and so great an effect
has been achieved. Often enough the exact understanding of a passage in
the Zohar is dependent upon a retranslation into the Hebrew of the
contemporary Kabbalah, and Moses de Leon’s writings above all quickly
give the key to many passages. A good many mystical concepts are
expressed rather arbitrarily in new word-formations, which in many cases
have arisen from corrupted forms of talmudic words in medieval manu-
scripts, or from similar misunderstandings.
How to Decipher a Zoharic Text
In Western tradition, when we study any given theology, we usually find
ourselves examining an attempt to think systematically about God’s
manifestations, or His acts, or His words. That is, when theologians write,
they try to make sense out of what God has done and/or what God has said.
Theologians do not usually try to tell us what is going on inside the mind of
God. Theologians do not usually try to tell us of the conflicts that God
experienced in creating the world, or of the tensions within God as He
guides and directs the world through His Providence. Theologians try,
rather, to systematize, in some way, the exoteric doctrines or beliefs of a
tradition. Similarly, those religious leaders responsible for defining the
practice of the community do not tell us of the inner workings of the
personhood of God. Rather, they regulate and interpret behavior for the
community. They teach people what to do. This tendency to avoid talking
about God in strongly anthropopathic terms (i.e., in terms that attribute
human feelings to God) took especially deep root in the Middle Ages in all
the Western religious traditions because of the influence of Greek
philosophy, which thought of God as perfect, unchanging, unsusceptible to
the vagaries of human existence.
The Zohar represents a forceful break with this way of thinking of God,
for the Zohar is *“‘theosophy” (or “‘theosophical gnosis’’). By this I mean
that the Zohar purports not only to interpret God’s revealed words and
wets, but also to describe the inner workings of God’s mind. The Zohar
purports not only to describe the divine realms of the angels, spirits, etc.,
but to tell us of the workings of the very personality of God. It claims to
deseribe the various, often conflicting, elements that comprise the
consciousness of God. This will seem strange, even preposterous, to the
modern reader, yet it is so. The Zohar teaches that personal consciousness
is of the essence of God, that personal consciousness is the common
element in man and God—the image of God in which man was created.
‘Yo decipher a Zoharic text, then, the Western and modern reader must
suspend all presuppositions about the nature of God as a perfect, immobile
Hheing and must engage the text as an essay in the psychology of God. Just
what is God like? What kind of personality does He have? He has,
113
114 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MY:
according to the tradition, left a good record of His thoughts (the Bible) and
of His acts (creation and history). Why not try to developa ‘psychology of
God”? The Zohar presupposes that this can be done, and does it. The
reader must accept the presupposition and then examine the results for
their religious meaning (even if they cannot be ‘‘verified”’ in eny ‘‘objec-
tive’’ or “‘scientific’? way). The cautious student may prefer to treat this
system as a symbolic system or as a mythic structure, yet he should be
aware that, for the Zohar and its readers, this is real. It is (esoteric) truth.
What, then, are the main elements in the psychology of God? The Zohar
uses the word sefirot (sing. sefira) to describe the basic components of the
personality of God (and, and by implication, of man). This word is the same
as that used in the Sefer Yetsira, yet there the sefirot were outside of God
(extradeical), while in the Zohar the sefirot are inside God (intradeical),
They are part of Him. We do not know exactly how the author of the Zohar
came to this conception of God, or to this use of the word sefiror, but the
usage exists and it is clear. 3
The Zohar teaches, then, that there are ten sefirot. They are known
individually and collectively by several names and by several sets of
symbols. They can be called: rivers, pillars, heavens, supports, worlds,
aspects, borders, hosts, steps, crowns, clothing, fountains, streams, gates,
days, colors, etc. They can be organized according to groupings of t
various divine Names. As a collective, they can be referred to as: a garden,
a field, a tree, or a Primal Man. The sefirot also have generally accept
names, as follows: Keter, Hokhma, Bina, Gevura (sometimes, Din
Hesed, Tiferet, Nesah, Hod, Yesod, and Malkhut. It is not entirely cle;
whether these accepted names always have the same meanings a
connotations. Yet as aspects of the personality of God, the ten sefirot ¢:
be construed as followed:
Keter: God's transcendent, or pure, royalty
Hokhma: the wisdom, or mind, of God
Bina: God's (intuitive) understanding
Gevura: God's transcendent, or pure, power
Hesed: God’s transcendent, or pure, grace (unmerited love)
Tiferet: God’s active royalty; His Kingship
Nesah: God’s active grace
Hod: God's active power
Yesod: God’s righteous power (confluence of the above sefirot)
Malkhut: God’s engaged royalty; His Providence (connec
the lower realms); His Presence or Face
The characteristics listed and the metaphors used to describe the realm
of the sefirot suggest that this is not a static realm. Rather, as the reader may
The Zoharic Tradition 115
already have surmised, these characteristics are interactive. Their rela-
tionships are dynamic. An energy pervades this system, and this energy
flows from sefira to sefira, activating and intensifying its characteristics as it
moves. The Zohar conceives of the personality, or consciousness, of God
on the model of the dynamic human personality, i-e., as a consciousness
that flows and moves within the self, from the inner to the outer aspects of
the self and even among the inner and outer aspects. It is strange that a
complete understanding of the Zohar may only come after the insights of
modern psychology have opened our eyes to the complexity and depth of
the human personality. Then, perhaps, we will understand more of God’s
personality, for it is personal consciousness that binds man and Ged
logether, according to the Zohar.
To decipher a Zoharic text, then, the reader must memorize the names
and sequence of the sefirot, together with their simplest meanings. Three
diagrams (Figs. 9, 10, 11) are presented for the reader to study. The com-
mentary to the texts will use the one labeled “The Sefirotic Tree—II”
(Fig. 11).
To decipher a Zoharic text, the reader must also know that in Western
tradition, mixing one’s metaphors is considered bad style. Not so in the
Zohar. There, mixing metaphors is considered an art. And so, in any given
passage, one must expect to find the same sefira referred to with several
designations, One can even expect the entire realm of the sefirot and the
dynamic flow of divine energy that pulses through that realm to be referred
to by the simultaneous use of several symbol-systems. The river beds will
contain light. The orchard will contain kings. The Queen will be watered
from the deep stream. And so on. This Alice-in-Wonderland quality of
Zoharic style is an essential part of the point the author is trying to make,
and the reader will want to consider: What is the point, and how does this
style help the author to make it?
Finally, to decipher a Zoharic text, the reader must know that each text
exists on several levels. There is, first of all, the level of the Biblical text,
for the Zohar is a commentary to the Bible. The reader must identify the
problem in the Biblical text that is the springboard for the Zoharic homily.
he modern reader, using critical scholarly method, will frequently see no
problem. It must then be kept in mind that the author of the Zohar accepts
the classic rabbinic position of the unitary and divine authorship of the
Kible, and hence the rule that there is no needless repetition of words in the
Hible. All such stylistic parallelisms, therefore, must contain some hidden
Meaning, and it is often this assumption that creates a problem for the
uthor of the Zohar, allowing him to develop his insights.
Second, there is the level of the accepted rabbinic interpretation of the
passage, Rabbinic tradition frequently interprets Biblical passages in a
semi-allegorical mode to refer to God, Israel, Torah, mitsvot, etc. This
116
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
THE SEFIROTIC TREE—I
(From Scholem, Major Trendy in Jewish Mysticism, 9p. 214
Fig. 9
The Zoharic Tradition
PRIMAL MAN
MD PR
THe ENOLESS
AiveDom
Fig. 10
117
118 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
THE SEFIROTIC TREE—II
KETER
(transcendent royalty)
HOKHMA
(transcendent wisdom)
BINA
(intuitive understanding)
GEVURA . HESED
TIFERET
(active royalty)
HOD NESAH
(active gra
(active power)
YESOD
(righteous power)
MALKHUT
(engaged royalty)
Fig Hd
The Zoharic Tradition 119
accepted tradition of commentation allows the casual reader to read
through the Zohar and to proclaim that there is nothing very special about
its interpretation of the Bible. For most of the text of the Zohar is structured
so that it can be read on the commonly accepted rabbinic level of
interpretation, without any clear reference to the theosophic ideas that it
contains. This is a very clever and artful clothing of insights in a seemingly
innocuous commentary.
The third level of interpretation of a Zoharic text is the actual
decipherment of the sefirotic symbolism. For example: “Community of
[srael’’ is a symbol for Malkhut. ‘'Tree of Life’ is a symbol for Tiferet.
“Shekhina” is a symbol for Malkhut. ‘‘Most Hidden One” isa symbol for
Keter (sometimes, Hokhma). “Sea” is a symbol for Bina (sometimes,
Malkhut). And so on. A list of the symbolic correspondences would fill
several pages of print, and the reader must follow the commentary and
develop his own instincts. (I. Tishby, in his Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 vols.
(Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1961], translates passages of the Zohar into
Hebrew and analyzes the symbolism, in Hebrew. The ten-volume Zohar
‘im Sullam (London, 1970] does much the same.) Having deciphered the
Sefirotic symbolism, the reader arrives at the fourth level of
interpretation—the consideration of the meaning of the text. That is, the
reader must try to interpret the nature of the interaction of the sefirot being
described: What has happened, in psychological terms? Does the sefirotic
interaction described have a true analogy in the workings of human
consciousness? And, as the reader’s insight into God develops under the
guidance of the Zohar, the reader must ask: Is this possible? Can God really
contain these elements in Himself? Do the tensions described contradict
traditional Jewish theology? Are they heretical in some sense? What does
the depiction of God contained in the Zohar say about the nature of reality:
divine and mundane? If these passages do not challenge and startle you,
you have not understood them.
8
THE PERSONALITY OF GOD
The Rose and the Lily
This text is a beautiful example of a text existing on several levels. The
, reader must ask: What is the problem in the Biblical verse that permits the
author to develop his homily? What is the overt symbolic interpretation of
the text? Then the reader must decipher the sefirotic symbolism of the text.
Finally, the reader must try to evaluate the meaning of the text inits deepest
psychological and spiritual terms. Note, too, the artful interweaving of
Biblical texts in the homily.
Rabbi Shimon opened his discourse: ‘I am a Rose of Sharon, a Lily
of the Valleys” [Song of Songs 2:1]. How beloved is the Community of
Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He. For He praises her and she
always praises Him. And how great is the store of praises and song she
has put up for him. Happy is the lot of Israel who grasp the portion of
the holy fate as it says .
Because she flowers splendidly in the Garden of Eden, the Commu-
nity of Israel is called “Rose of Sharon’’; also, because she chants and
praises the high King; also because her desire is to be watered from the
deep stream which is the source of all spiritual rivers as it is said, “The
Sharon is like the desert” [Isaiah 33:9]. Because, [however], she is
found at the deepest places, she is called ‘*Lily of the Valleys.”’ What
are these deep places? They are: ‘from the deep places, I have called
You”’ [Psalm 130:1]. a
[Another interpretation:] ‘*Rose of Sharon’ [refers to] the place of
the watering from which deep rivers flow always, without stopping.
“Lily of the Valleys’ [refers to] the place which is the deepest of all,
the most hidden of all.
Come and see: At first, she is a green rose with green petals.
Afterwards, she becomes a lily with two colors: red and white.—A lily
121
122 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
also has six petals. And a lily [shoshana] changes [sheni’at] her colors
from hue to hue.—The lily, which was first a rose, is [again] called a
rose when she is ready to unite with the King. After she clings to the
King, with those [special] kisses, she is [again] called a lily. [111:107a]*
The Biblical text cited here is a line from one of the love poems that
comprise the Song of Songs. In this poem, the woman is speaking, and she
compares herself to a rose and toa lily. Ostensibly she does this because,
being in love, she perceives herself as beautiful and radiant (i.c., fragrant)
like a flower. The Biblical text probably intends the rose and the lily to be
parallel images, with no deeper meaning to be ascribed to them. The author
of the Zohar, assuming that literary parallelism is not simply art-form but an
allusion to a deeper meaning, understands the rose and the lily to have two
different connotations. A rose is, after all, not a lily, and if Scripture uses
two metaphors, two meanings must have been intended. What, then, is the
hidden meaning? ’
The rabbinic tradition, from early times, understood the Song of Songs as
an allegory of the relationship between Israel and God, the lover being God
and the beloved being the Jewish people. (Christianity developed a parallel
interpretation, with the lover being God and the beloved being the Church.)
The text can be understood on this level as depicting the reciprocal
relationship between God and the people. It is, then, a development of the
covenant theology of the Bible in poetic imagery. Parts of this text(e.g., the
changing colors of the flowers and the deep-stream imagery) are mildly
incomprehensible, but these passages can be glossed over with the
admission of poetic license. To fully understand the passage and its
revolutionary implications, one must decipher the sefirotic symbolism.
The sefirotic symbolism is as follows: The “Community of Israel’ stands
for Malkhut, and the ‘‘Holy One, blessed be He”’ stands for Tiferet. Reread
the first paragraph, substituting the names of the sefirot for their symbols.
The result is that Malkhut is always praising Tiferet and Tiferet is always
praising Malkhut.
Moving to the fourth level of interpretation, the consideration of the
meaning of the sefirotic symbolism, the reader must recall that the sefirot
represent aspects of the inner consciousness of God. What, then, does it
mean to say that God’s engaged royalty and His active royalty interact?
What does it mean to say that the center of God’s personality ‘‘praises’’ the
outer aspects of it, and vice versa? that God's Presence interacts with His
Kingship?
“The number in brackets at the end of the reading refers to the source in the standard edition
of the Zohar. For a slightly different rendering, see G. Scholem, Zohar: The Book of Splendor
(New York: Schocken Books, 1972), p. 118
The Zoharic Tradition 123
An appreciation of human psychology can lead us in a productive
direction, for we understand human consciousness to be made up of inner
and outer aspects. We understand that each of us has an inner person, an
inner core of strength and judgmental power, and that each of us also has an
outer face through which we deal with the world around us. We think
before we act. We feel before we show it. We lie to the outside world but try
not to do it to ourselves. We yield externally, but not internally, to certain
kinds of pressures. We, too, have a Malkhut (a Face, a Providence) and a
Tiferet (an inner domain of active being). So, too, with God, according to
the Zohar. Furthermore, our social interface with reality often reinforces
our inner selves, and the reverse—our inner selves often give strength to
our presented self-images. That is, the inner and outer aspects of our being
interact with one another. They “‘praise’’ (and “‘criticize’’) one another.
So, too, with God. His Malkhut praises His Tiferet, and vice versa.
The meaning of the first paragraph is, then, clear: the inner and outer
aspects of God's being interact with one another. How far we have come
from the Song of Songs! How far we have come even from the semi-
allegorical level of the rabbinic tradition! Incidentally, who is the ‘‘Israel’”
who is happy when it “grasps the portion of the holy fate’’?
The second paragraph goes on to expound the difference between the
imagery of the rose and that of the lily. (Remember the assumption about
literary parallelism.) Three reasons are given why Malkhut is called arose
and one reason wiry it is called a lily. The sefirotic symbolism is as follows:
The “‘Garden of Eden’’ is the realm of the sefirot. The “Community of
Israel” is again Malkhut, and the “high King” is Tiferet. The ‘“‘deep
stream’’ is Yesod. The interpretation is as follows: Malkhut is called arose
because it flowers in the realm of the sefirot (i.e., it is the flower, the
beautiful end-product, of the flow and development of the sefirotic realm).
It is also called a rose (Heb. havaselet ha-sharon) because it sings the praise
(Heb. shara) of Tiferet. This is a pun on two roots which are probably not at
all related. It is also called a rose because it yearns to receive the flow of
divine energy from the sefira immediately above it, Yesod (see Figs. 9-11).
Here too a play on words between sharon and the root shry (‘‘to water’’) is
intended. Malkhut can also be called alily, however, when Malkhut is seen
not as a blossoming flower, which is lavishly watered and which praises
God (note how easy and effective itis to mix metaphors), but when it is seen
as sunken in the depths, i.e., as distraught and oppressed. When Malkhut,
which is at the bottom of the sefirotic flow, is in despair, it calls out to
Tiferet. In this aspect, it is a lily and not a rose.
This last image deserves a moment of attention at level four of
interpretation, What does it mean to say that Malkhut can praise Tiferet on
the one hand, but that there are times when Malkhut cries out in despair to
Tiferet (as the verse in Psalms says)? Again, the analogy from human
124 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
psychology is helpful. Our outer selves sometimes reinforce our inner
selves, but sometimes our outer selves do get depressed. Our self-image is
sometimes positive and sometimes negative. In either case, it must seek out
our inner self—to praise it or to draw strength from it.
The third paragraph contains a good lesson in method, for the symbols
appear to be the same, but the interpretation is quite different. One begins
with “‘the most hidden of all,’’ which almost always stands for Hokhma.
Thus, the ‘Lily of the Valleys’ stands, in this paragraph, for Hokhma. The
next sefira (down) is Bina which is a passage, or funnel, through which the
divine flow must pass. Hence, the ‘Rose of Sharon’’ must stand for Bina,
in this paragraph.
The fourth paragraph interweaves the symbolism of lily and rose, of
color, of change, and of number. It is complex but not impossible to
decipher. The reader must simply realize that both images refer to Malkhut
and that the lily image is the unstable, dynamic aspect of Malkhut while the
rose is the stable, fulfilled aspect thereof. The interpretation, then, is as
follows: Malkhut is first a rose (i.¢., stable), symbolized by the color green,
which itself symbolizes a balanced mixture of the qualities of power and
grace. Malkhut then becomes alily (i.e., unstable), symbolized by being an
irregular mixture of two colors, red and white, which symbolize the power
and grace of God. In this unstable aspect, Malkhut is also symbolized by
the changing of colors (with another pun on unrelated Semitic roots). The
six petals are the six sefirot above Malkhut in the sefirotic chain (see Figs.
9-11), Finally the passage explains to us the “‘life cycle’? of Malkhut. It
Starts out stable and fulfilled (rose). It becomes destabilized (lily). It
stabilizes (rose) just before union with Tiferet. And it reaches dynamic
fulfillment (lily) when the divine energy (*‘special kisses,”’ cf. Song of
Songs 1:2) unites it with Tiferet.
What does all this mean on the fourth level of interpretation? The passage
is telling us that God’s Providence is not always stable, that it appears to
change according to circumstances which are not made clear in this
passage. At times God’s Face to man and the world is stable and beautiful
like a rose, but at times it is unstable and changing like the colors of a lily.
This realization is not, on the surface, very strange, for the problem of the
irregularity of God's Providence has occupied the minds of men for a long
time. But if we examine a little more deeply, we note that the passage really
says, nor that God’s Providence appears unstable, but that itis unstable—
i.e., that in the inner workings of God, there is an element (Malkhut) which
is God's Face to the cosmos, and this element can actually be destabilized.
The passage does not, however, tell us how this happens (see below, page
143). The passage also teaches us that this unstable element in God can
be stabilized. It does not, however, tell us how this happens either (see
below, page 149). But the passage clearly does interpret God in a deeply
The Zoharic Tradition 125
human way as having an aspect of Himself which, by its nature, is not stable
but which, by its nature, can also be stabilized. God’s consciousness
contains an aspect which knows unity with its own inner forces but which is
also subject to the vagaries of forces acting upon it. To the traditional
theologian, these are very strange ideas. To the philosopher, they are
preposterous. Yet for the author of the Zohar, they are central to our
understanding of God. What do you think?
The Similitude of God
In this passage, the author of the Zohar deals with the question, Just how
much can we know of God? Theologically, this is a very important question
because Judaism has always understood God to be, in some very basic
way, unknowable. He is the Creator, and His knowledge and perspective
on existence must be categorically different from that of fiesh and blood.
Yet the Zohar claims to expound the workings of the innef life of God.
Hence the author of the Zohar must confront this question. The problem is
also important psychologically, for one can legitimately ask, Do we ever
know all there is to know of another person? Is there not some internal
reserve of unknowability even in the people we know most intimately?
Whatis the interplay between unknowability and knowability in man and in
God?
To resolve this problem, the author of the Zohar seeks out two verses
which speak of the “‘similitude’’ (Heb. temuna) of God. One verse denies
that man can perceive God's similitude, while the other asserts it. Watch
carefully his solution.
If one should ask: Is it not written, “‘For you saw no manner of
similitude’’ [Deuteronomy 4:15], the answer would be: Truly, it was
granted us to behold Him in a similitude for it [also] says, “*And the
similitude of the Lord does he behold’? [Numbers 12:8]. Yet God was
not revealed in any similitude which He created and formed by His
signs. Therefore it is written, “’To whom, then, will you liken Me that I
be compared? To whom will you compare God and what likeness will
you accord Him? [Isaiah 40:25,18]. Furthermore, even “that
similitude’’ does not remain in its place but descends to rule the
creatures, extending itself over them, appearing to each one of them as
each can grasp it, as it is written, ‘And by the hand of the prophets can
1 be likened” [Hosea 12:11]. Hence He says, Although I represent My-
self in your image, to whom will you compare Me that | be compared?
Before God created image in the universe and shaped form, He was
unique, with neither form nor likeness. Hence, if one seeks knowledge
126
The Zoharic Tradition 127
of Him before creation, when He had no image, one is forbidden to
imagine Him in any kind of form or image—not by His letter Hey or by
His letter Yod [two letters of the Tetragrammaton], nor even by His
[complete] holy Name, nor by letter or point of any kind. Thus, ‘‘For
you saw no manner of similitude”’ means, You beheld nothing [which
could be imagined] in likeness or in similitude.
But when He had created the image of the Chariot of Supernal Man,
He descended and became known by the appellation YHVH so as to
be apprehended by His attributes, in each particular one. Hence He
[caused Himself to be] named El, Elohim, Shaddai, Sevaot, and Eheyeh
so that men might seek knowledge of Him in each of His divine
atiributes, [making manifest] that the world is guided by grace and
justice in accordance with man’s deeds. If His light had not been shed
over His creatures, how could men have apprehended Him? Indeed,
the words could not have been said, ‘‘The whole universe is full of His
glory” [Isaiah 6:3].
[However,] woe to the man who compares God with any [single]
attribute, even if it be one of His own, and the less so with any human
being, ‘‘whose foundation is in the dust’’ [Job 4:19] and who is but a
disintegrating vessel. Rather, [our] likening of Him is proportionate to
His presence in that attribute and in creation. If He withdraws from it,
there is neither attribute nor likeness nor form. Such is the case with
the sea, whose waters lack form and likeness, attaining these only
when they are spread over the vessel of the earth. [II:42b]*
The solution to the problem of the contradictory verses and the answer to
the question about the ultimate knowability of God begin, for the author of
the Zohar, in the rabbinic assumption about literary parallelism—that such
parallelism alludes to a deeper meaning and is not an art-form of Biblical
Hebrew. Working with this assumption, the resolution of both problems is
clear and relatively easy. God was unknown before Creation, and that
aspect of Him cannot be known even by exploring the meaning of His
Nae orits letters. After Creation, however, He chose to reveal Himself to
man and He made known His various Names and/or attributes. Finally, to
identify His Names and/or attributes with Him, with His essence, would be
wrong, for they are only labels, expressions of an unknowable essence
behind the word. This resolution is classic. It is simple. It is orthodox. And
the passage can be read on this rabbinic level without further comment. To
understand its theosophical meaning, we must go further. We must
decipher the sefirotic symbolism, and then we must evaluate the meaning of
that symbolism.
*For a slightly different rendering, see Scholem, Zohar, pp. 77-78.
128 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
To decipher the sefirotic symbolism, the reader must know that
“similitude” (Heb. temuna) is used in two senses by the author of the
Zohar—first, in a nonsefirotic sense, to mean “‘an image,” ‘‘a likeness’’;
and second, in a sefirotic sense, to refer to Tiferet. The reader must also
know that the Tetragrammaton is also used in two senses—first, in a
general sense, to refer to any of the sefirot and/or to the entire realm of
sefirot; and second, to refer to Tiferet. The Hebrew letter Yod is the first
letter of the Tetragrammaton and stands for Hokhma, while the Hebrew
letter Hey is the second letter of the Tetragrammaton and stands for Bina.
The ‘Chariot of Supernal Man’ is the realm of the sefirot. Reread the
passage and try to decipher it yourself before reading further.
The first paragraph teaches that the term ‘‘similitude of God”’ can refer to
three sefirot depending on the context: the ‘‘unperceivable similitude”’ is
Keter, the “‘perceivable similitude before it descends” is Tiferet, and the
“‘perceivable similitude after it descends to ‘rule’ and to be grasped” is
Malkhut. Note that according to Numbers 12:8 (supported by the verse
from Hosea), only Moses was privileged to perceive the ‘‘similitude,”
while the other prophets perceived some lesser likeness of God. This is the
classical doctrine of the superiority of the prophecy of Moses. The author
of the Zohar preserves this dogma by interpreting that Moses perceived the
“undescended similitude”’ (Tiferet) while the other prophets perceived the
“descended similitude’” (Malkhut). We have here, then, a carefully
articulated theory of the three-stage knowability of God which ‘‘resolves”’
an apparent contradiction in Scripture, which utilizes sefirotic symbolism,
and which also preserves the classical rabbinic doctrine of the superiority
of the prophecy of Moses.
The second paragraph tells us that Keter (? the God beyond Keter, if
there is such an idea), being “beyond” Hokhma—i.e., beyond
knowledge—is unknowable. Keter, the most transcendent aspect of God,
cannot be grasped even by reference to Yod (Hokhma, knowledge) or to
Hey (Bina, intuitive understanding), and certainly not by any combination
of any of the other characteristics of God’s consciousness. However, as the
third paragraph teaches, when God created the realm of the sefirot, He
defined Himself, using certain characteristics (each of which corresponds
to a Name of God). Here the Tetragrammaton is synonymous with
“‘similitude,” and Tiferet is meant. It, together with the other sefirot
(Names of God), defines the consciousness of God. They are His attributes,
His Names. They define His knowability. They are His content. They are
what one can know. Taken together, then, these two paragraphs teach that
there is an aspect of God which is beyond knowing (Keter, *‘similitude” in
the first sense), an aspect that can be known through intellectual knowledge
(Hokhma), an aspect that can be known through intuitive understanding
(Bina), a central attribute (Tiferet, YHVH, “‘similitude” in the second
The Zoharic Tradition 129
sense), five other attributes (see Figs. 9-11, Malkhut being ‘‘similitude”’ in
the third sense), and that these sefirot constitute the ‘universe’? whose
wholeness is filled with the glory of God. It is, furthermore, this flow of
self-definition that enables us to know God, and should He choose to
suspend the flow, everything would revert back to unknowability.
What does this mean? How shall we understand the relationship of
unknowability to knowability in God and man? There are several insights
worth noting. First, the Zohar teaches that the innermost core of God (and
man) is unknowable—not unknown but unknowable. The inner core of man
(and God) is simply not describable in any kind of language whatsoever. It
is not accessible through any systematic knowledge or any insight
whatsoever. We cannot grasp the very being of someone else (or of God).
We can only grasp his qualities as mediated through our intellect and
intuition. Second, self-revelation is a process of self-definition, God (and
man) defines Himself. He lets Himself be known. Furthermore, He lets His
inner qualities, as well as His ‘‘Face,’’ be known. He exposes Himself to
the human mind and to human intuition. Yet the process of self-ex posure in
man (and God) is itself a definition of certain qualities and their interaction,
These qualities are the ‘“‘names” we have. They are the epithets by which
we are known. They are the language by which people know us and
describe us. These qualities are manifest in our behavior (guidance of the
world around us). Or, to word it differently but say the same thing: Our
behavior testifies to our qualities. Third, should we (or God) withdraw from
this process of self-definition, we would halt communication with others,
and we ourselves would return to formlessness. Identity is definition.
Self-consciousness is content-ful communication. Self-revelation is
knowability. Being, however, is beyond identity and knowability. Note
that the author of the Zohar refers to this process of self-definition as
“‘creation.’’ One creates one’s identity. God creates His identity. ‘*Crea-
tion’’ is the willed flowing-forth of the sefirot, This is a very new definition
of the word creation in Jewish theology.
The Water and the Vessels
We have seen that the Zohar depicts God as knowable in His inner
consciousness, though not in His innermost being. We have also seen that
the knowable aspects of God are said to have proceeded from Him inan act
of self-revelation, called by the author of the Zohar “‘creation.’” How did
these aspects of God’s consciousness proceed from Him? In what order?
This passage attempts an answer to that question. By following the
diagrams of the realm of the sefirot (Figs. 9-11), the reader should have no.
trouble in following the passage. One hint: the word sea is used in two
Senses: to refer to the entire realm of the sefirot and to refer to the third
sefira thereof, Bina.
One, is the source of the sea. A current comes forth from it makinga
revolution which is yod. The source is one, and the current makes two.
Then the vast basin known as the sea is formed, and it is like a channel
dug into the earth. Itis filled by the waters iss ig from the source, and
this sea is the third thing. This vast basin is divided up into seven
channels, resembling that number of long tubes, and the waters go
from the sea into the seven channels. Together, the source, the
current, the sea, and the seven channels make the number ten, If the
Creator Who made these tubes should choose to break them, then the
waters would return to their source, and only broken vessels would
remain dry, without water.
In this same way the Cause of causes has derived the ten aspects of
His Being which are known as sefirot, and named Keter the Source,
which is a never-to-be-exhausted fountain of light, wherefrom He
designates Himself ‘eyn sof, the Infinite. Neither shape nor form has
he, and no vessel exists to contain him, nor any means to apprehend
him This is referred to in the words: ‘Refrain from searching after the
things that are too hard for thee, and refrain from seeking for the thing
which is hidden from thee’? [Ben Sira, as quoted in the Talmud,
Hagigah 13a).
130
The Zoharic Tradition 131
Then He shaped a vessel diminutive as the letter Yod, and filled it
from it, and called it Wisdom-gushing Fountain (Hokhma), and called
Himself wise on its account. And after, He fashioned a large vessel
named sea, and designated it Understanding [Binah] and Himself
understanding, on its account. Both wise and understanding is He, in
His own essence; whereas Wisdom in itself cannot claim that title, but
only through Him Who is wise and has made it full from His fountain;
and so Understanding in itself cannot claim that title, but only through
Him Who filled it from His own essence, and it would be rendered into
an aridity if He were to go from it. In this regard, it is written, ‘‘As the
waters fall from the sea, and the river is drained dry”’ [Job 14:11].
Finally, ‘He smites [the sea] into seven streams”’ [Isaiah 11:15],
that is, He directs it into seven precious vessels, which He calls
Greatness, Strength, Glory, Victory, Majesty, Foundation,
Sovereignty [the seven lower sefirot]. In each He designates Himself
thus: great in Greatness, strong in Strength, glorious in Glory,
victorious in Victory, ‘the beauty of our Maker’’ in Majesty,
righteous in Foundation [cf. Proverbs 10:25]. All things, all vessels,
and all worlds does He uphold in Foundation.
In the last, in Sovereignty, He calls Himself King, and [then] His is
“the greatness, and the strength, and the glory, and the victory, and
the majesty; for all [foundation] that is in heaven and in the earth is
Thine; Thine is the sovereignty ,O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head
above all” [I Chronicles 29: 11]. In His power lie all things, be it that He
chooses to reduce the number of vessels, or to increase the light
issuing therefrom or be it the contrary. But over Him there exists no
deity with power to increase or reduce
Also, He made beings to serve these vessels: each a throne
supported by four columns, with six steps to the throne; in all, ten.
Altogether, the throne is like the cup of benediction about which ten
statements are made [in the Talmud], harmonious with the Torah
which was given in Ten words [the Decalogue], and with the Ten
Words by which the world was created. [I]:42b—43a]*
In this passage, the author of the Zohar tells us how God allowed his
consciousness to develop. He speaks of God as separate from the sefirot, as
a being who allows the sefirot to flow from Him. This narrative usage may
be only a literary device or the author of the Zohar may be trying to define
an active, willing God outside of (beyond) the realm of the sefirot. | have
tried to capture this narrative usage by capitalizing the words for God when
they refer to the narrative figure.
“Trans, by G. Scholem, Zohar, pp, 79-80,
132 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
The passage is rather straightforward, and only a few end-notes are
necessary to clarify some points. In the first paragraph: Note that should
the vessels break, the flow of energy returns to God. It does not spill out.
We shall see that later Kabbalists did not agree. In the second paragraph:
Note that Keter and *Eyn Sof are regarded as synonymous. The author of
the Zohar is not consistent in this symbolism, and later Kabbalists rejected
it. Also note the reference to the being beyond the sefirot as the “Cause of
causes.” This is a clear indication of a medieval origin for this text. Such
terms do not exist in second-century texts. In the third paragraph: Note
that the letter Yod (Hokhma) is the first letter of the Tetragrammaton
(which can, on occasion, symbolize the whole realm of the sefirotas it does
here); also that it is written by making a little curlicue (“revolution”) witha
pen. In the fourth paragraph: Note that no quality, no description of reality,
has any existence except through the presence of the divine flow of energy
in it. All existence is contingent, as the philosophers put it. The fifth
paragraph uses the verse in Chronicles, which is actually part of David's
blessing to the people before he dies, to define the sefirét as follows:
“Yours, O YHVH (the realm of the sefirot), are greatness (Heb. gedula, an
alternate term for Hesed), power (Heb. gevura/sefira of the same name),
glory (Heb. tiferet), victory (Heb. nesah), majesty (Heb. hod), for all (Heb.
kol, alternate term for Yesod)is in the heaven and the earth (the realm of the
sefirot). Yours, O YHVH, is sovereignty (Heb. mamlakha, from the same
rootas Malkhut). . ."* All the seven lower sefirotare, thus, accounted for.
The last paragraph contains several problems. The author refers to
“thrones” with *‘columns”’ and “steps’’ which “‘support™ each sefira. 1 do
not know what he intends, although he probably is referring to some sort of
angelic orders which would be outside the realm of God's inner being and
which would execute His will (i.e., “support” Him). At the end, the author
associates the ten sefirot, each of which has ten supporting elements, with
the ten statements made about the cup of benediction (Talmud, Berakhot
Sia), the Decalogue, and the Ten Words by which the world was created
(Mishna, Pirkei Avot, chap. 4),
The Luminous Glass
This text is very complicated because it deals with prophecy and
mysticism, because it deals with two very problematic Biblical verses, and
because it unites differing symbol-systems in an exceptionally complicated
way. The author begins by asking what the word appeared means when
applied to God, and he receives (or gives) an answer which explains that
God never reveals His true self, that He does reveal different aspects of His
personality to different people, and that the mystic can perceive some of
these aspects of God. ?
The key to the symbolism is as follows: One symbol-set deals with
colors. There are three types of colors. (1) There are invisible colors which
no human may comprehend. (2) There are invisible colors which are hidden
and which are subsequently made manifest. This manifestation has two
levels: (a) that of Moses and the mystic, and (b) that of the Patriarchs and
the mystic. The first two types (1 and 2a) are radiant colors but not the last.
Deciphered, type | is (probably) Hokhma and Bina, type 2a is Tiferet, and
type 2b is Malkhut. Another symbol-set deals with the Divine Names: El
Shaddai is Malkhut, and YHVH is Tiferet. Another symbol-set deals with
firmaments: the radiant firmament is Tiferet, the nonradiant firmament is
Malkhut. The firmaments contain, or reflect, the colors. Another symbol-
set deals with a glass, or crystal, through which God is perceived: the
luminous glass is Tiferet, the nonluminous glass is Malkhut. Another
symbol-set deals with light. The artistry of the passage is in the interweay-
ing of the symbol systems.
Rabbi Shimon was sitting one day with his son, Rabbi Elazar, and
Rabbi Abba was also with him. Rabbi Elazar said: In this verse in
which it is written, **And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to
Jacob [as] El Shaddai but [by] my Name, YHVH, I was not known to
them” [Exodus 6:3], what is [the meaning of] ‘‘and I appeared "2 The
verse should say *‘and I spoke."’ Rabbi Shimon said to him: Elazar, my
son, this is highly esoteric doctrine.
133
134 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
Come and see. There are colors which are visible, and there are
colors which are invisible, and both are highly esoteric doctrine of the
faith which [ordinary] humans do not know and into which they have
no insight. Furthermore, no person merited [comprehension] even of
those colors which are visible til the Patriarchs came and com-
prehended them. Tierefore the verse says, ‘‘and I appeared to
Abraham. . .”’ [i.e., that] they [the Patriarchs] saw those colors which
had been made manifest. What are these colors which were made
manifest? They are the colors [seen in] El Shaddai. They are the
envisionment of the higher colors, for they are visible while the higher
colors are hidden and invisible, and no person has comprehended them
{the higher colors] except Moses. Therefore the verse says, ‘But [by]
my Name YHVH, | was not known to them.”’ I did not reveal myselfto
them [the Patriarchs] as the higher colors. And lest you say that the
Patriarchs had no knowledge of them [the higher colors at all, know
that they knew of them] from [their comprehension] of those colors
which had been made manifest. ‘i
This part of the text teaches that before the Patriarchs, there was no real
comprehension of the sefirot (except, presumably, for Adam in the Garden
of Eden [see below, p. 143]). Then, just as God had progressively allowed
His own inner being to flow forth, He progressively allowed His inner being
to be comprehended by man. The Partiarchs were the first worthy people;
they comprehended Malkhut (the visible or manifested colors) although
they had a premonition of the upper sefirot (the invisible colors). Then
Moses, who was more meritorious, came along, and he comprehended
Tiferet (the invisible colors). All this corresponds with the verse in Exodus
6:3 that Malkhut (El Shaddai) preceded Tiferet (YHVH) in the self-
revelation of God. The meaning of this sefirotic symbolism (the fourth level
of interpretation) is that self-revelation is a gradual process and that it
follows inner self-articulation. Note, however, that Moses outranks the
Patriarchs in his comprehension of God.
Having expounded a verse (from Exodus) using two symbol-systems:
the visible/invisible colors and the Divine Names (El Shaddai/YHVH), the
author of the Zohar now takes on a new verse (from Daniel) and two new
symbol-systems: that of the radiant/nonradiant colors and that of the
firmaments
It is written, ‘‘And the intelligent ones shall be as radiant as the
radiance of the firmament while those who justify the masses [will be
as bright] as the stars forever’’ [Daniel 12:3]. ‘The intelligent ones shall
be radiant’’—who are these “intelligent ones'’? That wise man who
intuits on his own things which one may not speak with the mouth is
The Zoharic Tradition 135
called an ‘intelligent one.’ *‘As the radiance of the firmament’’—
what is this ‘‘firmament’’? It is the ‘firmament’? of Moses, which
stands in the middle, and its radiance is hidden and unrevealed. It
stands above the ‘‘nonradiant firmament”’ in which colors are visible,
but these [visible] colors, although they are visible, they do not have
the radiance of the [invisible] hidden colors.
In this paragraph, the author of the Zohar teaches that there are two
firmaments: one which is radiant, and one which is nonradiant. The radiant
firmament ‘stands in the middle,” that is, it is Tiferet (see Figs. 9-11), and
itis the one perceived by Moses. The nonradiant firmament is Malkhut, and
it contains colors which are visible but not radiant. I think that even in
common English usage we would say that ‘radiant’? colors were
“superior’’ to ‘‘nonradiant” colors, just as “invisible” colors would be
“superior’’ to ‘visible’? colors. If we were to try to integrate the
symbol-sets used so far (on the principle of things-standing-for-the-same-
thing-stand-for-each-other), we would conclude that there are three stages
in the self-revelation of God. Before the Patriarchs, the sefirot were
unknown. After the Patriarchs, Malkhut (the visible colors/El Shaddai/
nonradiant firmament) could be comprehended. And after Moses, Tiferet
(the invisible colors/ YHVH/ radiant firmament) could be comprehended.
The most important point, however, remains to be made, and the author
of the Zohar has cleverly hidden it in the confusion of color/Name/
radiance symbolism: Who are the ‘‘intelligent ones’ of the verse in Daniel?
Look again at his definition. They are the mystics (one *‘who intuits on his
own things which one may not speak with the mouth”). And what sefirot
can the mystics ‘‘intuit'’? If the verse is to be taken consistently, the
“intelligent ones’” perceive (*‘shall be as radiant as”) Tiferet (the radiant
firmament). We have, then, two very important points being made: (1) that
the mystics can perceive the sefirot; and (2) that they can ‘treach”’ even to
Tiferet, which is higher than the Patriarchs, and which is equal to the level
of Moses. These two points, especially the latter, are very radical, for they
imply that man still has direct revelatory contact with God, and that this
exists even on the level of Moses. Both implications contradict the
teachings of Rabbinic Judaism, which had asserted, as a matter of dogma,
that “‘prophecy”’ (i.e., direct revelatory contact) had ceased with the
Biblical period, and that Moses’ prophecy was so superior that no one, not
even another Biblical prophet, could attain that level. Both of these dogmas
are here called into question. Note furthermore that just as the author of the
Zohar reinterpreted the term creation (to mean the flowing forth of the
sefirot and not the formation of the physical universe), so he here
reinterprets prophecy /revelation in mystical terms, taking it to mean the
mystical experience which the prophet undergoes by meditating on the
136 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
Sefirot. This, too, is quite radical vis-a-vis the position of classical Judaism
just noted,
Having expanded his use of verses (Exodus plus Daniel) and his use of
symbol-set (colors/Names plus radiance/firmaments), and having added
the mystic to those who are recipients of the direct contact with the divine
(Patriarchs/Moses plus intelligent ones), the author of the Zohar, in the
next section of this passage, expands his symbolism further with the
imagery of colored lights, and he gives explicit instructions to the mystic.
Come and see. There are four lights, three of them are hidden and
one is revealed: the light which illumines, the light whichis radiant and
whose lightis as the radiance of the heavens in their purity, the light of
purple which gathers in all the [other] lights, and the light which does
not illumine. [The last] looks to the others and gathers them in, and
they are made visible in it as the reflector placed opposite the sun .
The secret of this is [as follows]: Close your eyes and roll youd
pupils. Then, those colors which are luminous and radiant will be
revealed. But permission is given to see them only with closed eyes,
for they are the hidden, higher colors which are above those colors
which are visible but nonradiant.
The four lights are, probably, as follows: Hokhma (the light which
illumines), Bina (the light which is radiant), Tiferet (the purple light), and
Maklhut (the light which does not illumine). It should be noted, however,
that some interpreters take the four lights to be: Gevura, Hesed, Tiferet,
and Malkhut. The former interpretion seems more consistent with the
general symbolism of the Zohar. In any case, note that the last sefira acts
only as a mirror or prism. Do not be confused by the fact that Hokhma is
invisible in the color symbolism but illumines in the light symbolism. These
are two separate symbol-sets which are artfully woven together in this
passage.
The instructions to the mystic are very explicit. They are treated here as
top-secret doctrine. The technique, however, is rather common in Eastern
mysticism, and I have met students who are familiar with it. As mystical
techniques go, it is not very sophisticated,
The author of the Zohar now introduces one last symbol-set into this
passage, that of the luminous/nonluminous glass. It is based upon a
passage in the Midrash which states that the other prophets saw God
through a beclouded glass while Moses saw God through a luminous glass,
(An alternate version understands the difference to be quantitative: nine
glasses vs. one.) The luminous glass is Tiferet and the nonluminous glass is
Malkhut. Having done this, the author of the Zohar then does his best to
reassert the rabbinic dogma of the relative importance of the prophecy (i.e.,
The Zoharic Tradition 137
the mystical experience) of Moses, the Patriarchs, and the mystic.
According to the dogma, Moses must represent an unrepeatable rank, and
hence the Patriarchs must be lower than Moses. The mystic, however,
must also be heir to a direct and intense experience of the divine. Where
does he stand?
In this connection we read that Moses merited God [i.e., com-
prehended God] through the luminous glass which is placed above [the
glass] which is nonluminous while the other people of this world
[comprehend God only] through the nonluminous glass. The Pa-
triarchs [however] comprehend the hidden [colors] which are above the
nonluminous ones from those colors which were revealed. Therefore
the verse says, “‘And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob
[as] *El Shaddai’’—as those colors which are made manifest. ‘But
[by] My Name, YHVH, I was not known to them’’—these are the
[still] higher, hidden, radiant [colors] which Moses merited to com-
prehend.
And this is the secret: The eye can be open or closed, If itis closed,
one sees the luminous glass. If it is open, one sees the nonluminous
glass. Therefore the verse says ‘‘and I appeared,” for of the
nonluminous glass, which is of that which is manifest, [the word for]
“‘seeing”’ is used, but of the luminous glass, which is of that which is
hidden, (the word for] “‘knowing” is used. [At this] Rabbi Elazar and
Rabbi Abba came and kissed the hands of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi
Abba cried and said, *‘Woe when you depart from the world and it is
orphaned of you. Who will be able to illumine the words of the
Torah?’ [I1:23a-b]
This full, and complex, passage can now be summarized from several
points of view. First, on the level of the sefirotic symbolism, we note that
several symbol-systems have been interwoven. Thus, Tiferet is rep-
resented as YHVH (in the Name symbolism), as the radiaat firmament (in
the firmament symbolism), as the luminous glass (in the glass, or crystal,
symbolism), as the purple light (in the light symbolism), and as containing
the invisible and radiant colors (in the color symbolism). Malkhut is
represented as El Shaddai, as the nonradiant firmament, as the nonlumi-
nous glass, as the nonilluminating light, and as containing the visible and
nonradiant colors.
Second, from the viewpoint of the dogmatic concerns of the author of the
Zohar, Tiferet is the level of Moses while Malkhut is the level of the
Patriarchs. To this he adds that the word knowing is used of Tiferet
(YHVH) in Exodus 6:3 while the word appearing is used of Malkhut (El
Shaddai).
138 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM,
Third, in trying to place the mystic in the range of religious experience,
the author of the Zohar starts with the assumption that prophecy-revelation
must have been a type of mystical experience—i.e., that direct contact with
the divine is a uniform event, that it is the same in all times and all places.
Hence the prophets (Patriarchs included) were actually mystics, and hence
their experience of God is not different from that of the Zoharic mystic. To
place the mystic in this experiential continuum, the author of the Zohar
asserts that the precedence of Moses over the Patriarchs is easily
preserved. Moses perceived Tiferet, and the Patriarchs perceived Mal-
khut. The mystic, however, can perceive either Malkhut (the nonluminous
glass) or Tiferet (the luminous glass), depending upon the technique he
uses. The mystic can, thus, be of the level of the Patriarchs or of the level of
Moses. This conclusion, however, conflicts with rabbinic dogma, which
states that Moses must be in a nonrepeatable category. So the author of the
Zohar left open a very clever solution. He appears to claim that Moses
perceived Tiferet but also had an inkling of the more remote sefirot (the
more hidden lights). This claim is not made for the mystic. The dogmatic
and the experiential themes, thus, work themselves out as follows: The
Patriarchs perceived Malkhut with an inkling of Tiferet. The mystic
perceives Tiferet. Moses perceived Tiferet but with an inkling of the sefirot
above it. The dogmatic order is preserved. The mystic is included in the
class of individuals who achieve a genuine awareness of God. The verse in
Exodus (which has given rise in modem times to the whole theory of
Biblical higher criticism) is resolved. And all is accomplished with an
artistic interweaving of symbol-systems into one dogmatic, experiential,
and poetic whole.
On the fourth level of interpretation—the level of the meaning of the
sefirotic symbolism—what has been said in this passage? First, we have
been taught that religious experience is uniform in all ages. Prophecy and
mysticism are one and the same because both are a contact between divine
consciousness and human consciousness. Religious experience is a mixing
of the divine and the human “image.” It is concrete, real—as real as any
other kind of experience, maybe more so. Second, we have been taught
that for God, the mystical experience is a process of self-revelation. It is
gradual but sure. At first He is hidden and luminous. Then He reveals part
of Himself to the Patriarchs or the mystic—i.c., they, through meditation,
may come to know Malkhut, which though nonluminous itself, neverthe-
less contains the reflection of the radiance and color of Tiferet. Finally, He
reveals a more intimate aspect of Himself to Moses or to the mystic—i.e
they, through meditation, may come to know Tiferet, which is radiant of its
own, and which for Moses reflects the radiance and color of His more
hidden self.
What a stunning series of insights about God, and about the relationship
The Zoharic Tradition 139
between Him and man! For we are forced to reflect and consider: Is
prophecy a unilateral choosing by God, a unilateral commissioning of an
apostolic messenger? Or is prophecy a mutual finding of one another by
God and man? Also, what is the mystical experience like from God’s point
of view? Is it a passive acceptance of the advances of the mystic, perhaps
an uncaring and unconscious acceptance? Or is it really a self-
revelation, a self-exposure of God’s intimate being? Many stereotypic
ideas in our general understanding of mysticism, as well as in our
comprehension of Jewish tradition, are brought into question by reflecting
upon this passage. Finally, we must reflect and consider: If mystical
experience is a meeting of consciousnesses, and if that meeting is a mutual
self-exposure, just what is the role of man in God’s world? What function
does man play in the progressive self-revelation of God? What role does
man play in the intim: ‘e life of God? To this we must now turn.
7
THE ROLE OF MAN
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, we were introduced to the strange world of the
Zohar. We have seen that, unlike the usual theologies and mystical
treatises, the Zohar purports to speak of the inner being of God. It claims to
speak not of His acts and words but of His consciousness. The Zohar
purports to teach us something about the personality of God.
What have we learned about God’s consciousness? The Zohar has taught
us that God’s being is His consciousness and that this consciousness is
composed of ten elements called sefirot. Furthermore, the Zohar has taught
us that God’s consciousness is not a detached, impersonal consciousness
floating in some ethereal, spiritual space. Rather it is a personalized,
anthropopathic consciousness whose elements are vitally interactive.
Thus, God is said to experience joy and despair, self-revelation and
self-withdrawal, anger, power, grace, and balance. The Zohar has further
taught that God’s consciousness has inner and outer aspects, with the
innermost aspects being unknowable in every sense of the word while the
outermost aspects are His interface with the world. We have also seen that
God's knowability is a function of the intelligence and intuition of the
perceiver plus the self-definition of the Subject. The sequence of the
self-articulation of God has also been spelled out together with the
sequence of His self-revelation to man. And finally, we have been taught
that God’s personality can, ostensibly, be destabilized and restabilized by
the actions of men.
In the area of the more usual theological concerns, we have leamed that
the Zohar has a definite theory of mystical experience. Something of the
nature of that experience for man and the techniques needed to reach it
have been expounded. Most startlingly, the nature of the mystical
experience fer God has also been shown. It is said to be an experience of
141
142 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
intimate self-revelation to the mystic. The Zohar has also dealt with such
dogmatic concerns as the relationship of prophecy to mysticism and,
hence, the relative precedence of the prophets (particularly Moses) to the
mystics. The reinterpretation of such traditional terms as creation and
revelation has also been briefly expounded. Yet so much remains to be
learned. The doctrine of the soul, the symbolism of the Tabernacle, and the
nature of Torah, among many others, are unexplored themes. In English
the Zohar occupies five volumes, and the selections given here are but a
single breath taken in the breezes of a long spring. The interested reader
must proceed further.
In matters of method, we have learned that reading the Zohar involves
four levels of interpretation: identifying the Biblical ‘‘problem’’ that
produces the Zoharic homily, understanding the general rabbinic interpre-
tation of the passage, deciphering the sefirotic symbolism, and evaluating
the meaning of that symbolism. Furthermore, the use of multiple symbol-
systems to expound one idea has been amply demonstrated.
One major area of Zoharic thought deserves further exposition however,
and it bases itself on an interesting question: If the personality of God is
interactive, what is the role of man? Worded differently: If the conscious-
ness of God is open to the consciousness of man, does man have a function
in that relationship, and if so, what is it? We have seen that, apparently,
God's personality can be destabilized and restabilized by man. How can
that be done? Why would God so structure His own being as to be subject to
the very power of man? What would the implications be for such ideas as
sin, repentance, and messianism? To this we turn now. The first passage
deals with the problem of the sin of Adam, and the last two passages deal
with the Zoharic concept of prayer.
The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil
This fascinating passage deals with three perennial questions. (1) The
Genesis story indicates that there were two trees in the Garden of Eden: the
Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Are they one
and the same, or different? (2) What was Adam’s sin? Or, more properly,
why did Adam sin? What motivated him to sin? (3) Why was the
punishment of mortality meted out not only to man but to all living beings,
for after all, animals are also mortal.
To understand the answers, one must decipher the sefirotic symbolism
as follows: The Tree of Life is Tiferet, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil is Malkhut, and the Garden is the realm of the sefirot.
Remark this: that God, when he made man and clothed him in great
honor, made it incumbent that he cleave to him so as to be unique and
of single heart, united to the One by the tie of the single-purposed faith
which ties all together. And so it says: “And the Tree of Life was in the
middle of the Garden” [Genesis 2:10]. But later, men abandoned the
road of faith and left behind the singular tree which looms high over all
trees, and adhered to the place which is continually shifting from one
hue to another, from good to evil and evil to good, and they descended
from on high and adhered below to the uncertain, and deserted the
supreme and changeless One. Thus it was that their hearts, shifting
between good and evil, caused them at times to merit mercy, at other
punishment, depending on what it was that they had cleaved to.
The Holy One, be blessed, spoke: Man, you have abandoned life
and you cleave to death. ‘*Life’’: this is the “Tree of Life’’ as it is
written, ‘‘And the Tree of Life was in the midst of the Garden.” It is
called “Life” because one who holds on toit does not ever taste death.
And you have clung to another tree; truly, death awaits you.—And so
the decree was death, for him and for all the world.
But if Adam transgressed, what was the sin of the rest of the world?
143
144
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
We know that all creatures did not come and eat of the forbidden tree,
no. But it was this way: when man stood upright, all creatures,
beholding him, were seized with fear of him, and slave-like they
followed after him. And hence when he addressed them: “Come, let us
bow down to the Lord who did make us” [Psalm 95:6]—they followed
suit. But when they observed him making obeisance to the other place,
adhering to it again, they did the same, and in this way did he bring
about death for himself and all the world.
Sodid Adam move back and forth from one hue toanother, from evil
to good, from agitation to rest, from judgment to mercy, from life to
death: never consistent in any one thing, because of the effect of that
place, which is thus known as “‘the flaming sword which turned every
way”’ [Genesis 3:24], from this direction to that from good to evil, from
mercy to judgment, from peace to war. It li-e., the sword] turns this
way and that for every thing and it is called “good and evil” as it is
written: ‘‘And from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you
shall not eat” [Genesis 2:17].
But the supreme King, out of compassion for his own, handiworks,
gave him warning, and said: **Of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it” [Genesis 2:17]. Not heeding, man did as
his wife, and was banished for ever, inasmuch as woman can come to
this place, but not farther, and on her account death was decreed for
all. But in time to come, ‘the days of my people shall be as the days of
the tree” [Isaiah 65:22], like that singular tree we know of. Concerning
that time it is written, ‘‘He will swallow up death for ever: and the Lord
God will wipe away tears from all faces”’ [ibid. 25:8]. [I11:107a-b]*
The answer to the first question, then, is as follows: The Tree of Life is
not the same as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The former is
constant, unified, having no internal split or dichotomy. In the sefirotic
world of discourse, Tiferet, which is the center of God's personality, is
unity. To reach the level of meditating on Tiferet is to experience the
transcendent unity of the divine. Malkhut, on the other hand, is the
confluence of all the conflicting elements, and hence contains within itself
conflict and contradiction. It turns over and over; it changes its hues, One
side of its nature is severity, war, evil, and death. To meditate on Malkhut is
to experience the governance of the cosmos, the point where the divine, in
all its multifacetedness, must touch and act upon the nondivine.
The answer to the second question is as follows: Adam sat inthe Garden,
i.e., he meditated upon the sefirot. He saw unchanging Tiferet and changing
Malkhut, and he was drawn to the latter. God warned him not to meditate
*Trans. G. Scholem, Zohar. pp. 119-20,
The Zoharic Tradition 145
on Malkhut, but he, following his wife, did so anyway. His sin cones
first, in defying God's warning. But, as we have pee ae
n di : fore God issued His warning.
been distracted by Malkhut even be r nse ee
in, i sens dependent of Eve and consi
Adam’s sin, ina more profound sense, indepe ‘Eve ar ist
in fering himself be distracted from divine unity and a
ity a ity. Adam preferred the enigmas of ¢
plurality and complexity. d SE ee
i ili ity. He chose the wrong
action to the tranquility of transcendent unit SU ate
as ivine. Why was Adam attracted to ?
God; he allowed a split in the divine. y Leet ara
is: sa i se, being less than divine, he pt
This text does not say. Is it because, i S nes ne eee
i i i E idence is truly a manifestation
icity to unity? Is it because provide: on
Farina and Adam, the nondivine being, wanted to have that divine
ce ., fans
Pemcnectiny upon the fact that it may well be man’s will A UaR RRR
ivi i a ive we can understa
and not to divine unity) that motivates man, 1 ic
berate on Malkhut alone became the sin par cree ne ee
i i ies of God's pro is
for to be content with puzzling over the vagaries ¢ Hehe
i being. To continually confro
be distracted by only one aspect of His e : ally ¢ 4
question of the Holocaust as a problem in theodtey (Che Oates She aa
videnti i ample, is to recommit Adam’s sin, Ss,
providential action), for examp le. hese De et
llow a split in the divine, **Sin —Sv ely Tae s , ing |
eagle wit one aspect of God. *‘Idolatry”’ is WoraTHOD NS eee
5 ity that is God. And, conversely, c
only one aspect of the totality t id; co Vee
is “unifying’’ all God’s aspects. ‘orship
(as we shall see) is “unifying” all dl eee ee
itati i livin $ ito divine simplicity. It al
meditative fusing of divine diversity in : ee
i i 4 jays,”’ when the sin of Adam will hav.
from this that, in the “end of days,”’ w Fa aa
E i a f man due to the coming of the Me: i:
reversed by a change in the nature of 2 it petals
itati ill agai! the Tree of Life (Tiferet), ani
man’s meditation will again be on t 1 Sai ea as
i il is dicted by Isaiah. Note, incidentally,
mortality will be abolished, as pre t Isaiz Cineaes
a ditation, cannot reac! ys
e text says clearly that women, in me , :
aren It is a given; no explanation is offered. Ae ee eae
h i i ings. They too could meditate, s
the sin, they were intelligent beings. 1 0co oe
E meditation. When man becot
fully as man. They follow man in 1 Heres
i S him, The animals, too, chose
distracted, so do those who follow im n
phat and power over divine simplicity and unity. Therefore, they too
are mortal.
The Meaning of the Minyan
Commentary by K. Kogan
The Zoharic attitude toward prayer, in line with mystical thought in
general, regards man’s actions and thoughts during worship as having
addi itional significance above and beyond that ascribed to them by rabbinic
tradition. Prayer was regarded by the Kabbalists as having an influence on
mundane existence only secondarily, through its effects upon the heavenly
realm of | divine emanations—the world of the sefirot. In the conscious or
unconscious attempt to appear as remaining within the tradition, however,
the authors of the early mystical texts refrained from rewriting the liturgy in
terms of the new conception, confining their innovation to a reinterpreta-
tion of traditional prayers and practices. The Zoharic passage interpreted
here is illustrative of this reinterpretation process.
R. Eleazar began a discourse on the verse: “Wherefore, when I
came, was there no man?” etc. (Isaiah 50:2). How beloved, he said
are Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, in that wherever they
dwell He is found among them, for He never withdraws His mercy
from them. We find it written: “And let them make Me a sanctuary
that I may dwell among them" (Exodus 25:8), that is, any sanctuary
whatever, inasmuch as any synagogue, wherever situated, is called
sanctuary. And the Shekinah hastens to the synagogue (before the
worshipers). Worthy is the man who is of the first ten to enter
synagogue, since they form something complete, and are the first to be
sanctified by the Shekinah.
This first section is essentially a restatement of the traditional conception
of the minyan. The verse from Isaiah is traditionally associated with the
requirement of the ten-man quorum, and the idea that God is present in
some form at such a gathering is not new. In the last sentence quoted
however, the phrase *‘something complete” refers to more than simply the
completed quorum. The ten men symbolize the complete heavenly realm of
ten sefirot, which also makes up the body of the Adam Kadmon (primordial
man), as will be seen in the next section. Therefore, within the passage it is
considered admirable to be of the first ten to enter the Synagogue not only
because this number fulfills the quorum, but also because one is then a part
146
The Zoharic Tradition 147
of the symbolic replica of the sefirotic realm, of the Spiritual Adam. It is this
symbolic construct that is sanctified.
But it is necessary that the ten should come together at the same time
and not in sections, so as not to delay the completion of the body in its
members. So did the Holy One, blessed be He, make man all at one
time, and establish all his members in one act. So we read: “‘Hath he
not made thee and established thee?’’ (Deuteronomy 32:6). [Just as
man had all limbs completed at once, therefore when the Shekinah
comes early to synagogue, it is necessary that ten people be found
there as one and everything is created. Afterwards, everything else
comes into place.] Those that come later are the mere ‘‘adornments of
the body.””
That the ten men must come together at the same time is an additional
requirement, and is (as far as practical ordinances go) the main point of the
entire passage. The reason for this ruling hinges upon the mystical
conception of the minyan as symbolizing the sefirotic realm, and further,
upon the idea that the sefirot taken together make up some sort of body, If
the author were considering the ten men to be simply the fulfillment of a
quorum, it would not matter whether they came all at once or individually.
He is pointing out, however, that this group symbolizes the body of the
Adam Kadmon, and therefore that itis wrong for it to be formed in sections.
The statement that the remaining members of the congregation are mere
adornments of the body underlines the special function and importance of
the initial ten. This special function is further clarified in the following
section of the passage:
But when the people do not arrive together the Holy One, blessed be
He, exclaims: ‘Why doI come and there is no man?” Forinasmuch as
the single members are not together there is no complete body, and so
that is ‘tno man.”’ Observe that the moment the body is made complete
here below a supernal holiness comes and enters that body, and so the
lower world is in truth transformed after the pattern of the upper
world.
On one level, the body that is formed below, the actual minyan, is
entered by the Shekhina (the supernal holiness), and is thus the point of
contact between God and Israel. Simultaneously, the minyan formed in the
proper manner below unifies the heavenly realm above, preparing it for
union between the Shekhima (Malkhut) and Tiferet. When the minyan is
formed, the Shekhina comes to dwell within it on earth, and at the same
time (by virtue of the minyan's symbolic action) she is in union with Tiferet
148 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
in the sefirotic realm. That the lower world is transformed after the manner
of the upper world refers to this parallel union as well as to the replication of
the ten sefirot by the group of ten men. The practical ramifications of all this
divine activity are summed up in the final section of the passage:
Thus it is incumbent on all not to open their mouths to talk of worldly
matters, seeing that Israel then are at their most complete and holiest.
Happy is their portion! [I1I:126a]*
The entire Passage, then, consists of a statement about the proper
formation of the minyan followed by an explanation of the importance of
this Particular ritual in terms of the supernal drama it inspires. A further
ordinance against worldly chatter during the drama follows, and the
Passage closes with a note of satisfaction about Israel's importance that is
an appropriate and logical conclusion to such an explanation of the divine
significance of Israel’s actions.
“Trans. H, Sperling and J. Abelson, The Zohar (London: Soncino Press, 1934), 5:184-85,
Sacrifice and the Heavenly Union
Commentary by K. Kogan
In this passage the author of the Zohar sets forth his conception of prayer.
The opening section deals specifically with the issue of praise before
prayer, inthe traditional sense. (In the traditional liturgy , a series of Psalms
of praise precedes the petitional Silent Prayer—Ed.)
R. Jose and R. Hizkiah were once going to sce R. Simeon in
Cappadocia. Said R. Hizkiah: We have laid down that a man before
praying should first pronounce God’s praises. But what of the man
who is in great distress and is in haste to pour out his prayer and is not
able to pronounce the blessings of his Master fittingly? He replied:
‘That is no reason why the praise of his Master should be omitted. He
should pronounce it, even without proper devotion, and then say his
prayer. Thus it is written: “A prayer of David, hear, O Lord,
righteousness, listen to my song’’ (Psalm 17:1)—first praise and then
prayer. Of him who is able to pronounce the praise of his Master and
does not do so, it is written: ‘Yea, when ye make many prayers I will
not hear”’ (Isaiah 61:15).
In this section the author simply states that praise must precede prayer
even if the praise is not uttered with proper intention. Here, greater
importance is ascribed to the ritual of the liturgy than to the momentary
state of mind of the worshiper. The following section is, however, more
specifically theosophical.
It is written: ‘*The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the
second lamb shalt thou offer at even” (Numbers 8:4). Prayers have
been ordained to correspond to the daily offerings. Through the
impulse from below there is a stirring above, and through the impulse
from above there is a stirring higher up still, until the impulse reaches
the place where the lamp is to be lit and it is lit. Thus, by the impulse of
149
150 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
the smoke (of the sacrifice) from below, the lamp is kindled above, and
when this is kindled all the other lamps are kindled and all the worlds
are blessed from it. Thus the impulse of the sacrifice is the rehabilita-
tion [tikkun] of the world and the blessing of all worlds.
In this section, the Talmudic parallel between prayer and sacrifice is
cited, and it provides a foundation for the ensuing description of the
heavenly workings of man’s impulse to worship. The explanation given as
applying to sacrifice is later applied to prayer by means of this parallel.
The rest of this section outlines the mystical interpretation of the effect of
sacrifice upon the divine realm. The ‘timpulse from below” refers, on one
level, to man’s general desire to worship, and the physical action of
sacrifice that follows from that desire. On another level, this ‘‘impulse””
refers to the specific mystical intention of the worshiper during the act of
worship. What this specific intention must be becomes clear as the passage
progresses, for it involves a concentration upon the divine events as
described later in the passage.
The “impulse from below” is, then, described as ascending into the
heavenly realm, creating a “stirring above.” This “‘stirring ‘above’ is (or
produces) the ‘impulse from above,” which is the desire of Malkhut, the
female element, to unite with Tifcret, the male element. The “impulse from
above"’ produces a “stirring higher up still,"’ which is the impulse of Tiferet
to descend and to unite with Malkhut. The “place where the lamp is to be
lit” may be Tiferet, or even Binah. Thus, the ‘‘impulse from below’? —
man’s impulse—sets in motion impulses and stirrings in the divine realm,
which, in turn, set in motion the flow of blessings and rehabilitate the order
and unity of the divine realm. The passage continues in greater detail.
When the smoke commences to rise, the holy forms in charge of the
world derive satisfaction, and are disposed thereby to stir the grades
above them; and so the impulse rises until the King desires to associate
with the Matron. Through the yearning of the lower world, the lower
waters flow forth to meet the upper waters, forthe upper waters do not
flow save from the impulse of the desire from below. Thus, mutual
desire in kindled and the lower waters flow to meet the upper waters,
and worlds are blessed, and all lamps are kindled, and upper and lower
[realms] are endowed with blessing.
The process of prayer, then, is as follows: The first level of divine life, the
angels, is here described as “the holy forms in charge of the world.’ The
impulse of worship pleases them, and moves them to pass on the
“message’’ to the sefirot, specifically Tiferet (King) and Malkhut (Matron),
When the impulse reaches Tiferet, it instills in hima desire to have sexual
The Zoharic Tradition 151
union with the Shekhina (Malkhut). Simultaneously, the Shekhina is
inspired by the impulse to be united with Tiferet and moves upwards to
meet him. This is what is meant by the lower waters (Shekhina) flowing to
meet the upper waters (Tiferet). ‘The upper waters flowing only in
response to desire from below”’ is a symbol with multiple meanings. It
refers to the actual movement of Tiferet in the direction of Malkhut, to his
emotional desire to be united with her, and also to the blessings which he
has the power to release. The ‘‘desire from below’’ which inspires Tiferet
comes both from Israel’s worship on earth and from the desire of the
Shekhina, who has also been inspired by Israel’s sacrifice. That this desire
is mutual—on the part of Tiferet and Malkhut—is stressed as being the
ingredient required for a union between the two such that the flow of
blessings (here symbolized by the light) will result.
That both upper and lower worlds are endowed with blessings indicates
that the heavenly realm is, in some sense, in need of these blessings, and
therefore that Israel's impulse during worship is of benefit to God.
Observe that the function of the priests and levites is to unite the Left
with the Right. Said R. Hizkiah: That is so, but I have been told that
one rouses the Left and the other the Right, because the union of male
and female is only brought about by Left and Right, as it says: “*O that
his left hand were under my head, and his right hand should embrace
me”’ (Song of Songs 2:6).
In this section the role of several other sefirot in the heavenly union is
brought into focus. The ‘*Left’’ and “‘Right’’ refer to the left and the right
sides of the sefirotic realm: The Left (Gevura, and Hod) represents God's
stern, judgmental aspects, and the Right, (Hesed and Nesah) represents the
loving, merciful tendencies of God.
The inclusion of the passage from the Song of Songs implies that the left
and right sides of the sefirotic realm cach play a specific role in the heavenly
union of Tiferet with Malkhut. This speculation is strengthened by the
mystical interpretation of the traditional functions of the priests and levites.
The priests, by virtue of their sacrificial appeasement of God s stern
“‘side,”’ rouse His right (loving) side, while the levites rouse the judgmen-
tal, left side. The exact functions of the two sides in the heavenly union is
not clear from this passage, but it is evident that both are important in
bringing about the union, The point of this section is to impress upon the
reader the importance of including in his meditations specific attention to
both the harsh and the merciful aspects of God.
Then male and female are united and there is mutual desire and worlds
are blessed, and upper and lower rejoice. Hence we see that sacrifice is
152 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
the support and the rehabilitation of the world, and the joy of the upper
and lower [realms].
This section summarizes the outcome of the impulse of sacrifice: that it
leads (by the process described above) to union within God (portrayed ina
sexual image), the products of which are a flow of blessings for both man
and the divine realm, and joy for man and God. The assertion that
“sacrifice is the support of the world’’ leads one to believe that, according
to the author, blessings from God can flow down to earth only as a result of
Israel’s religious activity. That Israel, therefore, is of vital importance to
the harmonious existence of all life on earth is a logical conclusion, and a
statement to this effect concludes the passage.
Said R. Jose: You are certainly right, and I had heard this before but
had forgotten it. This, too, I have learnt, that nowadays prayer takes
the place of sacrifice, and a man should fittingly pronounce the praise
of his Master, and if not, his prayer is no prayer. The most perfect form
of praising God is to unify the Holy Name in the fitting manner for,
through this, upper and lower are set in motion, and blessings flow to
all worlds
The statement that prayer now takes the place of sacrifice serves to apply.
the entire preceding explanation to prayer. The ritual that links prayer to
sacrifice—the obligatory inclusion of praise—is then given a mystical
interpretation. Clearly implied is that prayer must be recited with proper
intention—that is, with mental concentration uponits influence in the realm
of the sefirot. In fact, much of the significance of this passage as a whole lies
in the fact that it sets a new ideal for Kavvana Proper devotion here
becomes a kind of meditation with semi-magical intent. One’s concentra-
tion on the activities of the sefirot during prayer transforms worship froma
simple expression of need or emotion to an almost magical activity. The
magical technique does not involve the use of special phrases or actions,
but rather the more subtle tool of mental intent. It is clearly implied in the
passage that God's control over the world is monitored not by His own will,
but by His ‘‘emotional’’ reactions to the nuances of intention underlying
Israel's prayers.
The final statement,
R. Hizkiah said: God placed Israel in exile among the nations in order
that they might be blessed for their sake, for they do bring blessings
from heaven to earth every day. [L:243b—244a]*
‘Trans. H. Sperling and I. Abelson, The Zohar, 2:374-75,
The Zoharic Tradition 153
seems to be the climax of the passage. The dramatic influence of Israel's
prayer upon the divine realm, culminating in a flow of blessings for heaven
and the world, is strong support indeed for the belief that Israel’s exile is for
a purpose, and that Israel performs a vital function in Creation.
(Editor's note: The importance of the twice-daily sacrifice, and of the
subsequent substitution of liturgical prayer, lay in the fact that the
sacrificial lamb atoned for the sins of the world and thus allowed God to
maintain His creation. The Christian reader will immediately recognize the
Agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi, and should note that the parallel is to
the daily, and not to the Paschal, sacrifice.)
Conclusion
Just as the Zohar represents a radical shift in our thinking about God, so it
Tepresents a radical shift in our thinking about man. For according to the
Zohar, God’s relationship with the world is patterned on the model of a
continuous flow of energy. God generates the energy, but it is man who
must act like a prism, focusing and returning the energy to God. This
energy, then, is renewed and returned to man, who again focuses and
returns it to God, and so on. In the language of very contemporary man, the
relationship of God’s energy to the world is one of recycling: God
generates, man recycles. It is a continuous process. It is elliptical in form,
having two foci. God does not act independently of man. He does not act
unilaterally. God and man stand in a reciprocal relationship, each
benefiting the other, each doing something that allows the other to achieve
full existence. The image of man as the prism (recycling agent) of the divine
energy is crucial to the Zohar, and it is, in the Jewish mystical tradition, a
new idea.
How was this refocusing (recycling) effect accomplished? As we have
seen, the twice-daily offering prescribed in Numbers 8:4 was the basic¢
sacrifice of the Temple service. It was offered every day, even on the most
important holidays. The reason for this was that this sacrifice atoned for the
sins of the world, and hence it was the act which allowed God to maintain
the universe in existence. When the sacrificial cult was abolished because
of the destruction of the Temple, liturgical prayer took the place of
sacrifice. This ritual prayer was also recited twice daily (later, thrice), and
it too became the act which appeased God and which, therefore, sustained
the world. In Rabbinic Judaism, however, these associations were not
made explicit. Prayer, especially ritual prayer, remained one of many
commandments of the Torah, as interpreted by the rabbis, which one had to
fulfill. The author of the Zohar, in adding a new dimension to ritualized
prayer, brought it back very close to the original intent of the sacrifices, for
prayer again became an act which corrected the sins of the world and
opened up the flow of divine energy. How was this to be done?
154
The Zoharic Tradition 155
Rabbinic Judaism had already developed the technique known as
Kavvana, which was intended to accompany the recitation of the liturgy.
This technique, coming from the root meaning ‘‘to direct the heart
(consciousness), allowed the practicing rabbinic Jew to focus his atten-
tion not only on the words and their meanings but also upon a host of other
things. He might bring into his awareness a consciousness of other Jews in
other places and times. It is not unusual, for example, for the praying
rabbinic Jew of today to call to mind, during his prayers, the Six Million
who died at the hands of the Nazis. (How did they pray?) The praying Jew
might bring into his awareness a consciousness of the power of God or His
justice. He might also focus upon the personal Presence of God, and so on.
This technique of Kavvana, then, was (and is) a consciousness-raising
technique, allowing one who practices it to focus (direct) his consciousness
to one or several things while, at the same time, reciting the liturgical texts.
The technique was known to every rabbinic Jew. It may have been formally
studied when the relevant sections of the law were studied. It was certainly
learned from observing people praying and from reading the pietistic
literature
To this basic consciousness-directing technique called Kavvana, the
author of the Zohar added a new dimension—concentration upon the
activity of the various sefirot. The Jewish mystic who adopted the Zoharic
view of the world would, thus, have to hold in his (I doubt that any women
practiced this type of meditation) consciousness the liturgy and the usual
rabbinic associations, and at the same time, he would have to be conscious
of the divine flow of energy coming from, and within, the realm of the
sefirot. He would have to be able not only to sense this flow but to focus it,
to redirect it, back to its source. The flow would, then, come down to him
and be returned by him to the realms of the angels and then to the realm of
the sefirot. He would attempt to motivate Malkhut (God’s Face to the
World; His outer self) to reunite with Tiferet (God's balanced, inner self).
He would attempt to call down Gevura (God’s justice, even His anger) and
Hesed (God’s grace, His unconditional love) and to fuse them into Tiferet
and into the subsequent union between Tiferet and Malkhut. In a word, the
worshiper would, by focusing the flow of divine energy, try to restore an
inner harmony within God. He would try to achieve a unity among God's
varying characteristics. He would seek to achieve an inner peace for God.
In so doing, the flow of energy would be restored to its higher sources
(Bina, Hokhma, and Keter), and having touched home (so to speak), the
energy would be able to flow freely down the ontological ladder, back
toward man and the world. This process was called Tikkun, the rehabilita-
tion of God and reality
To the traditional rabbinic Jew, all this was (and is) very strange. Yet we
have even stranger sections of the Zohar, which speak of the divine
156 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
channels being blocked, i-e., of something having happened within God
that prevents, or obstructs, the flow of divine energy. And then it is man
who must come along and, through Zoharic Kavvana (i.e., through
focusing the energy flow). release the obstructions. Itis man who must help
to restore the divine flow when it is stopped. It is man who must restore, or
“rehabilitate,’’ God.
We are now in a position to appreciate more fully the nature of sin in the
Zohar, for sin, as we have seen, is actually the misfocusing of the divine
energy. It is man’s distraction and subsequent misdirection of the divine
light. The reason is now clear: Manacts like a prism, for betterand for worse,
Man recycles, for better and for worse. Sin, whether it be Adam's
paradigmatic sin or that of any person, is thus a misuse of divine energy,
Furthermore, this misuse still contains power. It is, after all, divine energy,
even if it is misfocused. Sin, therefore, is also that which causes blockages
and imbalances in the divine flow. Sin is that which creates impedances and
resistances to the harmonious, balanced flow of divine energy. Experi
enced evil, therefore, is the result of this imperfect, unbalanced flow of t
divine energy. In a word, sin destabilizes God while proper pray
restabilizes Him.
If we consider these insights on the fourth level of interpretation (th
level of meaning and implication), we should note, first, that the concepts
“sin” and “‘prayer"’ (like the concepts of “creation” and ‘‘reyelation’’}
have undergone a vast change. Prayer is no longer praise and petition will
an expanded awareness of the power and Presence of God. Prayer
developed into a kind of theurgy, a kind of psychotherapy that man work:
upon God. For we are able, according to the Zohar, by our own sensing al
focusing of the divine energy, to reach into God and help Him straighter
Himself out, to help Him restore His own inner peace and balance. We ai
also able, according to the Zohar, to disrupt the flow of God’s being. Seer
from God’s point of view, God is, according to the Zohar, inherently give
to moments of instability, and He needs man in order to maintain His 01
balance. He thus can be hurt, even crippled, by man, and He can be helped,
even sustained, by him.
We should also note that we have before us a very powerful, and in some
ways new, insight into the nature of the man-God relationship, for
Zohar is teaching us that God is actually dependent upon man. The Zoh.
teaches that God, having committed Himself to creation, now needs it. Thi
insight is heretical and orthodox at one and the same time, It is orthod:
because rabbinic Judaism had always taught that man was the partner
God, that God's actions were in large measure a response to ma’
obedience and disobedience. The author of the Zohar has simply taken thi:
insight a little further and applied it to the inner workings of God, The
insight is heretical because it forces us to.ask the question: What happened
to God's omnipotence? Is He all-powerful? The Zoharic answer is no,
The Zoharic Tradition 157
We should also note that this insight into God’s basic dependence upon
man is, actually, frightening, because more than ever before in Jewish
thought, man is the active agent. It is man who is responsible for the
balance of forces in God. It is man who is responsible for the flow of divine
energy in God and in the world. It is man who is responsible not only for his
own mental health but for God’s as well. As God becomes more dependent
upon man, man becomes more responsible. As God grants man more
power, not only over the world but over Himself, man must face the
responsibility that goes with that power.
The concerned reader will, at this point, wish to reflect honestly on
several questions: Aside from the difficulty that the modern person has in
accepting realms of sefirot, etc., would you want to have a God Who is
dependent upon mankind? Would you really want to have a God Whose
consciousness mixes with humankind’s in a reciprocal relationship? Or
does that definition of God somehow seem un-Godly? Why? And yet,
which conception is more realistic? more spiritual? even, more humanis~
tic? Which is ‘‘better’’? It is strange to note that, although the Zohar was
written about 1290 c.e., mankind still seems unwilling to face up to the
responsibility of helping to rule the universe. Jewish mystical tradition, far
from fleeing from this responsibility, developed theories which intensified
it and which specified how one is to ‘go in unto’’ God. Later Zoharic
tradition increased, not decreased, the importance of man in the divine
scheme of things. And to this we turn next.
10
THE LURIANIC DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
The world of zoharic thought was a very rich world. It contained many
new and startling ideas, but these very ideas allowed the intelligent reader
to again strike up a personal relationship with God. Through the Zohar, the
learned and spiritually sensitive Jew could once more probe deeply into the
interpersonal nature of the man-God relationship, This personalism had
been one of the core ideas of Biblical Judaism. It had been one of the core
ideas of Rabbinic Judaism. It had, however, been glossed over by the
philosophical and legalistic developments of Rabbinic Judaism. And
suddenly it was available again, and with an intense mystical praxis
accompanying it too.
The Zohar had, nonetheless, left open several questions. (1) If God,
before beginning the process of His own self-articulation, was alone,
occupying all nonspace and nontime, where did He begin to articulate
Himself? Or, worded differently: Even the sefirot exist in some realm of
transcendental space-time. Where is that realm? Did God not first have to
create such a realm in order to be able to make room for His own
self-articulation? (2) Was the process of the emanation of the sefirot (the
process of the self-articulation of God) as smooth as the metaphors of the
flowing stream and emanating light suggest? Or were there conflicts in the
very process of self-definition in God Himself, conflicts of shatteringly
powerful proportions? And (3), in the Zohar, man is to act as the prism
of the divine light (as the recycler of the divine energy), but is the
process really so simple? Or was the self-articulation of God so shattering
that man must scamper to pick up the pieces? Is man a turnaround point or
is man really in the position of the king’s men who tried to put
Humpty-Dumpty back together again?
About 250 years after the writing of the Zohar, a new teacher arose who
159
160
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
tried to answer some of these i i
a S€ questions, Rabbi Isaac Luria, who lived in ti
eae ae ths aun of the Jews from the Iberian penises dwelt
loly Land in the city of Safed and lived amon; e
; ity of d ig some of the m
pia ue dae legalists in Jewish history. His works have not ee
us, but those of two of his students are available. Th i
are very, very complex, and I have had to aye ee
f 5 es content myself with G,
oe ae ee of the Lurianic myth presented ii the aan
5 g reader will want to do three things: First, it i
identify as clearly as possible the thr nents ia the Lunianicaty ti
le F ‘ee great moments in the Lurianic myth:
tsimtsum (the self-limitation of God). i "the
s , Shevirah (the shatterii
eee as hae (the restoration of the cosmos and Goa bi a
imordial unity). Be sure to note how this last m: i i
: R iS joment is accomplished,
Seen, tbe lant si want to identify the following terms and their role 7
ic myth: tehiru (the pneumatic, primordial
configurations of the sefirot), the * Ponte oe
y : , worlds’? (Emanation, Creati
eeeien and Making), Kelippor (the shells, the demonic), and a
% és sas ee Santen oF the divine light), Finally, the reader will want to
ask: | '¢ nature of prayer in this system? What i
implications of the system? And whi , thin, “a
i ? y does Scholem call this a ‘‘
exile and redemption’’? The maierial i ee
xile a 7 isc i
pe bse cannon Bema complex, but a careful reading of it
The Lurianic Myth
by G. Scholem*
In the foregoing we have discussed a few Kabbalistic symbols, which, it
seems to me, excellently illustrate the nature of the problem of Kabbalah
and myth. But in the systems of the early Kabbalists, and particularly of the
Zohar, we find not only a revival of isolated mythical motifs, but also a
dense texture of mythical ideas often constituting fully developed myths.
Many of the Kabbalists, as we have seen, busied themselves with the
speculative and theological reinterpretation of such mythical thinking. But
interesting as such reinterpretation may be from the standpoint of the
history of ideas, it cannot blind us to the psychic substance underlying the
myths. In many cases, | am almost inclined to think, the speculative
reformulation of myths was quite secondary even in the minds of those who
engaged in it and served merely as an exoteric disguise for the mythical
content which they looked upon as a holy mystery.
Apart from the Zohar, myth is exemplified most strikingly and magni-
ficently in the most important system of the late Kabbalah, the system of
Isaac Luria (1534-72) of Safed, and later in the heretical rheologoumena of
the Sabbatians, whose Kabbalistic Messianism was in part inspired by
Luria. Both the orthodox Kabbalah of Luria and the heretical Kabbalah of
Nathan of Gaza (1644-80), prophet and theologian of Sabbatai Zevi, the
Kabbalistic Messiah, provide amazingly complete examples of gnostic
myth formation within or on the fringe of Rabbinical Judaism. The one is a
strictly orthodox form of such gnosis, the other a heretical, antinomian
deviation. Both forms of Kabbalistic myth are closely related to the
historical experience of the Jewish people, and this no doubt accounts in
large part for the fascination which both, but especially the Lurianic
Kabbalah, have undoubtedly exerted on large sections of the Jewish
people, namely, those whose keen religious sensibility prepared them to
From G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965),
pp. 109-17
161
162 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
play a leading role in the religious development,
into the heretical mythology of the Sabbatians;
describe, at least in its broad outlines, the structure of Lurianic myth as an
unparalleled example of the contexts with which we are here concerned, It
may seem presumptuous to attempt such a summary of a body of thought
which in its canonical literary form fills several thick volumes, especially as
much of it can be fathomed only in the practice of mystical meditation and,
as far as I can see, defies theoretical formulation. And yet the underlying
structure, Luria’s fundamental myth, is so amazingly clear that even a brief
analysis of it should prove fruitful
From a historical point of view, Luria’s myth constitutes a response to
the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, an event which more than any other
in Jewish history down to the catastrophe of our time gave urgency to the
question: why the exile of the Jews and what is their vocation in the world?
This question, the question of the meaning of the Jews’ historical
experience in exile, is here dealt with even more deeply and fundamentally
than in the Zohar; it lies indeed at the heart of the new conceptions which
are the essence of Luria’s system.
Luria’s new myth is concentrated in three great symbols, the ¢simtsum,
or self-limitation, of God, the shevirah, or breaking of the vessels, and the
tikkun, or harmonious correction and mending of the flaw which came into
the world through the shevirah.
The tsimtsum does not occur in the Zohar, It originates in other old.
treatises, but became truly significant only with Luria. It is an amazing
conception. The tsimtsum ushers in the cosmic drama. But this dramais no
longer, as in older systems, an emanation or projection, in which God steps
out of Himself, communicates or reveals Himself. On the contrary, it is a
withdrawal into Himself. Instead of turning outward, He contracts His
essence, which becomes more and more hidden. Without the tsimtsum
there would be no cosmic process, for it is God's withdrawal into Himself
that first creates a pneumatic, primordial space—which the Kabbalists
called tehiru—and makes Possible the existence of something other than
God and His pure essence. The Kabbalists do not say so directly, but it is
implicit in their symbolism that this withdrawal of the divine essence into
itself is a primordial exile, or self-banishment. In the tsimtsum the powers
of judgment, which in God’s essence were united in infinite harmony with
the “‘roots”’ of all other potencies, are gathered and concentrated ina single
point, namely, the primordial space, or pleroma, from which God
withdraws. But the powers of stern judgment ultimately include evil. Thus
the whole ensuing process, in which these powers of judgment are
eliminated from, or ‘‘smelted out’? of, God, is a gradual purification of the
divine organism from the elements of evil. This doctrine, which definitely
conflicts with other themes in Luria’s own system and is more than
Here I cannot enter
but I should like to
The Zoharic Tradition 163
questionable from a theological point of view, is Saeco h
i i iti f the Lurianic system. In i
disregarded in most expositions 0 Luria n paleo
‘s disciple Hayim Vital, the tsimtsum be Ss;
the great work of Luria’s disciple ; | i ee
a isis in God Himself, but a free act of i
essary and fundamental crisis in {
ahi haves paradoxically enough, first unleashes the powers of stern
piel + s of it 78 5
ie the primordial space, or pleroma, the ‘*roots Se asarauR eet
i it i il residue of God’s infinite light, w!
in the tsimrsum are mixed with the resi : dats
i i forms that come into being
withdrawn from it. The nature of the f xe }
i t between these two
ais by the cooperation and conflic' :
pleroma is determined ; f poaeton
Q ‘d element, a ray from God's a
elements and by the workings of a thir s i eens
i id falls back into the primor
hich subsequently breaks through and fa 0 the pri
Boe: For Luria, the events that take place in the Heron ate ae : We
Itis th ifestati infinite in the pleroma whic i
It is these manifestations of the infin I ees
i ivi describe the genesis 1
stitute the one living God. He tries to i ;
ous For the part of God which has not entered into the bresote
Mi 1 ing stages, His infinite essence, that rei ce
of tsimtsum and the following stages, patty
i i ittle i ce to man here below. The ce
hidden, is often of little importance 2 ans
‘ sonal charac xd even before the tsimtsum a
tween the personal character of Go , n ‘ ,
pa essence, which takes on personality only with the Pee
begun in the rsimsum, remains unresolved in the classical forms o!
Lurianic myth. ; ,
‘In the a eone arise the archetypes ofall being, the forms, deep mane
the structure of the sefiroth, of Adam Kadmon, of eae Hor eane
i i ari co-existe:
takes a hand in Creation. But the precarious co-existence : e
kinds of divine light produces new crises. Everything that comes ee nae
after the ray of the light from en-sof has been sent out into the plerom
affected by the twofold movement of the Leer ae
j ii ati Every stage of being is
and of the outward flowing emanation maiseirec
i i th, and the nose of the Primordi
this tension. From the ears, the mouth, and t saga
i i ly hidden configurations, :
burst forth lights which produce deeply hi :
being and inner worlds beyond the penetration of the eRe
itati E tion originates in
meditation. But the central plan of Creat d ees
ine i i f Adam Kadmon. For the ve:
shine in strange refraction from the eyes o neni
i sisti f tures of light, were design
which, themselves consisting of lower mix ; ss
ive this mighty li sfiroth from his eyes and so to serve as
ceive this mighty light of the sefirori feces ery
He oe and instruments of Creation, shattered Pa iey ee ais
cisiy ivi ted being, the “br
decisive cri of all divine and creat ing, akin
veseelene which Luria identifies with the Zoharic image of the nee
primordial kings.”* For the Zohar interprets the list of the kings 0 Edomin
Genesis 36, who reigned and died **before there were pe in Beal ae
fonito: r istence of rlds of stern judgment,
allusion to the pre-existence of wor of s : aver
deanaved by the excess of this element within them. In Luria the death of
164 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
the kings from lack of harmony between the masculine and feminin
Clements, described in the Zohar, is transformed into the “‘breaking of the
vessels,” also a crisis of the powers of judgment, the most una: imilable
parts of which are projected downward in this cataclysm to lead an
existence of their own as demonic powers. Two hundred and eighty-eight
sparks from the fire of “judgment,” the hardest and the ewe af
mingling with the fragments of the broken vessels. For after the ide
nothing remains as it was. All the lights from the eyes of Adam madd
return upward, rebounding from the vessels, or break through downward
Luria describes the laws governing this event in detail. Nothing remains =
its proper ple e. Everything is somewhere else. Buta being that is not in its
proper place isin exile. Thus, since that primordial act, all being hee been :
being in exile, in need of being led back and redeemed. The breaking othe
eee continues into all the further stages of emanation and Creation:
Scene 1s In some way broken, everything has a flaw, everything fe
But what was the reason for this cleavage in God? This question was
bound to arise in the Lurianic Kabbalah, though a definitive solution es
never arrived at. The esoteric answer, which puts it down as a purification
of God himself, a necessary crisis, whose purpose it was to eliminate e i
from God, undoubtedly reflects Luria’s own opinion but, as we have secs
it was seldom stated openly—an exception is Joseph ibn Tabul. Luria’s
second important disciple. Others content themselves with the ti .
honoured allusion to the law of the organism, to the image of the seed
bursts and dies in order to become wheat. The powers of judgment a
likened to seeds of grain which are sowed in the field of the tehiru ail
Sprout in Creation, but only in the metamorphosis they undergo through th
breaking of the vessels and the death of the primordial Kings. ta
Thus the original crisis, which in gnostic thinking is fundamental to
understanding of the drama and secret of the cosmos, becomes an elem cH
in the experience of exile. As an experience affecting God Himself a
least in the manifestation of His essence, exile takes on the cna
dimensions which it had obviously assumed for the Jews of th se
generations. It was the very boldness of this gnostic paradox—exile sean
element in God Himself—that accounted in large part for the enortods
influence of these ideas among the Jews. Before the judgment seat oi
rationalist theology such an idea may not have much to say for itself. Bi
for the human experience of the Jews it was the most powerft iPr a
seductively appropriate of symbols. a
i oe so the vessels of the sefiroth, which were to receive the world
manating from Adam Kadmon, are broken. In order to mend this breach
or restore the edifice which, now that the demonized powers. of
judgment have been eliminated, would seem to be capable of t ; one
aking ona
The Zoharic Tradition 165
harmonious and definitive form, healing, constructive lights have issued
from the forehead of Adam Kadmon. Their influence ushers in the third
stage in the symbolic process, which the Kabbalists called tikkun,
restoration. For Luria this process takes place partly in God, but partly in
man as the crown of all created being. It is an intricate process, for though
the powers of evil were cast out in the breaking of the vessels, they were not
wholly eliminated. The process of elimination must continue, for the
configurations of the sefiroth that now arise still contain vestiges of the pure
power of judgment, and these must either be eliminated or transformed into
constructive powers of love and mercy. In five figures, or configurations,
which Luria calls partsufim, “‘faces’’ of God or of Adam Kadmon,
Primordial Man is reconstructed in the world of tikkun. These fives faces
are ’arikh, ‘*Long-suffering’’; the Father; the Mother; the ze‘ir ‘anpin,
“‘Impatient’’; and his feminine complement, the Shekhinah, who in turn is
manifested in two configurations, Rachel and Leah. Everything that the
Zohar had to say about the conjunctio of the masculine and feminine in God
is now set forth with infinite precision and transferred to the formation of
the last two partsufim and the relation between them. By and large, ze'ir
corresponds to the God of revelation in traditional Judaism, He is the
masculine principle, which through the breaking of the vessels has
departed from its original unity with the feminine and must now be restored
on a new plane and under new aspects. The Lurianic gnosis is concerned
chiefly with the interrelation of all those figures, their influence and
reflection in everything that takes place below, in the worlds of Creation,
Formation, and ‘‘Making,”’ which come into being below the sphere of the
Shekhinah, the last stage of the “world of emanation.”’ Everything that
happens in the world of the partsufim is repeated with increasing intensity
in all the lower worlds. These worlds form in an unbroken flow from the
lights which grow steadily dimmer—Luria seems to have held that the tenth
sefirah of every world, that is, the Shekhinah, functions at once asa mirror
and filter, which throws back the substance of the lights pouring into it and
lets through, or transmits, only their residue and reflection. But, in the
present state of things, the world of Making is mixed with the world of
demonic powers, or ‘‘shells,’’ kelippoth, which accounts for the crudely
material character of its physical manifestation. In essence—and here we
have a pure Neoplatonic conception—the world of nature is purely
spiritual. Only the breaking of the vessels, in which everything fell from its
proper place, caused it to mingle with the demonic world. Thus to separate
them once more is one of the central aims of all striving for the tikkun.
The crucial stages of this mission have been entrusted to man. For,
though much of the process of restitution has already been carried out in
God Himself by the setting up of the partsufim, it remains to be completed,
according to the plan of Creation, by the last reflection of Adam Kadmon,
eine.
166 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
who makes his appearance in the lowest form of “Making” (‘asi E
Adam, the first man of Genesis. For Adam was by nature sate BS,
figure, a ‘great soul,’ whose very body was a spiritual substance, an
ethereal body, or body of light. The upper potencies still flow into itm
though refracted and dimmed in their descent. Thus he was a microcosm
reflecting the life of all the worlds. And it was up to him, through the
concentrated power of his meditation and spiritual action, to remove from
himself all the ‘‘fallen sparks’* that were still in exile, and to put them in
their proper place. If Adam had fulfilled this mission, the cosmic process
would have been completed on the first Sabbath, and the Shekhinah would
have been redeemed from exile, from her separation from the masculine
fromze‘ir. But Adam failed. His failure is described with the help of various
symbols, such as the premature consummation of the union between
masculine and feminine, or, in the symbolism of the early Kabbalists, the
trampling of the young plants in Paradise and the tearing of the fruit from
the tree.
Adam’s fall corresponds on the anthropological plane to the breaking of
the vessels on the theosophical plane. Everything is thrown into worse
confusion than before and it is only then that the mixture of the paradisiacal
world of nature with the material world of evil takes on its full significance.
Complete redemption was within Adam’s grasp—all the more drastic is his
fall into the depths of material, demonized nature. Thus in the symbolism of
Adam’s banishment from Paradise, human history begins with exile. Again
the sparks of the Shekhinah are everywhere, scattered among all the
spheres of metaphysical and physical existence. But that is not all. Adam's
great soul,’ in which the entire soul substance of mankind was concen
trated, has also shattered. The first man, with his vast cosmic structure
shrinks to his present dimensions. The sparks of Adam’s soul and the
sparks of the Shekhinah disperse, fall, and go into exile where they will be
dominated by the “shells,"’ the kelippoth. The world of nature and of
human existence is the scene of the soul’s exile. Each sin repeats the
primordial event in part, just as each good deed contributes to the
homecoming of the banished souls. Luria draws on Biblical history as an
illustration of this process. Everything that happens reflects observance or
nonobservance of the secret law of the tikkun. At every stage Biblical
history offers an opportunity for redemption, but at the decisive point man
always fails to take advantage of it. At the highest point in his striving, the
exodus of Israel from Egypt and the Revelation on Mount Sinai, man is
brought down again by his worship of the golden calf. But the essential
function of the Law, both of the Noahide law binding on all men and of the
Torah imposed specially upon Israel, is to serve as an instrument of the
tikkun. Every man who acts in accordance with this Law brings home the
fallen sparks of the Shekhinah and of his own soul as well. He restores the
The Zoharic Tradition 167
pristine perfection of his own spiritual body. Seen from this vantage point,
the existence and destiny of Israel, with all their terrible reality, with all
their intricate drama of ever renewed calling and ever renewed guilt, are
fundamentally a symbol of the true state of all being, including—though this
was seldom said without reservations—divine being. Precisely because the
real existence of Israel is so completely an experience of exile, it is at the
same time symbolic and transparent. Thus inits mythical aspect the exile of
Israel ceases to be only a punishment for error or a test of faith. It becomes
something greater and deeper, a symbolic mission. In the course ofits exile
Israel must go everywhere, to every corner of the world, for everywhere a
spark of the Shekhinah is waiting to be found, gathered, and restored by a
religious act. And so, surprisingly enough, still meani gfully anchored in
the center of a profoundly Jewish gnosis, the idea of exile as a mission
makes its appearance. Disintegrating Kabbalism was to bequeath this idea
to the rationalistic Judaism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, It had
lost its deeper meaning, but even then it preserved a vestige of its enormous
resonance.
But the exile of the body in outward history has its parallel in the exile of
the soul in its migrations from embodiment to embodiment, from one form
of being to another. The doctrine of metempsychosis as the exile of the soul
acquired unprecedented popularity among the Jewish masses of the
generations following the Lurianic period.
In submitting to the guidance of the Law, Israel works toward the
restitution of all things. But to bring about the rikkun and the corresponding
state of the cosmos is precisely the aim of redemption. In redemption
everything is restored to its place by the secret magic of human acts, things
are freed from their mixture and consequently, in the realms both of man
and of nature, from their servitude to the demonic powers, which, once the
light is removed from them, are reduced to deathly passivity. In a sense the
tikkun is not so mucha restoration of Creation—which though planned was
never fully carried out—as its first complete fulfillment.
Thus fundamentally every man and especially every Jew participates in
the process of the rikkun, This enables us to understand why in Kabbalistic
myth the Messiah becomes a mere symbol, a pledge of the Messianic
redemption of all things from their exile. For it is not the act of the Messiah
as executor of the tikkun, as a person entrusted with the specific function of
redemption, that brings Redemption, but your action and mine. Thus for all
its setbacks the history of mankind in its exile is looked upon as a steady
progress toward the Messianic end Redemption is no longer looked upon.
as a catastrophe, in which history itself comes to an end, but as the logical
consequence of a process in which we are all participants. To Luria the
coming of the Messiah means no more than a signature under a document
168 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
that we ourselves write; he merely confirms the inception of a condition
that he himself has not brought about. .
Thus the Lurianic Kabbalah is a great “myth of exile and redemption.”
And it is precisely this bond with the experience of the Jewish people that
gave it its enormous power and its enormous influence on the following
generations of Jews.
We have come to the end of this brief exposition. We have seen how the
Jews built their historical experience into their cosmogony. Kabbalistic
myth had ‘tmeaning,’’ because it sprang from afully conscious relation toa
reality which, experienced symbolically even in its horror, was able to
project mighty symbols of Jewish life as an extreme case of human life pure
and simple. We can no longer fully perceive, I might say, “live,” the
symbols of the Kabbalah without a considerable effort, if at all. We
confront the old questions in a new way. But if symbols spring from a
reality that is pregnant with feeling and illumined by the colorless light of
intuition, and if, as has been said, all fulfilled time is mythical, then surely
we may say this: what greater opportunity has the Jewish people ever had
than in the horror of defeat, in the struggle and victory of these last years, in
its utopian withdrawal into its own history, to fulfil its encounter with its
own genius, its true and ‘‘perfect nature’’?
Introductory Note to a Lurianic Prayerbook
With the text which follows, Jewish mystical praxis reached its most
compiex and most obscure forms. Before we consider why this was so, we
must familiarize ourselves with this type of literature.
Briefly, the theology behind this type of prayer is as follows; In the
beginning, there was only God. And God decided to create the cosmos, So
He withdrew some of Himself into Himself (¢simrsum), creating thereby a
realm of transcendental space-time (tehiru). This realm, because it was
finite, had inherent in it the principle of finitute, of limitedness. Then God
caused His light to penetrate into this realm. But His light was infinite and
could not be contained by the finitude of the realm of transcendental
space-time. So the light and the forms of finitude which had tried to contain
it shattered (shevirah), leaving fragments of finitude (kelippot) and frag-
ments of divine light (“‘sparks’’). God, however, tried again and caused His
light to penetrate the realm of transcendental space-time once more (God's
tikkun of Himself). This time He succeeded in balancing the infinity of His
being against the finitude of His cosmos, and He formed ten sefirot. These
ten sefirot are the “World of Emanation.” These ten sefirot interacted with
one another and overflowed into another set of ten sefirot, lowerinrank and
purity than themselves. The second set of ten sefirot bear the same names
as the first set, but they comprise the ‘‘ World of Creation."’ The second set
generated a third set, called the ‘* World of Formation.” And the third set
generated a fourth set, called the ‘‘World of Making.’’ The fourth set
generated the world of the angels and the physical world in which man
exists. In this last world, Adam was set. Before his fall, Adam was a very
spiritual being, and his task was to gather the sparks which had been
scattered through the worlds and to return the sparks to the Godhead
(Adam’s tikkun). Adam, however, failed, and mankind was condemned to
its current existence. It is still the task of man, however, to redeem the
sparks wherever he can find them, and to return them (through meditation)
to the Godhead (man’s tikkun). If man succeeds, he will redeem himself,
the Jewish people, the cosmos, and even God Himself. True prayer is, thus,
169
170 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
an act of directed consciousness (kavvana) which seeks to raise the sparks
through the sefirot of the various worlds (i.e., through the configurations of
the sefirot of the various worlds).
The text given here is taken from the prayerbook of Rabbi Shalom
Shar’abi(d. 1777), and I have chosen it because it embodies clerly the very
complex Lurianic meditative system. Actually, it is a small section from the
meditation recited before (and during) Barukh She-'amar. Barukh She-
*amar is the prayer in the daily morning liturgy which introduces the Psalms
of praise. The prayer itself is pre-Lurianic, and in the Lurianic version it
contains the word Barukh (‘‘blessed’’) thirteen times. Numerologically,
thirteen is the number of the attributes of God, and it is also the numerical
value of the word ’ehad (‘‘one’’). The purpose of the meditation is to
release the sparks in the word Barukh.
The text has two parts. The first part is a sefirotic meditation, and the
symbolism is to be deciphered as follows: Da’at is one of the ten sefirot in
some systems. It comes after Bina. Father and Mother refer to Hokhma
and Bina. ’Arikh ’Anpin appears to refer to Hokhma, and its “female
counterpart” is Bina. Ze’ir’ Anpin appears to refer to Tiferet, and its female
counterpart is Malkhut. The Kings are the sefirot taken together, and the
Holy of Holies is the sefirotic realm. Concerning the four worlds: they are,
in descending order—Asilut, Beri’a, Yesira, and ’Asiya. Note the
image-within-image-within-image effect. It is as if four chandeliers com-
posed of pieces of mirror stood in a fully mirrored hallway.
The second part of this passage is of a different character. It is a body
meditation, using sounds, Names, and numerology. As to the vowel
sounds: The basic vowel-sounds are: a (as in father), ei/ey (as in hay), 0 (as
in old), e (as in fed), i (as in feed), and oo (as in food). According to
traditional medieval grammar, most of these vowel-sounds can be long
vowels (signified by a straight line over the vowel) or short vowels (signified
by acurved line over the vowel). The reader must also know that Hebrew is
composed of consonants as well as vowel-sounds, The latter are sometimes
written as dots and dashes around the letters, and sometimes certain
consonants can denote a vowel. Normally any consonant can be combined
with any vowel-sound. In the text, the capital letters represent consonants
(including those consonants which represent vowels) while the vowel-
sounds are written with lower-case letters, Thus, VaV means that there are
two consonants with the sound y and between them a vowel with the sound
a, and YOD means that there are three consonants, the middle of which
also represents a vowel. The apostrophe is the usual designation for the
letter Aleph, which is the sound we make between the letters 0 in the word
cooperation. (Actually, it is a brief constriction of the throat—a glottal stop
in technical language.) The last thing the reader must know about the
alphabet is that each of the letters has a name, for just as the letter a in
The Zoharic Tradition 171
English is called ‘*Aee,”’ so the first letter in Hebrew is called Aleph. And
so on through the alphabet. The consonants of the Tegragrammaton
(YHVH), then, are called: Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey, while the consonants of
the name ’DNY are called: Aleph, Daled, Nun, Yod.
Itis interesting to note that the actual pronunciation of the Tetragramma-
ton (YHVH) was repressed by the rabbis rather early in the history of
Rabbinic Judaism because the people were, apparently, using the Name for
magical purposes. So we no longer know how that Name was pronounced.
Modem scholars have reconstructed the pronunciation and think it to be
YaHVeH (meaning ** He Who causes to be’’). Rabbinic tradition, however,
took one of the other Names of God, ‘aDoNaY, which means ‘*my Lord”
(and could be used of people too), and substituted it for the now
unpronounceable Tetragrammaton. Thus, whenever the Tetragrammaton
is written, ‘aDoNaY is read, even to this day. Interestingly enough, certain
Christian groups chose to use the consonants of the Tetragrammaton with
the vowel-sounds of "aDoNaY and formed the hybrid word YaHoVaH,
also spelled Jehovah.
As to the Names: The basic Name is the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), the
consonants of which are pronounced with different vowel-sound se-
quences in the text. The passage also contains the Names ’El, ‘ADONAY,
and EHEYEH. The letters of these Names and their numerical equiva-
lents are interwoven with one another, the best-known combination being
Y’HDVNHY, which is YHVH and ’DNY spelled with alternating letters.
Since YHVH represents Tiferet and ~DNY represents Malkhut, the
combined spelling represents the union of these two sefirot. This combina-
tion can also represent, as the text indicates, the union of sound and
meaning which we call ‘*speech.””
As to the numerology: The reader must know that every letter in the
Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value as follows:
Te aad Se” Ge SIM era re SH 300
Bie 2h eG ye eS ee ff 400
GP es 20 Se 1O0n On e100:
De He 8 SO oe 0 ee 20)
This means that every word has a numerical value. Thus YHVH is equal to
10 plus 5 plus 6 plus 5, which equals 26. By the simple rule that words equal
to the same value are “‘equal’’ to each other (i.c., substitution is possible), a
whole field of numerological-alphabetological inquiry is opened. This field
is called gematria (a poor man’s comprehension of what geometry was). It
also means that, since each letter has a name which can be spelled, the
spelled-out name of the letter also has a numerological equivalent. Thus
the lettery is called YOD and has a numerical value of 10 plus 6 plus 4, which
equals 20. Furthermore, as the passage indicates, numerological equiva-
172 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
lences can be added, subtracted, etc. Only the capital letters (i.e., the
consonants and consonants representing yowel-sounds) can be computed,
Just for the record, are the gematriot listed in the passage accurate?
In approaching this selection, the reader will want to study it carefully.
Not all of it will be clear, but with work, most of it will yield to human
understanding. Note the fusion of numerological, body, and theosophic
techniques and themes. Note, too, that if you look at the reproduction from
this prayerbook (Fig. 12), you will see that it is arranged on the page in the
form ofa face. There are also questions the reader will want to pose: Why is
this material so involuted, so complex? What is the mystic trying to
achieve? To what would this praxis lead if it were given free rein to follow
its own inner logic? Does it correspond to our conception, orawareness, of
the divine? Why; why not? Cana “modern” person be this kind of mystic?
Why; why not?
The Zoharic Tradition 173
A LURIANIC MEDITATION
ewan? AWN WI
SPENTPT O77 CThE fos) 93zcp apse mrerd jst
fobs:
nya Shc pr one fr
babi
Saaw ys
Asay
oD IS
pod Sbne pp as :
STW) SAP led TIS) 8
STUNT NT TH OfPE PE Ee op xa beh Ra ui
RTIST NTT S78) 87-7
STUIST NTT OT STON SA TY
STINT NTT STIS) 871
OD 2 TOV pYPIh "7 oD Com AIS AVN TAS
5 S
re’ pin
Eats
nna | TORS
a ANT a
sy [eo AY Sy 22
NP perp ov OVS py pe
sao ae ak
STANT OA Th ae
‘
37D 909 PrN ‘97 Primh 3°91 3".
FIs powor noe SI's pan
a9 pepe PAN TINT
pynep 9°22 NAT NA TI IY
SIN WII ee Sher A
ITS WD Pie)
shim prpih yep Span ys YD
hfe 5°> .prpihy c2>p NANT NM TY mae
3’) TINT NT TY NTN Tt NAOT
—_
iP
mina fee ors mn few
“3 TER pp rise
tala
fare Fab
7 Sore pe 7D’ p99
way
"3 dbne $29 VO PIED sy peso
. aye
sre nen aba a a ag sty ma ea
A page from Siddur Rashash
Fig, 12
A Meditation Before Barukh She-’amar
From the Siddur Rashash
One should intend 'to conjoin Keter, Hokhma, Binah, and Da’at of [the
worlds of] "Asiyah, Yesira, and Beri’a with ‘Arikh ’Anpin and its female
counterpart: [with] the Father and the Mother; and [with] Ze'ir ’Anpin and
its female counterpart [each of which is of the world] of Yesira [as reflected
in the world of] ‘Asilut. They [i.e., the latter set] are contained in the
configurations opposite them in Yesira. [And one should intend] to draw
from them the soul-spirit-pneuma-anima-psyche of the inner spirit and
mind [which] encompasses the mediate vessels of Ze’ir ’Anpin and its
female counterpart of each of them [i-e., of the worlds] in order to purge the
mediate vessels such as Hokhma-Binah-Da’at of the Kings of each of them,
i.e., each of the worlds]; [and in order] to raise them together with the
purged vessels [which are] the external aspect of Nesah-Hod- Yesod of the
Kings together with the internal aspect of Yesira and *Asiya with its
soul-spirit; and [in order] to encompass and raise together with them the
external aspect Yesira and ’Asiya [which are] internal to, and encompass,
Beri’a. [All this] by means of the palaces of Ze’ir "Anpin of Yesira, as
mentioned above, for each one of them—raising it from palace to palace
until Beri’a, This [is done] by [recitation of] the Psalms.
One should say Barukh She-’amar, in which the word Barukh is
[mentioned] thirteen times corresponding to [the value of the word] 'ehad,
in order to unify the head of ‘Arikh ’Anpin which is the palace of Holy of
Holies of “Arikh ‘Anpin of Yesira with the head of 'Asiya. Included in it
li-e., in the prayer Barukh She-’amar]are eighty-seven words correspond:
ing to the thirteen restorations of the beard of ‘Anikh ‘Anpin plus the ning
[restorations] of Ze’ir ‘Anpin, plus the [value of the] Name ‘adonay of its
(Ze’ir’Anpin’s | corresponding female [i.c., 13 + 9 + (1 + 4+ 50+ 10) = 87),
This Ze’ir’ Anpin and its corresponding female constitute the roots of Zein
‘Anpin and its corresponding female, which are dependent upon *Arikh
‘Anpin, The intent one should have in [reciting] the thirteen [words] Barukh
is to [draw] light from the thirteen restorations of the beard of ‘Arikh *Anpit.
174
The Zoharic Tradition 175
to the nine [restorations] of Ze’ir ‘Anpin and [from there] to the Name
*aDoNaY of its corresponding female. And all of this with the external
aspect which is the beard. However, concerning the internal aspect, one
should intend these eighty-seven letters for the sake of Mah [Hokhma] and
for the forty-two letters of the simple and full, and the completely full
spelling of the Name] of Mah.
One should also intend to make oneself into a Chariot and a Throne for
the Adam of the Yesira of holiness as follows: The skull is Keter [and one
meditates/recites|—YaHaVaHa. [On a lower level, the skull is also]
Supernal Knowledge [and one meditates] Yod Hey Vav Hey [seven times].
Ona lower level still, the skull] is Lower Knowledge [and one meditates]
YoHeiVaHei [twice].
The right [side] of the brain is Hokhma [and one meditates] YaHaVaHa,
It is also the] right ear [and one meditates] YOD HeY VAV HAH, which is
the numerical [equivalent] of °eL-YHVH plus one for the word [itself, L.e.,
57 + 1]. [It is also] the right eye of Yesira [and one meditates] YoD Hei’
VavV Hei’ [five times].
The left [side] of the brain is Binah [and one meditates) Yei Hei Vei Hei.
It is also] the left ear [and one meditates] YOD HeY VAV Hall, whieh is
the numerical [equivalent] of ’el-Y HVH plus one for the word [itself], [It is
also] the left eye of Yesira [and one meditates] YoD Hei’ VAY Hei’ [five
times].
The nose: [For] the internal aspect of the right nostril [one meditates]
YoD HeY VaV HeY. [For] the internal aspect of the left nostril [one
meditates] YoD HeY VaV HeY. [For] the external aspect [of the nose one
meditates] "HYH |three times and) "HYH YHVH “HYH. The numerical
value of [the word for nose] HOTeM plus four for the four letters [of the
word] plus one for the intentequals [the value of the word “‘life’"] HaY YiM.
The mouth: The numerical equivalent of [the word for mouth] PeH is [85]:
sixty-three [which is the sum of] YOD HeY VAV HeY, which are the five
basic sounds of the mouth, plus twenty-two [which is the number of] letters
[of the alphabet]: 'HH* GYKQ DTLNT ZSShRS BYMP. [The meditation
for] the internal aspect of the mouth [is] YoD HeY VaV HeY “HYH. [For]
the external aspect [it is] YOD YOD Hei’ YOD Hei’ VAV which has the
numerical equivalent of PeH (mouth, i.e., 85].
Voice, the numerical equivalent of QOL [‘'sound"’] being the same as
that of YOFY’eL [an angel] plus one for the word [itself, i.e., 135 + 1], is
YHVH. Speech is DNY. [Thus], sound and speech [together] are
Y'HDVNHY [i.e., the two names of God spelled together with alternating
letters]. Speech [DiBUR, which is 212] has a numerical equivalent [as
follows]: YHVH [which is] 26, plus YOD Hei’ VAV Hei’ [whichis] 45, plus
10 for the ten letters [of that expansion], plus YOD YOD Hei’ YOD Hei’
VAV YOD Hei’ VAV Hei’ [which is} 130, plus one for the sum,
176 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
The right arm is Hesed [and one meditates] YeHeVeHe. The right thigh
is Nesah [and one meditates] YiHiViHi. The [meditation for the] right foot
is YOD ’aLeF HeY HeY Va’V YOD HeY HeY [which is] the numerical
equivalent of ReGeL [*‘foot’’ i.e., 233].
The left arm is Gevurah [and one meditates] YiHiViHi. The left thigh is
Hod [and one meditates] Yoo Hoo Voo Hoo. The [meditation for the] left
foot is YOD ’aLeF HeY HeY Va’V YOD HeY HeY [whichis the numerical
equivalent of ReGeL [‘‘foot,”’ i.e., 233].
The torso is Tiferet [and one meditates] YoHoVoHo. [ Ona lower level,]
the covenantal organ is Yesod [and one meditates] Yoo Hoo Voo Hoo. [On
a lower level], the crown of Yesod is Malkhut [and one meditates]
YiHaVoH.
Conclusion
Lurianic Kabbala, both in its ideas and in its praxis, was a very powerful
and influential force for several centuries. Christian Kabbala, Jewish
mystical messianism, Reform Judaism, secular Jewish nationalism, and
Hasidism all owe debts to Lurianic Kabbala. What was the secret of its
power? Why was it so influential? And what happened to it, for it is not a
central element in modern Judaism?
The importance of Lurianic Kabbala lies in two major insights, First, the
repersonalization of God begun in the Zohar is, in the Lurianic develop
ment, carried further. The reader will recall that in the Zohar, God was
conceived as a being possessed of personality, of consciousness; and that
in conceiving God this way, the Zohar was in effect returning to the
personalist view of God of the Bible and early Rabbinic Judaism, The new
perspective of the Zohar on this matter was that God not only shared
consciousness with mankind. He also shared some of humankind’s
impotence. God and man were conceived as being mutually dependent.
Each was seenas helping the other to achieve ontological fulfillment and as
capable of impeding the other’s fulfillment. Luria took this idea one step
further and taught that God, even before the creation of man, is a being
Who must wrestle with His own transcendence in order to put it into
containable form. God cannot simply will His manifestations into being.
Nor can He simply allow them to flow smoothly from Him. Rather, He
must wrestle, strive, and fight to balance reality against the forces of the
spirit. Furthermore, Luria taught, this striving is a violent process. Itis a
shattering of conceptions, a fragmentizing of the self. This sense of inner,
violent struggle in God and the subsequent fragmentizing of the divine is
one of the most powerful ideas in theological thinking in any age. No
wonder it captured the imagination of so many! In conceiving God in this
fashion, however, Luria simply extended the anthropopathic understand-
ing of God one step beyond the Zohar, and one step closer to our own
perception of the dynamics of human consciousness. For creative living is,
indeed, a wrestling of the spiritual into form. Creation of any kind is,
177
178 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM.
indeed, a fragmentizing of the original unity into discrete, manageable
parts. Self-articulation is a violent, self-fragmenting process. Furthermore,
although the articulated self is graspable, it is ‘tin exile.’’ It is separated
from the primordial unity of consciousness. And therefore, Luria taught,
even after striving successfully to articulate the self, God (and man) yearns
for the return of the primal unity. God, and man, seek redemption from
self-fragmentation, from self-exile. Lurianic Kabbala is, thus, truly a
theology (and psychology) of violent self-fragmentation and intense
yearning for inner restoration.
The second major insight of Lurianic Kabbala is the messianic radicaliza-
tion of man. The reader will recall that, in the Zohar, the responsibility for
the ongoing welfare of God fell to mankind. Luria took this idea further (as
the reading from Scholem makes clear) and taught that the restoration of
the primordial wholeness to God, to the cosmos, and to man lie in the hands
of man. Luria taught that it is the individual mystic who is the Messiah
because it is he who returns the ‘‘sparks”’ to the divine. It is he who restores.
unity to God and the world. This idea is truly anarchic in its potential, and
Scholem has traced this line of development in several of his works.
Why, then, did Lurianic Kabbala not survive? Actually, it did survive. I
have myself been present in a synagogue in Jerusalem where Luriani¢
prayerbooks were in use. Furthermore, it is likely that Lurianic praxis is
carried on in Hasidic circles, but only by the leaders (the Zaddikim),
However, it is generally true that Lurianic Kabbala faded into the
background, even of Jewish mystical tradition. The reasons for this are not
hard to understand: Lurianic theory is exceptionally complex. For
instance, each *‘world”’ contains ten sefirot, and each sefira reflects all the
other sefirot in all the other worlds. This yields a total of 40%, or 2,560,000
combinations. To meditate one’s way up that ladder is quite a task.
Similarly, Lurianic praxis became exceptionally complex. The meditations.
of the Siddur Rashash, only a small page of which was translated above, are
incredibly convoluted and the kavvanot for various occasions are endless,
It is also true that the association of Lurianic praxis with the freeing of
reincarnated souls and other acts which to the Western mind are sheer
superstition added to the desuetude into which Lurianic Kabbala fell.
What, then, did happen to Lurianic Kabbala? How did it develop and
influence later ideas and movements? The influence of Lurianic Kabbala
can be seen in four areas: in Christian Kabbala, in Sabbatianism, in modern,
Reform and secular-nationalist Judaism, and in Hasidism. It is beyond the
scope of this book to deal with Christian Kabbala. The interested reader
can begin with the encyclopedia articles and proceed to the learned books
on the subject.
The term “‘Sabbatianism’’ refers to the ideas and the movement
generated by the mystical false-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi. Briefly, Sabbatai
The Zoharic Tradition 179
Zevi was proclaimed the Messiah in 1666 c.£., and in 1667, confronted with
the threat of execution, he converted to Islam. Many of his followers (and
he had a massive following among the Jews of his time) left him, but many
remained loyal, still considering him to be the true Messiah. What enabled
these followers to view a man who had become an apostate as the true
Messiah? Basically, it was a Lurianic idea. Luria had taught the need to
“redeem the sparks,” and the followers of Sabbatai Zevi extended this as
follows: To fully accomplish his task, the Messiah must descend into the
realm of error and impurity in order to ‘redeem the sparks” that are there.
In becoming an apostate, then, Sabbatai Zevi was seen only to be following
the logic of the Lurianic definition of redemption. Interestingly enough, a
century after Sabbatai Zevi, a figure appeared in Europe who utilized much
the same line of reasoning to urge conversion to Christianity, Another
Sabbatian extension of Lurianic thought is in the realm of sin, Luria had
taught that “‘sparks’* are contained also in sins. Sabbatai Zevi and his
followers argued that only by actually committing these sins could one
“redeem the sparks’ hidden therein, This reasoning led to ritual consump.
tion of forbidden foods and, in later Sabbatianism, even to ritual adultery,
Here, too, the theory and praxis of Sabbatianism were only a logical
extension of the Lurianic definition of redemption. All this, strange as it
may scem, has been well documented by G. Scholem in his various works,
The interested reader should consult them, especially The Messianic Idea
in Judaism.
Scholem has courageously followed the implications of Sabbatianism
and its historical traces up into the modern period. He has shown the
juxtaposition of repressed Sabbatianism with the French Revolution, He
has also argued that the Sabbatian logic had completely undermined the
usual rabbinic assumptions about authoritative Judaism by the onset of the
modem period, and that the radical theology and practice which charac-
terize modern Judaism grow out of the radical theology and praxis of
Sabbatianism. A certain readiness for change, Scholem has argued, was
inherent in Judaism as it entered the modern period because of Sabbatian
thought and praxis, which had been anti-rabbinic, and which had reversed
many of the traditional rabbinic values. Ina word, the anarchism preached
and practiced by the followers of Sabbatianism with respect to rabbinic
tradition and authority prepared the way for the anti-rabbinic, anti-
traditional forms of modern Judaism, both the Re-forms as well as the
secularized forms. For a fuller statement of the argument and the
presentation of the evidence, the interested reader should consult
Scholem’s works, especially The Messianic Idea.
The fourth area in which Lurianic influence can be felt is in modern
Hasidism. Here, the net effect appears to be one of simplification in theory
and in praxis, First, Hasidism developed the idea of the Eyn Sof. The
180 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
reader will recall that, in Zoharic and Lurianic Kabbala, the Eyn Sof is the
unknowable, infinite, remotest aspect of God. In Hasidism it is still that,
but it is also seen as an all-embracing being (in some traditions) or as the
being on the other side of the great Nothing (in other traditions). Second,
Hasidism developed a ‘‘split-level” spirituality, with the Zaddik (the
leader) being the one who practices Lurianic kavvanot (and, even then, not
as a central mode of worship), while the Hasid (the follower) practices a
more direct, less convoluted type of spirituality. And third, Hasidism
preserved the idea of the ‘“‘sparks’’ being everywhere. The need to sin and
to become an apostate was, of course, rejected. But the readiness to see
God in any and every moment of human experience is a characteristic
attitude of Hasidism, the roots of which are in the Lurianic tradition.
: 11
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Our study of the Zoharic stream of Jewish my: m has revealed to us a
world at least as strange as that of Merkabah mysticism. Inmany ways, its
authors speak to us even more profoundly than the authors of the
Merkabah tradition. Why is this so? What is the enchantment of the
Zoharic tradition?
The enchantment of the Zoharic tradition lies foremost in the conception
of God that is portrayed in the literature. We have seen that this tradition
purports to speak of the intimate consciousness of God, of the inner
workings of His personality. And as beings possessed of consciousness and
personality, we are curious, and I would even say have a need, to try to
grasp God in the terms which are most familiar, and most distinctive, to us.
We know that our personal consciousness is what gives us our intimate
identity, and so we feel that if we could know God that way, then we would
have a more intimate knowledge of Him. We feel that by probing God’s
personality, we will have a truer knowledge of what He and we are really
like. God is there, somewhere, undefined, in the background of our being.
Zoharic tradition enables us to speak of Him in powerful and intimate terms.
It enables us to grapple with God face to face, heart to heart, and mind to
mind. And, therefore, it is a powerful analytic tool, a meaningful religious
Way. It is the same realization of the centrality of human consciousness
that motivates sensitive persons to try to grapple with the human situation
through the use of psychoanalysis, for psychoanalysis, too, purports to
speak of the human personality and its intimate levels of consciousness. (D.
Bakan, in his Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition, even went
so far as to indicate that Freud may have drawn some of his ideas from the
Zoharic stream of Jewish mysticism.)
Furthermore, we have seen that the Zoharic tradition teaches that God’s
consciousness is characterized by an unstable mixture of conflicting
impulses. This idea, too, is very powerful (and there are a host of other
181
182 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
ideas that we have not been able to explore which are equally as powerful)
because it shows us clearly that God is not the superman-in-the-sky. He is
not the great-heavenly-magician. Rather, God is a being, and insofar as He
interacts with the finite world, He too is limited. Furthermore, God is a
conscious being. True, He is more powerful, more knowing, but He too, as
a being possessed of articulate consciousness, must contend with conflict-
ing ideas within Himself, with conflicting desiderata, with conflicting paths
of action. He is not above all conflict. He is not the tranquil-sea-in-the-sky,
the motionless-puddle-in-eternity. He is not the beauteous-being-in-
beatific-repose. He is the Creator, the Judge. He must confront facts and
reach decisions, some of them very difficult. How can he not be in conflict?
Another reason for the enchantment of the Zoharic tradition lies in its
teachings about the relationship between God and man, for the Zoharic
tradition teaches that the stability of the mixture of God’s conflicting
impulses is influenced by the behavior of man, for better and for worse.
Here again we have a very powerful idea because we are being taught that
God is not the imperturbable Father Who metes out justice (or love) when
life is all over. He is not the withdrawn Almighty Who hovers in the
background until His turn comes to even the score by either an act of grace
or an act of just retribution. Rather, He is the involved Father Whose
breath of life is choked off by evil and Whose joy streams forth in response
to good. He is the engagé Parent Who aggravates Himself into impotence
when His children act stupidly and Who experiences inner joy when they
evidence genuine insight in what they do and say. The Zohar further
teaches that God is not only a real-life Father but also a Mother (Malkhut),
Here, too, God is not a Cinderella-type stepmother, nor a fountain
perpetually flowing with milk and honey. Rather, God is a real-life
Mother—sometimes good to us, sometimes bad; sometimes just, some-
times irrational; but always engaged, always concerned, always subject to
the feelings and acts that are directed toward Him/Her. No wonder the
Zoharic tradition is so enchanting! It may deprive us of our omnipotent-,
impersonal-force conception of God, but it gives us a much more human,
conscious, concerned being to deal with.
There are other reasons for the enchanting quality of the Zoharic
tradition. It is a highly imaginative way of thinking, and in a world in which
religion is often reduced to anact of mind or of cult, or toa social or political
act, a religious perspective with some imagination is much to be ap=
preciated. The Zoharic tradition is also a deeply symbolic system, and in a
world devoted to journalism, symbolic thinking and communication are
also to be appreciated. The Zoharic tradition is also a deeply mythic
tradition: By this I mean that, even in its symbols, and perhaps because of
them, Zoharic literature speaks to very deep levels of human need. With a
The Zoharic Tradition 183
quick turn of phrase, we find ourselves deep in the midst of worlds quite
remote from everyday reality and yet quite relevant to our deepest
understanding of ourselves and of God. This symbolic-mythic-poetic
dimension of the Zoharic tradition is partly responsible for its enchanting
quality.
Why. then, is the Zoharic tradition not more popular? Here too there are
several reasons. First, the tradition is largely unknown, for although parts
of the tradition are available in English, the skills of interpretation are
largely unknoWn. Second, our society is, in large measure, an anti-
intellectual, anti-spiritual society, and so, even if the literature and the
skills were known, they would not be popular. More important than these
“objective” reasons, however, is the realization that somewhere inside us,
we would rather have a conception of God as an omnipotent-impersonal-
force. If God is remote, He can make no demands. If God is out-there-
somewhere, we need not deal with Him now and maybe not even later, If
God’s power is absolute, then we can “have faith” in Him to straighten
things out in the end. But if God is not remote, then itis we who must take
responsibility for the relationship. If God is not omnipotent, then itis we
who must care for our Parent. If God's power is limited, it is we who must
share the burden of governance, Not many of us really want these burdens,
and so the Zoharic tradition is not likely to flourish, even if the knowledge
and the skills can be communicated.
Interestingly enough, in rabbinic circles it was forbidden to study the
Zohar until after one was settled, that is, until after one was over thirty
years old, married, and employed. Some say the reason for this is the
explicit sexual imagery. I am inclined to doubt it because young men
studied other explicit texts in the law codes, and so on. I think it is because
of the conception of God contained in this tradition, for a conception of God
which purports to explain His intimate consciousness, which speaks of
Himas an unstable mixture of conflicting impulses, and which shows Him
to be dependent upon man is indeed a conception that cannot he presented
to one who is immature. Furthermore, a conception of the God-man
relationship which assigns the major share to man is also an idea not meant
for immature minds. The secret of the entire Zoharic tradition, then, lies, as
the rabbis properly saw, in its radical portrayal of the nature of God and in
the radical role it assigned to man. The Zoharic tradition is truly an esoteric
tradition, a secret knowledge restricted to the select few.
Because of its esoteric nature and because of the complexification it
underwent over the centuries, the Zoharic tradition faded into the
background of the Jewish mystical tradition. New world-views were to
arise which would be less arcane, less obscure. New conceptions of
ism were to arise which would be more accessible to the masses.
184 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
New practices were to arise which would place much greater emphasis on
ecstatic experiences, and it is these practices which would capture the
religious imagination of the people, scholars and masses alike. It is to these
ecstatic traditions that we ought to turn next.
AFTERWORD
In the Foreword to this book, I set three problems for the reader: (1) to
identify the terms and images in these texts which form the universe of
spiritual discourse and to try to differentiate the types of spirituality in
these texts one from another; (2) to speculate upon the point at which one
can legitimately use the word “mystical” inrelation to these texts; and (4) 10
determine that which is specifically ‘‘Jewish’’ about these texts or, more
elegantly, to determine in what way these texts were influenced by, and in
turn influenced, Rabbinic Judaism, in the midst of which they flourished
We are now prepared to venture some answers to these questions
In the Merkabah tradition, the terms and images which clearly allude to
some spiritual reality are the letters, the hymns, the seals, the crowns, the
angels, the magical formulations, the other heavenly creatures, the purity,
and so on. I have referred to this type of mysticism as ‘*power mysticism,”*
and the term is apt. The transcendent, or the spiritual, inthis tradition is the
element of power, the imitation of God through acquisition and use of His
creative power. As one of my students so aptly put it: “I can feel the drive
of these men to become one with the powers of creation that they sense in
the letters and words given by God... determinedly and faithfully
opening themselves to the power of the words and letters, a divine gift, as a
means of unifying their own shadow of God with His creative process.””
In the Zoharic tradition. the terms and images which clearly allude to
some spiritual reality are the sefirot, the theurgical process, the flow of
energy-light, the presence of male and female and the union between them,
the very fragmentedness and helplessness of God, and so on. This type of
mysticism I have called deeply personalist, not only in the usual sexual and
love imagery but in its innermost conception and articulation. The
transcendent. or the spiritual, in this tradition is the element of per-
sonalism. It is the imitation of God through the concentration of personal
energy. It is the entering of a personal, intimate relation with the divine
through directed awareness. It is being personally engaged with God on the
most intimate levels of our conscious being and of His. As a student
185
186 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
remarked, Zoharic mysticism is a seeking of inner balance and union ina
universe of self which is essentially in imbalance and disunion. It is a
secking of inner harmony and free flow of inner energy ‘‘in order to bless
not only myself and the world, but God Himself."’ All of this is a far cry
from the usual types of spirituality present in Rabbinic Judaism.
The second problem I set for the reader was: At what point can we speak
of this material as being “‘mystical’’? Interestingly enough, Scholem seems
to maintain that there is no conceptual momentat which spirituality shades
into mysticism. He has maintained that the criterion must be literary, i.e.,
that Jewish mysticism can be defined by the literary coherence of the
tradition. Nonetheless, I think the question can be fairly posed (as it has
been done by F. Heiler for the Christian tradition) as follows: Given the
category of spirituality with its forms and dynamics (cf. the Foreword), when
do the forms and dynamics of spirituality turn “mystical’’? To answer this
very difficult scholarly question we must recognize. first, that the views of
the mystics to the contrary notwithstanding, mystical dynamics are only a
subset of the dynamics of spirituality; that mystical dynamics are not
spirituality par excellence but are only part of the larger conceptual range of
spirituality. In this, incidentally, I think that rabbinic tradition concurs.
Second, we must recognize that both the forms and the dynamics of even
mystical spirituality differ considerably from one time and place to another,
For instance, the forms and dynamics of Zoharic theurgy differ greatly
from the forms and dynamics of ecstatic kabbalism. Given these caveats, I
would say that the forms and dynamics of spirituality turn **mystical”’
when the reports of the experiences involved betray an abstract concep»
tualization of God, as opposed to a highly personalist, anthropopathic
conceptualization. I have tried to word this very carefully, writing about
“reports” because all we have for analysis is reports. I have written of
“experiences’’ because, while some forms of mystical literature are really
types of Talmud and philosophy, it is my firm conviction that most, if not
all, of mystical literature reflects actual or anticipated experiences on the
part of the writer. Furthermore, and most important, 1 have written of
“experiences,”’ in the plural, for I disagree that mystical experience is one
amorphous experience which molds itself into various cultural forms. On
the contrary, the literature seems to testify quite unambiguously to
different experiences, in the plural, in different contexts; to different types
of awareness and consciousness. This differentiation seems to he
documented in non-Jewish mysticism as well. I have also written about the
reports betraying *‘conceptualization.”’ By this I do not mean an “‘idea of
God’’ in any systematic philosophic sense of the word, but a
conceptualization—approximate and unsystematic. Furthermore, this
conceptualization can be deduced from the materials, It is ‘*betrayed” and
not explicitly taught.
The Zoharic Tradition 187
Concerning the basic distinction I have made between an “‘abstract”’ and
** conceptualization of God, I would like to point out that
Biblical religion, although recognizing the limitations of anthropopathy,
conceived spirituality as an experience of the Presence of God—
overpowering, awesome, often verbal, sometimes ecstatic—but always it
is the Presence of God that forms the core of the experience that is later
reduced to words. Similarly, rabbinic religion, as reflected in the liturgy and
Halakha about kavvana, recognized the limits of anthropopathy, but
conceived man’s relationship to God as essentially one of presence-to-
Presence. God was transcendent, yet through his spiritual capacities, man
could sense God, i.e., His personalist Presence. Similarly, the part of the
Hasidic tradition represented by Levi Yitzhak’s contending with God also
betrays a distinctly personalist conceptualization of God. On the other
hand, those reports which betray a conceptualization of God as a remote
Force which acts through various and sundry intermediaries is nonper:
sonalist at its core. Thus, the Merkabah literature, highly imagistic as itis,
betrays a conceptualization of God as an abstract Force, remote from man,
not directly sensible by him. Similarly, the philosophic mysticiam of
Maimonides betrays a God whose accessibility is limited to the lowest of
the Intelligences, even for Moses. Similarly, the God beyond the sefirot of
the Zoharic tradition is just that, beyond, abstract (althoug! attempt to
reinterpret the Zoharic sefirot as the *‘ personality’ of God and prayer as a
form of “therapy” brings that tradition back into the anthropopathic
camp). Similarly, the ecstatic traditions of Abulafia and Hasidic bittul
betray an abstract conceptualization of God.
Is, then, the material we have seen ‘tmystical’’? The Merkabah material
is certainly that. The Zoharic material, insofar as it presents God as
ultimately abstract, is mystical. Also, insofar as it speaks of man’s
experience of God as abstract and not personal, itis mystical. But insofar as
Zoharic tradition conceives God on the model of human consciousness, it is
not mystical. Insofar as Zoharic tradition conceives man’s relation to God
as person-to-person, itis not mystical. It may be “‘gnostic”’ in a loose sense
of the word, but it is not mystical.
The third problem I set for the reader was to identify the Jewish elements
in the Jewish mystical tradition and to speculate on the relationship
between mysticism and Rabbinic Judaism. What, then, are the Jewish
elements in this literature? First and foremost, we note that this is a very,
very learned tradition. The material is very complex. The material
presupposes a working knowledge of the Bible and of rabbinic literature.
Also, the more the tradition progresses, the more one must know, for the
tradition is cumulative. In one way or another, the tradition is really a
commentary on the Bible, the Talmud, and the preceding texts in the
tradition. Furthermore, these systems of thought are, as we have seen,
188 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
each deeply rooted in some other thought-system as well, be it Hellenistic
magic, Islamic philosophy, some form of mythic thinking, etc. This
mysticism was written by and for a highly educated elite. It was written by
and for a small group of rabbis. It is also the case that this tradition is
learned, in the sense that it is highly verbal. There are no icons, no music,
no painting, no poetry. It is rather alphabet- and number-oriented, or
personality-oriented. In this learnedness, Jewish mystical tradition con-
trasts with other traditions, for the illiterate mystic of the East or of
Christianity is unknown here. Such a person could not be a Jewish mystic.
Furthermore, the emphasis on love mysticism is almost completely
missing. Rather, love of God is a function of knowledge, and knowledge is
contained in the system. Love is not an overpowering emotion that moves
man to tears in God.
A second major characteristic of the Jewish mystical tradition is that itis
covenantal, i.e., that it exists within Torah, within Halakha, within
Rabbinic Judaism. There is a great deal of tension between mystic and
rabbinic authority, for to the mystic it is the experience that validates the
communal consensus concerning practice and belief, while for the rabbinic
Jew it is the consensus which validates the experience. Yet in spite of this
tension, the mystic and the rabbi exist side by side, often in the same
person
Third, Jewish mysticism is hierarchical. The concentric circles of
humanity, the Jews, the rabbis, the mystics is one example. The uranog-
raphy (geography of the heavens) is another. The remoteness of the
ultimate stage of God (even the Eyn Sof is ultimately remote and
inaccessible) bridged by a series of intermediate stages is another example.
In this, the Jewish mystical tradition is Hellenistic and medieval.
Fourth, Jewish mysticism teaches something about God and man. It
teaches that God is ultimately remote, yet in the Zoharic tradition, that He
needs man in a very intimate way. It teaches that man can be the bearer of
his own redemption. But most importantly, Jewish mystical tradition
teaches that man, with proper knowledge and proper disciplined praxis,
can contact God; that man, with proper knowledge, can tread the Way to
God and have contact with Him. In some respects, this is not a new idea,
yet if we conceive of prophecy as a seizing of man by God, i.e., if we
conceive of the most intense religious experience as being a unilateral act
by God, then mysticism represents a new theory of the God-man
relationship. For mysticism teaches that man can approach God, i.e., that
the process can be reversed, that the highest religious experience is
man-initiated.
Lastly, we note that the Jewish mystical tradition is quite diverse. We
have seen the power mysticism of magic and visions in the Merkabah
tradition and we have seen the personalist mysticism of the Zoharic
|
The Zoharic Tradition 189
tradition, The philosophic and ecstatic traditions with their distinctive
elements and Hasidism with it lit-level spirituality,’’ which in very
many ways turns the major qualities of Jewish mysticism upside down,
remain to be explicated.
What of the relationship of the mystic to Rabbinic Judaism?
The relationship of the mystic to society is, at its core, a conflict of
religious ideologies. For the Jewish mystic this conflict was, and is,
between Rabbinic Judaism on the one hand and mysticism on the other.
Briefly, Rabbinic Judaism taught the double-Torah theory, i.e., that both
the Written Torah and the Oral Torah were given by God to Moses} and that
both were equally valid, with interpretative authority being vested in the
rabbis, theologically and practically. Rabbinic Judaism also taught the
practice of popular piety—i.e., that the cult, in the broadest sense of the
word, was to be practiced by each and every rabbinic Jew, in all places, and
at all times. Rabbinic tradition was determined by scholars. It was rational
It guided the community and gave the group coherence and identity, The
Passover Haggadah, a classic text of rabbinism, for example, defined the
wicked son as one who denies the group and its sacred text, Mys mon
the other hand, taught that the direct, immediate experience of the divine
was the core of religious life, and hence that mystical ecstasy superseded
the tradition of revelation. Mystical tradition could be, thus, strongly
antinomian and anarchic while rabbinic tradition was strongly nomian and
social. These two religious ideologies could only clash with one another,
and as the dust settled, syntheses of various proportions were to emerge.
Scholem, among others, has done a great deal to-set out the battle lines of
this clash and to show the development of its dialectic tensions. Unfortu-
nately, however, these analyses have not been set into a general conceptual
tubric. | would like to propose, therefore, that the influence exerted by
each of these traditions upon the other be classified systematically as the
“rabbinization”’ of mysticism and the “‘mysticization”’ of rabbinism. This
requires further explanation
The “‘rabbinization’’ of mysticism can be seen briefly in the following
three instances: (1) When the clash was irresolvable, the community simply
expelled those who did not accept basic “‘rabbinization,”’ e.g., Elisha ben
Abuya, Sabbatai Zevi, and others. The poor reception accorded Martin
Buber in rabbinic circles is, in part, due to this. (2) The essentially
“non-Jewish” character of the techniques, experiences, metaphors, and
symbols of mystical tradition were ‘‘rabbinized’’ when Jewish mystics
chose to accept and use the central symbols of Rabbinic Judaism. Thus
Torah, liturgy, study, redemption, revelation, creation, law, Israel, et II
became integral parts of Jewish mysticism. Similarly, the use of exegesis in
theosophic mysticism, the reinterpretation of the commandments along
mystical lines, etc., are all elements in Jewish mysticism which were
190 UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
superimposed on it by the process of ‘‘rabbinization.”’ The very “bookish-
ness” of Jewish mysticism is an influence from the rabbinic tradition. (3)
The nonthcological possibilities of mysticism—as in some Far Eastern
mystical traditions—were “rabbinized’” when Jewish mystics chose to
place their expressions within the universe of theological discourse, within
the thoroughly theological world-view of the rabbinic tradition. Thus, the
interpretation of the experience of ecstasy as a form of prophecy or prayer,
the use of Name-magic in ‘‘practical mysticism,’’ the complexities of
Zoharic theosophy, the mystical view of salvation, etc., are all set within
the conception of a unique and unknowable God. Furthermore, even at its
most provocative, the concept of God in the Jewish mystical tradition was
seenas having roots in earlier Jewish traditions and as an extension thereof,
As a result, Jewish mystical teaching was “‘rabbinized’’ in being fully set
within that which rabbinic Jud: preached and taught about God
There are other ways in which mysticism was *‘rabbinized”’: the use of
verbal and not plastic imagery, the lack of an approved monastic-ascetic
tradition, the strong social and cosmic orientation of Zoharic theurgy, etc,
More work needs to be done to analyze the data and to set them into a
systematic rubric.
What about the other side of the coin? How was Rabbinic Judaism
“mysticized?” Here, too, the studies of Scholem are definitive, though not
set in an overall framework. Briefly: While in the rabbinic tradition the
Torah was a text and its interpretation an exoteric process, under the
influence of the mystical tradition the Torah became an aspect of God and
its interpretation an esoteric process. While in the rabbinic tradition the
object of study was God’s revealed will, under the influence of the mystical
tradition the object of study cae to be God Himself. While in the rabbinic
tradition observance was of God’s command, under the influence of the
mystical tradition observance became a sacrament. While in the rabbinic
tradition redemption was a national-political concept, under the influence
of the mystical tradition redemption became a personal and cosmic
reunification. While in the rabbinic tradition Kavvana was a meditation
toward the Presence of God, under the influence of the mystical tradition
Kavvana became a unification of the separated elements of the divine with
one another. While in the rabbinic tradition evil was a given of worldly
reality deriving mostly from the actions of men, under the influence of the
mystical tradition evil became a given of divine reality, originating in the
complex workings of the personality of God. While in the rabbinic tradition
the experience of ecstasy was latent, in the mystical tradition it came to be
much closer to the surface. And so on. In fact, there is hardly a symbol, act,
or belief in the rabbinic tradition which was not touched, and transformed,
by the mystical tradition.
The Zoharic Tradition 191
The evidence offered here is sufficient to demonstrate that the mystical
tradition, in spite of its “non-Jewish” and even anti-rabbinic characteri:
tics, was able to coexist with the rabbinic tradition, in spite of the latter's
avowedly exoteric and social character. In fact, there is a certain
interpenetration which goes so deep that one can properly speak of a
“rabbinic mysticism’’ (or, as the Orthodox literature of today puts it, a
sm’’). So much so, that the rabbinic-judicial-scholarly elite
elite are almost always identical. So much so, that even the
common rabbinic Jew aspires to be a ‘trabbinic mystic.” So much so, that
every rabbinic Jew is taught to recognize that the distinctively religious
impulse of his commitment must derive from his “Jewish mysticism.
The texts have been presented and explicated. The words and images of
spirituality have been illustrated. The types of spirituality have been set
forth, A definition of the mystical as a distinct subset of the spiritual has
been proposed. The Jewish elements have been identified, And an
interpretation of the relationship between Rabbinic Judaism and mysticism
has been set forth. It remains only for the reader to follow the rabbinic
injunction, **Go forth and learn,”
and the mysti
FOR FURTHER READING
There is no reading that canbe done in the field of Jewish mysticism without
studying the works of G. Scholem. First and foremost, for a history of
Jewish mysticism, one must read his Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.
Second, for studies in mystical symbolism, in the relationship of the
mystical and the normative traditions, and so on, e1e must read his On the
Kabbalah and Its Symbolism. Another book, «ne Messianic Idea, also
contains some very important essays on Lurianic Kabbalah, the “Jewish”
star, etc, Scholem’s essays in the new Encyc lopaedia Judaica have been
collected into Kabbalah, and here, too, one can get a very broad view ofthe
field by the outstanding scholar in it, The serious student is urged to study
these essays carefully.
In the area of general Jewish mysticism, one should read A. J. Heschel,
“The Mystical Element in Judaism,” in The Jews, ed. L. Finkelstein;
reprinted in Understanding Rabbinic Judaism, ed. J. Neusner. ‘Jewish
Mysticism” by G. Vajda, in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, is certainly an important article. For scholars, the kaleido-
scopic reviews of the field by G. Vajda in the Revue de l'histoire des
religions (1955, 1963-64, and 1977) are indispensable.
There is a very beautifully written article by S. Schechter entitled ‘‘Safed
in the Sixteenth Century,” in his Studies in Judaism, Second Series
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1908), dealing with the milieu of
Luria. Also, Z. Werblowsky has written a very stimulating book on the
same period entitled Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic. In the area of the
Merkabah literature, there is the scholarly essay of M. Smith, ““Observa-
tions on Heikhalot Rabbati,”” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A.
Altmann. Lastly, there is J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition,
for the continuation of the magical tradition into the Middle Ages.
One fun project, which I have used as a final-examination topic, is to ask
students to pick any one of the three dozen or so popular books on Jewish
mysticism and write a critical book review. As one student remarked, “By
the time I reached chapter four, I was alternately laughing and moaning.”*
193
THEMATIC INDEX*
Agnus Dei, 153 havurathaverim, 59, 60, 71, 73, 75
angels. families of , 56, 66, 76; names heavenly union, 150ff.
of, 62, 76 Heschel, xiii, 193
animals, 145 Humpty Dumpty, 159
aravot, ragi'a, 56, i45 hymns, 65. 70, 79ff., 90
beautiful, xv
Ben Ge'im, see initiates idolatry, 145
blessing, 73, 82, 87 impurity, 57, 69, 72
brain, 17 initiates, 57, 66, 71, 95
Caesarea, 64
colors, 124, 133ff. kavod, 47,51
consciousness, 115, 123, 124-5, 129, kavvana, 152, 155, 156, 170, 180, 190
131, 138, 141, 155, 177, 181-2 kelippoth, 166, 169
constellations, 38, 44
cosmology, 95
covenant, 16, 17, 44 ladder, 57, 73, 95
creation, see magic: 1291f., 142 Leon, Moses de, 11
liturgy, 97, 169ff.
demiurge. 77 love mysticism, 188
demonized powers, 164ff.
ecstasy, 54, 189 magic, 16, 18, 35, 37, 43, 45-6, 70, 93,
elements, 18. 31 95, 96, 193
Enlightenment, 105, 167, 177 male and female, 149ff
experience, xvi, 138, 186 matter, spiritual, 18, 19
messianism, 167-8, 178-9
faith, xvi Metatron, 7
flame. 17, 1491f. modern Judaism, 179
Freud. 181 moral, xv
Moses, 133, 135. 137. 138
go down, go up, 57 mystery, avi
*This is an index of themes and not only of words.
195
196
mysticism, xvi, xvii, 51, 91, 186ff.,
191; “power,”” 96
“mysticization,”’ 190
nefesh, 32, 43
Neusner, xii. 94
numinous, xii, 95, 96
oaths, 61: see magic, secrecy
omnipotence, 156
perishut, 88
prayer—see worship
primordal man, 164ff.
prophecy. 135. 138
psychology, human and di
consciousness
purity, 90
Pythagoras, 13
“rabbinization,”” 97, 189
recycling, 154
revelation, 129, 133, 135, 138, 142
Sanhedrin, 59
Scholem, xi, 5, 55, 69, 71, 79, 103,
1O4tf., 122, 144, 161ff., 179, 193
seals, 19, 66, 90
secrecy, 93
send you forth with radiance, 66ff.
sefirot, 8, 15, 19, 114, 132, 144, 163
UNDERSTANDING JEWISH MYSTICISM
seven, 34ff., 43
shevirah, \61ff., 169
silence, 71
sin, 143-5, 156, 180
Smith, M., 5, 54,72, 193
society and the mystic, 189ff.
Song of Songs, 121
speech, 12, 46
spirituality; xvi; forms of, xvi,
dynamics of, xvi, 186
stars, seven, 35, 44
186;
techniques, 21, 57, 61, 69, 136, 155,
170-2, 175-6
Tetragrammaton, 15
171
theosophy, 113, 127
three, 31ff., 43
tikkun, 1S0ff., 155, 161ff., 167, 169
transcendent, xiii, xvi, 47.51, 78, 114,
128
tsimtsum, 161ff., 169
twelve, 38ff., 43
|, 19, 56, 60, 128,
universes of discourse, xv
Vajda, 5, 193
Way, xvii .
worship, 145, 146tf., 149if., 154ff., 170
Understanding Jewish Mysticism: The Merkabah Tradition and the Zoharic Tradition
David R. Blumenthal