← Volver a la ficha del textoLUMINAL
DARKNESS
Imaginal Gleanings
from Zoharic Literature
ELLIOT R. WOLLSON
LUMINAL DARKNESS
LUMINAL DARKNESS
Imaginal Gleanings
from Zoharic Literature
Elliot R. Wolfson
ONEWORLD
OXFORD
LUMINAL DARKNESS
Published by Oneworld Publications 2007
Copyright © Elliot R. Wolfson, 2007
All rights reserved.
Copyright under Berne Convention.
A CIP record for this title is available
from the British Library
ISBN-13: 978-1-85168-475-5
ISBN-10: 1-85168-475-1
Cover design by Liz Powell
Typeset by Jayvee, Trivandrum, India
Printed and bound in India for Imprint Digital
Oneworld Publications
185 Banbury Road
Oxford 0X2 7AR
England
www.oneworld-publications.com
NL08
Learn more about Oneworld. Join our mailing list to
find out about our latest titles and special offers at:
www.oneworld-publications.com/newsletter.htm
to the memory
of my father,
listening beyond
there is
always more
but never more
than when
there is less
Contents
Foreword ix
Introduction xiii
1 . Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic
Hermeneutics 1
2. Light through Darkness: The Ideal of Human
Perfection in the Zohar 29
3. Beautiful Maiden without Eyes: Peshat and Sod in
Zoharic Hermeneutics 56
4. Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience
in the Zoharic Literature 111
5. Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic
Myth and the Ritual of Androgynization 144
6. Re/membering the Covenant: Memory,
Forgetfulness, and the Construction of
History in the Zohar 185
7. Fore/giveness on the Way: Nesting in the Womb
of Response 228
8. Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of
Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah 258
Index
295
Foreword
As these essays amply reveal, there are many ways into the elaborate
thought and writing of Elliot R. Wolfson. Those readers familiar
with Wolfson’s corpus will recognize in this collection of essays many
of the themes that have structured Wolfson’s thought from the late
1980s, when he first began to publish. Here we can catch, as if in the
peripheral corners of the mind’s many eyes, shimmering glimpses of
those philosophically coded sefirot that have given such a compli-
cated, if still quite definite, shape to the imaginal body in which, and
out of which, Wolfson thinks, feels, intuits, creates, teaches, and
writes. They are all here: the logical and rhetorical structures of eso-
tericism that irresistibly force a revelation out of every occultation
and another subsequent concealing out of every revealing; the deep
structural unity of eroticism and asceticism and the ethically
ambiguous psychosexual patterns of repression, symbolic transfor-
mation, and sublimation that charge them with sacred meaning; the
essentially hermeneutical nature of kabbalistic mysticism whereby
the divine is revealed and experienced in and as the act of interpret-
ation; the complicated gender dynamics of kabbalistic symbolism
with its ocular phallocentrism, male androgynes, ontological era-
sures of the feminine, gender transformations, and homoerotic
communities and theologies; the rich, not to mention terribly
honest, appropriation of “the evil inclination” within both the mys-
tical paths of the medieval kabbalists and the hermeneut’s ethical
struggle with these same traditions; and the unmistakable poetic
nature of the scholar’s creative process and scholarly writing.
What binds all of these intellectual structures together? Is
there some deeper unity to the many sefirotihat give shape and form
to Elliot R. Wolfson’s thought? I will not foolishly venture any definite
answer here, but I would like to suggest, as a means of introducing his
work as represented in this volume, that Wolfson’s writing can
X FOREWORD
fruitfully be approached, if never quite fully grasped, as both
radically embodied and profoundly dialectical, the latter which some
may want to translate as “paradoxical.” A word about each of these
patterns may be in order here.
The twentieth-century study of mysticism was a varied and
rich affair, but more often than not, it was also a more or less disem-
bodied one. Many scholars and innumerable popular writers wrote a
great deal about oneness, common cores, and perennial philosophies
(remarkably variously conceived), about historical contexts and
epistemological issues, about the structuring roles of language and
doctrine, about the ambiguous legacies of mystical ethics, and about
the roles of violence, psychopathology, and trauma in inducing mys-
tical states of consciousness.
These are all very important issues, and I do not want to dis-
miss them here, but I do want to suggest that something was lost, or
never quite found, in that century-long discussion, something that
has always and everywhere (my own sexual perennialism begins to
show itself) grounded and given shape to mystical literature - the
human body. Readers can read such important and ideologically
diverse writers as Evelyn Underhill, William Stace, Huston Smith,
Fritjhof Schuon, Steven Katz, and Robert K.C. Forman and never
quite realize that writers whom we now call “mystics” had and still
have physiologies, genders, sexualities, sexual organs, sexual orienta-
tions, erotic fantasies, and sexual desires and fears. Some of the early
and later psychologists of religion (Sigmund Freud, James Feuba,
and Sudhir Kakar come immediately to mind) are real exceptions to
this general neglect, but they stand out by virtue of their insistence
on that which most others sought to deny, or at least benignly ignore,
namely, the indubitable fact of embodiment.
What makes the written corpus of Elliot R. Wolfson so
remarkable is that even as it rivals, if not surpasses, the philosophical
sophistication of any other writer on mysticism in the past century,
it also dramatically affirms both the presence and structuring power
of such basic things as penises and vaginas. Indeed, much of his
thought is structured, like the kabbalistic literature itself, around
these very sexual organs and their elaborate transformations in the
male mystical imagination of the kabbalistic world. As much as one
may want to do so, one cannot escape the phallus in the writing of
Elliot R. Wolfson. It is there in the highest reaches of the kabbalistic
FOREWORD XI
Godhead, and so it is there in Wolfson’s writing on these imaginal
conceptions of the Godhead.
This simultaneous insistence on both the philosophical
sophistication and the sexual dimensions of kabbalistic mystical
thought is intimately related to what is perhaps an even deeper struc-
ture of Wolfson’s thought - its dialectical nature. Like other success-
ful creative thinkers, Wolfson is capable of holding in his mind’s eye
what other thinkers would resist or unconsciously ignore as incom-
patible opposites. Medieval Judaism and American modernity; the
“tradition” of kabbalah and postmodern philosophy; the sexual
body and the human spirit; ontological truth and the religious imag-
ination; revelation and occultation; good and evil; left and right -
none of these are true opposites for Wolfson. They are all dialectical
poles to think with and intuit through to a deeper level of under-
standing. If anything, these poles are exaggerated, not to ultimately
affirm one or the other (“modernity is bad,” “the true mystic knows
no sexual desire,” “mysticism and evil are mutually exclusive terms,”
etc.), but to force a deeper insight into that which grounds them
both. For the modern or postmodern interpreter of mysticism, the
fruits of such a coincidentia oppositorum are rich indeed. We can
think about anything here, and in our own (post)modern terms.
Continental and feminist philosophy, hermeneutics, psychoanalytic
theory, and contemporary ethical reflection thus enter a vigorous
dialogue with texts that are both bizarrely other and yet somehow
strangely familiar to us. We need not look away from the graphic
sexual nature of mystical experience, from the consistent ethical vio-
lations of antinomian traditions, or from the disturbing gender
implications of androcentric systems of thought. We can embrace it
all in the dialectics of encounter, honesty, and mutual criticism.
Both other and familiar - that is the dialectical nature of any
kind of comparative thought, be it comparison traditionally con-
ceived in the history of religions, where two different historical trad-
itions or figures are juxtaposed and compared, or here, in a more
subtle fashion, where a medieval mystical tradition is understood
through the figures and categories of contemporary critical theory.
In both cases, a fusion of horizons is effected and something gen-
uinely new, a tertium or third, appears in the middle, in what we
might call the hermeneutical union of the two. This, quite frankly, is
what I find to be the most remarkable aspect of Wolfson’s work - its
Xll FOREWORD
uncanny ability to spark comparative and theoretical insights in
readers who come from entirely different disciplines or practices. I
work, for example, primarily with Christian materials and on early
modern Indian Tantric traditions, mostly in Bengal, and yet I am
continuously overwhelmed when I read Wolfson’s work on medieval
kabbalah with the task of scribbling thoughts to myself in the mar-
gins of the pages. Ideas come too quickly and in such abundance that
it becomes difficult to read. The content and the context are clearly
Jewish and medieval, but the ideas transcend both content and con-
text to embrace what we can accurately call a developing theoretical
and comparative vision. Elliot R. Wolfson “gets it.” He knows. And he
can communicate, somehow, this gnosis to his attentive and properly
prepared readers.
“On the path two become three.” This is what Wolfson
penned to me in a copy of his Abraham Abulafia. I took it then as a
gnomic epigram that encapsulates the essentially dialectical nature
of his thought, the mystery of comparison and hermeneutical prac-
tice, and the potential profundity of human friendship and deep
communication. The reader of these essays is free to take it differ-
ently. That too is part of the mystery of comparison and reading; the
“two become three.”
Jeffrey J. Kripal
Introduction
As I sit to write this brief introduction to the essays I have called
Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature,
three books that I have been working on, more or less, since
1995 - though the seeds obviously were planted long ago through
arduous plowing of the fields of classical and medieval rabbinic
literature, including, especially, kabbalistic texts, and works of
general philosophy, particularly, hermeneutics and phenomenology
- are making their way into the world. The books in order of
birth - gestation has proven to be concomitant, thus rendering the
books comparable to triplets in the womb - are Language, Eros,
Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (Fordham
University Press, 2005); Alef Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on
Time, Truth, and Death (University of California Press, 2006); and
Venturing Beyond - Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism
(Oxford University Press, 2006).
The essays gathered in this book span a period from 1986 to
1999, formative years in my development as scholar, thinker, and
writer. Since the time these studies were researched, composed, and
published, the held of zoharic studies has continued to evolve. A
critical turn, as experts in the discipline well know, was the pub-
lication of Yehuda Liebes’s essay - delivered originally as the inau-
gural address of the fourth international conference on Jewish mys-
ticism sponsored by the Scholem Centre for Kabbalah Research in
the Jewish and National University Library, Jerusalem, sometime in
February 1988, as I recall - on how the zoharic compilation came
to be, shifting the focus thereby from single to group authorship.
There is little question of the importance of this moment in the his-
tory of the academic study of zoharic literature. That achievement
stands, and likely will continue to stand, and for this we remain
indebted.
XIV INTRODUCTION
Without diminishing this contribution, two observations of
a critical nature come to mind. First, as I have pointed out in one of
the essays included in this collection, published in 1998 but written
in 1995, as revolutionary as Liebes and other scholars in the disci-
pline have presented his thesis, it builds on previous scholarship. I
have no intent here of providing a thorough survey of the scholarly
discussion of this topic to legitimate my claim - this could be the
work of a student seeking a dissertation topic - but let me say in gen-
eral terms that other scholars have ruminated over the possibility
that the Zohar is an anthology whose literary components evolved
over a period of time and consequently incorporate a variety of voices
that, for lack of a better term, might be considered members of a
“zoharic circle.” Indeed, this very term - as well as the cognate
mentioned above “zoharic literature” - is to be found in works of
scholars before Liebes, though some in the held consider these to be
innovations of Liebes. It is acknowledged unreservedly that the latter
has carried the supposition of a circle further than previous scholars,
boldly challenging Scholem’s thesis that Moses de Leon is the sole
author of the bulk of zoharic literature. This cannot be denied.
One notable scholar has raised doubts in print about the
thesis of Liebes-Charles Mopsik of Paris. His essay invoked a
response on the part of Liebes and a counter-response, which have
contributed to the discussion and clarification of the issues. Add-
itionally, serious work on the compositional and redactional evolu-
tion of zoharic literature has been undertaken by a number of
scholars, most prominently, Ronit Meroz, Boaz Huss, Daniel
Abrams, and Pinchas Giller. I will not undertake an analysis of the
important contributions of these scholars, but let me simply say that
they have moved the discourse along to the next phase. It matters
little whether we can ever - being led by philological and textual tools
of historical scholarship - ascertain an answer to the question “How
was the Zohar Written?” - the title of Liebes’s seminal lecture. The
crucial point is that the question has been articulated, and as such,
has reframed the picture, demanding a refocusing of interpretative
vision.
In these essays, one will discern a shift in my own thinking,
reflective of the more general consensus as it has been changing over
time. In the early studies, “Left Contained in the Right: A Study in
Zoharic Hermeneutics” (1986), “Light Through Darkness: The Ideal
INTRODUCTION XV
of Human Perfection in the Zohar” (1988), and “Beautiful Maiden
without Eyes: Peshat and Sod in Zoharic Hermeneutics” (1993), I
was operating with a sense of a unified textual whole (excluding, of
course, Raaya Meheimna and Tiqqunei Zohar, following Scholem’s
suggestion), as if there were a literary consistency that justified refer-
ring to it, and its author, in the singular. The other essays, “Forms of
Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience in the Zoharic Literature”
(1993), “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and
Ritual of Androgynisation” (1997), “Re/membering the Covenant:
Memory, Forgetfulness, and the Construction of History in Zohar”
(1998), “Fore/giveness on the Way: Nesting in the Womb of
Response” (1998), “Occupation of the Feminine and the Body of
Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah” (1999), all derive from what I would
call now a middle period - writings from the third period have yet to
appear. The middle period is marked by leaning in the direction of a
group, of seeing the zoharic work as a lattice woven from different
textual threads that wind round the spool of several centuries, reach-
ing a crescendo in the sixteenth century as the links between Pales-
tine, especially Jerusalem and Safed, and kabbalists in Italy helped
secure the publication of the first printed editions of the Zohar.
In this period, I assume, one can discern organizing patterns
in spite of the obvious multiple voices. In more recent work, I have
tended to refer to “zoharic homilies,” a term that I use to convey the
sense of literary discreteness, leaving open the question of the
authorship of these homilies. Being occupied with other matters,
philosophic and hermeneutic, I have not focused on the textual
issue, that is, the manner by which the fabric of the gathering of these
homilies has been woven together to create the semblance of a
garment. The curious thing, however, is that one can discern differ-
ent voices speaking from within the weave of the fabric, and this does
not disrupt the possibility of discerning iteration that renews itself
indefinitely, a unifying factor that allows for difference, to think the
other without assimilating the other to the same, achieving indiffer-
ence, in the Levinasian sense.
To be perfectly candid, there are formulations in the early
essays that I would alter now, but they have been allowed to stand as
they are not, I trust, entirely irredeemable. On the contrary, the
hermeneutical belief briefly laid out in the conclusion of the previ-
ous paragraph provides a way to redeem these studies, as it were, to
XVI INTRODUCTION
render their exegetical claims still relevant. If we can imagine a prin-
ciple of anthologizing that unifies through multiplicity, indifferent
to difference, then we can continue to presume it legitimate to speak
or write of a distinctive viewpoint that may be classified as zoharic
kabbalah. I am no longer comfortable speaking of “the Zohar,” but I
would maintain that it is possible to think of this as a discrete
literary-historical phenomenon, though we will have to expand the
imaginal boundaries of each of these classifications. The matter of
locating this temporally and spatially is a huge undertaking that
would require separate phenomenological/hermeneutical studies.
As it happens, many of the pertinent issues, especially as regards
the former, are discussed in the trilogy of books I have written.
I might even consider now working on another volume on the
temporal spatialization and spatial temporalization that may be
elicited from zoharic homilies. Perhaps one day I will produce such a
work, though, in some respects, this collection can profitably be
characterized in those very terms.
If I were to isolate a current running through the different
studies, it would be the search to resolve the ontological problem of
identity and difference, a philosophic matter that has demanded
much attention in various contemporary intellectual currents, to
wit, literary criticism, gender studies, post-colonial theory, social
anthropology, just to name a few examples. Indeed, it is possible to
say, with no exaggeration intended, that there has been a quest at the
heart of my work to understand the other, to heed and discern the
alterity of alterity. Thus, I have sought to comprehend configura-
tions of the other without and the other within, the two main foci of
my work on gender and the Jewish-Christian interface in kabbalistic
sources. What has inspired the quest for me has been the discern-
ment on the part of kabbalists that the ultimate being-becoming
becoming being - nameless one known through the ineffable name,
yhwh - transcends oppositional binaries, for, in the one that is
beyond the difference of being one or the other, light is dark, black is
white, night is day, male is female, Adam is Edom.
Yet, even the matter of utter simplicity is more complex, for,
as I argue at length in the chapter in Language, Eros, Being entitled
“Differentiating (In) Difference: Heresy, Gender, and Kabbalah
Study,” there are at least two ways to account for the coincidence of
opposites in Ein-Sof and/or the first of the sehrotic emanations,
INTRODUCTION XVII
Keter, either as an identity that effaces or as a mirroring that upholds
difference. The moral demands of the day clearly privilege the latter;
what is needed above all else is a way of thinking that acknowledges
sameness, or belonging-together, as Heidegger would have put it,
which fosters, rather than undermines, difference, a genuine sense
of indifference that affirms the identity of the non-identical and
thereby moves beyond the dialectical identity of identity and non-
identity. The theoretical value of applying feminist theory to the crit-
ical study of zoharic literature, and kabbalah more generally, is that it
compels one to scrutinize repeatedly the question of difference.
Indifference to this question, which unfortunately is evident on the
part of a number of scholars who work on this matter, runs the peril
of mistaking the same for the different, the consequence of which
would be masking the different as the same. In my work, I have
sought to walk the path between mistaking the same as different and
masking the different as same, envisioning the task to behold the
same difference that begets what is differently the same. As the
ancient voice of wisdom describing the way in the Dao dejing put it,
dao
engenders one,
one two,
two three,
and three,
the myriad things.
Elliot R. Wolfson
I Left Contained in the Right:
A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics
Although there has been much in modem scholarship written about
the historical and theosophical background of the Zohar, 1 scholars
have paid little attention to the literary structure of the work and its
relationship to the thematic content contained therein. There is, as
far as I know, not one in-depth study of such a kind. 2
This essay will attempt to unfold one recurrent theme that
serves as the literary thread connecting the zoharic treatment of Exo-
dus 1-20, that is, the biblical account of Israel’s enslavement in
Egypt, their subsequent exodus, and, finally, the Sinaitic revelation. 3
I will suggest that there is a common theme that the Zohar (exeget-
ically) discovers within the biblical text. This theme, in turn, lies at
the core of the zoharic understanding of the theological categories of
exile, redemption, and revelation.
Introduction : The “Left” and the “Right”
As is well known to scholars in the field of Jewish mysticism, among
the sources that exerted an influence upon the author of the Zohar
are to be counted kabbalistic texts that derived from a “gnostic”
school of kabbalah which emerged in the second half of the thirteenth
century in Castile. 4 One of the salient features of this school was the
positing of a demonic realm morphologically paralleling the realm
of the divine: 5 as there are ten holy emanations ( sefirot ), so there are
ten “emanations of the left.” 6 In the words of one of the members of
this circle, Moses of Burgos: “There is a left [side] corresponding to
the right, intended to perfect the right, to punish and chastise with
‘chastisements of love’ those who walk in a bad way in order to purify
2 LUMINAL DARKNESS
them .” 7 To be sure, as Scholem has already pointed out, this dualism
was never presented as absolute, for in order for a text to be accepted
within the framework of normative Judaism, the dualistic tendency
had to be mitigated . 8 Accordingly, these kabbalists struggled over
the question “Whence arose the demonic, or left, side ?” 9 While they
differed on the exact moment within the emanative process that
would account for the emergence of the left side, all agreed that at
some moment this in fact occurred. The demonic side was thus
accorded a “quasi” independence, said to have emerged from either
the third sefirah, Binah (Understanding), or the fifth, Gevurah
(Strength), or Din (Judgment ). 10 In either case, according to these
kabbalists, the “emanations of the left” have their origin in and are
sustained by the left side of the divine realm itself. That is to say,
therefore, that the demonic has a root within the divine.
This gnostic theme is developed repeatedly in the Zohar;
indeed, it forms one of the essentially characteristic doctrines of the
work . 11 Like the kabbalists of the Castilian circle, the author of the
Zohar posits a demonic realm, called by him Sitra Ahra, the “Other
Side,” which structurally parallels the divine realm : 12 both realms are
constituted by ten powers . 13 Furthermore, the demonic realm, which
vis-a-vis the divine is considered to be the left, is itself constituted,
as is the divine, by a left and right side, that is, by a masculine
and feminine dimension : 14 in mythological terms, just as there is
male (= Tif’eret ) and female (= Malkhut ) within the sehrotic world,
so there is Samael and Lilith in the demonic world . 15 Moreover, just as
the upper sefirot are arranged by means of three lines, that is, the right
side, or grace ( hesed), the left side, or rigor ( gevurah ) , and the median,
or mercy ( rahamim ), so the lower sefirot are bound together by three
knots . 16 Just as there is a complicated structure of palaces ( heikholot )
below the holy sefirot, so there is a corresponding structure below the
demonic sefirot . 17 Finally, both realms can exert an influence upon
and be influenced by human events. The human being stands in a
reciprocal relationship to both realms, and it is the intention that
directs the channel of energy from below which ultimately distin-
guishes one’s attachment to the divine or to the demonic. “According
to the intention that one has in this world, so the spirit from above is
drawn upon him ... If his will intends towards the upper holy matter,
then that thing is drawn upon him from above to below. If his will is
to cleave to the Other Side, and he intends it, then that thing is drawn
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 3
upon him from above to below .” 18 The close affinity of theurgy and
magic reflects the structural parallelism of the two realms.
Moreover, the author of the Zohar, like his Castilian prede-
cessors, was concerned with the problem of the origin of evil and the
etiological relation of the divine to the demonic. While there are
various approaches to this problem in the Zohar, these may be sub-
sumed under two basic categories, the one mythological in nature,
and the other philosophical. The former, which we may call the
cathartic view, posits that evil results as a by-product of the process
of elimination of waste from Divine Thought, a process that occurs
during the very first stages of activity, indeed prior to the emanation
of the sefirotic world from Hokhmah downward . 19 Before the process
of emanation could unfold, it was necessary for God to rid Himself of
the unbalanced forces of judgment, referred to mythically as “the
primordial kings of Edom who died ” 20 or as “the worlds created and
destroyed .” 21 According to the second category, which we may call
the emanative view, the demonic realm as a separate force is viewed
as a link in the continuous chain of being. Here too, there is no uni-
formity of opinion in the Zohar, for the root of evil is said to be in one
of three gradations: Binah , 22 Gevurah , 23 or Malkhut . 24 The common
denominator of these views, however, is that the demonic left side
has its root in the left side of the divine. Furthermore, it is an imbal-
ance in the sefirotic world, a breaking of the harmony between right
and left, which ultimately eventuates in the coming-to-be of an
“autonomous” left realm . 25 Hence, while the demonic structurally
parallels the divine, the former is ontologically posterior to the
latter . 26 In the course of our analysis it will become clear how this
question has a bearing upon the thematic under discussion.
Exile
The biblical narrative of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and their subse-
quent exodus represents one of the many exegetical bases upon
which the author of the Zohar develops the gnostic drama. Egypt,
according to the symbolic map of the Zohar, represents the demonic
left side . 27 This symbolic correlation is based in the first instance
upon a close textual reading of the scriptural account of the first
three divine manifestations of power in Egypt. The preliminary
4 LUMINAL DARKNESS
miracle performed by Aaron before Pharaoh, the casting down of the
rod which was then transformed into a serpent (seeExod. 7:9 ff.) and
the first two plagues, the turning of the waters into blood and the
spreading forth of the frogs (Exod. 7:19-22, 8: 1-3), it will be recalled,
are matched by the magicians of Egypt. 28 It is clear from the Bible,
then, that the spiritual power of Egypt was that of magic. This factor
was already elaborated upon by the rabbis of the Talmud. Thus, in
one place we read, “Ten measures of magic descended upon the
world; nine were taken by Egypt.” 29
The intrinsic relationship of Egypt to magic was developed
at length by the author of the Zohar. 30 The old aggadic theme, how-
ever, is transformed by the theosophic symbolism of the kabbalah.
That is, Egypt’s special relation to magic underscores Egypt as the
seat of demonic power, for, according to the Zohar, magic is the force
of the demonic, the Sitra Ahra, which corresponds to the divine. 31
Indeed, the ten lower sefirot are called specifically the “ten crowns of
magic [of] impurity below.” 32 In another place we read that all the
magicians ( harashim ) of the world are called nehashim because “all
types of magic of the world are bound to and emerge from that pri-
mordial serpent [ nahash qadmoni] which is the spirit of impurity.” 33
Employing this symbolic correspondence between Egypt
and the demonic, the author of the Zohar interprets the verse “And
Abram went down to Egypt” (Gen. 12:10): “This verse hints at wis-
dom and the levels down below, to the depths of which Abraham
descended. He knew them but did not become attached.” 34 The
descent of Abraham to Egypt thus symbolizes, as one writer put it,
“his exploration of Sitra Ahra, ‘the Other Side.’” 35 In yet another
place, the Zohar writes that when Joseph came to Egypt, “he learned
their wisdom concerning the lower crowns.” 36 Or again, elaborating
upon a saying of the rabbis in the Talmud (see above), the author
of the Zohar writes, “It is taught: Ten types of wisdom descended
upon the world, and all were absorbed by Egypt except for one,
which spread out in the world. And all of these were types of magic,
and from them Egypt knew magic [better] than the rest of the
world.” 37
Egypt, therefore, epitomized the place of impurity. “R. Yose
said: All the streets of Egypt were filled with idolatry; and, moreover,
in every house were to be found implements by which they [the
Egyptians] were bound to those lower crowns below and which
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 5
aroused a spirit of impurity amongst them.” 38 Contained here is the
mystical explanation for Moses’ command to the Israelites, “And take
a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin”
(Exod. 12:22), namely, “in order to remove the spirit of impurity
from amongst them.” 39
On the symbolic level, therefore, Israel’s being in Egypt rep-
resented their being under the force of the demonic: they were
bound by “the knots of magic.” 40 Pharaoh, king of Egypt, symbolized
in turn the dominating power of this demonic side. 41 The Zohar,
accordingly, elaborates upon a metaphor employed in Ezekiel 29:3,
“Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great
crocodile that crouches in the midst of his streams.” 42 The “great
crocodile” names the demonic force, and “his streams” are “the grad-
ations that emanate from him.” 43 The knowledge of this “great
crocodile” is alluded to as well in the verse “Go in to Pharaoh”
(Exod. 10:1). The esoteric meaning of God’s injunction to Moses,
“Go in to Pharaoh,” is that God implored Moses to plumb the inner
depths of the divine secrets concerning the demonic side. The
Holy One, blessed be He, “must do battle” against this “great croco-
dile” and “not against another.” 44 Moses, therefore, was granted
“the mystery of the wisdom of the great crocodile that crouches in
the midst of his streams,” a wisdom that is granted only “to the just
who know the secrets of their master.” 45 It was necessary for Moses to
attain such knowledge, for at that time the people of Israel were
under the dominion of the “great crocodile,” the chief power of evil,
embodied in the person of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
Redemption
Israel’s exilic state corresponds to an exilic state within the divine
realm, namely, the domination of the Shekhinah by Samael. 46 Alter-
natively expressed, the historical exile signifies a separation above
between the Shekhinah and the Holy One (Malkhut and Tif’eret). 47
The redemptive process, as we shall see, is characterized in the Zohar
by two stages that, respectively, correspond to the twofold character-
ization of exile as (1) the subservience of the holy (the right) to the
unholy (the left), 48 and (2) the separation of male and female, right
and left, within the divine. 49
6 LUMINAL DARKNESS
The first stage in the redemptive process is the overthrowing
of the yoke of Satanic (i.e. Egyptian) rule. Such a power could be over-
thrown, however, only by the very means through which it governs. In
order for God to redeem Israel, therefore, it was necessary for Him to
use the tactics of the left against the forces of the left, to fight fire with
fire. Thus, the author of the Zohar interprets the verse “I compare thee,
my love, to a mare among Pharaoh’s cavalry” (Song of Songs 1 :9):
Come and see: There are chariots of the left in the mystery of
the Other Side and chariots of the right in the mystery of the
supernal Holiness. The ones are parallel to the others; the ones
of mercy and the others of judgment. And when the Holy
One, blessed be He, carried out judgment in Egypt, every judg-
ment that He did was in the very likeness of those chariots
[on the left] and in the likeness of that very side. Just as that
side kills and removes souls, so the Holy One acted in that
very way, as it is written, “And the Lord killed every firstborn”
(Exod. 13: 15). 50
Nowhere was this more apparent, according to the Zohar,
than in the plague of the killing of the firstborn; this event symbol-
ized the wiping out of the demonic power of judgment by means of
divine judgment. The Zohar thus interprets the verse “And the Lord
will pass through to smite Egypt” (Exod. 12:23): “He will pass
through the strict lines of judgment of the [lower] crowns, which are
bound to the other crowns above, and He will loosen them from their
place. And He will pass over his ways in order to act with j udgment to
protect Israel.” 51 That God “will pass over” means that God will pass
through the domain of the lower crowns, the demonic realm, in
order to execute judgment upon them and thereby protect Israel.
Specifically, according to the Zohar, the divine attribute
employed by God in carrying out this act of judgment was the
tenth sefirah, Shekhinah, commonly called the “lesser” or “weaker”
attribute of judgment, 52 or “the lower Court.” 53 This is alluded to in
Exodus 12:29, “And the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of
Egypt”: “And the Lord” ( wa-yhwh ), according to a midrashic
comment, refers to the Holy One and His Court, which, in kabbalis-
tic terms, symbolize Tif’eret and Malkhut. 54 The Zohar’s point,
therefore, is that the killing of the firstborn (chief power of the
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 7
demonic) was achieved by means of God acting through “His
Court,” that is, Shekhinah. This is further brought out in another pas-
sage interpreting the same verse. Here, as elsewhere in the Zohar,
Shekhinah is called by the name “Night”: 55 “And judgment was car-
ried out on all of them when they all entered their homes ... and the
Night carried out judgment on them all in that time.” 56 This too is
the underlying intent of the Zohar ’s comment that the “essence of
the redemption of Israel was in the night.” 57 Yet this attribute lies in
between the right and left sides of the divine, and therefore has the
capacity to act with mercy or with judgment. 58 At the moment of
the killing of the firstborn, the Shekhinah turned with mercy toward
the Israelites, thus expressing Her dual nature. 59
The exile, as we have noted, was a state in which the demonic
dominated over the divine; redemption is the restoration of power to
its proper domain, namely, the realm of the upper sefirot. Such a
restoration, however, entailed a twofold process. The first stage was
the subjugation of the demonic left by the divine left, which resulted
in the freeing of the Community of Israel (— Shekhinah) from under
the dominion of Pharaoh (= Sitra Ahra). It is this transformation
from the unholy to the holy that, according to the Zohar, is the mys-
tical intent of the twin commandments to remove all leaven before
Passover and to eat unleavened bread during the seven days of
Passover. That is to say, the leaven symbolizes the evil inclination, the
“Other Side,” foreign gods and idolatry, which must be obliterated,
whereas the unleavened bread symbolizes the first gradation in the
realm of holiness, that is, Shekhinah, the dominion of the Holy One. 60
The second stage involved the beginning of the process of
reunification of the left and right within the divine sphere, a unifica-
tion that was torn asunder by the exilic state. This stage is implicit
in the biblical narrative as well. The night on which God smote
the Egyptian firstborn is referred to in Scripture as leil shimmurim,
that is, “the night of watchfulness” (Exod. 12:42). Commenting on
this verse, the Zohar notes, inter alia, that the word for “watchful-
ness,” shimmurim, is in the plural, whereas the word for “night,” leil, is
in the singular. 61 The plural form, we are told, alludes to the secret of
unification between male and female, right and left, 62 which was des-
tined to take place on that very night. The night, leil, is the
feminine without her masculine counterpart; when the feminine is
joined together with the masculine, then leil becomes laylah. 63 Thus,
8 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the verse continues: “this is the Lord’s watch-night ”hu ha-laylah
ha-zeh la-yhwh shimmurim. The night of redemption is a night
wherein the two are united, and hence the form laylah is used.
This marks the beginning of the second stage in the redemptive
process.
This mystery, according to the Zohar, is alluded to as well
in Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a
pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire,
to give them light; that they may go by day and night.” Nahmanides
had already interpreted the verse in terms of kabbalistic symbolism:
the word wa-yhwh, “and the Lord,” as the rabbis had said, 64 always
refers to the Lord and His Court, which, understood theosophically,
symbolize Tif’eret and Malkhut. Hence the verse comes to tell us,
comments Nahmanides, that “the Holy One, blessed be He, went
with them by day and His Court by night,” 65 that is to say, the
attribute of mercy governed them by day, whereas the attribute of
judgment governed them by night. 66 While both attributes were
thus operative in the redemption from Egypt, the two were not
perfectly united, for each had its allotted time. Yet, contained here
is also an allusion to the future redemption in which “the attribute
of His Court [i.e. judgment] will ascend to [be united with] mercy.” 67
This is the secret of the word wa-yhwh: the Holy One
and His Court will be united as one, and redemption will be
complete.
The author of the Zohar clearly develops the interpretation
of Nahmanides, but he does not accept the latter’s distinction
between the redemption from Egypt and the future redemption.
“And the Lord went before them by day.” The Holy One, blessed
be He, and His Court. R. Isaac said: It has been taught: The
Shekhinah travels with the Patriachs. 68 “He goes before them by
day,” that [refers to] Abraham. “In a pillar of cloud,” that [refers
to] Isaac. “To lead them the way,” that [refers to] Jacob. “And by
night in a pillar of hre to show them the way, “that [refers to]
King David ... And it is written, “And the Lord went, etc., that
they may go by day and by night.” Now why did they go by day
and by night? ... So that the highest perfection [lit. the perfec-
tion of all] should be found amongst them, for there is no
perfection without day and night. 69
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 9
The “highest perfection ” sheleimuta de-khola, is found only
where there is “day” (masculine potency of the divine) and “night”
(feminine potency) united as one. There is here an echo of one of the
theosophic principles that the Zohar establishes in connection with
the creation account. In response to the question “Why does the
Bible record with respect to each day, ‘And it was evening and it was
morning’?” the author of the Zohar writes, “To teach that there is no
day without night, nor night without day, and they should not be
separated.” 70 In the event of redemption, as in that of creation, we
hnd a unification of day and night, masculine and feminine, the Holy
One and the Shekhinah.
This second stage of redemption is expressed in somewhat
different, but not unrelated, terms in the climactic event of the
miracle of the sea. It is in his exegesis of this portion that the author
of the Zohar is able to develop most fully his theosophic under-
standing of redemption and to introduce his unique parlance: the
containment of the left within the right.
Commenting on the verse “And Israel saw the great work [lit.
the great hand, ha-yad ha-gedolah \ which the Lord wrought against
the Egyptians” (Exod. 14:31), the author of the Zohar writes,
“R. Hiyya said: The Hand and all the Ungers were here perfected. The
Hand was perfected for it was contained within the right, for it has
been taught, All is contained within and depends upon the right.’ 71
Thus it is written, ‘Thy right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, thy
right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy’ [Exod. 15:6] .” 72 The attribute
by means of which the divine redeemed Israel and at the same time
destroyed Egypt, as mentioned above, was the Shekhinah, here
referred to by the expression “the great Hand.” 73 This is made explicit
in another zoharic passage: “What is the meaning of ‘the great
Hand’? That is to say, ‘hand’ [yad] is not less than five fingers. ‘The
great’ [ha-gedolah] contains five other fingers; then it is called ‘great.’ ” 74
The “great Hand” is a composite of both hands, the term “great”
( ha-gedolah ) referring to the five fingers of the right hand, 75 and the
term “hand” (yad) referring to the five on the left. 76 Shekhinah, inso-
far as it is the sefirah that comprises all ten gradations corresponding to
the ten fingers, 77 is called the “great Hand.” Put differently, Shekhinah
is called “the great Hand” because She is the hand that contains both
the left and right hands as one. Concerning the latter image, we
read, “Come and see: It has been said that all ten plagues that God
10 LUMINAL DARKNESS
performed in Egypt were [wrought by] one hand, for the left was con-
tained in the right. The ten fingers, contained one within another,
correspond to the ten sayings by means of which the Holy One,
blessed be He, is called. In the end, corresponding to them all, is the
great and mighty Sea.” 78 The ten plagues were performed by ten fin-
gers, which correspond to the ten sayings, that is, the ten sefirot. Yet all
the plagues were wrought by the “one Hand,” that is, Shekhinah, for
the fingers of the left (= sefirot aligned on the side of Rigor or Judg-
ment) were contained in those of the right (= sefirot aligned on the
side of Mercy or Love). Moreover, as the miracle at the sea was the
culmination of the plagues - in the Zohar ’s language “corresponding
to them all” - so Shekhinah, symbolized as “the great and mighty
Sea,” 79 contains within itself the whole sehrotic order. 80 This is the
meaning of R. Hiyya’s comment, “the Hand and all the fingers were
here perfected.”
The containment of the left within the right, which charac-
terizes the state of the Shekhinah at the climax of the redemptive
process, reflects a higher process within the divine, a process that is
exegetically connected in the Zohar to the verse “Thy right hand,
O Lord, glorious in power, thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the
enemy” (Exod. 15:6). The right hand symbolizes the divine attribute
of love, whereas the left hand symbolizes the attribute of judgment.
One would expect, therefore, that Scripture should describe the
left hand of God as being “glorious in power” and as the one that
“shatters the enemy.” Lor what reason is the right hand so described
in the above passage? Addressing this issue, the Zohar notes,
“Thy right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, thy right, hand,
O Lord, shatters the enemy.” What is the meaning of ne'darP. It
should be written ne’darl When the left comes to unite with the
right, then it is written ne’dari [i.e. is glorious], and tirats [i.e.
shatters] . It is always like this, for the left is found in the right and is
contained therein. R. Simeon said: It is as we have explained, for a
man is found divided. What is the reason? In order that he may
receive his mate, and they will make one body. 81 So [it says] “Thy
right hand,” that is, it is divided. What is the reason? In order to
receive the left hand with it. Thus is everything: one [part] with
another. Therefore, with one hand He strikes and heals, as it is
written, “Thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy.” 82
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 11
The right hand of God is described as the one “glorious in
power” and as the one that “shatters the enemy,” for the right hand
contains within itself the left hand as well. When there is harmony in
the sehrotic realm, then the left is united with, nay contained in, the
right - as male united with female - and all acts, including those of
the left, are carried out by the guidance of the right: “with one hand
He strikes and heals .’’“Come and see: From the right hand of God all
light, blessings, and happiness are aroused. Within the right the left is
contained, just as there is in a human being a right and left hand, and
the left is contained in the right... When the right is aroused the left is
aroused with it, for the left is held and contained within the right .” 83
The removal of the right hand, by contrast, summons separation and
division, the domination of the left hand of the divine, and with this
comes the danger of the left resulting in an “autonomous” demonic
realm: “When the right hand is found, the left is found with it, and
acts of judgment do not dominate in the world ... But if the right is
removed and the left is summoned, then acts of judgment are stirred
up in the world and judgment rests upon all .” 84
Hence, the divine act of redemption can be viewed from two
vantage points: the subjugation of the demonic left by means of the
divine left, and the containment of the divine left within the divine
right. While it is the case that the word “left” is used with two distinct
meanings, there does not seem to be any equivocation on the part of
the Zohar, for the apparent tension is resolved by a proper under-
standing of the dialectical relation between the demonic and the
divine. That is, the subjugation of the unholy left is accomplished by
means of the divine left, which, unlike the former, is contained
within the right. Whereas exile represents the domination of the
(demonic) left, redemption represents the containment of the
(divine) left within the (divine) right. Put differently: exile is a con-
dition of pure judgment, redemption one of mercy balanced with
judgment. The severing of this balance is, in the first place, one of the
causes for the emergence of an independent demonic realm.
Revelation
In Egypt, Israel was under the dominion of the “Other Side.” The
exodus represented a transference of power from the unholy to the
12 LUMINAL DARKNESS
holy. This process reached completion only at the theophanous
event of Sinai. Before Israel could receive the Torah, however, two
other significant events in their history were recorded in Scripture.
The first was the war with Amaleq (Exod. 17:8-16). The
Zohar, building upon a midrashic theme, 85 maintains that Israel was
attacked because they had forsaken the ways of God. 86 Moreover,
Amaleq, says the author of the Zohar, is “the prosecutor of the Holy
One, blessed be He, above,” 87 that is, Sitra Ahra. Hence, the theo-
sophic significance of the war with Amaleq is equivalent to that of
the destruction of the Egyptians: the wiping out of the demonic by
the divine. This dynamic, according to the Zohar, is to be found
in the verse “And when Moses raised his hand Israel prevailed, and
when he let down his hand Amaleq prevailed” (Exod. 17:1 l):“‘When
he raised,’ that is, when he lifted the right hand on top of the left, and
he prayed [lit. intended] by means of the spreading of his hands.” 88
But here too, as in the case of the splitting of the sea, the subjugation
of the demonic left is achieved by means of the divine right, which
in itself contains the divine left. Indeed, in one passage, the Zohar
interprets the verse concerning the raising of the right hand of
Moses in light of the verse concerning God’s right hand shattering
the enemy. 89
The second event preceding the account of the Sinaitic reve-
lation that the Zohar makes special note of is the meeting of Moses
with his father-in-law, Jethro, in the wilderness (Exod. 18:1 ff.). The
section of the Zohar on Jethro begins with an exegetical comment
about Aaron’s lifting up of the right hand over the left. 90 The rele-
vancy of this remark can be understood only in light of the symbolic
correspondence of Aaron, high priest of the Israelites, to the divine
right side, the attribute of love, and of Jethro, priest of Midian, to the
demonic left. The Zohar explicitly states that the “Other Side,” like
the side of holiness, has two forces, a king and a priest: “In the ‘Other
Side,’ which is not the side of holiness, there is the secret of the king,
and it has been explained that he is called ‘the old and foolish king’
[Eccles. 4:13]. And beneath him is the priest of On.” 91 The Zohar goes
on to say,
when that king and that priest are subdued and broken, then all
the other forces [of the demonic] are subdued and they
acknowledge the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the Holy One,
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 13
blessed be He, alone governs above and below ... In the manner
of this very secret the Holy One, blessed be He, acted in the land
[below], for He broke the “old and foolish king” who was
Pharaoh. When Moses came to Pharaoh and said, “The God of
the Hebrews has met with us” (Exod. 5:3), he opened up and
said, “I know not the Lord” (Exod. 5:2) ... When He smote him
and his people, he came and acknowledged the Holy One,
blessed be He. Afterwards that priest of On, Jethro, who served
under him, was broken and subdued until he came and
acknowledged the Holy One, blessed be He, and said, “Blessed
be the Lord who saved you, etc. Now I know that the Lord is
great” (Exod. 18:10-1 1) ... When that king and priest acknow-
ledged the Holy One, blessed be He, and were broken before
him, then the Holy One, blessed be He, ascended in His glory
upon everything above and below. 92 And until the Holy One,
blessed be He, ascended in His glory when those [two] con-
fessed before Him, the Torah was not given.
The conversion of Jethro, like the overthrowing of Pharaoh, was
a necessary stage in the redemptive process. Only when the sub-
jugation of these two demonic powers was completed could the
revelatory process ensue.
The giving of the Torah, according to the Zohar, likewise
symbolizes the containment of the left within the right, but in two
senses. The first is the one with which we are already familiar: the uni-
fication of the left within the right in the realm of divinity. This is
expressed in several ways in the Zohar. There is, first of all, the kabbal-
istic interpretation of Exodus 19:16, “And it came to pass on the third
day,” the day in which the revelation took place: “On the third day pre-
cisely, for it is mercy [ rahamei] ,” 93 that is, the balance between love
( hesed ) on the right and strength ( gevurah ) on the left. Moreover, the
Zohar interprets the biblical theme concerning the appearance of
lightning and hre at Sinai in the following manner: “It has been
taught: R. Judah said: The Torah was given on the side of strength.
R. Jose said: If so, then it was on the left side! He said to him: It was
restored [ ithaddar] to the right, as it says, ‘From His right hand a fiery
law unto them’ [Deut. 33:3] , and it is written, ‘Thy right hand, O Lord,
glorious in power, etc.’ We find that the left is restored [deithazar] to
the right, and the right to the left ,” 94 The verse describing the Sinaitic
14 LUMINAL DARKNESS
revelation, Deuteronomy 33:3, is here compared to the verse describ-
ing the miracle at the sea, Exodus 15:6, for both verses, according to
the Zohar, instruct us about the mystery of the containment, or
restoration, of the left within the right. The redemptive act in the one
case, and the revelatory act in the other, are achieved by means of the
right hand which contains within itself the left.
With respect to revelation, the Zohar repeats this theme by
reinterpreting a midrashic motif, 95 namely, the primordial Torah
was written as black fire upon white fire. “R. Isaac said: The Torah was
given as black fire upon white fire in order to contain [le’akhlela] the
right in the left, so that the left would be restored [de-ithazar] to the
right, as it says, ‘From His right hand a fiery law unto them’ ... R. Abba
said: The tablets were before their eyes, and the letters that were
flying about were visible in two fires, white fire and black fire, to show
that the right and left are one.” 96 The Torah “comes from strength
[the left] and is contained [ we-itkelilat ] in the right.” 97
This containment of the left within the right is reflected,
according to the Zohar, in the alignment of the people at the moment
of revelation: five groups on the right and five on the left. 98 It is
reflected, moreover, in the very structure of the tablets that Moses
received.
It has been taught: Five voices [i.e., commandments] were on
the right, and five on the left. Those on the left were contained in
the right, and from the right those on the left were revealed. And
here everything was [contained in] the right, and those [on the
left] were contained in those [on the right]. The one who stood
on one side and saw the other side could read those letters [on
the other side] . For we have learnt that the left was restored
to the right, as it is written, “From His right hand a fiery law
unto them.” 99
Finally, the very object of revelation, the Torah, embodies
the mystery of the left being contained in the right. This can be
explained in one of several ways: ( 1 ) The written Torah corresponds
symbolically to Tif’eret, which is the balance between the right and
the left. 100 (2) There are two aspects to the Torah, the written and the
oral. The former represents the right, and the latter the left, 101 or,
alternatively, Tif’eret and Malkhut. 102 Hence, the day of the Sinaitic
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 15
revelation, the one source for both aspects of Torah, is the wedding
day of the masculine and feminine potencies of the divine. 103 ( 3 ) The
Torah comprises 613 commandments, 248 positive and 365 negative.
The former derive from the right side of the divine, the masculine
zakhor , and the latter from the left side, the feminine shamor , 104
Insofar as the Torah given at Sinai includes all 613, it symbolizes the
balance of positive and negative, right and left.
The event of revelation as understood by the Zohar thus rep-
resents the complete containment of the left within the right in the
divine sphere. Apart from this, however, there is another nuance to
this motif in the Zohar, namely, the reintegration of the demonic left
into the divine right. The exodus from Egypt was the hrst step in
Israel’s spiritual odyssey out of the realm of the unholy; hence, the
evil inclination, the left side, symbolized by the leaven, had to be
totally removed. At Sinai, not only did the left side not have to be
removed, it had to be reappropriated. This, according to the Zohar, is
the mystical intent of the biblical injunction to bring leavened bread
as the hrst fruits of the Lord on Pentecost.
“You shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves [of two
tenth measures; they shall be of hne hour and shall be baked
with leaven] ” (Lev. 23: 1 7). This is the bread by which Israel got
wise, the supernal wisdom of the Torah, and they entered its
ways. Now we must look carefully. On Passover Israel went out
from the bread which is called leaven [ hamets ], as it is written,
“You shall not see any leaven” [Exod. 13:7], and “Whoever eats
that which is leavened” [Exod. 12:19]. What is the reason? On
account of the honor of that bread which is called unleavened
[matsah ] . Now that Israel merited the highest bread, it was not
appropriate for the leaven to be wiped out and not seen at all.
And why was this sacrifice [of the bread of the hrst fruits] from
leaven, as it is written, “they shall be of hne hour and shall be
baked with leaven”? Moreover, on that very day [when the
Torah was given] the evil inclination was wiped out, 105 for the
Torah, which is called freedom, was to be found! This may be
compared to a king who had an only son who was sick. One day
the son desired to eat. They said to him: The king’s son should
eat this medicine, and until he eats that no other food will be
found in the house. So it was done. When he ate the medicine,
16 LUMINAL DARKNESS
he said to him: From now on you may eat whatever you desire,
and it will not harm you. Similarly, when Israel left Egypt, they did
not know the essence or secret of Faith. The Floly One, blessed be
He, said: Israel shall eat medicine, and until they eat the medicine
no other food shall be shown to them. When they ate the unleav-
ened bread, which was medicine, in order to enter and to know
the secret of Faith, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: From now
on leaven shall be shown to them, and they can eat it, for it cannot
harm them. And all the more so on the day of Shavu'ot, the
supernal bread, which is a complete medicine, is summoned . 106
In this passage, the author of the Zohar makes two state-
ments that, prima facie, are contradictory. On the one hand, he says,
“it was not appropriate for the leaven [symbolic of the evil inclin-
ation] to be wiped out and not seen at all,” while on the other hand,
relying on rabbinic sources, he asserts that, on the very day that the
Torah was given, “the evil inclination was wiped out.” This apparent
tension can be resolved only if we understand the two assertions in a
dialectical relation: “it was not appropriate for the leaven to be wiped
out” because “the evil inclination was wiped out.” When Israel left
Egypt it was necessary to remove all leaven, for at that time they were
comparable to a sick child who could consume only the prescribed
medicine, that is, the unleavened bread, symbolic of the entry into
the realm of holiness, the beginning of faith. After they received the
higher type of bread, namely, the bread of wisdom embodied in the
Torah , 107 this was no longer necessary. On the contrary, the very
leaven that was forbidden on Passover was required on Shavu'ot. At
the moment of revelation, the left side was once again appropriated
by Israel, for at that time it presented no danger to the people, its
efficacy being undermined by the Torah, the most perfect antidote to
the malady of the evil inclination . 108 In the presence of the “complete
medicine,” the unholy is restored to its source in the holy.
Conclusion
We have attempted to trace a common theme that runs through vari-
ous portions of the Zohar. This theme serves as the exegetical axis
upon which the zoharic understanding of exile, redemption, and
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 17
revelation turns. The historical movement of Israel from Egypt to
Sinai is, at the same time, a spiritual movement from the dominion
of the left to that of the right. The ultimate stage of this process, the
revelation of the Torah, is one in which we find the containment of
the left within the right. Such a process began in Egypt but reached
completion only at Sinai. The perfect state is not one in which evil is
entirely obliterated , 109 but rather one in which it is contained within
the good. Only the sick soul must eliminate all traces of the left; the
healthy soul, by contrast, can reappropriate the left and thereby unite
it with the right. Indeed, the essence of divine worship is to worship
God with both hearts , 1 10 that is, to contain the evil inclination within
the good, the left within the right . 111
Notes
1. See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York:
Schocken Books, 1956), pp. 213-244; Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the
Zohar, trans. David Goldstein (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989),
pp. 1-126. See also Daniel C. Matt, Zohar. Book of Enlightenment (New York:
Paulist Press, 1983), pp. 3-39.
2. See, however, Yehuda Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar,” in The Messianic
Idea in Jewish Thought: A Study Conference in Honour of the Eightieth
Birthday of Gershom Scholem (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1982), pp. 87-236 (Hebrew). This essay, which is rich in textual
analyses, and has indeed set the standard for all future research into the
Zohar, contains many insights that may be useful to those interested in
pursuing the issue of literary structure and its relation to thematic content in
the Zohar.
3 . I am limiting myself in this chapter to an analysis of texts that form part of the
main body of the Zohar. For a discussion of the various literary strata in the
Zohar, see Scholem, Major Trends , pp. 159-163; idem. Kabbalah (Jerusalem:
Keter, 1974), pp. 214-220.
4. See Gershom Scholem, “The Kabbalah of R. Jacob and R. Isaac Kohen,”
Madda'ei ha-Yahadut, 2, 1927, pp. 193-197 (Hebrew); Liebes, “Messiah,”
pp. 124-128.
5. Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob;” Joseph Dan, “Samael, Lilith, and the Con-
cept of Evil in Early Kabbalah,” Association for Jewish Studies Review, 5, 1980,
pp. 17-41.
6. According to R. Isaac, the ten emanations of the left comprise “three worlds
which were created and destroyed” (cf. Genesis Rabbah 9:2, ed. Julius
Theodor and Chanoch Albeck [Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965], p. 68)
and seven archons that do battle against the seven lower holy emanations. See
Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” pp. 194, 248-251. The expression “emana-
tions of the left” was not used by R. Isaac, but rather by his student, R. Moses
of Burgos. See Scholem, “R. Moshe, the Student of R. Yitshaq,” Tarbits, 4,
1933, pp. 207-225 (Hebrew).
18 LUMINAL DARKNESS
7. Scholem, “R. Moshe,” p. 209. See also Todros Abulafia, Otsar ha-Kavod
(Warsaw, 1879; reprinted Jerusalem, 1970), 3a: “Where dogs bark there the
Angel of Death is to be seen, for [he] is emanated from the left side, which is
an emanation in itself.” This should not be understood in any absolute sense,
but rather as meaning that the left comprises its own powers which parallel
those of the divine. See ibid., 23b, concerning the “worlds created and
destroyed” (see notes 6 and 22).
8. Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” pp. 193-194. See also Shulamit Shahar,
“Catharism and the Beginnings of the Kabbalah in Languedoc: Elements
Common to Catharic Scriptures and the Book Bahir,” Tarbits, 40, 1971,
p. 502 (Hebrew), and p. viii of the English summary. Shahar concludes that,
despite the similarities between some of the doctrines of the Catharic sects in
Languedoc in the twelfth century and the kabbalah of the Bahir, with respect
to the question of evil, one must make a clear distinction between the two: the
former were “entirely dualistic,” “making an absolute distinction between
the good God and the principle of evil,” whereas the latter remained
“completely monistic, since God is portrayed as the Creator of Chaos, and
Satan is one of His attributes.” See following note.
9. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 454, 458-461. As Tishby noted, the kabbalists’ concern
with discovering the source for the demonic realm within the divine was an
effort to mitigate the potential dualism of their doctrine concerning a left
emanation. See note 12.
10. According to R. Isaac, the ten emanations of the left emerged from Binah, the
third sefirah, whereas, according to R. Moses of Burgos, they emanated from
Gevurah, the fifth sefirah, or the attribute of judgment. See Scholem, “Kabbalah
of R. Jacob,” p. 194; idem, “R. Moshe,” p. 210. See idem, Pirqei Yesod
be-Havanat ha-Qabbalah u-Semaleha (Jerusalem: Bialik Insitute, 1976),
pp. 191-193 (Hebrew). As Scholem points out (pp. 193 ff.), in the kabbalah
before the Zohar there was a third explanation for the origin of evil, viz., the
last sefirah. This is reflected in the Zohar as well; see Tishby, Wisdom,
pp. 460-461.
1 1 . See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 450-454.
12. Ibid., pp. 450-451. It should be noted that Tishby (p. 454) distinguishes
between morphological and ontological parallelism. In other words, while it is
true that there is a parallelism of structure between the two realms, they are not
of the same ontological standing; the demonic realm is of a secondary nature in
comparison with the divine, or, according to one of the metaphors employed in
the Zohar, the relation of the two is like that of an ape to a human being (Zohar
2:148b). According to Tishby, this distinction is one of the various attempts to
mitigate the potential dualism of the doctrine of two realms. See note 9.
13. Zohar 3:41b. See also Zohar 2:223b-224a; 3:70a. On occasion it is not the
entire sefirotic realm but only the seven lower sefirot that are said to have a
parallel in the demonic realm; see Zohar 1:194a. (See note 6.) Although there
are several names for the demonic forces in the Zohar, the most common are:
“lower crowns” (see, e.g., Zohar 1:95b, 167a; 2:21b, 35b, 39b, 64b, 85b, 94b;
3:14b, 48b, 69a, 95b, 1 1 lb, 1 19b, 208b, 209b); “lower grades” (see, e.g., Zohar
1:133b, 177a [but see the remark of Tishby, Wisdom, p. 471 n. 14], 194a;
2:244b); “impure crowns of magic below” (see, e.g., Zohar 1:167a; 2:30b;
3:41b); and, collectively, SitraAhra (see, e.g., Zohar 1:191b, 204b, 228a; 2:69a,
and elsewhere).
14. Zohar 1:53a, 160a; 2:192b, 194b, 243a; 3:63a, 207a. Even though there is a
right and left dimension in both realms, the demonic vis-a-vis the divine is
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 19
known as the “left,” while the divine vis-a-vis the demonic is known as the
“right.” See Zohar 1:195b; 211b; 3:259b. SeeTishby, Wisdom , p. 471 n. 19.
15. Zohar 1:148a ( Sitrei Torah), 161b ( Sitrei Torah). Cf. also 1:5a, 64a, 153a,
160b; 2:163b, 236b, 243a; see Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 461-464. The pairing of
Samael and Lilith as husband and wife in the demonic realm, corresponding
to Adam and Eve, was already made by R. Isaac ha-Kohen in his “Treatise on
the Left Emanation;” see Scholem, “Kabbalah ofR. Jacob,” pp. 251-252, 260,
262. For a discussion of R. Isaac’s historical and literary sources, see Dan,
“Samael,” pp. 17-40. (The relevant passage is translated on pp. 18-19.) See
note 44.
16. Zohar 2:38a. (Cf. also Zohar 1:166b; 2:40b.) By means of the merit of the
“three knots of faith,” that is, the three Patriarchs and the sefirot they repre-
sent, the Israelites were released from the “three knots of magic” by which the
Egyptians had bound them; see note 41. See Liebes, Sections, s.v. qishra,
pp. 394-395, 400. For an extended discussion of the possible Christian influ-
ence on the Zohar with respect to the notion of the Trinity, see idem, “Chris-
tian Influences in the Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 2, 1982/83,
pp. 43-74 (Hebrew). See also idem, “Messiah,” pp. 130-131 n. 182.
1 7. Zohar 1:211b; 2:244a, 263a.
18. Zohar 1:99b. See ibid., 125b, 161a; 3:112b, 145a. On this basis, e.g., the Zohar
(. Midrash ha-Ne‘elam) reinterprets the midrashic comment on Deut. 34:10,
“And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses”: “In Israel none
arose, but in the nations of the world there arose; and who was it? Balaam.” See
Sifre on Deuteronomy, ed. Louis Finkelstein (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1969), sec. 357, p. 430; for other rabbinic references, see
Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1968), vol. 6, p. 125 n. 121 . The author of the Zohar writes,
“Moses’ works are above, Balaam’s below. Moses made [theurgical] use of the
holy crown of the supernal King above, and Balaam made [magical] use of the
lower crowns below which are not holy” (Zohar 2:21b). Cf. Moses de Leon,
Sheqel ha-Qodesh, ed. A. W. Greenup (London, 1911), pp. 16-18; Zohar
Hadash, ed. Reuven Margaliot (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1986), 58b;
Zohar 3:193b. The motif of Balaam as a chief magician and protagonist of the
demonic is repeated often in the Zohar. See e.g., Zohar Hadash, 66a; Zohar
1:125b, 126a, 166b; 3:112b, 194a, 207b, 212a. The association of Balaam with
magic is found already in rabbinic Aggadah; see Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v.
“Balaam, the magical powers of.” Moreover, according to earlier sources,
Balaam was considered the chief magician of Pharaoh; see Babylonian Talmud
Sotah 11a; Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 2, pp. 334-335. See Zohar 2, 69a. See
note 41. The Aramaic ishtammash (lit. “made use of”) was used technically in
a theurgical context already in the Mishnah; see Mishnah, Avot 1:13. See
Scholem, Major Trends, p. 358 n. 17, and idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah
Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 2nd edn. (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1965), p. 54 n. 36. It is of interest to note that in this
passage (Zohar 1:99b) the mystic (R. Abba) learns his wisdom from a book
brought to him by “the children of the East.” Now, according to midrashic
tradition (see, e.g., Ecclesiastes Rabbah 8:23), the wisdom of the children of the
East consisted of astrology and divination. See Saul Lieberman, Greek in
Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965),
p. 98. Moreover, according to the Zohar itself, the land of the East was the place
whence Laban, Be‘or, and Balaam learned all their sorcery, for it was the place
into which the angels Azza and Azael fell. See Zohar 1:126a, 133b, 223a. The
20 LUMINAL DARKNESS
children of the East, therefore, were masters of magical knowledge. Yet here,
they are portrayed as bearers of the correct mystical (theurgical) knowledge.
Hence, in this context, the line between theurgical and magical knowledge is
difficult to draw. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 684-685, who distinguishes
between the two in terms of the ultimate purpose for which the given act was
performed, that is, whether to influence the upper powers or whether to gain
benefit for oneself. But see ibid., pp. 1 160-1 161 , where the distinction is some-
what blurred. See Gershom Scholem, Re’shit ha-Qabbalah (Tel Aviv:
Schocken, 1948), pp. 143-144; Liebes, “Messiah,” p. 180 n. 319.
19. See Zohar 2:254b-255a; 3:292b ( Idra Zuta). For a discussion of the cathartic
view, see Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 289-290, 458-459; Ephraim Gottlieb, Studies
in the Kabbalah Literature (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1976),
pp. 178-182 (Hebrew); Liebes, Sections, p. 147; Moshe Idel, “The Evil
Thought of the Deity,” Tarbits, 49, 1980, pp. 356-364 (Hebrew).
20. See Zohar 2:176b ( Sifra di-Tseni‘uta); 3:128b ( Idra Rabba), 135a, 142a, 292a
{Idra Zuta). The biblical basis for this mythical conception is Gen. 36:31-39.
See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 276-277, 289. For a discussion of the possible source
for this conception in the Castilian circle, and particularly Todros Abulafia,
see Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 219-221. Moreover, as Liebes points out (p. 219),
this conception was probably suggested to the kabbalists by the midrashic
claim that God at first considered creating the world with judgment and only
afterwards decided to combine judgment and mercy together. See, e.g.,
Genesis Rabb ah 12:15, pp. 112-113.
21. See Zohar 2:34b. The source for this mythical conception was R. Isaac
ha-Kohen; see note 6. Cf. Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” pp. 194-195.
22. See, e.g., Zohar 1:31a, 151a; 2:64a, 83a, 175b; 3:15b, 39b, 65a, 99a, 118b, 262b;
Joseph Gikatilla, Sha‘arei Orah, ed. Joseph Ben-Shlomo, 2 vols (Jerusalem:
Bialik Insitute, 1981), vol. 1, p.235.
23. See Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” p. 194; idem, Pirqei Yesod, p. 200;
Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 458-461.
24. See Zohar 1:16a; 2:149b; 3:148a. See note 10.
25. See Zohar 1 : 1 7a-b. With regard to the question “What creates the imbalance
in the sefirotic world?” there are basically two approaches: it results either
from an internal process or as a result of human sin. See Scholem, Pirqei
Yesod, pp. 202-204.
26. Here I have made use of Tishby’s terminology; see note 12.
27. For references, see note 31. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 68-69. Tishby suggests
that many of the passages in the Zohar that deride Egypt are in reality
intended against Islam and the Arabs.
28. The power of the magicians is, from the outset, rendered impotent in com-
parison with the power of God. Hence, we are told that the rod that Aaron cast
down, and which became a serpent, swallowed up the rods the magicians cast
down (Exod. 7:12). Moreover, the magicians’ use of secret arts could match
the divine power only for the first two plagues (ibid. 8:18-19). Finally, the
magicians themselves are affected by the plague of boils and have to use their
power to cause them to disappear. For a succinct discussion of these issues,
see Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 71-72. The impotence of the Egyptian
magicians vis-a-vis God was a favorite theme in rabbinic Aggadah. See, e.g.,
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 67b, Exodus Rabbah 10:7, Midrash Tanhuma
(Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1972), Wa-era 14, pp. 253-256. See also Ginzberg,
Legends, vol. 2, pp. 335, 352; vol. 5, p. 429 n. 185.
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 21
29. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin 49b. See also ibid., Menahot 85a, Exodus
Rabbah 9:6. For other references in aggadic literature to this theme, see
Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v. “Egyptians, masters of astrology and magic.”
30. See. e.g., Zohar 1:81b, 83a, 249a; 2:30b, 35b, 38a, 191a, 192b; 3:50b, 69a, 70a.
See notes 35-45.
31. See, e.g., Zohar 1:167a; 2:30b; 3:41b, 70a, 192a. This is also the underlying
meaning of a repeated claim in the Zohar concerning the special relation
between the feminine and magic. That is, the demonic realm vis-a-vis the
divine is considered to be feminine (although there is both a feminine and
masculine dimension within the left side; see note 14); accordingly, all magic
(i.e. the demonic) is related to the feminine. See Zohar Hadash, 92b; 1:126a.
32. Zohar 3:41b. See also Zohar 2:223b-224a.
33. Zohar 1:125b. See also Zohar 2:215b. The “primordial serpent” in the Zohar
frequently refers to the feminine counterpart to Samael in the realm of the
Other Side (based on the aggadic image that Samael rode upon the serpent;
cf. Pirqei Rabbi Eli‘ezer [Warsaw, 1852], 13:31b), but it can also refer to this
whole realm or to the masculine potency alone. See Tishby, Wisdom,
pp. 467-469.
34. Zohar 1:83a (translated in Matt, Zohar, p. 63). Cf. ibid., 133b, where the
author of the Zohar elaborates upon the talmudic interpretation of Gen. 25:6,
“And to the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave
gifts,” that is, Abraham transmitted to them a “name of impurity” by which
to do magic (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 91a, and the commentary of
Rashi, ad loc.). According to the Zohar, Abraham gave the sons of his concu-
bines the names of the impure forces that are the lower grades; that is,
Abraham imparted to them knowledge of the demonic realm. See ibid.,
223a. This interpretation likewise presupposes that Abraham had significant
knowledge of the demonic realm. See note 45.
35. See Matt, Zohar, p. 220. Matt goes on to say, “This dangerous psychic journey
is the crucible of Abraham’s spiritual transformation.” That is, as the passage
from the Zohar itself (1:83a) emphasizes, it was necessary for Abraham to
descend into Egypt (the “Other Side”) before entering the land of Israel (the
portion of the Holy One) so that he would be purified. That is also the mysti-
cal significance of Israel’s enslavement in Egypt: spiritual purification by
means of contact with the unholy. See also Zohar 2:184a: “The words of
Torah reside only there [i.e. in the desert, which is the abode of the demonic
force], for there is no light except that which emerges from darkness. When
that [“other”] side is subdued, the Holy One, blessed be He, ascends and is
glorified. And there is no divine worship except amidst the darkness, and no
good except within evil. When a person enters an evil way and forsakes it,
then the Holy One, blessed be He, ascends in his glory. Thus the perfection of
all is good and evil together, and afterwards to ascend to the good ... This is the
complete worship.” See note 45.
36. Zohar 3:207a.
37. Ibid., 70a.
38. Zohar 2:35b. Cf. ibid., 38a; 3:50b.
39. Zohar 2:35b. Cf. ibid., 41a, 80b.
40. Zohar 2:25a, 38a, 52b, 69a; 3:2 12a (it was by means of the magic of Balaam that
the Egyptians bound the Israelites; see Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, p. 27 n. 156).
On the usage of the word “knot” ( qishra ) as a magical bond in the Zohar, see
Liebes, Sections, p. 397. This linguistic association is indeed quite old. For a
survey of ancient Near Eastern materials, including relevant biblical texts,
22 LUMINAL DARKNESS
relating to magical bonds and knots, see Michael Fishbane, “Studies in
Biblical Magic: Origins, Uses and Transformations of Terminology and
Literary Form,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 1971,
chaps. 1-2.
41. Zohar 1:195a; 2:28a, 37b, 52b, 67b. According to rabbinic sources, Pharaoh was
a magician par excellence; see Babylonian Talmud, Mo‘ed Qatan 18a (cf. Baby-
lonian Talmud, Shabbat 75a), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 7:15. See also
Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 2, pp. 335, 352, 358; vol. 3, p. 13; vol. 5, p. 428 n. 175.
42. The attribution of the metaphor “the great crocodile” in Ezek. 19:3 to the
Pharaoh in the time of the exodus can be found already in midrashic litera-
ture. See Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, trans. Jacob Lauterbach (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976), 2:175; Exodus Rabbah 9:4. See
Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 3, p. 66; vol. 6, p. 27 n. 156.
43. Zohar 2:34a. In the continuation of this section, the Zohar makes use of the
rabbinic myth concerning Leviathan and his mate, that is, a male and a female
sea-monster. See Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 74b based on Isaiah 27:1;
Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v. “Leviathan.” According to the author of the
Zohar, Leviathan and his mate correspond to Samael and Lilith, who, in turn,
correspond to the Holy One and the Shekhinah. The Zohar was here influ-
enced by the writings of R. Isaac ha-Kohen; see Scholem, “Kabbalah of
R. Jacob,” pp. 262- 263, and the translation of this passage in Dan, “Samael,”
pp. 38-39. See note 15. According to this passage (Zohar 2:34a-b), there are
the great crocodile, that is, Samael, and ten streams, that is, vessels that con-
tain the demonic forces: “in each stream there wanders about one crocodile”
(ibid., 34b). The ten crocodiles, collectively, are the ten “lower crowns” that
correspond to the ten sefirot. See Tishby, Wisdom, p. 466. Cf. also Zohar 1 :52a.
On the historical influence of R. Isaac upon the author of the Zohar, see
Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” p. 195. According to Scholem, however, the
“great crocodile” represents Samael, while the streams, in the midst of which
he crouches, are the remaining nine lower crowns. The text, in my opinion,
seems to bear out the interpretation of Tishby.
44. Zohar 2:34a.
45. Ibid. According to the Zohar, this knowledge has an especially esoteric
nature. With regard to this, the author of the Zohar was influenced by the
Castilian kabbalists, who were reluctant to elaborate on this topic and who
likewise spoke of the secret of the demonic as being known to only a select
few. See Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 123-124. Thus, after the initial discourse on
the “great crocodile” we read, “R. Simeon said: The account of creation - the
comrades are busy studying it and they have knowledge of it, but few are they
who know how to allude to the account of creation according to the mystery
of the great crocodile. Thus, we learned [cf. Pirqei Rabbi Eli‘ezer 9] that the
entire world evolved only upon the scales of that [crocodile]” (2:34b). For a
discussion of the literary sources and theosophical significance of this
passage, see Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 123-126. The statement concerning
Moses’ attainment of knowledge of the “great crocodile” succeeds a discus-
sion about Job. The error of Job, according to the Zohar, was that he did not
give any portion of his sacrifices (which were all burnt offerings) to the Other
Side, and thereby aroused its jealousy. The sin of Job is referred to in the
Zohar as “not including evil and good together,” for had he given a portion to
the demonic realm as well, then he would have comprised the two together.
“Thus it is fitting for a person to know good and evil, and then return to the
good. That is the secret of faith.” (See notes 35 and 111.) Job is described in
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 23
Scripture as being “removed from evil” (Job 1 :8), that is, he had no portion in
Sip'a Ahra. SeeZohar 2:181b-182a; 3:101b; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 453-454. By
contrast, Moses, like Abraham (see notes 34), had a portion in both realms;
thus it says “Go to Pharaoh,” that is to say, attain knowledge of the demonic
realm, a knowledge that Job did not possess. SeeLiebes, “Messiah,” p. 126. On
Solomon’s being taught from a book of magic by Asmodeus, see Zohar
2: 128a; 3:19a, 77a. Cf. also Zohar 3:233a-b concerning the legend of Solomon
riding an eagle to a place in the wilderness called “Tarmod” (see 1 Kings 9:18:
“Tadmor”), where Azza and Azael were bound by chains of iron and where
none but Balaam was allowed to enter. From that place Solomon “learnt
wisdom.”
46. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 377-378, 382-385. “The subservience of the
Shekhinah to Sip'a Ahra,” concludes Tishby, “is the hidden mystery of the
exile of the Shekhinah. The upper exile is a disturbance of the order of
the divine reality, a closing of the channels of influence and an eclipse of the
lights due to the removal of the Shekhinah from the realm of the sefirot and
her joining with the Sip'a Ahra. The exile of Israel in the countries of the
nations is a process that parallels an event that occurs above.” See note 48.
47. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 378, 382-383; Liebes, “Messiah,” p. 198.
48. This is expressed in several ways: ( 1 ) the submission of the Shekhinah to Sip'a
Ahra (see note 46); (2) the unification of Tif’eret with Lilith (see Zohar
l:122a-b; 3:69a): (3) the dominion of the other nations over Israel (seeZohar
1 :84b— 85a); (4) Israel’s being nourished by the power of Sip'a Ahra in place of
the power of holiness (see Zohar 1:95b; 2:152b).
49. On the analogy between the pair of opposites, male-female and right-left,
see, e.g., Zohar 1:30a, 70a. See note 81.
50. Zohar 1:211b. Cf. ibid., 201a; 2:29a, 36a. See also Menahem Recanati, Perush
al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 1961), 41c-d (ad Exod. 12:22). On the theme of the
Shekhinah employing the forces of Sip'a Ahra in order to punish the wicked,
see Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 376-377.
51. Zohar 2:36b.
52. Zohar 1:261a; 2:187a.
53. Zohar 2:231b. See Sheqel ha-Qodesh, pp. 80-83; Isaiah Tishby, Perush
Aggadotle-R. Azri’el (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1945), p. 56.
54. Zohar 2:37b (based on rabbinic interpretation of wa-yhwh as “the Lord and
His Court;” see Genesis Rabbah 51:2, p. 533, Exodus Rabbah 12:4). See also
ibid., 37a; 3:176a. See Moses de Leon, Shushan Edut, ed. Gershom Scholem,
“Two Treatises of R. Moses de Leon,”Qovefs al Yad, n.s. 8, 1975, p. 344
(Hebrew). It should be noted that, with respect to this very issue,
Nahmanides was very careful to emphasize that the plagues in general, and
particularly the plague of the killing of the firstborn, were carried out by the
Shekhinah in conjunction with the Holy One, that is, the attribute of judg-
ment together with that of mercy. The motivation here was clearly to avoid
the separation of the Shekhinah from the rest of the divine attributes, a sin the
kabbalists referred to as qitstsuts bi-neti‘ot, that is, “cutting the shoots,” an
expression used in the classical Aggadah to refer to Adam (see Genesis
Rabbah 19:3, p. 172) or to Elisha ben Abuya (Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah
14b). (On the kabbalistic meaning of “cutting the shoots,” see Gershom
Scholem, “A New Document Regarding the History of the Beginning of
Kabbalah,” in Sefer Bialik [Tel Aviv: Emunot, 1934], p. 153 [Hebrew], and
Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 373-374.) See Moses Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah
le-Rabbenu Mosheh ben Nahman, ed. Hayyim D. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad
24 LUMINAL DARKNESS
ha-RavKook, 1959-60), vol. 1, p. 329 (adExod. 12:12). Cf. also the following
supercommentaries on N ahmanides: Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, in
Ma’or wa-Shemesh (Livorno, 1839), 34a; Joshua ibn Shuaib, Be’ur Sodot
ha-Ramban, attributed to Meir ibn Sahula (Warsaw, 1875), 12b; Isaac ben
Samuel of Acre, SeferMe’iratEinayim: A Critical Edition, ed. Amos Goldreich
(Jerusalem: Akadamon, 1981), p. 79.
55. On “night” as a name for Shekhinah, see, e.g., Zohar 1:16b, 92b; 2:239b, and
elsewhere. See Moses de Leon, Shushan Edut, p. 341.
56. Zohar 2:38a. See Recanati, Perush al ha-Torah 41a (ad Exod. 1 1:4).
57. Zohar 2:38a. Cf. Moses de Leon, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607, fol. 54b
(a critical edition of the aforementioned work appears in Elliot R. Wolfson,
The Book of the Pomegranate: Moses de Leon’s Sefer ha-Rimmon [Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1988]).
58. On the dual character of the Shekhinah, see Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 376-379.
Cf. also Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah, vol. 1, p. 273 (ad Genesis 49:24), and
Isaac of Acre, SeferMe’iratEinayim, p. 83. It should be noted that, according
to the Zohar, not only Shekhinah but each of the sefirot has the capacity to act
with mercy and judgment; see Zohar 2:36a; 3:15a, 36b, 146a, 262b. This latter
idea can be traced back to the circle of kabbalists in Gerona; see, e.g., Jacob
ben Sheshet, Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, in Kitvei Ramban, ed. Hayyim
D. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964), 2:359. Cf. Sefer
ha-Rimmon, fol. 71a [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 145-146];
Gikatilla, Sha'arei Orah, 1:235.
59. See Zohar 2:36a, 37a. This is the esoteric meaning of the killing of the
firstborn at midnight, that is, at a time when the Shekhinah performs two
functions reflecting her dual nature: mercy toward Israel and judgment
toward Egypt. See Zohar 2:37b, 80b.
60. See Zohar 1:226b; 2:40a, 182a; 3:95b. Cf. Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607,
fol. 54a-b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 1 32-133] . It should be noted
that leaven was already used allegorically as a symbol for that which is evil or
impure in Greco-Jewish, New Testament, and talmudic sources. See
Philo, Questions on Exodus, 1:15, 11:14 (but see The Special Laws, 11:184);
1 Cor. 5:6-8; Matt. 16:11-12; Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 17a; Genesis
Rabbah 34:10, p. 320; Midrash Tanhuma, ed. Solomon Buber (New York:
Sefer, 1946), Noah 4, 15b. And see Baruch Bokser, The Origins of the Seder
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), p. 120 n. 13.
61. Zohar 2:38b.
62. See note 49.
63. Zohar 2:38. Cf. 1:260a; 2:131a; 3:22a.
64. For references, see note 54.
65. Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah, vol. 1, p. 348 (adExod. 13:21).
66. See Isaac of Acre, Sefer Me’irat Einayim, p. 81; Recanati, Perush al ha-Torah
43a (ad Exod. 13:21).
67. Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah, vol. 1, p.348 (adExod. 13:21).
68. The notion of the fourfold unity between the Shekhinah and the
Patriarchs (i.e. the sefirot Hesed, Gevurah, and Rahamim ) is repeated often in
the Zohar. It is related, alternatively, to the four components of the chariot or
to the four legs of the throne. See Zohar 1:60b, 99a, 120b, 150a, 237a, 248b;
3:174a, 182a, 262b; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 588-589.
69. Zohar 2:46a-b. Cf. also 3:191b.
70. Zohar 1:46a. Cf. also ibid., 5b, 32a; 3:93b, 134b.
71. See Zohar 1:17a, 253a.
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 25
72. Zohar 2:52b.
73. See Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah, vol. 1, p. 353 (ad Exod. 14:31); Ibn
Shuaib, Be’ur Sodot ha-Ramban, p. 13a; Isaac of Acre, Sefer Me’irat Einayim,
p. 82; Bahya ben Asher, Perush al ha-Torah, ed. Hayyim D. Chavel, 5th edn.
(Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1981), 2:121. See also Recanati, Perush al
ha-Torah 43b.
74. Zohar 2:53b. Cf. the commentaries of R. Moses Cordovero and R. Abraham
Galante to the Zohar, ad loc., cited by Abraham Azulai, Or ha-Hammah
(Benei-Berak, Israel, 1973), 2: 43b-44a.
75. The word gedolah is a common name for the attribute of hesed or the right
hand; see, e.g., Zohar 2:59b, 286b; 3:277a, 302a.
76. The word yad by itself refers to the left hand; see Zohar 3:142b. See also Sefer
ha-Bahir, ed. Reuven Margaliot (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1978), 163
(Gershom Scholem, Das Buch Bahir [Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1923], 109,
p. 116), where the principle of evil is said to have the “form of a hand.”
77. On the correspondence of the ten fingers to the ten sefirot, see Sefer Yetsirah
1:3; Sefer ha-Bahir 124 (Scholem, 87, p. 94); 132 (Scholem, 94, p. 101). See
Nahmanides, Perushei ha-Torah, vol. 1, p.372 (adExod. 17:12); Zohar 2:75b.
78. Zohar 2:56b.
79. Cf. Zohar 1:19b, 86a, 236b, 241a, 267b; 2:19b, 226a; 3:58a, 150b.
80. This description of the Shekhinah is to be found already in the Bahir and in
other early kabbalistic sources. See Scholem, Pirqei Yesod, p. 276. Cf. also
Tishby, Wisdom, p. 371. A related idea, also found in the earlier sources, is
that the whole sefirotic order is reflected in each of the sefirot. See Tishby,
Perush ha-Aggadot, p. 15 n. 2.
8 1 . This clearly reflects the aggadic myth that Adam was created as androgynous
and was then separated into man and woman. For references, see Ginzberg,
Legends, vol. 5, pp. 88-89 n. 42. Cf. Zohar 1:35a, 37b, 165a; 2:55a, 231a-b;
3:10b, 19a, 44b; Zohar Hadash, 55c-d, 66c. According to the Zohar, not only
Adam but the soul of each person was originally made androgynous, and only
upon descent to the world is divided into male and female; at the time of
marriage the original unity is restored (see Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot
63a). See Zohar 1:85a, 91b, 108a; 2:246a; 3:43a-b, 283b; Tishby, Wisdom,
pp. 1355-1356. The one who remains single is called by the Zohar, pelaggufa,
that is, “half-a-body.” See Zohar 3:7b, 57b, 296a, [Idra Zutaf, Liebes,
“Sections,” pp. 277-278; Matt, Zohar, p. 217. The kabbalists applied the
aggadic myth to the divine: as the complete human personality is to be found
only in the unification of male and female, so too the divine being is only
complete when male ( Tiferet ) and female ( Malkhut ) are united. See Tishby,
Perush ha-Aggadot, p. 86; idem. Wisdom, vol. 1, pp. 278, 288. Cf. also Liebes,
Sections, p. 33 n. 26, and idem, “Messiah,” p. 202.
82. Zohar 2:57b. See also 3:37a.
83. Zohar 2:57a. Cf. Sheqel ha-Qodesh, p. 39; Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1052. Cf. Zohar
1:230b; 2:162b, 223a, 263a; 3:17b, 80b, 118b, 176b. Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi
Ishmael2:Al.
84. Zohar 2:57a. The notion of the left hand over the right signifying misfortune
is reflected in Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 2:41: “When the Israelites do the will
of God, they make His left hand to be like the right, as it is said, ‘Thy right
hand, O Lord ... Thy right hand, O Lord’ - two times. And when the Israelites
fail to do the will of God, they make His right hand to be like the left, as it is
said, ‘He hath drawn back His right hand’ [Lam. 2:3].” See Judah Goldin, The
SongattheSea (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 149.
26 LUMINAL DARKNESS
85. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 2:139; Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 5b; Midrash
Tanhuma , Beshallah 25, pp. 304-305; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, ed. Bernard
Mandelbaum (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 3,
pp. 35-53.
86. Zohar 2:65b. Such an interpretation is, of course, suggested by the juxtaposition
of verse 7, “And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of
the faultfinding of the children of Israel, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?”
with verse 8, “Then came Amaleq and fought with Israel in Rephidim.” See
Rashi’s commentary on Exod. 1 7:8.
87. Zohar 2:65b. See Zohar 1:29a; 2:65a, 194b-195a; 3:175a, 281b.
88. Zohar 2:66a. The lifting of Moses’ hands, that is, the raising up of the right
hand over the left, is here interpreted as an act of prayer. See Sefer ha-Bahir,
p. 138; Zohar 2:57a. Cf. Todros Abulafia, Otsar ha-Kavod, p. 29b. Abulafia,
like the author of the Zohar, interprets this passage as the joining together of
the left hand with the right. This, notes Abulafia, is the supreme act of faith.
See note 1 1 1 . It is the ultimate task of homo religiosus to contain the left within
the right. See Zohar 2:26b, 32a; 3:39b, 178a. See Menahem Kasher, Torah
Shelemah (New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1951 ), vol. 14,
p. 121 n. 106. The joining together ofleft and right especially characterizes the
mystical import of prayer; see Zohar 2:57a. Cf. Moses de Leon’s “Untitled
Commentary on the Sefirot,” MS Munich 47, fols. 340a-b. Concerning this
work, see Scholem, “Eine unbekannte mystische Schrift des Mose de Leon,”
Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums , 71, 1927,
pp. 109-123. In terms of prayer, this is alternatively expressed (based on
Ps. 100:2) as the placing of Shekhinah between the right and left as a prepara-
tion for the ultimate unification between her and the Holy One; see Zohar
1:229b, 3:8a-b, and cf. Moses de Leon, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607,
fols. 14b, 24b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 37-38, 63]. See also the
interpretation of Song of Songs 2:6 in Zohar 1:163b; 2:138b, 238b; 3:118b,
1 19b (cf. Menahem Recanati, Ta‘amei ha-Mitswot [Basel, 1581], 8a), 148b.
89. Zohar 2:66a. On the mystical significance of the war with Amaleq as the
wiping out of the left by the right, see Zohar 2:65b, 194b; 3:281b.
90. Ibid., 67a. See Sefer ha-Bahir 124; 2:57a, 225a; 3:92b. Cf. MS Munich 47,
fol. 340b; Sefer ha-Rimmon, fol. 111b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate,
pp. 254-255],
91. Ibid., p. 67b. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 450-451.
92. Cf. Zohar 2:184a (cited in note 35).
93. Zohar 2:81a. So, too, according to the Zohar, the third day of creation stands
for mercy (rahamim), which is the balance between hesed (the right) and
gevurah (the left). See 1:17a. See also Zohar 1:120a, with reference to the “third
day” in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac; see note 111. The third day was the
appropriate one for the event of giving the Torah, for the latter symbolically
represents Tif eret, which is the balance between right and left. See note 101.
94. Ibid.
95. See Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim 6:1, Sotah 8:3; Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah,
ed. Shimshon Dunaski (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1980), 5:9, pp. 133-134.
Cf. Midrash Tanhuma, Bere’shit 1, p. 1, where the reading is slightly different.
See also Midrash Konen, in Adolph Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, 4th edn.
(Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1982), 2:23, and Midrash Eser ha-Dibberot,
in ibid., 1:62, where the anthropomorphic element (i.e. the arm of God) is
added. Cf. Scholem, Pirqei Yesod, p. 164 n. 18. According to Scholem, one
must view these midrashic statements in the context of the anthropo-
LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT 27
morphism of the Shi'ur Qomah tradition. See also Moshe Idel, “The Concept
of Torah in Heikhalot Literature and Its Transformation in Kabbalah,”
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 1, 1981, pp. 43-45 (Hebrew).
96. Zohar 2:84a. This midrashic theme was interpreted in various ways by kab-
balists of the thirteenth century. In one passage, attributed by Scholem to
R. Isaac the Blind, a Provencal kabbalist, the white fire refers symbolically to
Tif’eret, the Written Torah, and the black fire to Malkhut, the Oral Torah.
See Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. Ralph
Manheim (New York: Schocken, 1978), pp. 48-49. For other references,
see Tishby, Perush ha-Aggadot, p. 77 n. 7. The midrash was used in an
altogether different manner by Nahmanides in the introduction to his com-
mentary on the Torah; see p. 2 of the Chavel edition. See Scholem, On the
Kabbalah, p. 38, and Idel, “Concept,” p. 45.
97. Zohar 2:84a. See 1:48b.
98. Zohar 2:82a (based on Deut. 29:9-10). Cf. MS Munich 47, fol. 341a, where de
Leon refers to this passage as “our rabbis, may their memory be blessed,
alluded to, etc.” The exact date of this work is still unclear, but from this
passage it would appear to have been composed after the author had worked
on the Zohar. See, however, Asi Farber, “On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de
Leon’s Early Kabbalistic System,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought ,3, 1984,
pp. 87-88 (Hebrew).
99. Zohar 2:84b, 98. See Zohar 2:90a. Cf. Moses de Leon, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS
British Museum 759, fol. 41a (Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 357-358).
100. See Zohar 1:64a; 2:60a. Cf. Scholem, Oil the Kabbalah, p. 49.
101. See Zohar 3: 153a, 257a.
102. See Zohar 2:161b; 3:264a. Cf. Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1079.
103. See Zohar 1:8a.
104. See Zohar 2:70b, 91a, 162a-b, 165b, 275a; 3:92b ( Ra‘aya Meheimna), 264a;
Zohar Hadash, 54b; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 1157-1158.
105. The Zohar here reflects a statement made by the rabbis to the effect that the
pollution ( zohama ) by means of which the serpent inseminated Eve ceased
when Israel stood at Mount Sinai; see Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 146a,
Yevamot 103b, Avodah Zarah 22b. The Zohar connects this idea with
another rabbinic notion, viz., the cessation of the evil inclination at the
moment of revelation. Specifically, according to one tannaitic source
(R. Nehemiah) , there was a temporary uprooting of the evil inclination from
the hearts of the Israelites when they heard the commandment “Thou shall
have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3) at the event of revelation; see
Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:15, p. 15. According to the zoharic sources, the evil
inclination returned on account of the sin of the golden calf. See Zohar
1:36b, 52b, 63b, 70b, 126b, 228a; 2:94a, 168a, 193b, 236b, 242b; 3:97b. The
final and ultimate destruction of the evil inclination is to occur at the advent
of the Messiah; see Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a. For other references, see
Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken,
1961), p. 290 n. 3; Ephraim Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), pp. 416-417 n. 2 (Hebrew).
106. Zohar 2: 183a-b. See also 3:97a.
107. See Zohar 2:40a, 61b (see Matt, Zohar, pp. 113-116,245-247), 183a; Tishby,
Wisdom, p. 1105. On the unleavened bread as a symbol for the Shekhinah,
the beginning of faith, see note 60.
108. This too is based on a midrashic motif. For references, see Schechter, Aspects,
pp. 273-275.
28 LUMINAL DARKNESS
109. See Zohar 3:63a (Piqqudin), where it is stressed that evil should not be com-
pletely eliminated, for it is as necessary in the world as is the good. The ideal
of spiritual perfection in the Zohar is one in which the person achieves
holiness through contact with the unholy, and by means of such contact the
unholy itself is transformed or contained within the holy. See notes 35, 45,
and 111. The notion that the evil inclination (i.e. the sexual desire) should
not be eradicated, on account of its necessity for the begetting of life in
the world, can be found in several rabbinic sources. See, e.g., Babylonian
Talmud, Yoma 69b; Genesis Rabbah 9:7, pp. 71-72. See also Leviticus
Rabbah, ed. Mordecai Margulies (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
of America, 1993), 14:5, p. 308.
110. See Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 54b. Cf. Zohar 1:155b, 178b; 3:80b,
267a; and Sefer ha-Rimmon, fol. 39b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate,
pp. 100-101],
111. See Zohar 2:26b (with reference to Deut. 4:39), and Sefer ha-Rimmon,
fol. 39b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, p. 101]. Cf. Zohar 2:161b and
3:264a. The wicked, according to the Zohar, cause a blemish (pegam) above
by causing a separation of right and left, that is, by not containing the left
(evil inclination) in the right (good inclination). See Zohar 2:26b. This too
was the sin of Job: by not giving the realm of the Other Side its proper due, he
did not contain the left within the right; see note 45. On the nature of pegam
in the Zohar as the separation of male and female, see Tishby, Wisdom,
p. 1355; Liebes, “Messiah,” p. 198. The notion of the containment of the left
in the right is a pivotal idea upon which much of the theosophical
hermeneutics in the Zohar turns. It would be impossible to give all the con-
texts in which such an idea occurs. Worthy of mention, however, are (1) the
zoharic interpretation of the act of creation; see Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 271,
371-372, 426-429, 549-550; (2) the building of the Tabernacle; see ibid.,
pp. 188-189; (3) the Aqedah; see Zohar 1:119b, 133b, 230b, 2:257a, Sefer ha-
Rimmon, fol. 78b [Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, p. 161], and Gikatilla,
Sha‘arei Orah, 1:224-5; (4) the love of God, ahavah rabbah, which contains
both sides, hesed and din; see Zohar 1: 1 lb— 12a; (5) faith itself, insofar as it
is the union of male and female; see Zohar 1:49b, 55b, 160a, 172b; 2:89a,
92a, 161a.
2 Light through Darkness: The Ideal
of Human Perfection in the Zohar
Introduction
One of the perennial, and more vexing, problems in religious
thought and philosophy has been the question unde malum. In
ancient, medieval, and modern thought, the issue has been viewed
mostly in its theological context. From the perspective of traditional
monotheistic theology, the problem thus presents itself: If God is
truly all good and all powerful, then why would God cause or even
allow evil, whether natural (e.g. earthquakes, floods, human disease)
or moral (murder, rape, and the like), to exist? Inasmuch as the exist-
ence of evil, at least from the phenomenological point of view, is an
indisputable fact, it would seem that either divine omnipotence or
benevolence must be limited . 1
This question, when examined from the divine axis, has
prompted various responses in the religious consciousness of the
West, ranging from the neo-Platonic denial of the reality of evil , 2 on
the one hand, to the dualist affirmation of opposing forces eternally
struggling in a cosmic process , 3 on the other. In the former case, the
whole problem of evil is rendered logically fallacious insofar as evil is
not a real entity but merely the absence of good, just as darkness is not
considered a positive state but merely the absence of light. Technically
speaking, one does not cause darkness, for darkness comes about
simply when light is removed. Similarly, one cannot legitimately ask,
“Does God create evil?” for evil as such is a privation and conse-
quently has no direct cause. While the metaphysician, with cunning
ratiocination, may be satisfied with this approach, the psychological
dimension of evil as an immediate and direct experience for the
individual is hardly addressed by such philosophic gymnastics . 4 In
30 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the case of the dualist position, on the contrary, the real-life struggle
with evil as a positive and immediate force is not only not under-
mined, but maintained on a cosmic level. The consequence of this
posture, however, is that God can be said to have control over only
part of existence , 5 even if in a modified dualist position, such as that
of the Qumran community in the Dead Sea , 6 the one God is the
ultimate cause of both good and evil, light and darkness. Hence, in
the dualistic model, unlike the neo-Platonic, the soul’s existential
grappling with evil is affirmed, but at the expense of severely limiting
divine omnipotence and restricting God’s control over history.
Alternatively, the problem of evil can be viewed from the
vantage point of religious anthropology. That is, in what sense and to
what degree does the person of faith appropriate the evil dimension
of experience - whether it be understood as an internalized principle
of will or as an objective cosmic force - in his or her spiritual quest?
The latter is the focus of this chapter. I will analyze this problem
specifically in terms of the theosophic symbolism of the crowning
work of medieval Jewish mysticism, the Zohar, pseudepigraphically
attributed to the second-century Palestinian rabbi, Simeon ben
Yohai, though actually written in the last decades of the thirteenth
century in northern Spain . 7
This chapter will examine an ideal of human perfection that
is found in the Zohar , 8 according to which one must incorporate evil,
even the demonic side, into one’s spiritual path. I will suggest that
there are two distinct typologies in the Zohar, one positive and the
other negative, and that both assume this to be the case. In the one
instance, appropriation of the demonic is viewed only as a means for
purgation and refinement, whereas in the other it is a means for con-
tainment and unification. Common to both is the assumption that
one can achieve holiness only through the unholy, that one can see
the light only through darkness. The role of the former in the context
of the Zohar’s struggle with dualism has already been discussed by
Isaiah Tishby . 9 As Tishby concludes after surveying the relevant
sources, this notion of incorporating the demonic into the religious
life is a tacit affirmation of the gnostic position by the author of the
Zohar, for, in the final analysis, spiritual perfection is achieved only
after one wins the battle against the forces of evil and darkness. While
this may be the case, Tishby does not take into account the second
typology that I will discuss. Regarding this latter notion, however,
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 31
the Zohar makes its most innovative contribution and, in my opin-
ion, provides us with an Aufheben of the gnostic position. At the
outset I should like to note that these are not the only ideals that one
can discover in the Zohar. At times, the Zohar stresses that one
should avoid all contact with evil , 10 while at other times, the author
envisions a messianic future in which the demonic shell, to use a
zoharic metaphor that became central in later Jewish mysticism , 11
will be broken . 12 Notwithstanding this qualification, the theme that I
have selected warrants special treatment, for it is, in my view, the
ethical doctrine most consistent with the mythological and
theosophical assumptions of the Zohar.
The “Gnostic” Influence
Among the most important sources that informed the theosophic
outlook of the author of the Zohar are kabbalistic texts derived from
what Scholem has called the “gnostic” school that emerged in the
second half of the thirteenth century in Castile . 13 The essential doc-
trine of this school, which distinguished it from earlier kabbalistic
currents such as the Gerona school , 14 was the affirmation of a
demonic force that structurally parallels the divine: as the one is con-
stituted by ten “holy” emanations ( sefirot ) on the right, so the other
is constituted by ten “unholy” emanations on the left. Already in the
Sefer ha-Bahir, the first literary source based on a theosophic doc-
trine of emanations to emerge in medieval Europe , 15 Satan is identi-
fied as one of the divine “attributes,” the “left hand” “whose name is
evil” and “who is set on the north side of God .” 16 In the kabbalistic
circles of Castile, however, the demonic is presented not simply as
one of the powers of God, but rather as a realm fully complementing
that of the divine. In the words of Moses of Burgos, a member of the
circle, “There is a left [side] corresponding to the right, intended to
perfect the right side, to punish and chastise with ‘chastisements of
love’ those who walk in a bad way in order to purify them .” 17 Or, as
expressed by another member of the circle, Todros Abulaha: “Where
dogs bark there the Angel of Death is to be seen, for [he] is emanated
from the left side, which is an emanation in itself .” 18 It must be
emphasized, however, that the dualistic posture in this circle is not of
an ontological or metaphysical sort. That is, the kabbalistic conception
32 LUMINAL DARKNESS
as it developed in Castile did not posit two absolute cosmic powers.
R. Moses and R. Todros explicitly state that the one God makes both
good and evil, light and dark, the good and evil impulses of the
human individual. 19 Against this conceptual background we must
understand these kabbalists’ concern with the question of the genesis
of the demonic left side. The underlying assumption here is that even
the demonic derives from a stage in the emanative process. The
demonic is thus depicted as an extension of a divine attribute, usually
identified as judgment, 20 rather than as an autonomous power. 21
Yet, these very same kabbalists insisted on an ongoing cosmic
struggle between the domains of light and darkness, sometimes
pictured as a mythical war between the seven forces on the right and
seven demonic archons on the left. For R. Moses, it would appear
that this struggle is a fundamental, enduring ontological principle:
“All reality,” he wrote, “is dependent on peace and war, which are
opposites.” 22 “And this is an established tradition handed over to all
masters of the hidden wisdom ... that reality in general could not exist
except through the existents that do good and [those] that do evil,
[those] that establish and sustain, [and those] that exterminate and
destroy, [those that] give reward and [those] that punish.” 23 In con-
trast, R. Moses’ teacher, R. Isaac ha-Kohen, imagines a time when the
demonic will be uprooted. Thus, he ends his “Treatise on the Left
Emanations” with an apocalyptic description of the time-to-come
(based on legends recorded in Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 74b)
when Gabriel, the angel of judgment, together with Michael, the angel
of love, will descend to destroy the powers of Samael and Lilith: “And
when it is willed the emanation that comes from the side of Samael
and Lilith through the blind angel will be diminished and weakened
in utter destruction by means of Gabriel, the angel of strength, who
stirs up a war with them with the help of the angel of love.” 24 When the
emanations of the left are destroyed, then once again “the bride [i.e.
Shekhinah] will rejoice with her groom [ Tif’eret] and the righteous
will take pleasure” in the salty flesh of the slain Leviathan. 25
The gnostic theme of competing cosmic forces is likewise
one of the essential doctrines of the Zohar. Like his Castilian prede-
cessors, the author of the Zohar posits a demonic realm, Sitra Ahra,
the “Other Side,” which parallels the divine. 26 Moreover, the author
of the Zohar similarly was concerned with the problem of the origin
of evil. Elsewhere I have discussed the two basic approaches to this
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 33
problem in the Zohar, which I have termed, respectively the “cathar-
tic” and the “emanative” views. 27 According to the former, evil is the
waste eliminated from divine thought, a process that occurs during
the first stages of activity before the emanative process. 28 The pri-
mary act is conceived of as an excretion of the unbalanced forces of
judgment, referred to as the “glowing sparks in divine thought” 29 or
mythically as the “primordial kings of Edom who died” (based on
Gen. 36:3 1) 30 or the “worlds created and destroyed.” 31 As a result of
the divine catharsis, two sides emerged: the side of happiness (the
holy realm) and the side of sadness (the demonic). 32 The source of
evil, then, is in the dross contained in divine thought. 33 For the pur-
poses of this analysis, it is important to bear in mind that the sphere
of untempered judgment precedes that of the balanced and harmo-
nious cosmos, the “Edomite” kings before the “Israelite” kings, 34 the
destroyed worlds before the worlds that are sustained.
According to the second category, the demonic realm is
viewed as a link in the continuous chain of being. There are no
absolute gaps in nature and hence no complete break between the
divine and the demonic. Indeed, in one place 35 the Zohar describes all
of reality in terms of the image of a nut that is composed of the shell
and the kernel: one grade is a shell to the grade above, which, in rela-
tion to the grade below, is the kernel but in relation to the grade above
a shell, and so on. This conception is clearly philosophic in nature,
reflecting particularly, as Alexander Altmann has shown, 36 the
neo-Platonic idea of the continuity of being that was well known to
the kabbalists from various sources. Insofar as all of reality is one, the
demonic cannot be viewed as being in absolute opposition to the
divine. On the contrary, the former must derive from the latter. It is
thus that the author of the Zohar, following the precedent set by other
kabbalists, locates the source for evil in the left side of the divine. 37
Furthermore, an imbalance in the sehrotic world, a breaking of the
harmony between right and left, ultimately eventuates in the coming-
to-be of an “autonomous” left realm. With respect to the question of
what creates this imbalance, again two lines can be drawn: the imbal-
ance results from an internal process but can be reinforced as a result
of human sin. 38 Hence, while the demonic structurally parallels the
divine, the former is ontologically posterior to the latter.
Thus far there is a clear line of development from the earlier
sources to the Zohar. In one pivotal notion, however, the Zohar went
34 LUMINAL DARKNESS
beyond these sources. As mentioned above, although the Castilian
mystics affirmed that God created both the right and left, they
posited no mediating principle by which the dark force could be
incorporated into the path of light. In the case of R. Isaac, it seems
clear that the emanations of the left are accorded no place in the reli-
gious life. The demonic, though originating in the divine, remains
outside it until such time that the emanation of the left will be alto-
gether annihilated. For R. Moses, while it is true that the forces of evil
and darkness are accorded a place in the divine scheme as instru-
ments through which the wicked are punished, he still does not
assign to these forces any role whatsoever in the devotional life of the
saintly or pious. The author of the Zohar, in contrast, does assign
such a role to the underworld of darkness. Moreover, he provides us
with a mediating principle, the containment of the left in the right, in
virtue of which the demonic is restored to the right. This notion is an
exegetical axis upon which much of zoharic hermeneutics turns . 39 In
many cases the reference is to an inter-divine process - the contain-
ment of the divine attribute of judgment in the attribute of love, the
left hand within the right. However, it can also refer to the contain-
ment of the demonic left within the divine right. As we shall see,
these two uses are dialectically interrelated in the Zohar.
Descent As Spiritual Perfection
The incorporation of the Other Side in the religious life is unequivo-
cally affirmed by the Zohar in several contexts. There is, first of all,
the zoharic claim that the path of the spiritual adept is one of descent
followed by ascent, that is, before one achieves the status of holiness
one must descend into the realm of evil . 40 There is a clear connection,
as Tishby has noted , 41 between this theme and the idea later
developed by Sabbatian theology on the basis of Isaac Luria’s teaching
about the necessary descent into the demonic shells or, as formulated
subsequently by the Hasidim, “descent for the sake of ascent .” 42 In the
Zohar, the purpose of the descent, however, is not to raise the fallen
sparks, to use the standard Lurianic term, but rather to purge the soul
of all its impurities. It seems to me that the analogue for this notion
of purgation in the Zohar is the cathartic view of the divine men-
tioned above: just as God had to discharge the impure forces in
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 35
divine thought before God could emanate the holy forces, so too the
human soul must refine itself and remove all dross before it can
attain the level of holiness. This image of spiritual transformation
drawn from alchemy is related by the Zohar to the verse “And Abram
went down to Egypt” (Gen. 12:10):
R. Simeon said, Come and see: Everything has secret wisdom.
This verse hints at wisdom and the levels down below, to the
depths of which Abraham descended. He knew them but did
not become attached ... Come and see the secret of the word:
If Abram had not gone into Egypt and been refined there first,
he could not have partaken of the Blessed Holy One. Similarly
with his children, when the Blessed Holy One wanted to make
them unique, a perfect people, and to draw them near to Him:
If they had not gone down to Egypt and been refined there first,
they would not have become His special ones. So too the Holy
Land: If she had not been given first to Canaan to control, she
would not have become the portion, the share of the Blessed
Holy One. 43
The esoteric meaning of Abram’s descent into Egypt, like
that of the children of Israel in the time of Moses, is spiritual purifi-
cation by means of contact with the demonic (symbolized by Egypt).
Moses Cordovero (1522-70) in his commentary on this section in
the Zohar says, “As silver is refined in lead, so holiness is refined
through the power of the demonic.” 44 Before partaking of holiness,
of entering the sehrotic realm, it is necessary to go down to the
depths of the unholy. Indeed, the land itself, according to the Zohar,
could not become holy unless it were first inhabited by Canaan, the
force of the unholy. This last sentence is all the more daring inas-
much as the “Land of Israel” is a mystical symbol for the Shekhinah.
The Zohar ’s point, then, is that even the Shekhinah must be purified
through contact with the demonic.
In the passage above, the role accorded to the demonic in the
religious life is negative - one enters the world of darkness merely to
purge one’s own impurities, to remove the dross from the silver. The
dialectic of the spiritual path, however, is established by the Zohar in
various other ways. In one place it is related to the close proximity
that the Shekhinah, the last of the holy emanations, has to the
36 LUMINAL DARKNESS
demonic world. Much of the struggle between the demonic and
divine is played out with respect to the Shekhinah, for she is the
divine power that borders on the demonic, indeed, is a bridge
between light and darkness. 45 She is thus described in the very first
lines of the Zohar as a rose surrounded by thorns. This point is made
clearly in the Zohar’s commentary on Exodus 3:2, “And the angel of
the Lord [ Shekhinah ] appeared to him [Moses] in a flame of hre
out of the midst of a thorn-bush”: “The thorn-bush [i.e. the demonic
potency] was surely within that holiness [i.e. Shekhinah] and cleav-
ing to it, for everything cleaves together, the pure and the impure;
there is no purity except from within impurity. This is the mystery,
‘Who can bring a pure thing from what is impure’ ( Job 14:4). The
shell and the kernel are together.” 46 Just as in the realm above shell
and kernel, evil and good, are bound together, so too below in the
human domain: the sacred emerges out of the profane.
Another hermeneutical context in which this dialectic is
established is the Zohar’s comment in response to the question of
why the Torah was given in the desert, the place where the force of the
demonic dominates:
The words of Torah reside only there, for there is no light
except that which emerges out of darkness. When that [Other]
Side is subdued the Holy One, blessed be He, ascends and is
glorified. And there is no divine worship except amidst dark-
ness, and no good except within evil. When a person enters an
evil way and forsakes it, then the Holy One, blessed be He,
ascends in His glory. Thus the perfection of all is good and
evil together, and afterwards to ascend to the good ... This is
complete worship. 47
The most perfect divine worship is only that which emerges
out of darkness, for only when one returns to the good from evil
is the Other Side “subdued” and the Holy One “glorified.” Tishby
sees in this passage a tacit affirmation of the Zohar’s dualistic
stance, for the ultimate worship entails the victory of the human over
the demonic. 48 It seems to me, however, that the notion of subduing
the Other Side entails not the eradication but rather the reintegra-
tion of demonic energy to its divine source. I shall return to this
point later.
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 37
Containment of the Demonic in the Divine
The inclusion of the demonic in the spiritual path is also affirmed in
connection with Job, whose fatal flaw, according to the Zohar, was
that he separated good and evil instead of containing them together.
Here the Zohar uses slightly different terminology that, as we shall
see, holds the key to understanding the Zohar’s unique principle of
mediation or synthesis:
Job never gave any portion to [the Other Side], as it is written
“he offered up burnt offerings according to the number of them
all” (Job 1:5). The burnt offering rises upward. He did not give
any portion to the Other Side for had he given him a portion he
could not have overcome him afterwards ... Come and see: Just
as he separated and did not contain the good and evil
[together], so in the exact manner he was judged: [God] gave
him good and then evil and then returned him to the good.
Thus it is fitting for a person to know good and to know evil,
and then return to the good. That is the secret of faith. 49
In the Zohar, the mitswot have one of two purposes: either to
strengthen and sustain the realm of holiness by maintaining the flow
of divine light from the uppermost grades to the lowest, or to neu-
tralize the forces of evil so they do not interfere with the unity of the
holy realm. 50 Sacrifices in particular, according to the Zohar, are an
instance where we quite literally “give the devil his due.” That is, a
portion of every sacrifice is set aside for SitraAhra, the one exception
being the olah, the burnt offering, which according to Scripture is
burnt entirely for God. Job, however, offered up only burnt offerings,
thus depriving the demonic of its proper share.
The sin of Job is referred to as “not including evil and good
together,” for had he offered a sacrifice with an allotted portion to the
demonic he would have comprised the two together in one act. Job is,
accordingly, described in Scripture as being “removed from evil”
(Job 1:8), that is, he had no portion in the Other Side. 51 Paradoxically,
by not participating in evil, Job was overcome by evil; by separating
evil from good, Job strengthened the former. From the case of Job we
can learn, therefore, the “secret of faith”: “one should know good and
evil” and only then “return to the good.” This parallels the description
38 LUMINAL DARKNESS
of the “perfection of all” examined above: “good and evil together, and
afterwards to ascend to the good.” But here, in contrast to the other
passages we have cited, the Zohar speaks about containment.
The ideal state is one in which evil and good are contained
together as one, and not one in which evil and good are separated.
Had Job contained good and evil together - in one sacrifice - then
evil as an autonomous force would have been subdued, or, in the
language of the Zohar, Satan would have been removed from the
sanctuary ( Shekhinah) and the side of holiness would have ascended
upwards. The removal of Satan from the sanctuary cannot come
about, however, by means of the total divorce of the demonic from
the holy, for such a divorce is precisely what Job sought to accom-
plish. Satan is removed from the holy only when the demonic and
holy are combined together by means of the proper human inten-
tion. The one who separates good and evil sustains the “quasi” inde-
pendence of the demonic realm, whereas the one who contains the
two together restores the demonic to its divine root. An act of
separation or division merely increases evil, which by definition is
separation and division.
It is interesting to note that this exegetical comment on Job
occurs as part of the Zohar section on Exodus 10:1, “And the Lord said
to Moses, ‘Go in to Pharaoh.’ ” According to the Zohar, the esoteric
meaning of this verse is that God implored Moses to plumb the inner
depths of the divine secrets concerning the demonic, symbolized by
the kingdom of Egypt and especially its chief power, Pharaoh. Moses,
unlike Job, did not flee from evil; rather he was commanded specif-
ically to acquire knowledge of it. Such knowledge was considered by
the Castilian kabbalists and by the author of the Zohar to be the most
esoteric of all kabbalistic wisdom. 52 It seems to me that, in the case of
the Zohar, the claim that this knowledge holds the key to divine
secrets can be explained by the fact that only one who knows both the
demonic and the divine can understand the underlying unity of the
two realms. 53 And only one who knows this can unify God, for by
uniting the left with the right, one regains an original wholeness or
unity of opposites that is present in the Godhead before the process of
differentiation unfolds. As it is expressed in one place in the Zohar:
R. Isaac said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the
world and wanted to reveal the depth out of the hiddenness and
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 39
the light from within the darkness, they were contained within
one another. Therefore out of darkness emerged the light and
out of the hiddenness emerged and was revealed the depth. One
emerged from the other ... And all things were contained one
with another, the good inclination and the evil inclination,
right and left, Israel and the nations, white and black. All things
were dependent on one another. 54
The ethical demand that evil be contained in the good mirrors the
ontological principle of coincidentia oppositorum. To separate good
and evil is ultimately to deny the unity of the divine.
The containment of the evil inclination in the good is
developed most fully in the Zohar’s interpretation of Deuteronomy
4:39: “And know this day, and consider it in your hearts, that the Lord
is God.” Here too, as we shall see, this idea has a direct bearing on the
notion of yihud, unification of the divine:
R. Eliezer began to expound: It is written, “And know this day,
and consider it in your hearts, that the Lord is God” (Deut. 4:39) .
This verse should have been written as follows: “And know this
day that the Lord is God, and consider it in your hearts.” More-
over, it should have said “consider it in your heart” ( libbekha ).
Yet Moses said: If you want to understand this and know that
the Lord is God, then consider it in your hearts ( levavekha) and
you will know it. “Your hearts” - the good inclination and the
evil inclination, 55 for one is contained in the other and they are
one. Then you will know that the Lord is God for one is con-
tained in the other, and they are one. Thus it is written “consider
it in your hearts” in order to know the matter. Moreover,
R. Eliezer said: the wicked make a blemish above. What [is] the
blemish? For the left is not contained in the right, the evil inclin-
ation is not contained in the good inclination on account of the
sins of humanity ... And thus it says, “And consider it in your
hearts,” to contain them as one, the left in the right. 56
The secret knowledge alluded to in Deuteronomy 4:39 con-
cerns the unification of the two names of God: YHWH and Elohim.
In kabbalistic terms, these two names correspond to the two divine
attributes Tif’eret, the Holy One, the sixth sefirah, and Malkhut, or
40 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Shekhinah, the tenth sefirah. This kabbalistic interpretation is based,
in the hnal analysis, upon the rabbinic explanation of these names:
YHWH referring to the divine attribute of rahamim, mercy, and
Elohim to the attribute of din, rigor or stern judgment . 57 It is clear
that in this passage the two names refer to the male and female
potencies within the sehrotic world: the male vis-a-vis the female is
merciful (overflowing, gracious), whereas the female vis-a-vis the
male is judgmental (limiting, restricting). To know that the attrib-
utes of mercy and judgment are contained one within the other,
that YHWH is Elohim - that is the esoteric knowledge imparted by
this verse.
But how is such knowledge possible? The key to attaining
this lies in the “consideration” of one’s hearts, the two inclinations of
the human spirit. When one examines the hearts within, one will
discover that the two hearts, the good and evil inclinations, are con-
tained one within another. It must be pointed out, however, that the
two inclinations in the Zohar do not merely represent psychological
principles of will or impulse as they do in the classical rabbinic
sources ; 58 they correspond, respectively, to the ontological forces of
the divine and the demonic. The good inclination on the right side
symbolizes the force of holiness rooted in the sehrotic realm,
whereas the evil inclination symbolizes the force of impurity rooted
in the demonic realm . 59 The point of this passage, however, is to
establish the principle that the two forces are to be contained one
within the other. Indeed, the wicked cause a blemish above, for by
doing evil they cling exclusively to the evil inclination and conse-
quently do not contain the left within the right.
The containment of the evil inclination within the good not
only reflects the containment of Elohim within YHWH, but serves as
a foundation for deriving this higher esoteric knowledge, a know-
ledge described elsewhere in the Zohar as the “secret of faith .” 60 The
verse thus reads, “And know this day, and consider it in your hearts
that the Lord is God,” for in order to know that the Lord is God,
that mercy and judgment are one, the person must consider the
unity of his hearts, the evil and good inclinations. The containment
of the demonic left within the divine right is thus an essential com-
ponent of yihud, the unification of the divine left and right. In
mythic terms, it is the feminine aspect of the divine that unites with
the masculine. This unity, however, is threatened by the forces of evil,
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 41
Sitra Ahra, which try to capture the Shekhinah and thereby cause a
separation between the masculine and feminine. The one who does
not unite evil with the good allows the evil to remain autonomous
and, consequently, disrupts the unity of male and female within the
divine. The ideal for the righteous is therefore to contain the left
within the right; the wicked, by contrast, “separate the evil inclin-
ation from the good, and cleave to evil.” 61 According to the Zohar, as
we have seen, the sin of Job likewise was that he separated good and
evil, though not by clinging to evil but rather by fleeing from it.
Hence, to exclude evil absolutely is in effect the same as exclusively
cleaving to evil: both bring about the separation of forces that should
be united.
That the ideal state is one of containment rather than eradi-
cation of the demonic is suggested to me by two other passages. The
first is the Zohar ’s interpretation of Psalm 51:20: “Do good in thy
favour to Zion, build the walls of Jerusalem.” 62 The verse refers to the
restoration of Zion and the building of the Temple in the future. The
Zohar notes that at first God shall do good to Zion, the inner city, and
only afterwards build up the walls of Jerusalem. This is a reversal of
the ordinary human process in which the building of the wall (the
shell) precedes that of the sanctuary (the kernel) so that the former
can protect the latter. Why do we find a reversal here? The Zohar
responds, “In the case of the building of the Temple when the evil side
will be removed from the world it will not be necessary [for the wall
to precede and thereby protect the sanctuary] because the kernel and
shell shall belong to Her [the Temple = Shekhinah] .” Note carefully
the exact language of the text: on one hand, we are told that the evil
side is removed from the world, de-sitra visha yit‘avar me-alma,
while on the other hand we are told that the shell and the kernel
belong to the Temple, de-ha moha u-qelippah deleih hawei. When the
Temple is not standing and the evil side has dominion in the world,
then there is a separation of inner and outer, the kernel and the shell;
when, however, the Temple is rebuilt and evil is removed from the
world, then inner and outer both belong to the holy. The Zohar does
not conclude by saying that there is no longer any shell in the time
of the restoration of Zion; 63 it says rather that in that time, the shell
itself as the kernel will be part of the holy Temple (symbolic of the
Shekhinah). This is, according to the Zohar, the intent of the biblical
expression “the walls of Jerusalem,” that is, “that wall on the outside
42 LUMINAL DARKNESS
that is the shell verily belongs to her,” ha-hi homah di-levar de-ihi
qelippah deleih hi mammash.
There is finally an extraordinary passage that again affirms
the ideal of the reintegration of the demonic in the divine. Leviticus
23:17 says that the people of Israel were ordered to bring as the first-
fruits of the Lord on Pentecost two wave loaves baked with leaven.
The author of the Zohar wonders: why is the biblical injunction to
bring specifically leavened bread on Pentecost, the day that com-
memorates the Sinaitic revelation, the very ingredient forbidden on
Passover, the day that commemorates the exodus from Egypt? To this
query the Zohar responds,
Now we must look carefully. On Passover Israel went out from
the bread that is called leaven, as it is written, “You shall not see
any leaven” (Exod. 13:7) ... What is the reason? On account of
the honor of that bread that is called unleavened. Now that
Israel merited the highest bread, it was not appropriate for the
leaven to be wiped out and not seen at all. And why was this
sacrifice from leaven? ... For on that very day [Pentecost] the evil
inclination was wiped out because the Torah, which is called
freedom, was to be found. 64
The Zohar goes on to give a parable in order to elucidate the
point. 65 A king had an only son who was sick. When the son desired
to eat, it was necessary to give him only the prescribed medicine;
after he ate the medicine and became healthy he could eat whatever
he desired. “Similarly,” continues the Zohar,
when Israel left Egypt they did not know the essence or secret of
Faith. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Israel shall eat medi-
cine, and until they eat the medicine no other food shall be
shown to them. When they ate the unleavened bread, which was
medicine in order to enter and to know the secret of Faith, the
Holy One, blessed be He, said: From now on leaven shall be
shown to them, and they can eat it, for it cannot harm them.
And all the more so on the day of Pentecost the supernal bread,
which is the complete medicine, is summoned.
In this passage, two statements would appear to contradict
one another. On the one hand, the author of the Zohar states that on
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 43
Pentecost “it was not appropriate for the leaven [symbolic of the evil
inclination 66 ] to be wiped out and not seen "while on the other hand,
relying on rabbinic sources , 67 he states that on that very day “the evil
inclination was wiped out.” This apparent tension can be resolved
only if we understand the two assertions in terms of the dialectic that
we have examined in the course of this chapter. Upon leaving Egypt,
where the people of Israel were immersed in the demonic shells , 68
they had to remove all vestiges of evil and enter the way of holiness.
Hence the leaven, symbolic of the Other Side, had to be removed, and
unleavened bread, symbolic of the first gradation of faith, the
Shekhinah, had to be consumed . 69 After the people received the
higher type of bread, the bread of wisdom embodied in the Torah , 70
symbolic of Tif’eret , 71 this was no longer necessary. At the Sinaitic
revelation the left side was reappropriated by Israel, for at that time it
presented no danger to the people, its efficacy being undermined by
the Torah, the “complete medicine .” 72 By means of the “higher
bread” the unholy is restored to its source in the holy and no longer
need be destroyed.
Conclusion
From all the texts that we have examined, a clear pattern has emerged.
The spiritual path that is most complete is one that incorporates evil
as well as good. The conceptual framework for this ideal in the Zohar
is the dialectical relation that exists between the demonic and the
divine. That is, the former is rooted in and sustained by the latter. We
have seen above, however, that there are basically two ways to explain
this in the Zohar: the cathartic and the emanative views. In either
case, the ethical ideal of inclusion of the left in the spiritual path fol-
lows logically. Yet, in one case the ideal is merely negative and in the
other positive.
According to the cathartic view, just as in the divine the
forces of impurity emerged prior to those of holiness, so too in the
life of the human spirit the evil inclination precedes the good. More-
over, just as the initial stage in the divine process is a purging of evil,
so too by the human spirit purification of the impure is the prelim-
inary stage in the path. This purification is achieved exclusively by
means of contact with the impure. In terms of the Zohar’s own
44 LUMINAL DARKNESS
symbolic language: one must go down to Egypt before one can
enter the Holy Land.
According to the emanative view, on the other hand, the
demonic force is said to have emanated from one of the grades in the
upper realm. To contain evil in the good - that is the true affirmation
of divine unity, for in its ontic root the evil is bound to the good . 73 It
follows, therefore, that even in the darkness there is a spark of light.
This notion, which became a central motif in the kabbalah of Isaac
Luria and subsequently in the writings of the Hasidim, is not stated
explicitly in the Zohar, although it is implicit in various contexts,
some of which we have already mentioned. In contrast to later
sources, however, the task of homo religiosus in the Zohar is not the
separation of the holy spark from the demonic shell , 74 but rather
inclusion of the latter in the former. Evil has no absolute existence in
itself; it is ontologically posterior to the divine, for the life-force of
evil derives from the divine attribute of judgment. The realm of evil
is constituted by the unbalanced force of judgment that has, as it
were, assumed an unwarranted autonomy. Hence, the religious and
moral task of the human being is to restore that energy to its divine
source, to balance judgment with mercy, to temper the untempered
force of severity with the effluence of love - to contain the left in
the right.
The gnostic sources imparted to the kabbalah the idea of
two forces, light and dark, right and left, which structurally parallel
each other. Both these forces have their origin in the one God.
According to these sources, however, there is no principle by which
to reintegrate the demonic into the divine. At best, there is an affirm-
ation of the old apocalyptic idea, albeit in new symbolic terms, of
the eventual uprooting of evil by the good. Even the characterization
of the demonic as God’s instrument in punishing and purifying the
wicked does not imply a restoration of the evil forces to their source
in the divine. The Zohar, in contrast, although accepting the gnostic
typology, introduced into the discussion a mediating principle, “the
left contained in the right,” and by doing so, moved beyond gnostic
dualism into theosophical monism. The theosophical doctrine,
moreover, is reflected in the moral and religious sphere. That is, the
ethical task of the human being is to contain the left in the right and
thereby restore the former to its source in the latter. The idea of spir-
itual perfection as it is developed in certain zoharic texts is one in
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 45
which the person achieves holiness through contact with the unholy,
and by means of such contact, the unholy is transformed and con-
tained in the holy. The purpose of religious life is not to liberate the
spark of light from its demonic shell in order to separate the two
realms. On the contrary, the one who separates the two, like Job, cre-
ates a blemish above. The goal, however, is to contain the left in the
right. To see the light through darkness - that, according to the
Zohar, is the ultimate perfection.
Notes
1. The scholarly literature on this issue is vast. As a representative philosophical
treatment of the problem, see H. J. McCloskey, “God and Evil,” in God and
Evil , ed. Nelson Pike (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964), pp. 61-84.
2. The classical formulation of evil as the privation of good is to be found in
Plotinus, Enneads 1:8 (the following citations are taken from the Loeb edition
of Plotinus translated by A. H. Armstrong). Cf. Enneads 1:8.1: “evil ... appears
in the absence of every sort of good;” “the better [i.e. the good] is Form, and the
worse [i.e. evil] is nothing but privation of form.” See Enneads 1:8.3: “evil
cannot be included in what really exists [i.e. Intellect or Soul] or in what is
beyond existence [the One] , for these are good. So it remains that if evil exists,
it must be among non-existent things, as a sort of form of non-existence.”
Plotinus further identifies matter as the principle of absolute evil insofar as the
quality of formlessness or privation essentially characterizes matter; all bodies,
on the other hand, that participate in matter are said to be “secondary” evil. See
Enneads 1:8.6: “But when something is absolutely deficient - and this is matter
- this is essential evil without any share in good.” See, however, Enneads 5:8.7:
“Then matter too is a sort of ultimate form.” A key Platonic text for the
Plotinian conception is Theaetetus 176a: “Evils ... can never be done away, for
the good must always have its contrary, nor have they any place in the divine
world; but they must needs haunt this region of our moral nature ... In the
divine there is no shadow of unrighteousness, only the perfection of righteous-
ness.” On the view that only good can be attributed to God, see note 6. The
Plotinian position became the most widely accepted view in subsequent Chris-
tian writers. See Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names and Mystical
Theology, trans. John Jones (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980),
pp. 73-88, 148-162 = Divine Names 4\ 18-35; James B. Russell, Satan: The Early
Christian Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), pp. 109-112,
128-129, 202-203; Regis Jolivet, Le probleme du mal d’apres Saint Augustin
(Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1936), pp. 28-43, 131-162; Jacques Maritain, Saint
Thomas and the Problem of Evil (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,
1942). For a parallel to this line of reasoning in the medieval Jewish tradition,
cf. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Sholom Pines (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1963), 3:10, pp. 438-440.
3. Perhaps the best-known form of this dualism is that of Iranian Zoroastrianism,
which sets good and evil at the beginning of world history. Yet, as
scholars have argued, even the dualism of Sassanian and Gathic Zoroastrianism
46 LUMINAL DARKNESS
was qualified inasmuch as the “Wise Lord” is both ontologically superior and
chronologically prior to the evil spirit. See Shaul Shaked, “Some Notes on
Ahreman, the Evil Spirit, and His Creation,” in Studies in Mysticism and Reli-
gion presented to Gershom Scholem , ed. Ephraim E. Urbach, R. J. Zwi
Werblowsky, and Chaim Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967),
pp. 227-234. And see the comprehensive study by Richard C. Zaehner,
Znrvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955). A
species of this type of dualism, in one form or another, characterizes the syn-
cretistic phenomenon of gnosticism that flourished in the first centuries of the
Common Era. Various explanations for the origin of gnostic dualism have
been given by scholars, most notably Hans Jonas, who distinguished between
two kinds of gnostic dualism: ( 1 ) the “Iranian,” represented by the Mandaean
and Manichaean writings, which affirmed an eternal opposition between the
forces of good and evil; and (2) the “Syro-Egyptian” strand, represented by the
Nag Hammadi texts and the systems described by the Church Fathers, in
which evil - the material world - derives from a “tragic split” in the Godhead,
a fall within the divine realm. Cf. Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spatantiker Geist
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939), vol. 1, pp. 256-267, 328-331.
For a succinct summary of the different gnostic views, see Kurt Rudolph,
Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. Robert McL. Wilson (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 59-67. See also Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa,
Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984), pp. 17-34,
which traces the basis of the “Gnostic mythological consciousness of evil”
to a “radical transformation” of the Jewish apocalyptic myth of the Fallen
Angels.
4. See the description of evil in James B. Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from
Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1977), pp. 17-35.
5. The view that God is the author only of the good can likewise be traced to Plato;
cf. Republic 379c: “for the good we must assume no other cause than God, but
the cause of evil we must look for in other things and not God.” See also the
citation from Theaetetus given in note 2. According to Philo, Quod omnis
probus liber 12:84, the Essenes maintained “the belief that the deity is the cause
of all good, but of no evil.” On several occasions Philo himself maintains that
God is the cause only of the good, and evil is caused by the powers subordinate
to God; see Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1947), vol. l,pp. 272-273.
6. Jacob Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD,” Scripta
Hierosolymitana, 4, 1958, pp. 88-99; A. R. C. Leaney, The Ride ofQumran and
Its Meaning (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), pp. 37-56; Preben
Wernberg-Moller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the
Community (IQS III, 13-IV, 26),” Revue Qumran, 3, 1961-62, pp. 413-441.
See also John G. Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and
Apocalyptic Literature,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 93, 1974, pp. 356-385.
Some scholars have argued that even Zoroastrian dualism is not absolute
“metaphysical dualism” inasmuch as the evil spirit, like the good spirit, derives
from the one Wise Lord; see note 3. In a certain respect there is a fundamental
inconsistency in the Qumran doctrine, for, on the one hand, God is said to be
the creator of both spirits, evil and good, yet, on the other hand, the eschato-
logical culmination of history is envisioned as a time when the sons of light will
rise up and conquer - indeed destroy - the sons of darkness. (For a similar
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 47
tension in Zoroastrianism, see Richard C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of
Zoroastrianism [New York: Putnam, 1961], pp. 308-316.) If one begins from
the monotheistic premise that God creates both good and evil, then the rab-
binic ideal that one must worship God with both the good and evil inclinations
(cf. Mishnah, Berakhot 9.5; Sifre on Deuteronomy, sec. 32, p. 55) must be seen
as a more logically consistent doctrine. For the rabbinic affirmation of God as
creating the good and evil inclinations, a form of ethical dualism not unrelated
to the Qumran doctrine, cf. Genesis Rahbah 1:14, p. 128; Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan on Gen. 2:7; Sifre on Deuteronomy, sec. 45, p. 103; Solomon
Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken, 1961), p. 290 n. 3;
Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1978), pp. 416-417 n. 2 (Hebrew). And cf. the interpretation of Eccl.
7:14, “God has made one even as the other,” attributed to R. Aqivain Babylon-
ian Talmud, Hagigah 15a: “He created the righteous and he created the wicked,
he created the Garden of Eden and he created Gehinnom.” For an analysis of
this text, see Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), pp. 22.
See also the interesting parallel to this passage in Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 28,
p. 426: “ ‘God has made the one even as the other,’ God has made the righteous
and the wicked, as it is written ‘Then his brother emerged, holding on to the
heel of Esau’ (Gen. 25:26). R. Pinhas [in the name of] R. Hilqiah in the name of
R. Simon said: not even a rib was between them, and the one emerged right-
eous and the other wicked.” In this case the wicked created by God has been
subsumed typologically under the figure of Esau and the righteous under the
figure of Jacob; see note 34. On the appellation “wicked” for Esau in rabbinic
sources, see Irit Aminoff, “The Figures Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in
Palestinian Midrashic-Talmudic Literature in the Tannaitic and Amoraic
Periods,” Ph.D. dissertation, Melbourne University, 1981, pp. 15-17, 27-28,
and passim. It must be pointed out, however, that certain rabbinic statements
reflect the apocalyptic view that posited an abrogation of the evil inclination at
the end of time; see note 1 1 . Cf. also the following interpretation of Ps. 5:5, “evil
cannot abide in You,” in Midrash Tehillim, ed. Solomon Buber (Vilna: Rom,
1891) 5:7, 27b: “For You do not dwell by evil nor evil by You.” Though the
fuller context of this passage is not clear, it would seem that the midrashist
wants to remove evil from God in a way that would be analogous to the
Platonic tradition.
7. On the author of the Zohar, assumed by scholars to be Moses ben Shem Tov de
Leon (ca. 1240-1305), see Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 156-204; idem, Kab-
balah, pp. 213-242; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 91-94; Matt, Zohar, pp. 3-10; and
Elliot R. Wolfson, “Sefer ha-Rimmon: Critical Edition and Introductory
Study,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 1986,
pp. 1-43 (Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 11-71).
8. For the purposes of this study I am limiting my analysis to the main body of the
Zohar. On the various literary strata that make up the Zohar, see Scholem,
Major Trends, pp. 159-162.
9. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 447-448. The problem of evil in the Zohar was also
discussed briefly by Scholem in Major Trends, pp. 235-239, and more fully
in idem, Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (Zurich: Rhein-Verlag,
1 962 ), pp. 49-82. Like Tishby, Scholem also tended to emphasize the “gnostic”
or dualistic dimension of the Zohar’s treatment, though he too noted
that at times the author of the Zohar affirmed a more monistic, even
pantheistic, approach, stressing that there is only one continuous reality in
existence.
48 LUMINAL DARKNESS
10. This theme is especially emphasized in connection with certain command-
ments whose purpose is to separate the divine and demonic realms. Further-
more, the position of Israel vis-a-vis the other nations is viewed in terms of
this separation of demonic and divine realms. See Yitzhak Baer, A History of
the Jews in Christian Spain, trans. Louis Schoffman, 2 vols. (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961), vol. 1, pp. 246-247; Tishby,
Wisdom, pp. 441-443; Morris Faierstein, ‘“God’s Need for the Command-
ments’ in Medieval Kabbalah,” Conservative Judaism, 36, 1982, pp. 50-51;
Jacob Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah: Studies in the History of Jewish Religion,
its Various Faces and Social Relevance (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984),
p. 44 (Hebrew). In u Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 1:118-123, I have discussed this
motif specifically as it appears in that work; see the revised analysis in
Elliot R. Wolfson, “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer
ha-Rimmon,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 59, 1988, pp. 217-251.
11. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 450-454; idem, The Doctrine of Evil and the “Kelip-
pah” in Lurianic Kabbalism (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), pp. 62-79
(Hebrew). For a discussion of the possible literary sources for this imagery,
see Alexander Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), pp. 172-179.
12. Cf. for example, Zohar 2:41a, 108b (see note 63), 199b, 258a; 3:54a. The
zoharic view is based on the rabbinic legend, itself based on earlier apocalyp-
tic sources, mentioned in Babylonian Talmud, Sukkot 52a concerning the
complete obliteration of the evil inclination in the messianic era. See
Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 290 n. 3; Urbach, Sages, pp. 416-
417 n. 2. It should be noted, however, that it is possible to interpret the
zoharic idea about the annihilation of the demonic in the messianic future as
an affirmation of the reintegration of the demonic into the divine rather than
an affirmation of the dualistic stance. See in particular the interpretation of
Deut. 32:39 in Zohar 2. 108b: “In that [messianic] time it is written, ‘See, then,
that I, I am He, there is no God beside Me’ ... The Holy One, blessed be He,
said: Then you will see that which you could not see beforehand. ‘That I, I,’
why is [the pronoun repeated] two times? To emphasize that at that time there
will be no God but Him ... the Other Side [the demonic realm] will be
removed ... for nothing of the pollution [with which, according to rabbinic
tradition, the serpent inseminated Eve; cf. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 16a
and parallels] will be left in the world and the world will be one.” In this regard
it is interesting to note that, in his Hebrew theosophic writings, de Leon some-
times stresses the pantheistic view, particularly in contexts where the demonic
realm is discussed; see Wolfson, “Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2:268, 301, 313
[Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 264, 296, 307].
13. See Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” pp. 193-197; idem, Les origines de la
Kabbale (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1966), pp. 310-316; idem, Kabbalah,
pp. 55-57.
14. Cf. the following remark of the late thirteenth-century kabbalist, Isaac of
Acre: “ ‘For aliens entered the sacred areas of the Lord’s House’ (Jer. 5 1 :5 1 ) -
‘Aliens’ alludes to the outer gradations [the demonic realm] ... This is the
way of the kabbalists of Sefarad [i.e. Castile] who merited to receive the kab-
balah of the outer gradations. However, the kabbalists of Catalonia [i.e.
Gerona] received a proper kabbalah concerning the ten sefirot belimah [the
holy emanations] but did not receive anything with respect to the outer
gradations.” The passage is cited by Gottlieb, Studies, pp. 341-342. See also
Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 124-125. Yet, as Scholem noted ( Les origines,
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 49
pp. 306-316), already in the writings of Isaac the Blind of Provence one can
discern a doctrine of dual forces, the holy and the unholy, albeit in a very rudi-
mentary form. This accords with the testimony of Isaac ha-Kohen that he
found in Arles ancient documents espousing the gnostic doctrine.
15. Scholem, Les origines , pp. 59-211; idem, Kabbalah , pp. 42-44. According to
Scholem, the work, pseudepigraphically attributed to R. Nehuniah ben
ha-Qanah of second-century Palestine, actually appeared in Provence some-
time in the second half of the twelfth century. Scholem did not, however, rule
out the possibility of earlier sources for the Bahir originating in the East, such
as the Raza Rabba (“Great Mystery”) dating from the ninth or tenth century
and preserved in the writings of the thirteenth-century German pietists. See
Scholem, Re’shit ha-Qabbalah , pp. 41-49, 195-238; idem, Les origines,
pp. 194-201. Other scholars have substantiated Scholem’s claim that the
Bahir appeared in Provence by drawing attention to similarities between it
and certain Catharic doctrines that surfaced in that area during that time. See
O. H. Lehmann, “The Theology of the Mystical Book Bahir and Its Sources,”
Studia Patristica, 1, 1957, pp. 477-783; Shulamit Shahar, “Catharism and the
Beginnings of the Kabbalah in Languedoc: Elements Common to Catharic
Scriptures and the Book Bahir,” Tarbits, 40, 1971, pp. 483-509 (Hebrew). See
also Joseph Dan, “Midrash and the Dawn of Kabbalah,” in Midrash and
Literature, ed. Geoffrey Hartmann and Sandford Budick (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1986), pp. 127-140. When evaluating Scholem’s hypothesis
one should keep in mind that the other major school of mystical speculation
in Provence during this time, the school of Abraham ben David and his son,
Isaac the Blind, developed a kabbalistic terminology that is almost entirely
independent of the theosophy of the Bahir. If the latter work did emerge at
this time and place, one would expect to find some influence of it upon these
other mystics. Scholem argued (Les origines, p. 224 n. 17, 225), however, that
in several cases the influence of the Bahir on Provencal kabbalists, such as
Jacob the Nazir, was evident. In addition, Scholem noted that some of the
fragments attributed to the Hasid, that is, Isaac the Blind, in the super-
commentary on Nahmanides’ commentary on the Pentateuch attributed to
Meir Ibn Sahula contain citations from the Bahir, see Les origines, p. 53. The
first to make extensive use of the Bahir, as far as I am aware, are Isaac’s dis-
ciples, the Spanish kabbalists who wrote in Gerona in the first part of the
thirteenth century. See the comments of Moshe Idel, “The Sefirot above the
Sefirot,” Tarbits, 51, 1981, p. 239 (Hebrew); and Joseph Dan, “Mysticism in
Jewish History, Religion and Literature,” in Studies in Jewish Mysticism,
ed. Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage (Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish
Studies, 1982), pp. 1 1-12. Cf. also the following remark of Isaac of Acre in his
Otsar Hayyim (MS Jewish Theological Seminary Mic. 1674 [ENA 1589]
fol. 133b): “The sages of Catalonia [Gerona] rely on a strong foundation that
is the Sefer Bahir, and the sages of Sefarad [Castile] rely on a firm foundation
that is the Sefer ha-Zohar.” The specific distinction that Isaac of Acre draws
between the two schools centers around the tradition concerning demonic
forces: whereas the kabbalists of Castile received such a tradition, the kabbal-
ists of Gerona did not; see preceding note. What is of interest to emphasize
for our purposes is the particular connection made between the Geronese
kabbalists and the Bahir.
16. See Sefer ha-Bahir, ed. Reuven Margaliot (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook,
1978), pp. 162-163. According to one fragment attributed to Isaac the Blind
by Ibn Sahula (see note 15), the former likewise identified the forces of
50 LUMINAL DARKNESS
impurity as emanating from the left side of God, the sefirah of pahad or
gevurah; see Scholem, Les origines, p. 310.
17. Moses of Burgos, “Left Pillar,” ed. Gershom Scholem, Tarbits, 4, 1933, p. 209.
18. Otsar ha-Kavod, 3a.
19. “Left Pillar,” p. 209; Otsar ha-Kavod, 24a.
20. According to some kabbalists, for example, Isaac ha-Kohen, the left eman-
ations derived from the third divine gradation, Binah, whereas according
to other kabbalists, for example, Moses of Burgos, the demonic powers
derived from the fifth emanation. Din or Gevurah. Cf. Scholem, Von der
mystischen Gestalt, pp. 54-57.
2 1 . Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 442-443, 447-450.
22. “Left Pillar,” p. 21 1.
23. Ibid., pp. 208-209.
24. Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” p. 263.
25. Ibid., p. 264.
26. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 450-452. 1 have discussed the various nuances of the
structural parallelism between the holy and satanic realms in the Zohar in
Elliot R. Wolfson, “Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic
Hermeneutics,” Association for Jewish Studies Review, 11, 1986, pp. 29-30.
27. Wolfson, “Left Contained,” pp. 31-32.
28. Gottlieb, Kabbala Literature, pp. 178-182; Liebes, Sections, p. 147; Moshe
Idel, “The Evil Thought of the Deity,” Tarbits, 49, 1980, pp. 356-364
(Hebrew). Idel compares the zoharic notion of the emergence of the demonic
powers as a result of the purgation of evil from the divine thought to the Zer-
vanite myth of the birth of the evil Ahriman from the evil thought of Zurvan.
29. See Zohar 3:292b ( Idra Zuta); 2:254b; and cf. 3:48b, where the primordial
forces of judgment, the 325 sparks that emerge from the “flame of darkness”
(botsina de-qardinuta ) are identified as the hairs that are on the head of
supernal Man; when the hairs are removed, then the forces of judgment are
ameliorated and the Man is purified. As a result the “man of war” (Exod. 15:3)
becomes the “perfect and upright man” (Job 1:1), the “righteous one”
(Gen. 6:9). It is significant that in this context it is one being - and not two -
who is transformed from a state of impurity to purity, an idea substantiated by
Job 14:4; see note 46, where the relevant portion of the text is translated. From
the further description of the head of this Man as being “red like a rose” and
of the hair likewise being red, it is clear that the proto-demonic force is being
portrayed in accordance with the scriptural account of Esau (see Gen. 25:25).
Cf. Zohar 1:153a, where Esau is described in almost the exact terms as the
primal Man is in this context. Similarly, the Bible (Gen. 27:11) describes Jacob
as being “smooth skinned” in comparison with Esau, who is hairy. Hence, just
as Esau emerges before Jacob, the hairy one before the smooth-skinned one,
so the forces of judgment, whence come the lower forces of impurity, emerge
before the forces of mercy. On Esau as a symbol for the demonic, see note 34.
On the zoharic conception, botsina de-qardinuta, see Liebes, Sections,
pp. 145-151, 161-164; Matt, Zohar, pp. 207-208.
30. See Zohar 2:108b, 176b ( Sifra di-Tseni‘uta); 3:128b {Idra Rabba); 142a
(Idra Rabba); 292a ( Idra Zuta). See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 276-277, 289-290;
Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 219-221. As Liebes points out (p. 219), the kabbalistic
conception was probably influenced by the midrashic idea (cf. Genesis
Rabbah 12:15, pp. 112-113) that initially God wanted to create the world with
judgment but then combined mercy and judgment together. See following
note.
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 51
3 1 . Genesis Rabbah 9:2, p. 68; see Zohar 2:34b. The source for this mythical image
is Isaac ha-Kohen, according to whom the ten emanations of the left
comprise “three worlds that were created and destroyed,” corresponding to
the three upper divine gradations and seven archons that do battle against
the seven lower divine gradations. See Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,”
pp. 194-195, 248-251. Cf. additional texts cited by Idel, “Evil Thought,”
pp. 359-360. R. Eleazar of Worms likewise connects this midrashic image of
“worlds created and destroyed” with God’s attempt to create the world exclu-
sively by means of the evil inclination; see Joseph Dan, The Esoteric Theology
of Ashkenazi Hasidim (Jerusalem: Bialik Insitute, 1978), pp. 210-211
(Hebrew); idem, “Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah,”
Association for Jewish Studies Review, 5, 1980, pp. 32-37.
32. Cf. Zohar 2:254b-55a; 3:292a. See Wolfson, “ Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2:268
( Book of the Pomegranate, p. 265), where the worship of idolatry or the belief
in other gods (i.e. the demonic realm of the Other Side) is said to derive from
the “refuse of thought.” It is clear, moreover, from that context (“Sefer
ha-Rimmon,” 2:269) that the belief in the other gods is identical with philo-
sophical reasoning. Cf. Zohar 2:124a: “R. Hiyya said, ‘[Make no mention of
the] names of other gods’ (Exod. 23:13). This refers to one who is occupied
with other books that are not from the side of Torah.” It seems to me that
“other books” here is a reference to books of philosophy. Yet, see Zohar
2:237a, and Zohar Hadash, 38a, where Greece is identified as that kingdom
that is in closest proximity to the way of faith, that is, Judaism. I assume that
in these contexts there is a positive evaluation of philosophy. On the Zohar’s
complicated relationship to philosophy, see the remarks of Isadore Twersky,
Rabad ofPosquieres:A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1962), p. 300 n. 65. See also Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 173,
183, 194,203, and the text from Sefer ha-Rimmon cited on pp. 397-398 n. 154;
Matt, Zohar, pp. 22-23.
33. Tishby, Wisdom, p. 458; Liebes, Sections, p. 320.
34. It should be pointed out that in one passage the Zohar (2: 108b) tries to uphold
the ontological priority of Israel as against the chronological priority of Esau:
“Israel is the upper kernel [lit. brain] of the world. Israel arose in the [divine]
Thought first [cf. Genesis Rabbah 1:4, p. 6 ]. The idolatrous nations, which are
the shell, preceded [Israel], as it is written, ‘And these are the kings who,
reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.’ ” It is
quite possible that the zoharic interpretation of Gen. 36:31 ff. is a symbolic
depiction of the historical relationship between the Church and the Syna-
gogue, that is, Christianity, which is symbolically Edom or the demonic
power, reigns before Judaism. See Baer, Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 1,
pp. 246-247; Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 196-197. On the symbolic correlation of
Edom and Christianity, see Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 5, p. 272 n. 19; Gerson
Cohen, “Esau as a Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and
Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1967), pp. 27-30. On Esau (= Edom) as a symbol for the
demonic power, see Zohar l:137b-38a, 138b, 139a, 142b, 143a, 171b, 177a;
2:163b, 167a, 188b; 3:48b (see note 29), 124a (Ra ‘ayaMeheimna), 185a, 197a,
246b; Tiqqunei Zohar 59, 93a. Cf. the following text from MS Paris 859,
fol. 16a, cited by Idel, “Evil Thought,” p. 358: “The forces of impurity emanate
before the forces of purity, for at first the refuse is purified, and afterwards the
forces of purity emerge. Thus it says, ‘The dross having been separated from
the silver, a vessel emerged for the smith’ (Prov. 25:4). So it is by Cain and
52 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Abel, Cain came out first from the refuse which is on the left side, and after-
wards Abel who is from the side of mercy. And similarly by Esau and Jacob.
And [it] says: Esau emerged from the dross of the gold. Therefore, Isaac loved
Esau for he came from his dregs.” As Idel pointed out (ibid. n. 8), the expres-
sion “dross of gold” betrays a zoharic influence; cf. Zohar 3:50b. On the
statement “Isaac loved Esau etc.,” cf. Zohar 1 : 137b, 139a. The temporal prece-
dence of the demonic over the holy is reflected as well in the zoharic interpret-
ation of the rite of circumcision whereby the unholy foreskin is removed and
the holy corona disclosed; see Zohar 1:13a, 32a-b, 95a-b; 2:40a, 255b;
3:72b-73a; Tiqqunei Zohar, Introduction, 11a and 37, 78a. In this context,
finally, it is of interest to consider the following fragment of the Ebionite
Kerygmata Petrou that is extant in the Jewish-Christian Pseudo-Clementine
Homilies, cited in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher;
English translation ed. Robert McL. Wilson, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster Press, 1963-65), vol. 2, p. 121: “As in the beginning the one God, being as
it were a right hand and a left, created first the heavens and then the earth, so
also he assembled in pairs everything that follows. In the case of man, how-
ever, he no longer proceeded in this way, but he reversed every pair. For
whereas he created what was stronger as the first and what was weaker as the
second, in the case of man we find the opposite ... Thus from Adam ... there
sprang as the first the unrighteous Cain, as the second the righteous Abel ...
And from Abraham ... there issued two first, Ishmael first and then Isaac, who
was blessed of God. From Isaac again there originated two, the godless Esau
and the pious Jacob.” In the fuller version of the text (ibid., pp. 545-546) it is
clear that the firstborn is identified as the feminine that derives from the
“feeble left hand of God,” that is, the evil one. The chain of associations is very
close to the later kabbalistic model. On the possible Jewish influence on the
Pseudo-Clementine literature, see the references cited in Stroumsa, Another
Seed, p. 30 n. 51, and Segal, Two Powers, p. 256-257. The correlation between
the left hand of God and weakness and the right hand and strength is made in
the following midrashic comment on Exod. 15:6: “Thy right hand, O Lord,
glorious in power, Thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe,” in Mekilta de-
Rabbi Ishmael2:4\: “When the Israelites do the will of God, they make His left
hand to be like the right, as it is said, ‘Thy right hand, O Lord ... Thy right
hand, O Lord’ - two times. And when the Israelites fail to do the will of God,
they make His right hand to be like the left, as it is said, ‘He has drawn back,
His right hand’ (Lam. 2:3).” See Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 149.
35. Zohar 1 : 19b-20a. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 239, and references given in
p. 406 n. 114.
36. Altmann, “Motif,” p. 117.
37. There are basically three opinions in the Zohar on the exact source of evil in
the divine: Binah, Gevurah, or Malkhut. For references, see Wolfson, “Left
Contained,” p. 32 and nn. 22-24.
38. See Scholem, Von der mystischen Gestalt, pp. 69-72.
39. See Wolfson, “Left Contained,” pp. 29-30.
40. Cf. Zohar 1:83a.
41. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 457-458.
42. On the Lurianic and Sabbatian roots of this idea, see Tishby, Doctrine of Evil,
p. 88; Joseph Weiss, “The Emergence of the Hasidic Way,” Zion, 16, 1951,
pp. 73-75 (Hebrew); Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism
(New York: Schocken, 1971), pp. 78-141. For the development of this idea
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 53
particularly in the school of Habad Hasidism, see Rachel Elior, The Theory
of Divinity of Hasidut Habad: Second Generation (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1982), pp. 262-264 (Hebrew). For Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav’s particu-
lar use of this notion, see Arthur Green, Tormented Master: A Life of Rabbi
Nahman ofBratslav (University: University of Alabama Press, 1979), pp. 67,
264, 308.
43. I have used the translation of Daniel Matt in his Zohar, pp. 63-64. The Zohar’s
identification of Egypt with the earthly representation of the demonic is based
ultimately on the scriptural and rabbinic conception of Egypt as the seat of
magical power (c£, e.g., Exod. 7:12; 8:3, 14, 18-19; 9:11); Babylonian Talmud,
Sanhedrin 67b; Qiddushin 49b; Menahot 85a; for other references see
Ginzberg, Legends, s.v. “Egyptians, masters of astrology and magic”), under-
stood in the Zohar to be the force of the demonic. Cf. Zohar 1:81b, 83a, 249a;
2:30b, 35b, 38a, 191a, 192b; 3:50b, 69a, 70a, 207a. See Wolfson “Left Con-
tained,” pp. 33-37, where I have worked this out in detail.
44. Cited by Matt, Zohar, p. 220.
45. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 376-379. A striking description of this is given in Zohar
Hadash, lc ( Sitrei Otiyyot)-, “In the mystery of Enoch [it is said]: There is
another he below [the demonic] which is bound to this he [i.e. Shekhinah,
symbolized by the last letter of the T etragrammaton, the letter he, in this con-
text the Shekhinah is said to be symbolized by a he for she is a point that is
surrounded by four camps of angels, and the letter he numerically equals five] ,
and they correspond one to the other. Then it is time to cry [cf. Eccl. 3:4] . The
sign for this is ahah [i.e. an expression of grief; cf. Jer. 1:6, and note that there
is a dot in the second he] , for all the surrounding evil encloses [them] below in
the form of a dalet [i.e. on all four sides, dalet = four] . It surrounds these four
and the point [i.e. Shekhinah] . And the point stands within a hard shell which
encloses it [symbolized by the dot in the second he of the word ahah] . Then
the Moon [Shekhinah] is eclipsed and its light is covered, and permission is
given to judge the world with evil judgments.”
46. Zohar 2:69b. Cf. Zohar 3:48b: “From the ‘flame of darkness’ [see note 29]
there emerged three hundred and twenty-five inscribed sparks, and they were
united in the side of Strength [the left side of judgment] ... and when they
entered in a body they were called Man (ish) ... the ‘Man of War’ (Exod. 15:3)
... Since the lower judgments are united and joined to the hair of this one, it is
called the severe judgment. And when the hair on his head is removed, [the
judgment] is ameliorated [lit. sweetened] and the judgments below are not
summoned. And then he is called pure, as it is written, ‘Who can bring a pure
thing from what is impure?’ (Job 14:4). From the impure certainly!” Con-
cerning this text, see note 29. Whereas in Zohar 2:69b, the unity of the divine
and the demonic is perceived from the perspective of the lowest divine
gradation and its proximity to the unholy realm, in Zohar 3:48b this unity is
perceived from the perspective of the very first stages of emanation. It is note-
worthy that the same text is cited as a scriptural locus in both cases.
47. Zohar 2:184a.
48. Tishby, Wisdom, p. 457.
49. Zohar 2:34a.
50. Faierstein, “ ‘God’s Need,’ ” pp. 50-51; Daniel Matt, “The Mystic and the
Mizwot,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages,
ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 387-388. See note 10.
51. Cf. Zohar 2:181b-82a; 3:101b; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 453-454.
52. See Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 125-126.
54 LUMINAL DARKNESS
53. See notes 29 and 73.
54. Zohar 3:80b.
55. This is based on the rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 6:5, “And love the Lord
with all your heart,” levavekha , which they read in the plural, that is, “hearts,”
and as a reference to the two inclinations, the good and the evil; see references
in note 6.
56. Zohar 2:26b-27a. Moses de Leon refers to this zoharic interpretation in “Sefer
ha-Rimmon” 2:100 [Book of the Pomegranate, p. 101]. It is interesting to
note that de Leon gives the verse two interpretations: according to the
former the unity implied by Deut. 4:39 involves the attributes of judgment
and mercy, whereas according to the latter it involves the evil and good
inclinations. In the Zohar both interpretations are combined. See “Sefer
ha-Rimmon,” 1:45.
57. See, for example, Sifrei on Deuteronomy, sec. 26, p. 41; Genesis Rabbah 12:15,
pp. 112-113. For a summary of the rabbinic doctrine, see Urbach, Sages,
pp. 396-407. For a comparison of the Philonic and rabbinic views, see Nils A.
Dahl and Alan Segal, “Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God,” Journal of
Jewish Studies, 9, 1978, pp. 1-28, and references to other scholarly literature
cited in p. 2 nn. 5-6.
58. See references to studies by Schechter and Urbach cited in note 6. It should be
pointed out that in some rabbinic statements, most notably that of Resh
Laqish (third-century Palestine), the evil inclination seems to be more than
merely a psychological impulse. In the case of the aforementioned rabbi, the
evil inclination is identified with Satan or the Angel of Death; see Babylonian
Talmud, Baba Batra 16a, and cf. Urbach, Sages, pp. 149, 416.
59. Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 768-770.
60. See, for example, Zohar 1:12a.
61. Zohar 2:26b.
62. Zohar 2:108a-b.
63. Yet, it must be pointed out that in the continuation of the text the Zohar con-
trasts the original process of emanation in which the shell, the kings of Edom,
preceded the kernel, Israel, and the future restoration when the Holy One,
blessed be He, “will put first the kernel without any shell.” For the background
of this passage, see note 34. For other contexts wherein the Zohar affirms the
annihilation of the demonic in the future, see note 12.
64. Zohar2:183a-b.
65. For a variation of this parable, see “Sefer ha-Rimmon” 2:133 ( Book of the
Pomegranate, pp. 132-133).
66. Leaven was used allegorically as a symbol for that which is evil or impure in
Jewish and Christian sources dating from the Greco-Roman period; see
sources cited in Bokser, Origins of the Seder, p. 120 n. 13.
67. Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:15, p. 15.
68. See note 43.
69. Zohar 1:226b; 2:40a, 182a; 3:95b; “Sefer ha-Rimmon” 1:121 and 2:136,
328-329 (Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 135, 321-322).
70. The symbolic correlation of bread and wisdom is an ancient haggadic trad-
ition. See in particular the comparative study of the concept of manna in the
Gospel of John and the Philonic corpus in Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven:
An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the
Writings of Philo (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965).
Zohar 2:40a, 61b, 183a; Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1105; Matt, Zohar, pp. 113-116,
245-247.
71 .
LIGHT THROUGH DARKNESS 55
72. On the notion of Torah as a medicine or drug, especially against the malady of
the evil inclination, see Schechter, Aspects, pp. 273-275.
73. See in particular Moses de Leon, “Sefer ha-Mishkal,” ed. Jochanan
Wijnhoven, Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 1964,
pp. 148-149: “Good and evil are two causes, separate and distinct one from
another. Yet the mystery of the Tree is one ... Thus it is a religious duty and
obligation to know and seek out that very matter [the forces of the demonic]
to distinguish between good and evil but not to cleave to it.”
74. Isaiah Tishby, “Gnostic Doctrines in Sixteenth Century Jewish Mysticism,”
Journal of Jewish Studies, 6, 1955, p. 152. For a later kabbalistic development
that, like the Zohar, emphasizes the incorporation of evil within the good, see
Bracha Zak, “The Shell for the Sake of Holiness,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish
Thought, 3, 1983/84, pp. 191-206 (Hebrew).
3 Beautiful Maiden without Eyes:
Peshat and Sod in Zoharic
Hermeneutics
Scholars who have discussed the hermeneutical posture of thir-
teenth-century Spanish kabbalah in general, and that of Zohar in
particular, have usually subscribed to the view that one of the con-
trolling factors in kabbalistic exegesis is the distinction between the
exoteric meaning, the peshat, or sensus litteralis, and the esoteric, that
is, the mystical or kabbalistic interpretation, the sensus spiritualis.
The Torah is thus depicted as possessing an external and internal
dimension, the hidden meaning and its revealed, literal counterpart.
Correspondingly, the method of interpretation itself is characterized
by this set of polarities, nigleh and nistar, the exoteric and esoteric. It
should be noted, parenthetically, that with respect to this issue,
scholars have also called attention to the fundamental similarity
between the hermeneutical posture of philosopher and kabbalist, for
both assumed a twofold sense in Scripture, the literal and hidden
meaning, the latter corresponding respectively to either philosoph-
ical or mystical truths . 1
It is generally thought, moreover, that the hierarchical view
implied by this dichotomy was expanded further by Spanish kabbalists
in the latter part of the thirteenth century by means of the well-known
conception of the fourfold scheme of interpretation that eventually
received the name pardes, an acronym for peshat (literal), remez (alle-
gorical), derashah (homiletical), and sod (esoteric). As the history and
development of this notion have been discussed by various scholars, I
will not enter into a lengthy discussion about the origin of this struc-
ture or a detailed analysis of each of its components . 2 My focus rather
is on the question of hierarchy of meaning that this structure implies,
and whether this is an appropriate characterization from the particu-
lar vantage point of the kabbalists’ understanding of Scripture.
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 57
From a certain perspective it is indeed valid to view this
fourfold structure in a hierarchical way. This does not imply, how-
ever, that the kabbalistic exegete himself progresses in some linear
fashion from the plain sense, to the homiletical, then to the allegor-
ical, and, finally, penetrating the ultimate meaning of Scripture, the
mystical . 3 It is unlikely that any kabbalist, especially in the period
under discussion, would have considered these different layers of
meaning as absolutely distinct. It is nevertheless plausible to suggest
that, for the kabbalists, the four senses of Scripture are to be arranged
in some hierarchical manner, the literal sense occupying the bottom
rung and the mystical the highest. After all, whatever the external
influence on Jewish exegetes that may have fostered the articulation
of four levels of meaning, there existed four well-defined exegetical
methods that corresponded to each of these interpretative cate-
gories . 4 In that respect , it is necessary to emphasize what should be an
obvious historical factor: the four layers of meaning must be under-
stood in their proper literary or textual context. Hence, precedents
for literal interpretation are to be found not only in the classical rab-
binic texts but especially in the Andalusian and Franco-German
traditions of scriptural exegesis; midrashic interpretation had a long
history stretching from the formative period of rabbinic thought to
the late Middle Ages; allegorical or tropological forms of interpret-
ation were employed to a degree in rabbinic literature and high-
lighted by medieval Jewish philosophers; and an evolving theosophic
system existed that could be, as indeed it was, applied exegetically by
the kabbalists. From this vantage point it is entirely correct to view
the stratification of the four layers of meaning in a hierarchical way.
Two important claims for the understanding of kabbalistic
hermeneutics follow from the hierarchical approach. First, the literal
meaning is assigned a secondary value with respect to determining
the “true” meaning of Scripture, which is thought to consist of allu-
sions to processes occurring in the divine world. Words of Scripture,
kabbalistically interpreted, become figurae or signa of the supra-
mundane, divine reality. Second, the dichotomy between the exter-
nal and internal sense may lead one to the conclusion that, for the
kabbalist, the peshat can obscure the true meaning of the biblical
text, the sod. Expressed in slightly different terms, the mystical inter-
pretation, much like the philosophic according to Maimonides , 5 is
thought to arise out of a sense of conflict between the literal meaning
58 LUMINAL DARKNESS
of Scripture and theosophical truth . 6 The mystical reading of the
biblical text thus supplants the literal sense. This viewpoint has been
most emphatically articulated by Gershom Scholem, who set out to
explain how the mystic approach to Scripture embraces simultan-
eously a conservative and a revolutionary attitude:
But even where the religious authority of the same sacred book
is recognized, a revolutionary attitude is inevitable once the
mystic invalidates the literal meaning. But how can he cast aside
the literal meaning while still recognizing the authority of the
text? This is possible because he regards the literal meaning as
simply nonexistent or as valid only for a limited time. It is
replaced by a mystical interpretation . 7
It must be noted that on another occasion, Scholem
remarked with respect to the Zohar that its author “remains closely
bound to the Scriptural text. Often an idea is not so much extrapo-
lated and projected into the Biblical word but rather conceived in the
process of mystical reflection upon the latter .” 8 In yet another con-
text, Scholem commented that the critical effort “to determine
whether the Biblical text inspired the [mystical] exegesis or whether
the exegesis was a deliberate choice” maybe “too rationalistic a view”
to evaluate the creativity of the mystic, for the “thought processes of
mystics are largely unconscious, and they may be quite unaware of
the clash between old and new which is of such passionate interest to
the historian .” 9 Although in these two instances Scholem does
acknowledge that, from the internal, uncritical perspective of the
mystics themselves, kabbalistic ideas may be thought to spring from
the scriptural text, it is clear that his general orientation was to deny
that concern with the literal sense figured in any prominent way in
kabbalistic exegesis. In the final analysis, according to Scholem, kab-
balistic hermeneutics is based on a radical dichotomy of the hidden
and revealed meanings. Thus, after describing the assumption of
theosophical kabbalists that the Torah is a corpus symbolicum of the
hidden divine reality revealed in the sefirot, 10 Scholem concludes that
“this method of interpretation has proved almost barren for a plain
understanding of the Holy Writ .” 11 In yet another passage Scholem
observes that, although the author of the Zohar advances examples
of four layers of meaning, the literal, homiletical, allegorical, and
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 59
mystical, only the fourth matters to him, for the first three methods
“are either taken from other writings or, at the most, developed from
ideas not peculiar to Kabbalism. Only when it is a question of reveal-
ing the mystery of a verse - or rather one of its many mysteries - does
the author show real enthusiasm .” 12 We may conclude, therefore,
that, according to Scholem, genuine interest in problems of peshat
does not figure prominently in zoharic - and, by extension, kabbal-
istic - hermeneutics.
Such a view has been shared by other scholars as well; here I
will mention two others, Wilhelm Bacher and Isaiah Tishby, whose
remarks are focused especially on the case of the Zohar. Although
Bacher acknowledged that the method of literal interpretation,
peshat, played a significant role in the Zohar , 13 it was clearly his opin-
ion that, for the author of this book, the literal sense is superseded by
the various other levels of meaning, including the internal, mystical
sense. “Le sens litteral simple est, pour lui, le degre inferieur de l’in-
terpretation biblique; c’est le sens multiple de l’Ecriture qui est le
fondement de son systeme, et c’est a la doctrine du sens multiple de
la parole de l’Ecriture qu’il emprunte la justification des mysteres qui
y sont contenus .” 14 For Bacher, therefore, the literal is quite distinct
from the esoteric. A similar view is taken by Isaiah Tishby. After
reviewing the critical passages in the Zohar, where there is a critique
of those who accept only the literal meaning of Scripture, Tishby
remarks that the “author of the Zohar concluded from the doubts
that undermined the literal meaning of Scripture that the ‘Torah of
truth’ was to be found in the internal part of the Torah, which is con-
cealed by its external form .” 15 Elsewhere Tishby notes that, for the
author of Zohar, “there is no comparison as to worth between the
revealed meaning of Torah and the hidden meaning. The external
significance of the Torah relates primarily to existence in the physical
world, whereas the internal significance is connected with the system
of the Godhead .” 16 To be sure, Tishby is careful to note that the Zohar
does not reject the literal meaning, nor does it attack those rabbis
who confine themselves to the study of Torah in its literal sense as we
find, for example, in the case of the anonymous author of Ra‘aya
Meheimna and Tiqqunei Zohar . 17 Judged from the kabbalistic
perspective, the value of peshat, together with the other forms of exe-
gesis, derashah and remez, is that it functions as an aid to uncover the
inner mystical truth . 18 In its essential nature, however, the literal
60 LUMINAL DARKNESS
sense does not reveal anything of the esoteric matters that preoccupy
the mind of the kabbalist, and indeed may impede the attainment of
such knowledge . 19
It is my contention that this scholarly approach prevents
one from understanding one of the basic assumptions that underlies
the hermeneutical stance of the Zohar and its unique conception of
a text: insofar as the Torah represents not only the intention of
the divine author but the configuration of the divine structure or
form , 20 it follows that the sensus litteralis comprehends all the senses
of Scripture, exoteric and esoteric. That is, the sensus spiritualis is
part of the Bible’s signification inasmuch as it is intended by the
divine author . 21 The Zohar does not simply reject or denigrate the
more normative literal-historical-grammatical understanding of
peshat, but operates with a theological conception of peshat that
assumes that the Torah, the divine image, comprehends the mystical
meaning in its most elemental and ideogrammatic form. The hidden
and revealed, therefore, are not distinct spheres of meaning from
the vantage point of the divine author or the kabbalist who has
penetrated the innermost depths of Torah, an experience compared
in the Zohar and other kabbalistic sources to sexual union . 22
Scholars who have discussed zoharic hermeneutics in the past have
not adequately taken into account the positive conception of the
peshat operative in the Zohar. Yet, precisely this conception provides
us with the zoharic notion of text, and, by extension, meaning. In a
sense the kabbalistic conception, expressed especially by the Zohar,
reverts to the conception of peshatthat emerges from rabbinic writ-
ings where it signifies authorial intention , 23 as determined through
an authoritative teaching, rather than the simple or literal meaning,
connotations that become standard in the medieval exegetical
tradition . 24 That is, from the vantage point of the rabbis, peshat des-
ignates the scriptural verse in its appropriate context, which, in turn,
may be illuminated by literal or midrashic explanations. The simple
or plain meaning, therefore, is one, but not the only, aspect of peshat,
the semantic unity of the text . 25 The question of the zoharic concep-
tion of peshat thus lies at the center, and not the periphery, of a dis-
cussion on the hermeneutical principles and strategies of the Zohar.
A key issue in determining this conception is the relationship
between peshat and sod that I will investigate in detail in the remain-
der of this essay.
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 61
Before discussing the role of peshat in zoharic hermen-
eutics, it is of interest to consider several sources that provide more
background for the position adopted by the Zohar. I begin with the
hermeneutical posture espoused by Nahmanides (1194-1270). It
can be shown from any number of sources that Nahmanides sub-
scribed to the view that Scripture has an inner and an outer dimen-
sion, 26 or, as he put it in one context, “the verses of Scripture are true
literally and figuratively,” 27 or again, “the Torah makes explicit and
alludes.” 28 One passage is particularly striking in that he distin-
guishes three senses to a scriptural text (the example is Prov. 31:10),
viz. the literal ( melitsah ), the figurative ( mashal ), and the esoteric
(sod). 29 That Nahmanides considered all these levels to be contained
within the text of Scripture is most evident from his interpretation of
the rabbinic dictum, “a biblical verse does not lose its literal sense,”
ein miqrayotsei midei peshuto, 30 in his notes to the second principle
in the introduction to Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitswot. Reacting to
Maimonides’ claim that the rabbis occasionally derived laws from
Scripture without any textual basis, and thereby denied their own
principle stated previously, Nahmanides emphasized that with
respect to biblical interpretations connected with halakhic
matters, the verse does not lose its literal sense because all these
interpretations “are contained in the language of the text” ( kullam
be-lashon ha-katuv nikhlalim). Nahmanides goes on to contrast his
own conception of peshat with those “who lack knowledge of the
language” - or, according to another reading, the “language of those
who lack knowledge” - and the Sadducees, that is, the Karaites. It
seems likely that by the former, Nahmanides means those who would
limit the literal sense to that which is established on purely philo-
logical and historical grounds. Such a group, like the Karaites, would
fail to see the polysemous nature of Scripture. For Nahmanides, by
contrast, “the text contains everything ... for the book of God’s Torah
is complete, there is no extra word in it nor any lacking, everything
was written in wisdom.” 31 Scripture thus comprises both the literal
and figurative meaning, the external and internal sense:
This is the meaning of their dictum, “a verse should not lose its
literal sense; ” they did not say, “a verse is only according to its lit-
eral sense.” We have rather the interpretation [of the verse]
together with the literal sense, and it should not lose either of
62 LUMINAL DARKNESS
them. On the contrary, Scripture must bear everything, and
both are true . 32
I do not mean to suggest that Nahmanides rejects the idea of peshat
in the more restricted connotation as the sensus litteralis. On the con-
trary, from his comment that there is both midrash and peshat, it is
evident that he accepts the standard medieval conception of peshat
as the historical, grammatical, and philological meaning. What is
crucial for Nahmanides, however, is that this notion of peshat is itself
contained in a broader conception of a scriptural text that comprises
all meanings, including the mystical . 33 As Bernard Septimus has
pointed out, Nahmanides advanced the Andalusian tradition of
peshat “by broadening the conception of interpretation” to include
rabbinic - halakhic and aggadic - as well as kabbalistic modes of
explanation . 34 For Nahmanides, then, the term peshat denotes the
textual reality that comprises the literal and midrashic - and under
the rubric of midrashic the kabbalist includes the mystical - explan-
ations. The same point is made by another thirteenth-century kab-
balist from Castile, Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen: “[The principle]
‘a verse should not lose its literal sense’ always applies to all the Torah;
the literal sense ( ha-peshat ) is the root, the homiletical ( ha-midrash )
the branch, and everything is true .” 35
It is this notion of the text as comprehending the external
and internal meanings that, in my view, provides the underlying
principle for Nahmanides’ repeated claim that the contextual mean-
ing of certain biblical texts can be comprehended only through
knowledge of the esoteric lore. In the vast majority of cases Nah-
manides keeps the literal and kabbalistic meanings distinct, treating
the latter like an added dimension that enhances our understanding
of Scripture but nevertheless should not be confused with the plain
sense. It is thus that Nahmanides often alerts the reader to the fact
that he is divulging esoteric matters by the introduction, al derekh
ha-emet, “by way of truth.” On occasion, however, Nahmanides
relates a kabbalistic explanation without identifying it as such. Fur-
thermore, a significant number of examples in his commentary indi-
cate that he entertained the possibility that the simple, plain, or
contextual meaning was comprehensible only in terms of kabbalistic
truths. Various scholars have discussed this phenomenon as it
appears in the Torah commentary of Nahmanides . 36 In a paper on
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 63
Nahmanides’ kabbalistic hermeneutics, I have argued that one can
distinguish two typologies wherein this convergence is operative: in
some instances the literal and mystical meanings overlap because
there is only one textual dimension corresponding to one reality out-
side the text, whereas in other instances there is an overlapping
meaning, but the text allows for two levels, exoteric and esoteric,
which correspond to two levels of reality, the mundane and the
divine . 37 This exegetical posture challenges in a fundamental way the
notion of an interpretative hierarchy applied universally and with-
out qualification by the kabbalists. Not only is it the case that the lit-
eral sense does not always obscure the hidden signification, but the
latter in some instances alone provides the key to read the text con-
textually. It is some such conception that underlies Ezra of Gerona’s
remark in his introduction to his commentary on Song of Songs to
the effect that biblical exegetes do not understand certain sections of
Torah, for they are based on the wisdom of kabbalah . 38 That is to say,
the esoteric meaning is not ancillary, but rather is necessary, for the
very comprehension of the plain sense of the scriptural text. To put
the matter epigrammatically, sod is the depth of peshat.
It is instinctive to compare Nahmanides’ hermeneutic with
that of Jacob ben Sheshet, an older contemporary Geronese kabbal-
ist, though apparently belonging to an independent circle . 39 To begin
with, it is necessary to mention, as Scholem did, the obvious contrast
between the two kabbalists with respect to their stated positions
regarding the nature of kabbalah . 40 Nahmanides for his part
described kabbalah as a body of received tradition that must be
transmitted orally from teacher to student and that cannot be com-
prehended by human reasoning or supposition . 41 The point is made
in various contexts in Nahmanides’ writings, but for the sake of com-
paring his view with that of Jacob ben Sheshet, I will cite the follow-
ing passage from Nahmanides’ “Sermon on Ecclesiastes,” for it
focuses on the mystical reasons for the commandments, precisely the
principal concern of ben Sheshet:
With respect to these matters and others like them one cannot
understand their truth from one’s own mind {mi-da at atsmo)
but only through tradition ( be-qabbalah ). This matter is
explained in the Torah to whoever has heard the rationale for
the commandments through a tradition ( ta‘am ha-mitswot
64 LUMINAL DARKNESS
be-qabbalah ) as is fitting. This refers to one who has received
from a mouth that has received, going back to Moses, our
teacher, [who received] from God . 42
Jacob ben Sheshet, in diametrically opposite terms, expressed the
viewpoint that one can, indeed from a religious perspective must,
innovate kabbalistic interpretations (or, more specifically, mystical
rationales for the commandments) in order to propagate and glorify
the Torah. This is epitomized in succinct fashion in the following
directive offered by Jacob ben Sheshet in Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-
Bittahon : “Know that the words of the rabbis, may their memory be
for a blessing, are the words of the living God and they should not be
contradicted, but it is a commandment for every sage to innovate
[interpretations] of the Torah according to his ability .” 43 To cite a
second example from the same work: “For in every matter a person
can give his own explanation from his mind, and there is nothing
deficient in this .” 44 Elaborating on this theme in another work,
Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, Jacob ben Sheshet writes,
I know that there may be some among the pious and sages of
Israel who will blame me for I have written the reason for two or
three commandments in the Torah, which may be an opening
for one to give a reason for many other commandments by way
of wisdom. I can bring a proof that every sage is capable of
offering a reason for every commandment whose reason is not
explicitly stated in the Torah . 45
That the innovation is to be considered no less authoritative than a
received idea is emphasized in Jacob ben Sheshet’s bold claim with
respect to his view that the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, like the
Torah in general, varies in accordance with its vocalization : 46 “If I had
not innovated it from my heart, I would have said that it is a law given
to Moses at Sinai .” 47 One should not, however, conclude from these
comments that Jacob ben Sheshet was not the recipient of kabbalis-
tic doctrine transmitted orally; on the contrary, on more than one
occasion he reports having received traditions in just such a manner,
as, for instance, from Isaac the Blind . 48 Moreover, it is evident that
Jacob ben Sheshet did not think that the wisdom of kabbalah was
exhausted by his own innovative views or even by those he received . 49
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 65
The fact of the matter is, however, that he does maintain, contra the
explicit claims of Nahmanides, that kabbalistic explanations can be
adduced through the exercise of one’s own powers of discernment
and scriptural exegesis. Although I myself have challenged the stand-
ard characterization of Nahmanides as a “reserved ” 50 or “conserva-
tive ” 51 kabbalist, arguing that he is not merely the recipient of a
limited corpus of secrets but rather expands the range of kabbalistic
secrets through a consistent and innovative hermeneutical posture
vis-a-vis Scripture as read often through the lenses of rabbinic
aggadah (including in this category the kabbalistic treatise, Sefer ha-
Bahir), 52 it still is evident that the distinction between Nahmanides’
and Jacob ben Sheshet’s understanding of the kabbalistic enterprise
must be upheld. Even if Nahmanides is up to much the same task as
Jacob ben Sheshet, his insistence that kabbalah is a received tradition
is instructive and must be set against the overtly innovative orienta-
tion of Jacob ben Sheshet.
Having delineated in clear fashion the essential difference
between Nahmanides and Jacob ben Sheshet, it is necessary to draw
one’s attention to a basic similarity in approach between the two. It
emerges from a few places in the latter’s writings that he shared the
hermeneutical assumption expressed by Nahmanides to the effect
that the peshat of the verse can overlap with the sod, indeed that occa-
sionally the most appropriate way to comprehend peshat is through
sod. One passage in particular is noteworthy for interpreting the rab-
binic dictum, “a verse should not lose its literal sense;” Jacob ben
Sheshet employs language that is remarkably close to that of Nah-
manides in his notes to Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitswot, which I cited
previously : 53
From all the matters that I have written you can understand that
there is no event in the world that does not have a force above
that appears to be a paradigm ( dugma ) or image ( dimyon ) [of
that which is below] . Therefore, when you find something in
the words of our rabbis, blessed be their memory, or in the
words of the Torah, or one of the reasons for the command-
ments, or the [speculation] of one of their rewards, do not think
in your heart that it is said with regard to the lower matter.
Rather it is said with respect to the supernal [matter] that cor-
responds to the lower. Regarding that which is written in the
66 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Torah, our sages, blessed be their memory, already said, “a verse
should not lose its literal sense.” Inasmuch as it says “a verse
should not lose [its literal sense],” but not that Scripture is
interpreted [only] according to its literal sense, we learn that
even though the Torah has seventy aspects , 54 none of them can
deny the peshat, and perhaps the peshat is one of the seventy.
Thus, no sage has permission to offer an interpretation that
contradicts the peshat, for the rabbis, blessed be their memory,
have said [“a verse should not lose its literal sense ”]. 55 [Con-
cerning] the peshat there are commentators who say that the
verse is missing four or two words, or half of it is extra and
unnecessary; yet, Scripture is as it is. In truth, there are many
verses to which we must add a word or two in order to under-
stand their peshat, but this is not due to a deficiency in Scripture
but rather our deficiency, for we do not comprehend the holy
language [Hebrew] except as it compares to the language in
which we are immersed in the exile because of our sins . 56
Like Nahmanides, then, Jacob ben Sheshet maintains that the princi-
ple of the rabbis is that a verse should not lose its literal sense, not that
a verse is to be interpreted only in accordance with its literal sense. A
careful scrutiny of Jacob’s writings, a project beyond the confines of
this essay, would reveal, moreover, that, like Nahmanides, he too has
extended the meaning of the word peshat so that the simple meaning
(often rendered through the prism of rabbinic interpretation) can
itself constitute the esoteric signification. The positive role accorded
the peshat meaning is based on the hermeneutical principle articu-
lated at the start of the preceding quotation, the principle that
served as the cornerstone of biblical exegesis for the theosophic kab-
balists: events later are to be understood in terms of their supernal
patterns or images in the sehrotic pleroma. Biblical narrative and
law, therefore, themselves are to be interpreted as symbolic of this
upper realm. Just as in the ontic sphere, the mundane has its correlate
in the divine, and the latter is only known through the former, so on
the textual plane the esoteric or mystical signification is appre-
hended only through the exoteric or literal-historical-grammatical
meaning. Discerning the peshat, therefore, enables the exegete to
interpret the scriptural text kabbalistically. In the final analysis, for
Jacob ben Sheshet, like other theosophic kabbalists of his time, the
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 67
Torah in its mystical essence is identical with the divine name . 57 This
identity underlies his claim, alluded to earlier, that the unvocalized
Torah scroll admits of multiple meanings, just as the Tetragramma-
ton allows for a multiplicity of vocalizations, each engendering a dif-
ferent vehicle for kabbalistic intention during prayer. Yet, despite
Jacob ben Sheshet’s claim that the meaning of each and every word of
the Torah changes in accordance with its vocalization, the fact is that
there is one text whose ideogrammatic form represents the shape of
the divine. This principle underlies Jacob ben Sheshet’s claim against
the commentators who on occasion derive the peshat by adding or
detracting words from Scripture: the written text is as it is - nothing
more or less! This understanding of “Scripture as it is” provides the
basic element in Jacob ben Sheshet’s conception of peshat, that is, the
“text” that encompasses the multiple levels of meaning. The rabbinic
stricture against negating the peshat, therefore, does not preclude
either rabbinic, especially aggadic, or kabbalistic interpretations. On
the contrary, it may happen that the kabbalistic interpretation is
itself the peshat, or, put differently, the peshat, when properly under-
stood, allows one to comprehend the mystical sense of Scripture . 58
This view is affirmed as well in an anonymous text, attributed to
Nahmanides, called the “Treatise on the Inwardness of the Torah.”
This text, prima facie, espouses an extreme form of the hierarchical
view by clearly distinguishing between the literal sense ( derekh
peshat) and the internal sense ( derekh penimi), which is identified
further as the inner soul (neshamah penimit) of Torah . 59 The author
even criticizes those who would limit their understanding of Torah
to the literal sense and urges the reader to believe that alongside the
literal meanings are deep secrets in Scripture . 60 He insists, moreover,
like Jacob ben Sheshet , 61 that the Torah scroll is not vocalized because
any received vocalization would limit the meaning of the verses in a
set and fixed way . 62 In spite of his emphasis on the potentiality for
infinite interpretability, the author is careful to note that all mean-
ings “are contained within the simple verses of Scripture ( peshatei
ha-miqra), and all of Torah acts according to this literal sense
( peshat ).” 63 For those who can comprehend the inner soul of Torah,
it is evident that the sensus mysticus is comprised within the sensus
litter alis.
What has been stated with regard to Nahmanides, Jacob
ben Sheshet, and the anonymous kabbalist can, in my view, be
68 LUMINAL DARKNESS
transferred to other mystic exegetes as well. To appreciate the way in
which the theosophic kabbalists, especially in the formative period
of kabbalistic literary history, looked at Scripture, it is necessary to
grasp the dynamics of kabbalistic interpretation with respect to
the fundamental issue of the relationship between peshat and sod.
The position of the theosophic kabbalists in general, and that of the
authorship of the Zohar in particular, is put into sharp relief when
compared with the view of Abraham Abulaha, leading expounder of
the ecstatic kabbalah in the second half of the thirteenth century. In
his detailed discussion of the seven exegetical methods of Abulaha,
Moshe Idel has pointed out that the peshat, according to Abulaha, is
oriented toward the masses who cannot comprehend truths on their
own accord. The literal sense thus serves a pedagogical purpose,
transmitting the tradition in order to educate the masses to perform
good deeds, to submit to the authority of the law, and to inculcate
truth in accordance with the level of their comprehension . 64
Although Abulaha pays lip service to the rabbinic dictum, “a verse
should not lose its literal sense,” it is clear that for him there is a
radical dichotomy between the literal and mystical, the exoteric and
esoteric . 65 A typical statement of this is found in his Or ha-Sekhel in
the following passage:
Even though we have alluded to the hidden matters, the verses
should not lose their literal sense. Insofar as there is nothing
compelling us to believe that this is an allegory and should not
be [understood] according to its literal sense in any manner, we
should initially believe the literal sense as it is ... Afterwards it
should be interpreted as much as it can withstand according to
the hidden way, for all that which is interpreted according to
what is hidden instructs about a deeper wisdom and is more
beneficial to a person than the exoteric teaching. The exoteric is
written to benefit the masses who have no analytic skill to dis-
tinguish between truth and falsehood, but this will not benefit
the knowledgeable person who seeks felicity unique to the
rational faculty . 66
The negative view of peshat emerges with clarity from Abulaha’s
understanding of the mystical dimension of the text. This mode
of interpretation, focused as it is on reading the text as a string of
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 69
separate letters that make up the different divine names, is, as Idel has
aptly put it, a “text-destroying exegesis.” 67
The theosophic exegete, by contrast, would maintain the
equal validity and necessity of the literal meaning. Indeed, the
insight of the mystical illumination is such that there is an awareness
that the esoteric is inseparable from the exoteric and, in the last
analysis, a full appreciation of the one is dependent upon the other.
The point is well made by Menahem Recanati: “In every place in the
Torah that you can elevate the [meaning of] a particular narrative
( ha-maaseh ) 68 or commandment to an entity higher than it [i.e. the
sefirot ], you must elevate it ... provided that you do not say that the
matter is not as it is in its literal sense.” 69 The necessity to preserve
the literal meaning together with the esoteric emphasized by the
kabbalists resonates with the following claim in an anonymous
passage, presumably written by someone of Ashkenazi extraction,
interpreting the statement attributed to R. Hanina bar Papa in
Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 65a: “He whose wine is not poured in his
house as water is not in the category of blessing”:
The Torah is compared to water and to wine, 70 that is, the Torah
in its literal sense is compared to water and the hidden sense to
wine, for the numerical value [of the word wine, yayin] is [that
of the word] secret [sod], as it says, “The wine enters and the
secret comes forth.” 71 That is to say, when one has learnt the
mysteries of Torah, which are compared to wine as the literal
meaning of Torah is compared to water, then the wine pours
forth like water, that is, its mysteries together with the literal
sense. In such a case there is certainly a sign of blessing! 72
The concurrence of peshat and sod from the perspective of the kab-
balistic reading is made in the following statement of Isaac of Acre:
I have seen the truth of the revealed and hidden secret ( sod
nokhahwe-nistar) in many verses and in prayers and blessings.
The one who believes only in the hidden ( nistar ) is in the cate-
gory of the heretics, and these are the foolish of the philoso-
phers who philosophize and are dependent upon their
speculations. They are wise in their own eyes, for they have no
knowledge of the ten sefirot belimah, which are the name of the
70 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Holy One, blessed be He. Their faith is evil and deficient, for
they act negligently with respect to prayer and blessings and
make light of all the commandments. The one who believes
solely in the external ( nokhah) are the foolish of the traditional-
ists ( ha-mequbbalim ), for it is inappropriate to separate the
Holy One, blessed be He, and His name. It is certainly the case
that the Holy One, blessed be He, is His name and His name is
the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus the ten sefirot belimah are the
boundary without boundary 73 ... through them one can com-
prehend the secrets of the haggadot and the establishment of
the words of the rabbis, blessed be their memory, “a verse
should not lose its literal sense .” 74
Interestingly, Isaac of Acre classifies the philosophers as
those who neglect the literal sense and believe only in the hidden,
that is, the inner or allegorical meaning, a claim well known from
other kabbalistic sources as well . 75 The traditionalists, on the other
hand, believe only in the revealed sense and lack knowledge of the
hidden meaning that is focused on the sehrotic world. The truth, one
may presume, lies with the one who heeds both the revealed and the
hidden meanings. Indeed, as Isaac says, it is only through knowledge
of the sefirot, the nistar, that one can both comprehend the aggadic
texts and fulfill the injunction of the rabbis that a verse does not lose
its literal sense ( peshat ).
If we turn at this juncture to the Zohar, we will find that here
too the notion of peshat is such that it comprehends within itself the
sensus mysticus. This assumption underlies the hermeneutical strat-
egy of the Zohar to discover in every minute detail of Scripture an
allusion or symbol pointing to the hidden world of God. Far from
being an impediment or obstacle to the mystical sense, therefore, the
peshat (understood in its expanded sense) provides the key for
unlocking kabbalistic truths. From the vantage point of zoharic
hermeneutics the internal, mystical dimension of Torah, the nistar,
is not concealed but rather revealed by the external form or garment,
the nigleh. Indeed, biblical interpretation in the Zohar can be charac-
terized as a form of hyperliteralism , 76 for the very words of Scripture
are transformed into vehicles for God’s self- revelation 77 inasmuch as
the letters are, to use the expression of the anonymous author of Sefer
ha-Temunah, “the true image, as it is written, ‘he beholds the image
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 71
of the Lord’ (Num. 12:8), and this is the secret of the name of the
Holy One, blessed be He.” 78 This is the force of the repeated identifi-
cation in the Zohar of God’s name and the Torah: the verses of Scrip-
ture refer to intra-divine processes in the sehrotic realm inasmuch as
the latter is said to be constituted within the name that is the Torah. 79
In contemporary semiotic terms, the matter may be expressed as
follows: the symbolic transformation of Scripture undertaken by the
zoharic authorship is dependent on such a close reading of the con-
ventional textual signs that this mode of anagogic interpretation
engenders a kind of literalism whereby the gap between levels of
discourse (like that between ontological spheres) is closed. The kab-
balistic interpretation proffered by the Zohar thus necessitates, in
Betty Roitman’s telling expression, a “return to the text,” for through
the kabbalistic reading scriptural words “become elements of a lexi-
con and present themselves as independent syntagms of greater or
lesser length, each of which functions as the statement of a semantic
equivalence.” 80
To be sure, I do not deny that in some of the most important
statements in zoharic literature affirming the diverse interpretative
layers of Scripture the hierarchical view is evident. Thus, for
example, there is the well-known metaphor employed in Midrash
ha-Ne‘elam on the book of Ruth, which compares the Torah to
a nut: just as the nut has three external shells and a kernel within,
so too the words of Torah have four types of meaning, the
literal sense ( ma‘aseh), sl the homiletical (midrash), the allegorical
(haggadah ) , 82 and the mystical (sod). 83 In another context the Zohar
at first notes that every verse can be interpreted according to three
senses: literal ( peshat ), homiletical (midrash), and mystical referred
to as the “supernal wisdom” (hokhmah ila’ah). The Torah is then
described by the metaphor of the tree whose different parts are said
to correspond to various types of meaning: literal, homiletic, alle-
gorical, numerological, mystical, and halakhic. 84 Moreover, on
several occasions the Zohar speaks of the Torah as being like the
name of God in terms of being both hidden and revealed, 85 and in at
least one place it is emphasized that the revealed meaning is appro-
priate for human beings whereas the hidden is reserved for God,
though Simeon ben Yohai was granted permission to reveal the
secret truths. 86 The hierarchical approach is evident as well in one of
the more dramatic and imaginative sections in the Zohar wherein
72 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the author describes the adventures of the fellowship of Simeon ben
Yohai in the most wondrous and fantastic terms. They are said to be
in a garden, which is described further as the place from which one
enters the world-to-come. After having fallen into a deep sleep, they
are aroused by an angelic voice. The narrative then unfolds three suc-
cessive stages of revelation, each reaching higher limits than the pre-
vious one. The first entails an encounter with “masters of Scripture”
( ma’rei miqra), the second with the “masters of Mishnah” ( ma’rei
matnita), and the third with “masters of aggadah ” ( mareihon de-
aggadah ). 87 From the context it is evident that each group reveals
deeper matters, culminating with the masters of aggadah who are
described as possessing “faces illuminated like the light of the sun ...
for they see each day the light of Torah as is appropriate.” The com-
rades are not given permission to enter into the place where the mas-
ters of aggadah are located, presumably because their teachings are
too esoteric. What is significant for our purposes is the hierarchical
ordering of interpretative postures implicit here: Scripture, Mish-
nah, and aggadah, the latter, I suggest, being identical with kabbalis-
tic meaning . 88
Perhaps the passage that is most hierarchical in nature is the
one that distinguishes four levels of meaning in the scriptural text:
the narrative that is the garment, the laws that are the body, the mys-
tical secrets that are the soul, and the innermost secrets - to be
revealed only in the messianic future - that are the soul of the soul.
These four are said to correspond respectively to the following onto-
logical gradations: the heavens, Shekhinah, Tif’eret, and Keter . 89 The
wicked are those who say that the Torah consists only of narratives
and therefore look at the garment, the peshat 90 but not the body that
consists of the laws and commandments. From the context it would
appear that the wicked are Christian exegetes who are viewed as
literalists in the sense that they look at and accept only the narrative
of Hebrew Scripture, insofar as it serves as the background for their
own Scripture. They do not consider the body underneath the exter-
nal garment, for they explicitly reject the biblical laws as interpreted
in the rabbinic tradition . 91 The righteous, by contrast, know how to
look at the Torah to see what lies beneath the garment. It is essential
to note that the body is correlated with the Shekhinah as well as the
commandments, two themes that find expression elsewhere in the
zoharic corpus . 92
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 73
A careful examination of the key passages that suggest that
the literal meaning hides or envelopes the mystical truth will demon-
strate, however, that this is from the perspective of only the uniniti-
ated or unenlightened. The process of mystical enlightenment or
illumination consists precisely of the fact that the baal ha-sod sees
the inner light (the esoteric matter) shine through the external shell
(the literal sense) of the text. Perhaps this is nowhere more evident
than in the following account:
The Holy One, blessed be He, enters all the hidden matters [or
words] that He has made in the holy Torah, and everything is
found in the Torah. The Torah reveals that hidden matter and
immediately it is cloaked in another garment wherein it is con-
cealed and not revealed. Even though the matter is hidden in its
garment, the wise, who are full of eyes ( malyyan ayyeniri), see it
from within its garment (ham an lah mi-go levushah). When
that matter is revealed, before it enters into a garment, they cast
an open eye ( peqihu de-eina ) upon it, and even though it is
immediately hidden it is not removed from their eyes . 93
The disclosure of that which is hidden within the Torah occurs
through the outer garment in which it is cloaked. This is the force
of the claim that the wise, who are “full of eyes,” malyyan ayyenin (I
return to this image later), see the concealed matter from within the
garment, ham an lah mi-go levushah. The function of the garment,
paradoxically, is to concomitantly conceal and reveal: the secret is
hidden from everyone by the garment, but it is only from within the
garment that the secret is revealed to the wise . 94 The plausibility of
this interpretation is supported by the famous parable of the beauti-
ful maiden and her lover, which immediately follows the passage just
cited. In this parable the maiden, who symbolizes the Torah, is said to
disclose four levels to her lover, the mystic, in a gradual process of
unveiling: the first stage corresponds to the level of literal sense
(peshat), the second to homiletical or midrashic interpretation
(derashah), the third to allegory (haggadah), and the fourth to the
mystical or esoteric. The last stage is not given a specific name but is
described as the maiden revealing herself “face to face” ( anpin
be-anpin) to the lover and disclosing “all her hidden secrets and
hidden ways .” 95 When the mysteries or secrets of Torah are revealed
74 LUMINAL DARKNESS
to the mystic, he unites with the Torah and is called husband of
Torah and master of the house, epithets that signify that this union is
of an amatory nature. In the moment of unification the maiden says
to the lover,
Do you see the allusion that I alluded to at first [i.e. the initial
disclosure that corresponds to the literal sense]? So many
secrets were contained in it. Now he sees that nothing should be
added or taken away from those words [of Scripture] . Then the
peshat of the verse is [revealed] as it is, not a single word should
be added or deleted. 96
At the end of the process, when one comprehends the mystical
essence of Torah, and thus unites with her in an intimate relation akin
to sexual union, then, and only then, does the plain sense of the verse
become comprehensible. Traditional commentators on the Zohar
have realized the full implication of this passage: mystical enlighten-
ment culminates with a reappropriation of peshat, 97 here understood
as the text as it is, to use the terminology of Jacob ben Sheshet, which
comprises all senses of Scripture, including the sensus mysticus.
The inclusion of sod within peshat is highlighted as well in
the following statement of Moses de Leon in one of his Hebrew theo-
sophic works:
Those very stories [in the Bible] are the secret of God, and they
are included in the wisdom of His thought, the secret of His
name. When a person removes the mask of blindness from his
face, then he will find in that very story and literal sense
( ha-ma‘aseh ) 98 a hill of spices 99 and frankincense. 100 Then his
blind eyes will be opened 101 and his thoughts will gladden, and
he will say, “Whoever you are, O great mountain” (Zech. 4:7),
exalted, “where you hid on the day of the incident” 102 (1 Sam.
20: 19), as I explained in the book that I composed called Pardes.
I called it by the name Pardes in virtue of the matter that is
known, for I composed it in accordance with the secret of the
four ways [of interpretation], according to its very name [as
alluded to in the saying] “Four entered the Pardes,” 103 in other
words, peshat, remez, derashah, sod, this is the matter of Pardes.
I explained there these matters pertaining to the secret of the
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 75
narrative and literal sense written in the Torah, to show that
everything is the eternal life and the true Torah, and there is
nothing in all the Torah that is not contained in the secret of
His name, may He be elevated . 104
In this passage, de Leon mentions his use of the fourfold
method of interpretation but insists that all levels of meaning,
including the literal narrative ( sensus historicus), are contained in the
secret of the name that is mystically identified with the Torah. It may
be concluded, therefore, that the peshat itself comprehends the sod.
This last point is brought out in a striking fashion in another zoharic
passage that serves as the preamble to the Sifra di-Tsemuta (“Book of
Concealment”). In the middle of that passage, a parable is given to
describe the fate of one who is occupied with the study of Sifra
di-Tsemuta, a process referred to, on the basis of the description of
Aqiva in the famous legend of four who entered Pardes, as “entering
and existing.” Such a person is compared to a man who lived in the
mountains and knew nothing of life in the city. This man sowed
wheat and ate the kernels raw. One day he went to the city and was
given bread, cakes kneaded in oil, and fine pastry made with honey
and oil. At each interval, he inquired about the ingredients used to
make the item he was consuming and was told, in each case, wheat.
After having received the last item, he proclaimed, “I am the master
of all these ( marei dikhol illein), for I eat the essence ( iqara ) 105 of
them all, which is wheat .” 106 The one who successfully studies the
“Book of Concealment” is thus compared to the mountain man who
eats the essential ingredient used in making all the different items,
viz. wheat. There seems to be in this parable a self-awareness on the
part of the author of Zohar that the Sifra di-Tsemuta somehow rep-
resents the kernel of zoharic theosophy whereas other parts, perhaps
especially the Idrot, are further elaborations that are comparable to the
various baked goods in relation to the wheat . 107 It is evident, moreover,
that wheat functions here as a symbol for Torah, a well-known motif
in classical rabbinic literature 108 in general and thirteenth-century
kabbalistic sources in particular . 109 Of especial interest is the talmudic
expression “masters of wheat,” marei hitya, for those who have
mastered the sources . 110 That the Zohar is probably drawing on this
image is strengthened by the fact that the Sifra di-Tsemuta is com-
posed of five chapters, which perhaps are meant to call to mind the
76 LUMINAL DARKNESS
five books of the Torah; that is, this part of the Zohar is structurally
parallel to the Pentateuch. 111 Furthermore, it is possible that the
wheat, bread, cakes, and fine pastry allude to the four levels of inter-
pretation, literal, midrashic, allegorical, and mystical. 112 The wheat,
therefore, symbolizes the literal sense of Torah, 113 its essence or most
basic ingredient, which is at the same time, as the Zohar points out,
the principle ( kelala ), 1 14 i.e. that which comprises within itself all the
other levels. The movement of zoharic hermeneutics may be thus
compared to a circle, beginning and ending with the text in its literal
sense. For the Zohar, the search for the deepest truths of Scripture is
a gradual stripping away of the external forms or garments until one
gets to the inner core, but when one gets to that inner core what one
finds is nothing other than the peshat, that is, the text as it is. To inter-
pret, from the perspective of the Zohar, is not to impose finite mean-
ing on the text, but to unfold the infinite meaning within the text. A
description of the interpretation process as a form of appropriation
by Paul Ricoeur is, I believe, particularly apt in characterizing the
convergence of peshat and sod in the Zohar: “Appropriation ... is
the recovery of that which is at work, in labour, within the text. What
the interpreter says is a re-saying which reactivates what is said by the
text.” 115 By decoding the text in light of sehrotic symbolism the theo-
sophic kabbalist recovers that which is at work within Scripture, at
least as viewed from his own perspective.
It is of interest to consider at this juncture the following
description of Moses Cordovero (1522-70), for he has combined the
negative attitude toward peshat characteristic of Ra‘aya Meheimna
and Tiqqunei Zohar with a more positive orientation of the main
body of the Zohar.
A person must remove the garments from the Torah and break
her shells in order to comprehend her depth and her hidden spir-
ituality 116 ... They must without doubt strip the Torah from all of
her shells ... then they will understand without any external gar-
ment. This is the secret of the Torah that the Floly One, blessed be
He, will create in the future ... All her shells will be broken and the
inner core of the Torah will be comprehended ... The kabbalistic
secret is clothed in the literal sense for one cannot know how to
expound it except by way of the literal sense, as if one said Abra-
ham was a merciful man [i.e., from the attribute of hesed or
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 77
mercy], and his going to Egypt [symbolizes] his descent to the
shells ... In this manner one cannot speak of kabbalah without it
being mixed with the secret of the literal sense and corporeality. 117
Cordovero thus begins with a description of the necessity to break
the shell of the literal sense, to remove its garment, in order to com-
prehend the inner core or mystical essence of Torah. The denuded
Torah, without shell or garment, characterizes the state of affairs in
the messianic age. The Torah in the preredemptive state must have
these shells or garment. There is little doubt that with respect to this
negative view of peshat Cordovero was influenced by the formula-
tion of Raaya Meheimna and Tiqqunei Zohar. n& In the second part
of the passage, however, Cordovero insists, in line with the main
body of the Zohar, that the esoteric meaning can be comprehended
only through the literal sense. Sod, therefore, is clothed in peshat, and
the only way to apprehend the former is through the latter.
What is perhaps an even more succinct presentation of the
hermeneutical orientation of the Zohar, which I would term the
retrieval of peshat, is contained in the following statement of Moses
Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlikov (ca. 1737-1800), grandson of Israel
ben Eliezer, Ba‘al Shem Tov (1700-60):
The secret of teqVah, teruah, teqVah is [to be explained] by [the
rabbinic idiom] “a verse should not lose its literal sense.” That is,
initially a person must study and comprehend the literal sense.
Afterwards he should expand to [the comprehension of] the
various lights and secrets of the Torah. And after that from the
power of interpretation he should return and come [to an
understanding of] the true literal sense (ha-peshat ha-emet).
This is [the significance] of teqVah, teruah, teqVah. At first there
is the teqVah that instructs about the literal sense ( ha-peshat ),
i.e., a straight sound ( qol pashut). 119 Afterwards there is a
teruah, which contains the letters torah ayin, i.e., the [Torah] is
interpreted in seventy [the numerical value of ayin ] ways. And
afterwards a teqVah, to return to the true literal sense. 120
In the case of the Zohar, one Ends precisely the kind of
“mystical literalism” 121 described by the Hasidic master that is
predicated on the notion that the esoteric sense is contained within
78 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the literal, an insight apprehended by the mystic who returns to the
literal sense, that is, the true literal sense, ha-peshat ha-emet, only
after interpreting the text in its multiple aspects. The literal sense is a
cover hiding the mystical light only for the unenlightened; the
mystic, by contrast, sees that light through and within the cover. The
rejection by the Zohar of a purely literal reading of biblical narrative
does not imply a bifurcation of meaning between peshat and sod, but
only a failure to understand the inherent mystical dimensions of
peshat. 122 Even the peshat contains sod, and one who looks at the
peshat without knowledge of the supernal realm cannot truly under-
stand peshat. This, I believe, is implied in the following passage: “Even
though the narrative of the Torah or the [literal] account ( ovada ) 123
goes out from the principle of Torah ( mi-kelala de-oraita ) [i.e. the
realm of divine emanations that in their collectivity are the Torah in
its supernal form] it does not go out to instruct about itself alone but
rather to instruct about that supernal principle of Torah ( kelala
ila’ah de-oraita ).” 124 The function of the literal- narrative meaning is
to instruct the reader about the supernal Torah, the divine pleroma.
Without such knowledge, the Torah in its purely literal fashion is not
even comprehended. This is the force of the mystical understanding
of the sensus lit teralis presented in the Zohar. Thus, in one of the con-
texts in which the Zohar emphasizes that the Torah, like the name of
God, is hidden and revealed, the focus is an interpretation of “And
she [Tamar] sat down at the entrance to Einayim” (Gen. 38:14).
R. Abba said: This section proves that the Torah is hidden and
revealed. I have looked through the entire Torah and have not
found a place that is called petah einayim. Rather all is hidden
and it contains a secret of secrets ... What is petah einayim ?
[The word petah may be gathered from what] is written, “he
[Abraham] was sitting at the entrance of the tent” (Gen. 18:1).
It is also written, “and the Lord will pass over the door”
(Exod. 12:23), and “Open the gates of righteousness for me”
(Ps. 118:19). [The word] “eyes” [signifies] that all eyes of the
word are looking upon this opening. 125
It is obvious, then, that the hidden meaning of the expression petah
einayim refers to the fact that it functions as a symbol for the last of
the divine gradations, Shekhinah, the opening to which all eyes are
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 79
turned. 126 The kabbalistic signibcation, therefore, is the sole mean-
ing that the term has for the Zohar; it does not represent a deeper
meaning set over against a more straightforward literal meaning, for
no “actual” place corresponds to that name. 127 The interpretation of
the Zohar is based on a particular reading of the verse found in sev-
eral rabbinic sources, 128 though the statement in Genesis Rabbah 85:7
is that which most closely resembles the language of the Zohar:
Rabbi said: We have reviewed all of Scripture and we have not
found a place which is called petah einayim. What, then, is petah
einayim ? This is to teach that she cast her eyes to the opening to
which all eyes are cast. And she said: Let it be Your will that I
should not leave this house empty handed. 129
Like the midrashist, the kabbalist begins from the assumption that
there is no actual place known by the name petah einayim. 130 Therefore,
the simple meaning of the biblical expression must be sought else-
where. The explanation in the midrashic compilation attributed to
Rabbi, that is, Judah the Prince 131 - which itself is intended as an expli-
cation of peshat and not an interpretative layer superimposed on the
text - that this refers to the “opening” to which all eyes are cast, that is, a
figurative characterization of God, 132 is appropriate and transformed
by the Zohar into a theosophic symbol. That is, this opening is none
other than the divine Presence, the last of the sefirot, which is often
characterized in theosophic kabbalistic literature as the gateway or
openness through which one enters into the sehrotic pleroma. Hence,
the peshat here is comprehensible only in light of the sod, though the
formulation of the latter is based on the midrashic (and decidedly non-
mystical) reading. In this case, therefore, the claim that the Torah is
hidden and revealed should not be construed as an affirmation of dual
meaning in the text, but rather as saying that the revealed meaning is
itself intelligible only in light of a hidden signibcation or symbolic
correspondence. In this respect, the Zohar follows Nahmanides and
Jacob ben Sheshet, who, as I mentioned earlier, affirmed that on occa-
sion the mystical meaning alone provides an adequate explanation for
the peshat. To take another illustration from the Zohar:
R. Simeon said: If people only knew the words of Torah, then
they would comprehend that there is no word or letter in the
80 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Torah that does not contain supernal, precious secrets. Come
and see: It is written, “Moses spoke and God answered him with
a voice” (Exod. 1 9: 1 9) . It has been taught: 133 What is [the mean-
ing of] “with a voice”? With the voice of Moses. This is correct,
the voice of Moses precisely ( dayqa ), the voice to which he was
attached and through which he was superior to all other
prophets. 134
In this particular example, the kabbalistic recasting of the
midrashic reading is offered as the peshat of the verse, the plain
meaning. Hence, the voice through which God responded to Moses
is, as reflected already in the midrashic interpretation, the voice of
Moses, but in the Zohar the latter is transformed into a symbol for
one of the sefirot, viz. Tif’eret, the gradation to which the earthly
Moses is attached. 135 The transformation of the midrashic into the
kabbalistic is noted by the author of Zohar by his use of the expres-
sion dayqa in connection with the phrase “voice of Moses,” which I
have rendered as “precisely.” The Zohar uses this term in many con-
texts to emphasize the kabbalistic intent 136 of the given passage, as,
for example, in the following:
It has been taught 137 [concerning the verse] “For on this day
atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins”
(Lev. 16:30). It should have been [written] “this day” ( ha-yom
ha-zeh). But it says “on this day” ( ba-yom ha-zeh ) precisely
(dayqa), for on that day the Holy Ancient One is revealed to
atone for everyone’s sins. 138
The pretext here is a presumed problem with peshat - a repeated
phenomenon in the Zohar to which I will return later on - which is
answered by stressing that the precise form of the biblical text
instructs the reader about a mystical process. It will be noted that
the same role is played by the word mammash, which served already
as a technical term in rabbinic literature to denote that a given
biblical expression should be understood in its factual or real sense
and not in some imaginative, figurative, or allegorical way. 139 In the
Zohar the word mammash can designate that a specific term is to
be understood in its kabbalistic signification. 140 Thus, for instance,
one reads,
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 81
He began to expound again and said: “From my flesh I will
see God” (Job 19:26). Why [is it written] “from my flesh”
( u-mibesari )? It should have been “from myself” ( u-meatsmi ).
Rather, from my flesh literally ( mammash)\ And what is it? As it
is written, “The holy flesh will pass away from you” ( Jer. 11:15),
and it is written, “Thus shall My covenant be marked in your
flesh” (Gen. 17:13). It has been taught: Whenever a person is
marked by the holy sign of that covenant, from it he sees the
Holy One, blessed be He. From it literally {mammash )\ 141
This is a striking example of the hyperliteralism that characterizes
the zoharic reading of Scripture. By means of the technique of
gezerah shawah, the linking of seemingly disparate contextual fields
based on identity of expression, 142 the Zohar determines that the
occurrence of the wo rd “flesh” (basar) in Job 19:26 must be explained
as denoting the membrum virile', hence, it is from the phallus that one
sees God. 143 The meaning of this is clarified by the mystical notion,
itself rooted in earlier midrashic modes of thinking, that the sign of
the covenant of circumcision is a letter inscribed on the body. 144 In
that sense it can be said that one sees God from the very flesh on
which the sign of the covenant has been inscribed.
Another example of the hyperliteralism of the Zohar maybe
gathered from the following passage: “The first tablets were
inscribed from that place [ Binah ]. This is the secret of the verse,
‘incised on the tablets’ (Exod. 32:16). Do not read ‘incised’ ( harut )
but rather freedom ( herut ). 145 Herut indeed ( mammash ) - the place
upon which is dependent all freedom.” 146 Utilizing the midrashic
reading of the biblical expression harut as herut, the Zohar renders
the plain sense of the verse as referring to the sefirah that is desig-
nated by the term herut, the ontic source of all freedom, that is,
Binah, which is the source as well for the tablets of law, the subject of
the verse in question. On occasion the Zohar uses both of these
expressions together, mammash and dayqa, to note that the literal
meaning is comprehensible only in terms of the kabbalistic signifi-
cance. 147 To cite one pertinent example:
R. Judah: Israel did not come close to Mount Sinai until they
entered the portion of the Righteous One [Tsaddiq, i.e. the
ninth emanation or Yesod, Foundation] and merited it. From
82 LUMINAL DARKNESS
where do we know? It is written, “On that very day they entered
the wilderness of Sinai” (Exod. 19: 1 ).“On that very day” indeed
( mammash dayqa) ! And it is written, “In that day they shall say:
This is our God; we trusted in Him [and He delivered us]”
(Isa. 25:9). 148
The kabbalistic explanation that Israel approached Mount Sinai only
after having entered the divine grade of Yesod, or Tsaddiq, is derived
from the literal expression ba-yom ha-zeh, “on that very day,” for the
word zeh , the masculine demonstrative pronoun, is one of the stand-
ard symbols for this particular sefirah. 149 Further support for this
reading is adduced from Isaiah 25:9, where the demonstrative zeh is
again used, as read by the theosophic exegete, as a name of this
attribute of God. The kabbalistic truth is, in the last analysis, revealed
to a careful reader of the text in its most elemental sense through the
rabbinic hermeneutical technique of gezerah shawah. 150
That the implication of the expressions dayqa and mammash
is to signify the convergence of peshat and sod, such that the determin-
ation of kabbalistic meaning is channeled through the linguistic
signification of the terms in the given utterance, 151 can be seen
unambiguously from the following passage:
R. Simeon said: it is written “And new moon after new moon,
and sabbath after sabbath” (Isa. 66:23). Why is the one [new
moon] compared to the other [sabbath]? Everything amounts
to one gradation, the one coupled with the other. The happiness
of the one is not found in the other except when the Holy
Ancient One is revealed; then the happiness of all [is found] . It
has been taught: “A psalm. A song, for the sabbath day”
(Ps. 92:1), to the sabbath day literally ( mammash ) ! This is a praise
that the Holy One, blessed be He, utters. At that time the hap-
piness is found and the soul is increased for the Ancient One is
revealed and the union is set. Similarly, when the moon is
renewed the sun illuminates her with the happiness of the light
of the Ancient One above. Therefore this sacrifice [offered on
the New Moon] is above so that everything will be ameliorated
and happiness will be found in the world. Thus [it is said] “they
should bring a sacrifice for me,” the word [ al ] precisely ( dayqa
millah). It has been taught: It is written, “A burnt offering for
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 83
sabbath in addition to the regular burnt offering” (Num. 28:10).
One must focus one’s mental intention higher than the rest of
the days. Thus [it is written] specifically ( dayqa) “in addition to
[i.e. al, which can be read as the preposition ‘atop’ or ‘over’] the
burnt offering.” It has been taught: [with respect to] Hannah it
is written, “she prayed to ( al) the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:10). [The
word] al indeed ( dayqa), for children are dependent on the holy
mazzal [i.e. Keter or the Holy Ancient One] 152 ... There is no
word or even a small letter in the Torah that does not allude to
the supernal wisdom, and from which are suspended heaps of
secrets of the supernal wisdom. 153
In this highly compact passage, the Zohar draws various mystical
conclusions by effectively overliteralizing the verses under discus-
sion. In particular, attention is paid to what would appear to be a
rather innocuous word, the preposition al, which, when read kabbal-
istically, is decoded as a sign for the uppermost aspects of the divine.
Having determined the meaning of this term, it is possible to link
together disparate textual units - in this case derived both from bib-
lical and talmudic sources - by means of the technique of gezerah
shawah. What would appear from the outside as an obvious impos-
ition of an external and autonomous system upon the biblical text is
in fact presented as the precise and literal meaning of the relevant
verses. Therefore the concluding statement is to the effect that every
word, indeed every letter, of Scripture alludes to a supernal secret. In
the case of the Zohar we might say, inverting the instructive phrase of
one scholar, peshat is “deep midrash,” 154 if we understand by the
latter a reference to theosophic symbolism.
Another, and by far the most frequently employed, term in
the Zohar to mark the convergence of peshat and sod is the word
wadda’y. With respect to this usage it must be noted that the Zohar
is again drawing on rabbinic literature, wherein this word, like
mammash, functioned as a terminus technicus to underscore or
emphasize the factual or sensible meaning, the peshat as it came to be
called in Amoraic sources, of a certain expression in contrast to a
nonliteral or figurative connotation. 155 At least three different
nuances can be discerned in the zoharic usage of the key term. It is
used to emphasize the actual or real meaning, 156 to mark a kabbalis-
tic symbol, 157 or to signify the convergence of the exoteric (literal)
84 LUMINAL DARKNESS
and esoteric (symbolic) meaning, 158 I will mention only a few
examples of countless possibilities found scattered throughout the
landscape of the Zohar. From a purely statistical perspective the
examples I will give are somewhat arbitrary in that they reflect only a
very small portion of the passages that could have been cited. Fiow-
ever, by calling attention to the limited cases where this exegetical
device is used, I hope minimally to focus scholarly attention on an
important, but neglected, phenomenon in zoharic hermeneutics. It
is my intention, moreover, that the typologies established here will
be tested, refined, and applied in other studies in the future.
Let me begin with the following zoharic interpretation of
Esther 8:15:
Mordecai went out before the king in royal attire [levush
malkhut, lit. in the garment of royalty], the garment of royalty
indeed ( wadda’y ) [i.e.] the image of that [supernal] world ...
R. Shim’on said: how sweet are these words, fortunate is my lot.
I know that the righteous in that world are clothed in the
garment called the garment of royalty, and indeed so it is. 159
The expression levush malkhut, understood in its literal sense from
the vantage point of the Zohar, signifies the luminous garment that
derives from the Shekhinah, the divine attribute also called by the
name Malkhut. The verse informs us, then, that when Mordecai went
before the King he was cloaked in just such an aura, which is con-
strued as an image of the garment of the righteous in the sehrotic
realm. There is here no second meaning for the expression levush
malkhut; its plain meaning indicates the mystical notion. Another
way of putting this matter is that the literalism of the text instructs
the reader about the esoteric doctrine. The same approach is appar-
ent in the zoharic interpretation of the verse, “When the men of the
place [of Gerar] asked him [Isaac] about his wife, he said, ‘She is my
sister’” (Gen. 26:7):
This is similar [to the incident of] Abraham, 160 for the Shekhinah
was with him and his wife, and on account of the Shekhinah [the
statement] was uttered, as it is written, “Say to Wisdom, You are
my sister” (Prov. 7:4). Therefore he was strengthened and said
“She is my sister.” By both Abraham and Isaac it was certainly
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 85
appropriate, for in the verse it is written, “My sister, my darling,
my faultless dove” (Song of Songs 5:2). Thus it was indeed
(■ wadda’y ) appropriate for them to say “She is my sister.” 161
Troubled by an obvious problem that has engaged the interest of
biblical commentators through the ages regarding Isaac’s (like
Abraham’s) overt deception, the Zohar provides an explanation that
accounts for the peshat but only by reference to a kabbalistic secret.
The connotation of the word “sister” in the account of Abraham and
Isaac is Shekhinah, a usage attested in the two other biblical verses -
when read kabbalistically as well - cited in the preceding passage.
The peshat, when so understood, removes the problem of lying
entirely, for both Patriarchs referred to the divine Presence and not
their respective spouses. Even though the peshat offered by the
zoharic reading ignores the continuation of the verse itself, it is evi-
dent that the kabbalistic explanation of the word “sister” is indeed
presented as the plain meaning of the idiom in this context.
Let me cite another example to illustrate the point:
R. Hiyya began to expound, “the glory of God is to conceal the
matter, the glory of kings is to search out the matter” (Prov. 25:2 ) .
“The glory of God is to conceal the matter,” for a person does
not have permission to reveal secret matters, as they have not
been given permission to reveal matters that the Ancient of
Days concealed, as it is said, “that they may eat their fill and
cover that which the Ancient One [concealed]” (Isa. 23:18). 162
“To eat their fill,” up to that place wherein they have permission
[to reveal] and no more. Thus it is said, we-limekhaseh atiq,
verily ( wadda’y ) that which the Ancient One (atiq) covers. 163
The author of the Zohar follows here the reading of the verse from
Isaiah attributed to R. Eleazar in the Talmud (b. Pesahim 119a):
“What is the meaning of li-mekhaseh atiq ? That which the Ancient of
Days ( atiq yomin ) has concealed. And what is that? The secrets of
Torah.” The midrashic reading is accepted by the Zohar as the peshat
of the verse, signified by the usage of the terminus technicus wadda’y.
In the case of the Zohar, moreover, the talmudic reference is trans-
posed in light of sefirotic theosophy, for the word atiq designates the
86 LUMINAL DARKNESS
first of the divine gradations, though already in the Talmud the word
atiq has a specific theological reference. In this case as well, therefore,
we have an instance where the peshat of a verse is rendered by its
esoteric meaning. That the word wadday serves as a kind of signpost
to designate that the plain sense of the biblical expression is to be
rendered by its sehrotic correlation is repeatedly stressed in the
Zohar, as for example:
Why is it written, “Her ways are ways of pleasantness”
(Prov. 3:17)? [R. Eleazar] said to [R. Hiyyaj: How foolish are
people of the world, for they do not know how to consider
words of Torah, for the words of Torah are the way to merit that
pleasantness of God, as it is written, “Her ways are ways of pleas-
antness.” The ways of pleasantness ( no‘am ) indeed! What is this
pleasantness? As it is written, “To gaze upon the beauty ( no‘am )
of the Lord.” It has been taught that the Torah and its ways
derive from that Beauty ... Thus, it is written, “Her ways are ways
of pleasantness, and all her paths peaceful.” 164
From the vantage point of the kabbalist, then, the expression darkhei
no‘am, “the ways of pleasantness,” refers to the gradation in the
sehrotic pleroma out of which the Torah, itself a designation for the
sefirah of Tif’eret, emerges. In that sense, the expression should be
taken quite literally, for the ways of Torah are the ways of pleasant-
ness; that is, pleasantness is the ontic source for the Torah.
The exegetical function that the author of the Zohar
assigned to the word wadday as marking the overlapping of exoteric
and esoteric signification can also be seen from the following pas-
sage:
What is [the meaning of what is] written, “So he [Moses cried
out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood (ets)”
(Exod. 15:25)? The word ets is nothing but the Torah, 165 as it is
written, “She is a tree of life ( ets hayyim ) to those who grasp her”
(Prov. 3: 18). And the [word] Torah is nothing but the Holy One,
blessed be He. R. Abba said: the [word] tree is nothing but the
Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, “For man [is] the tree of
the held” (Num. 20:19), 166 the tree of the held ( ets ha-sadeh )
indeed ( wadda’y ), i.e., the tree of the held of holy apples. 167
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 87
Using the ancient midrashic formula to derive semantic meaning
from a specific expression, “the word X is nothing but Y,” 168 the
author of Zohar sets out to show that the reference to the piece of
wood in Exodus 15:25 refers to God or, to be more precise, the aspect
of God that corresponds to the Torah and is called the Holy One,
blessed be He, that is, Tif’eret. The first view achieves this by two
steps: first, by following rabbinic exegesis and specifying that the
word “tree” (or “wood”) signifies Torah; and second, that the word
“Torah” denotes the Holy One, blessed be He. R. Abba, by contrast,
reaches the goal with one step: the word “tree” itself denotes the Holy
One, blessed be He. This is proven from the verse, “For man [is] the
tree of the held,” which is read as the tree of the “held of holy apples,”
that is, the Shekhinah. The tree that is in the held of holy apples is
Tif’eret, also designated as the anthropos.
From the perspective of the zoharic authorship, then, the
word wadda’y can signify that the literal sense of Scripture is to be
sought in its kabbalistic meaning. That this is so may be seen clearly
from one hnal example:
“The Ford spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the ritual
law that the Ford has commanded” (Num. 19:1-2). R. Yose
began to expound: “This is the Torah that Moses set before the
Israelites” (Deut. 4:44). Come and see: The words of Torah are
holy, supernal, and sweet ... For he who is involved in [the study
of] Torah it is as if he stands each day on Mount Sinai and
receives the Torah ... The comrades have thus taught: Here it is
written “this is the ritual law” ( zo’t huqqat ha-torah ) and [in the
other case] it is written “and this is the Torah” (we-zo’t ha-torah).
What is the difference between these two? This concerns a
supernal mystery and thus have I learnt: “This is the Torah” to
show everything in one unity, to contain the Community of
Israel [Shekhinah] within the Holy One, blessed be He
[Tif’eret] so that everything will be found as one. Therefore
[it is written] “and this is the Torah.” Why is there the additional
waw [in the word we-zo’t ]? As it has been said, to show that
everything is one without any separation. [The word] we-zo’t
[signifies] the principle ( kelal ) and the exception ( perat ) as
one, the masculine and feminine. Thus [it is written] “And this
is the Torah” indeed ( wadda’yf. But the word zo’t without the
88 LUMINAL DARKNESS
additional waw [signifies] “the ritual law” ( huqqat ha-torah)
indeed ( wadda’y ), and not the Torah, i.e., the law of the Torah
and the decree of the Torah... Thus [it is written] “and this is the
Torah” literally ( mammash ), [signifying] one complete unity,
the containment of the masculine and feminine, the waw and
the he [the word signifies] the he alone, and thus [it is
written] “this is the ritual law.” 169
Ever a close reader of the biblical text, the zoharic author
here heeds the distinction between the two expressions “and this is
the Torah” ( we-zo’t ha-torah), on the one hand, and “this is the ritual
law” ( zo’t huqqat ha-torah), on the other. The former expression
when decoded (perhaps “encoded” would be the more appropriate
word) kabbalistically alludes to the unity of the feminine and mas-
culine aspects of the divine, Shekhinah and Tif’eret, signified,
respectively, by the words zo’t and torah, whereas the latter refers
exclusively to the feminine aspect designated as zo’t as well as huqqat
ha-torah. The verse “and this is the torah” is thus being read as: this,
zo’t, that is, Shekhinah, is one with the Torah, that is, Tif’eret. By con-
trast, the verse “this is the ritual law” is read as follows: this, zo’t, that
is, Shekhinah, is the ritual law, huqqat torah, both terms designating
the same potency of the Godhead. The former verse, therefore,
unlike the latter, is a statement that proclaims the divine unity,
understood in its particular kabbalistic nuance. This point is related
by the kabbalistic interpreter to the additional waw in the former
case, we-zo’t, a letter that signifies the union of male and female. In
the last analysis, therefore, the kabbalistic reading is indicated by the
very orthography of Scripture, which constitutes the peshat in the
extended sense of the term.
The centrality of the role of peshat in zoharic hermeneutics
can be ascertained as well from the many instances in the Zohar
wherein a problem with the simple meaning serves as the basis for a
kabbalistic truth that, when exposed, illuminates the verse. Suffice it
here to mention a few examples to illustrate this phenomenon. In
one passage the claim of the Zohar that every word of Scripture has a
secret is based on a problem with the literal meaning of Exodus 2:6,
“When she [the daughter of Pharaoh] opened it, she saw that it was
a child,” wa-tiftah wa-tir’ehu et ha-yeled. The obvious problem,
reflected in any number of medieval biblical exegetes, 170 is why the
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 89
word wa-tir’ehu, which contains the verb (“saw”) and the direct
object (“him”), is followed by another direct object of the same
verb, “the child,” et ha-yeled. This problem in peshat serves as the
springboard for the mystical imagination of the author of Zohar,
who notes that the extra letters in the word wa-tir’ehu, the he and
waw, which symbolize the attributes of Shekhinah and Tif’eret, were
inscribed on the infant Moses. This kabbalistic interpretation is
based in part upon the following statement in Babylonian Talmud,
Sotah 12b: “ ‘When she opened it, she saw that it was a child.’ It
should have been written wa-tir’eh (she saw) [instead of wa-tir’ehu,
she saw him] . R. Yose ben Hanina said that she saw the Shekhinah
with him.” In his commentary on the relevant verse, the eleventh-
century exegete R. Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (Rashi) cites this
talmudic interpretation as the midrashic one after he offers what he
considers to be the peshat, viz. the direct object “the child” ( et ha-yeled)
modifies the prior expression “she saw him” ( wa-tir’ehu ). From the
perspective of R. Yose ben Hanina, however, the midrashic explan-
ation is itself the peshat of the verse. Scripture should have used the
verbal form wa-tera followed by the direct object et ha-yeled. The
seemingly superfluous expression, wa-tir’ehu, therefore, is inter-
preted as a reference to the Shekhinah. According to the opinion of
some later Ashkenazi authorities, the reference to the Shekhinah is
derived from the two extra letters in the word wa-tir’ehu, the he and
waw, for these letters make up one of the names of God, ho. 171 Thus,
for instance, Judah ben Eliezer (twelfth and thirteenth century),
writes, “ ‘When she opened it, she saw that it was a child.’ R. Solomon
ben Isaac (Rashi) explains that she saw the Shekhinah with him. This
is derived from the fact that it is not written she saw ( wa-tera ) but
rather she saw him (wa-tir’ehu), and this [the extra letters he-waw] is
the name of the Holy One, blessed be He.” 172 Similarly, in the Torah
commentary stemming from the circle of Judah ben Samuel the
Pious, though erroneously attributed to Eleazar ben Judah of
Worms, one finds the following formulation: “‘She saw him’
( wa-tir’ehu ) should be read as she saw ho (he-waw), she saw the light
of the Shekhinah!’ 173 The Zohar continues this line of interpretation,
but, in accordance with its own theosophic conception, distin-
guishes between the he and waw, referring, as was said earlier, to
Shekhinah and Tif’eret. Although the kabbalistic explanation carries
one far from the sensus litteralis in any conventional manner, it is
90 LUMINAL DARKNESS
instructive that the mystical exegesis begins with a textual difficulty
on the peshat level.
Another example of this phenomenon occurs in the zoharic
interpretation of “The Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I
am El Shaddai’” (Gen. 17:1). The Zohar raises a question about the
use of the particular divine name, El Shaddai, in this context. This
question has been posed by most of the standard medieval biblical
commentaries, including, for instance, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra,
Nahmanides, and Obadiah Sforno. It is clear, then, that the query of
the Zohar must be understood within this context. The response of
the Zohar involves a complicated kabbalistic exegesis that will illu-
minate this particular usage in terms of a mystical signification. That
is, circumcision effects a change from the demonic realm, symbol-
ized by the word shed, to the divine, represented by Shaddai or the
last of the sefirot, the Shekhinah. The two words, shed and Shaddai,
share the same consonants with the exception of the yod in the latter,
the letter that corresponds to the sign of the covenant, otberit, that is,
the sign of circumcision. After having been circumcised Abraham
can be called tamim, which the Zohar renders in accordance with the
Targum as shelim, that is, “perfect.” Such a person is blessed by
Shekhinah as is further attested by the verse, “May El Shaddai bless
you” (Gen. 28:3). The kabbalistic exegesis is propelled by and returns
to a concern with the literal sense of the text.
One can discern the same process in the following passage:
“Elohim blessed Noah and his sons” (Gen. 9: 1 ) . R. Abba began
to expound, “It is the blessing of the Lord that enriches, and no
toil can increase it” (Prov. 10:22). “The blessing of the Lord”
{hirkat yhwh) is the Shekhinah, for she is appointed over the
blessings of the world, and from her the blessings go out for
everyone. 174
According to the zoharic reading of Genesis 9:1, the Shekhinah, last
of the ten gradations, blessed Noah. This is highlighted by the mys-
tical exegesis of Proverbs 10:22, where hirkat yhwh is deciphered as
a technical name for the Shekhinah. The point of the passage is that
the verse in Genesis can be understood only when one is aware that
Elohim is a name of the Shekhinah, the source of blessing. This is
peshuto shel miqra, that is, the plain meaning of the text; no other
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 91
sense would serve as an outer shell or covering hiding the inner
meaning. On the contrary, the text allows for only one meaning, the
proper deciphering of which belongs in the hands of the enlightened
kabbalist. Thus, in the continuation of this passage, the Zohar
explains the semantic shift from the use of the name YHWH in
“Then the Lord said to Noah, Go into the ark etc.” (Gen. 7:1), to
Elohim in “Elohim blessed Noah and his sons” (Gen. 9:1): “As it is
said, the master of the house grants permission for one to enter, and
afterwards the wife tells one to exit. One enters at first with the per-
mission of the master and in the end leaves with the permission of
the wife.” When the allusions are properly decoded, it turns out that
the Tetragrammaton corresponds to the masculine potency, Tif’eret,
and Elohim to the feminine Shekhinah. The kabbalistic symbolism
allows the zoharic authorship to account for a subtle shift in the text
concerning the various divine names, an issue that has continued to
provide grist for the mill of biblical scholarship. In this connection it
should be noted that the Zohar often pays careful attention to the
different names of God as they appear in the Bible inasmuch as they
refer to particular sefirot. To take what may be considered a rather
typical example of this phenomenon: “R. Eleazar said the Shekhinah
was speaking with [Abraham] for through this gradation the Holy
One, blessed be He, was revealed to him, as it is written, ‘I appeared
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the name El Shaddai.’ [R. Simeon]
said to him: So it certainly ( wadda’y) is!” In these cases it is unequivo-
cally the case that the very peshat of Scripture can only be compre-
hended by way of kabbalistic explication.
Another typology that can be discerned in the Zohar con-
cerns the interpretation of a verse wherein a problem with the literal
sense functions as a stimulus for the kabbalistic interpretation. In
these cases, unlike the ones previously discussed, the assumption is
not that the peshat is the sod, but only that concern with the peshat
serves as the pretext to develop the esoteric reading. An example of
this may be seen in the following:
Come and see, it is written, “This shall be ( we-hayita zo’t ) to you
a law for all time” (Lev. 16:34). It should have been [written]
“this shall be for you” ( we-hayita lakhem ) [i.e. without the
article zo’t \ . What is the import of the word “this” (zo’t)? For it
is said a law for all time ( huqqat olam). In every place [the
92 LUMINAL DARKNESS
expression] “a law for all time” ( huqqat olam) is called the
decree of the king, for all laws enter into that place and it seals
them as one who seals everything in a treasure. “A law for all
time” indeed ( wadda’y)\ In that [grade referred to as] zo’t is
inscribed and engraved all its hidden and concealed matters . 175
Beginning with an ostensible problem at the level of the simple
meaning, the Zohar is able to interpret the seemingly extra word as a
cipher for a deep mystical truth. The word is not superfluous, but
rather indicates to us the kabbalistic significance of the whole verse:
the law referred to is not simply the rituals specified for atonement
on Yom Kippur, but it is a mystical symbol for the last of the grad-
ations. In this case, and countless others that I could have cited, the
literal sense does not entirely overlap with the mystical. The issue
rather is that the latter is derived by a probing of the former. It is pre-
cisely such a strategy that fills the pages of the Zohar, the kabbalist
exegete heeding each and every word of Scripture, maintaining
the divinity and ultimate significance of the text as it is in its
received form.
In sum, it may be concluded that the scholarly consensus
that the interest in peshatm the Zohar is secondary, and unrelated to
the internal meaning, must be corrected. From three distinct vantage
points it can be argued that concern with the literal sense is essential
to zoharic hermeneutics. First, the Zohar is operating with a theo-
logical conception of the sensus litteralis such that it is thought to
comprise within itself all senses of Scripture, including the mystical.
Second, numerous examples in the Zohar indicate that the author-
ship of this work accepted the view that in certain cases, the peshat of
a verse is comprehensible only in terms of sod; that is, the kabbalistic
meaning is not a supplementary one but is rather the exclusive sense
of the text. Third, the search for the esoteric meaning in Zohar often
begins with a standard problem of reading the verse contextually.
While the mystical imagination carries the Zohar beyond the reaches
of the literal meaning in any exact sense of the term, from the per-
spective of Zohar itself, by removing the external coverings, one
opens up the text to see it as it is in its most basic form, viz. a self-
revelation of God. Discovering peshat, for the authorship of the Zohar,
means discarding the outer layers that conceal the inner light or soul
of the text. Those who look only at the peshat, without knowledge of
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 93
what lies beneath, do not in the end really understand even the peshat;
that is, they have no text. In that sense, the act of reading (i.e. inter-
preting) is constitutive not only of meaning, but of the text itself.
This point is depicted in a profound way in one of the para-
bles spoken by the mysterious elder to R. Yose: “Who is the beautiful
maiden who has no eyes, and whose body is hidden and revealed; she
goes out in the morning and hides during the day, adorned in orna-
mentations that are not .” 176 From the continuation of this section it
is evident that this maiden symbolizes the Torah who stands before
her lover. Thus, we have a striking contrast between the description
of Torah as the maiden without eyes and the mystic exegete who, as I
noted earlier in another context, is referred to as the “wise one full of
eyes .” 177 The force of the latter expression is clear enough, as maybe
gathered, for instance, from another passage in Zohar where the
mystics are characterized as “masters of the eyes ( ma’rei de-ayyenin)
who know with their mind and contemplate the wisdom of the
Master .” 178 This last description reflects a shift in the epistemological
focus characteristic of the Zohar from the auditory to the visual as
the essential modality by which gnosis of the divine is gained . 179
But what does it mean to say of the Torah that it has no eyes?
Yehuda Liebes has suggested two possible meanings: the first that it is
invisible and the second that it has no aspect or color. The former
explanation fits well into the context, for, as it has been pointed out
already, the maiden is described as hiding and revealing herself in
progressive stages before the lover. That is, the Torah is invisible to all
but the kabbalist who knows how to “see” - that is, interpret - her.
The difficulty with this explanation is a philological one, for the
actual expression is that the maiden has no eyes. This implies that she
cannot see, not that she cannot be seen. It thus seems to me more
likely that the second explanation is the correct one. That the word
“eyes” has the connotation of colors, aspects, or characteristics is
attested already in biblical 180 and rabbinic 181 usage.
Specifically, in terms of kabbalistic precedents mention
should be made of Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen’s statement to the effect
that Tanin, the intermediary between Samael and Lilith in the
demonic realm, corresponding to Yesod on the side of holiness, is
described as having no eyes, that is, no characteristic . 182 In the zoharic
parable, I would suggest, moreover, that this description of the maiden
indicates that the parabolic image is operative simultaneously on
94 LUMINAL DARKNESS
two planes, the hermeneutical and the ontic. That is to say, the
maiden symbolizes not only Torah but the divine grade to which the
latter corresponds, viz. the Shekhinah , 183 It can be shown from other
passages in the Zohar that the Torah is identified as the feminine
persona of God, the Shekhinah, a conception rooted in the older
aggadic motif concerning the female image of the Torah , 184 even
though, according to a widely attested conception in thirteenth-
century kabbalah, the Written Torah corresponds to the masculine
and the Oral Torah to the feminine. It is the case, moreover, that the
Shekhinah is often enough described as that which has no form or
color of its own, but only that which it receives from above. The
maiden without eyes, therefore, signifies that the text in and of itself
is “blind,” without sense; whatever meaning the text has is imparted
to it by the open eye ( peqihu de-eina) of the reader in the same
manner that the Shekhinah assumes the forms that she receives from
the sefirah of Yesod, the membrum virile in the divine organism. The
interpreter thus stands in the position of the masculine Yesod when
confronting the text, which is likened to the female Shekhinah, and
the interpretative relation is essentially erotic in its nature . 185 The
mystic, full of eyes, gives sense to the eyeless text by his bestowing
glance, a glance that bestows by disclosing that which is latent in the
text. The constitution of meaning in the hermeneutical relationship
underlies the task of reading, according to the Zohar. Paradoxically,
this act of bestowal is characterized as an appropriation of that
which the text reveals from within its concealment. This is true for all
levels of meaning; only at the end of the process, when the mystic
stands face to face with the text, is the text finally disclosed.
The Zohar’s rejection of a purely literal reading of biblical
narrative does not imply a bifurcation of meaning between peshat
and sod, but only a failure to understand the inherent mystical
dimensions of peshat. That is, even peshat contains sod, and the one
who looks at the plain meaning without knowledge of the supernal
realm cannot truly understand the plain meaning. The relation
between esoteric and exoteric levels of meaning is very much
reflected, as Idel has noted, in the respective ontology of the given
kabbalist . 186 Hence, the ontological assumption that the corporeal
world symbolically reflects the divine, a common feature of theo-
sophic kabbalah, in the realm of exegesis generates a positive attitude
toward peshat and its relationship to sod. This positive attitude is
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 95
even more pronounced in the case of the Zohar, where pantheistic
tendencies are evident. 187 That is, all reality is said to form one con-
tinuous chain so that there are no radical breaks. It follows that
entities in the mundane realm are but final links in this chain.
Analogously, the literal sense comprises within itself the esoteric
truths. The peshat, therefore, is not a shell that is to be broken or a
garment to be discarded, but rather a veil to be penetrated so that
through it one can behold the mystical insight - in the words of the
Zohar, to see the secret matter from within its garment. The attitude
of Zohar toward the written text of Scripture had an enduring influ-
ence on the kabbalistic tradition, which unfolded for several hundred
years after the Zohar’s appearance. For example, the noted kabbalist
Hayyim Vital ( 1 543-1 620), who in his programmatic introduction to
the Shaar ha-Haqdamot launches, on the basis of zoharic passages
drawn mainly from Raaya Meheimna and the Tiqqunim , 188 a sharp
critique of those who adopt a literalist approach toward the Written
and Oral Torah, in one place underlines the inherent necessity of the
peshat and its organic relation to the sod or inner meaning:
This too [the attribution of physical characteristics such as
wings to the angels] will be a wonder in the eyes of the literalists,
and they will think that in this too there is form, and the matter
is not [to be taken] according to its literal meaning. They do not
understand that the literal sense ( peshat ) and the symbolic
( remez) 189 are one thing like the soul and the body, for the one is
the image and likeness of the other. If the soul would change its
limbs from the limbs of the body, of necessity the former could
not be clothed in the latter. A small vessel cannot contain a
larger one; and if the latter goes inside the former, it cannot go
inside with all its parts. In this manner the literal meaning of
Scripture ( peshatei ha-torah ) must be like the soul of the Torah
and its inwardness ( nishmat ha-torah u-penimiyutah ) for the
body is the image of the soul. It is also necessary that the inward-
ness be something spiritual, for if not it would have no need to
be clothed, as [it follows from] the way of the literalists who
explain the beginning of the Torah. 190
From this passage we can understand the thrust of Vital’s
attack on the literalists. Fie does not oppose the study of peshat, what
96 LUMINAL DARKNESS
he does reject is the study of peshat divorced from any consideration
of sod. In his view the literal and the symbolic meanings are one
organic unity in a relationship like that of the soul and body. Just as
there is a morphological resemblance between soul and body
enabling the former to be clothed in the latter, so too there is corres-
pondence between the literal and esoteric textual levels. The hidden
signification is clothed in and ultimately known through the literal.
The view expressed here confirms the posture of the Zohar which I
have discussed at length in this essay.
The implicit principle of zoharic hermeneutics is rendered
explicitly by subsequent kabbalists, such as Isaiah ben Abraham
Horowitz (ca. 1565-1630), known as ha-SheLaH ha-Qadosh, the
“holy Shelah,” based on the initials of his major work, the Shenei
Luhot ha-Berit (“Two Tablets of the Covenant”). Commenting on
the relation of the hidden ( nistar ) to the revealed ( nigleh), the Shelah
writes:
The revealed is the hidden, i.e., the revealed is the disclosure of
the hidden and its dissemination. It follows that the revealed is
the hidden. Thus it is with respect to matters of the Torah: the
revealed is not an independent matter in relation to the hidden,
in accord with the view of the masses who hold that the hidden
way is separate and the revealed way separate. This is not the
case, but rather the hidden evolves [through a chain] and is
revealed. To this the verse alludes, “Like golden apples in silver
showpieces is a phrase well turned” (Prov. 25: 1 1 ). That is to say,
just as the silver approximates the gold but it is on a lower level,
so is the revealed in relation to the hidden. 191
Although in the continuation of this passage the Shelah approvingly
refers to Maimonides’ interpretation of the verse from Proverbs in
the introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed, the fact is that the
position he has articulated reflects that of the Zohar with respect to
the essential correspondence of the two levels of meaning. Just as
ontically the external (the material world) is the manifestation of the
internal (the spiritual realm of the divine emanations), so textually
the exoteric meaning (the literal sense) is the externalization or dis-
closure of the esoteric (the mystical sense). There is thus a complete
identification of the esoteric and exoteric so that any potential
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 97
conflict between the two is resolved: the religious obligation to study
talmudic disputes ( hawwayot Abbaye we-Rava ) is itself included in
the mandate to study mystical matters ( maaseh merkavah ). 192
I conclude with one final example, a statement of Shneur
Zalman of Lyady (1745-1813), founder of Habad Hasidism, which
likewise reflects the hermeneutical orientation of the zoharic
authorship and indicates to what an extent the latter had a profound
influence on the shaping of subsequent Jewish mystical conceptions
about the text and its multivalent levels of meaning:
Thus [Scripture] is called miqra, for one reads ( qore ) and draws
down the revelation of the light of the Infinite ( Ein-Sof ) by
means of the letters 193 even if one does not understand anything
... This is not the case with respect to the Oral Torah, which is
clothed in wisdom, and therefore if one does not understand
one does not draw down [the light] . With respect to the Written
Torah, however, one draws down [the light] even if one does
not understand ... since the source of the emanation ( meqor
ha-hamshakhah ) is above wisdom ... Thus the Written Torah is
called miqra, for they read and draw down [the emanation] by
means of the letters ... Included in the study of Scripture is also
the study of aggadot, for most of the aggadot are on verses [in
Scripture] and few are homiletical. Moreover, they are not com-
prehended and are thus considered to be in the category of
Scripture. Included in Scripture is also the study of the inward-
ness of Torah ( penimiyut ha-torah ), for the midrash of Zohar is
on the verses of Torah. Moreover, in the study of the secrets of
Torah one only comprehends the reality ( ha-metsi’ut ) [of the
divine] from the chain [of emanation] and not from the essence
[or substance] ( ha-mahut ) [of God]. Therefore it is not the
same as Mishnah or Talmud through which one comprehends
the essence of His wisdom (mahut hokhmato). 194
Shneur Zalman thus distinguishes between study of Scripture and
kabbalah, on the one hand, and Mishnah and Talmud, on the other.
Whereas by means of the former one comprehends the reality of the
divine as expressed in the chain of emanation rather than from God’s
own essence, the latter enables one to comprehend the essence of
God’s Wisdom as clothed on those levels. Most important for our
98 LUMINAL DARKNESS
purposes, Shneur Zalman includes study of kabbalistic secrets
within the parameters of Scripture which, in its most fundamental
sense, entails the mere reading of the text, for esoteric Wisdom is
largely based on the delineation of the inwardness ( penimiyyut ) of
the verses of Scripture, epitomized by Zohar. Against the back-
ground of the continuous chain of emanation, the Written Torah in
its elemental form, that is, the very letters of the Torah scroll, is to be
viewed as the final garment of the light of the Ein-Sof By simply
reading the letters of Torah, therefore, even without the slightest
comprehension, one can draw down light from the Infinite. 195 In that
sense there is a complete appropriation of the mystical claim that the
Torah, in its literal sense, is the name of God:
“Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this
day” (Deut. 6:6). This is the Written Torah, miqra, from the
verse “They shall serve you to summon ( lemiqra ) the commu-
nity” (Num. 10:2), said with respect to the trumpets, for this is
the expression of calling ( qeri’ah ) and gathering ( asefah ). Thus
all the Torah is the names of the Holy One, blessed be He. By
means of this [Scripture] one reads and draws down the light of
the Infinite from above to below. 196
Though embellished with their own particular terminology, the state-
ments of Shneur Zalman are a faithful depiction of the attitude of the
Zohar itself toward the text of Scripture. Indeed, the repeated claim
in the Zohar that the Torah is the name of God affirms that in its
literal sense - determined by the Massoretic orthography - Scripture
comprises the mystical significations. By means of the open eye, the
wise one will see the inner light in and through the very garment that
at the same time conceals it from the purview of everyone else.
Notes
1. See Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 1077-1082; Frank Talmage, “Apples of Gold: The
Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality
from the Bible Through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Cross-
road, 1986), pp. 313-355.
2. See Wilhelm Bacher, “Das Merkwort PRDS in der jiidischen Bibelexegese,”
Zeitschriftfiirdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 13, 1893, pp. 294-305; P. Sandler,
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 99
“On the Problem of Pardes and the Fourfold Orientation,” in Sefer Orbakh:
ma’amarim be-heqer ha-Tanakh: Mugash li-khevod Eliyahu Orbakh li-melotlo
shiv‘im shariah (Jerusalem: Ha-Hevrah le-heqer ha-miqra be-Yisra’el, 1955),
pp. 222-235 (Hebrew); Scholem, On the Kabbalah, pp . 53-61; Albert Van Der
Heide “Pardes: Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four
Senses,” Journal of Jewish Studies, 34, 1983, pp. 147-159; Talmage, “Apples of
God,” pp. 319-321.
3. See especially the article of Van der Heide referred to in note 2.
4. A similar point has recently been made by Mosheldel, “PaRDeS: Some Reflec-
tions on Kabbalistic Hermeneutics,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly
Journeys, ed. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1995), pp. 249-268.
5. See Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides’s Attitude toward Jewish Mysticism,”
in Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, ed.
Alfred Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), p. 203: “the unset-
tling realization that there are contradictions between the literal meaning of
Scripture and philosophical truth ... drives Maimonides to develop his theory
of the layers of esoteric and exoteric meaning.” One could argue that even for
Maimonides the conflict between the literal reading and the figurative is
applicable only when the text is taken at face value as understood by the philo-
sophically unenlightened. That is to say, the external meaning is, when prop-
erly understood, to be read figuratively. This indeed is the purport of the bulk
of the first part of the Guide of the Perplexed, which consists of the lexical chap-
ters treating various terms in Scripture, many of which suggest on the super-
ficial level an anthropomorphic conception of God.
6. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah, p. 33.
7. Ibid., p. 13 (author’s emphasis).
8. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 205.
9. Scholem, On the Kabbalah, p. 33.
10. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 209.
11. Ibid., p. 14.
12. Ibid., p. 210.
13. Wilhelm Bacher, “L’Exegese Biblique dans le Zohar,” Revue des Etudes Juives,
22, 1891, pp. 41-45.
14. Ibid., p. 35.
15. Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1083.
16. Ibid., p. 1085.
17. See ibid., pp. 1090-1092; and the recent analysis in Pinchas Giller, “The
Tiqqunim: Symbolization and Theurgy,” Ph.D. thesis, Graduate Theological
Union, Berkeley, 1990, pp. 106-109 (see the revised version of Giller’s disser-
ation, The Enlightened Will Shine: Symbolization and Theurgy in the Later
Strata of the Zohar [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993],
pp. 65-68). Even in the case of this kabbalist, however, it can be argued that
the denigration of the literal sense is directed at those who would affirm the
exoteric meaning at the expense of entirely ignoring the esoteric; see Giller,
ibid.,pp. 125-126 ( Enlightened WillShine,pp. 73-74). See, e.g., the representa-
tive statement in Tiqqunei Zohar, sec. 43, 82a: “BeReShIT- there is a dry place
[atar yavesh, the consonants of the word bere’shit] ... Thus is one who causes
the kabbalah and wisdom to be removed from the Oral Torah and the W ritten
Torah, and he causes that no one will be occupied with them. For they say
that there is only peshat in the Torah and the Talmud. Such a person is
surely like one who removes the spring from the river and the garden.” Ibid.
100 LUMINAL DARKNESS
sec. 69, 1 14a: “Woe to those foolish people whose hearts are closed and whose
eyes are closed, concerning whom it is said, ‘They have eyes but they do not
see’ (Ps. 115:5) the light of the Torah. They are animals who do not see or
know anything but the straw of Torah .which is the external shell and its chaff
... The sages of Torah, the masters of secrets, throw away the straw and chaff,
and eat the wheat of Torah that is within. The twenty- two letters of the Torah
are the numerical value of the word wheat.” (Concerning this numerology,
see note 109. See, by contrast, Zohar 3:275b [Raaya Meheimna], wherein the
leniencies of halakhah are described as the straw of Torah and the restrictions
as the wheat; both together are contrasted with the secrets of Torah.) Cf. Zohar
Hadash, 118b ( Tiqqunim ): “R. Simeon began to expound: Woe to those
people whose hearts are closed and whose eyes are shut, for they do not pay
attention to the various secrets hidden in the Torah. They desire only to eat the
straw of the Torah, which is the literal sense ( peshat ), the garment of the
Torah, but they do not taste the kernel that is within.” See also Tiqqunei Zohar,
sec. 19, 38a. The claim I have made with regard to the author of the Tiqqunim
and Ra‘aya Meheimna can also be applied to Hayyim Vital’s discussion in the
introduction to the Sha'ar ha-Haqdamot ( Jerusalem, 1909), la-4d, which is
based largely on the relevant passages discussed or mentioned in this note. See
discussion later and the text cited at note 190.
18. See Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1089.
19. See Talmage, “Apples of Gold,” p. 314, who notes in passing that the exoteric
sense, the nigleh, “may impede, as is suggested in the mystical classic the
Zohar.”
20. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah, p. 39; Tishby, Wisdom, pp. 1080-1081; Idel,
“Concept of Torah,” pp. 49-58.
21. My formulation is indebted to the description of St. Thomas Aquinas’
hermeneutics in James S. Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament
Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1969), p. 54. See also Henri de Lubac, Exegese medievale: les
quatres sens del’ ecriture, second part, vol. 2 (Paris: Aubier, 1964), p. 160. Fora
different interpretation of Aquinas, see Amos Funkenstein, Theology and
the Scientific Imagination (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988),
pp. 55-56, 219 n. 14. See also the description of the symbolist mentality in
Marie-Dominique Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century:
Essays on New Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. Jerome
Taylor and Lester K. Little (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968),
pp. 1 10-1 11: “Consideration of sacred history involved a biblical interpreta-
tion which took literal history ( littera) as the basis for continuous reference to
supra-historical realities figured in terrestrial events ... the very nature of the
Judaeo- Christian revelation posits an ongoing interrelationship among
things that underlay this hermeneutic approach ... it was the extent and the
forms taken by the application of the principle that produced a generalized
typology and so determined the scriptural symbolism common to the Middle
Ages.” It follows, according to Chenu’s analysis, that allegorical readings of
Scripture that destroyed the literal sense of the text are contrary to the nature
of symbolism; see ibid., p. 1 17.
22. See Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 135-145, 198-203; Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New
Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. 227-228; Elliot R.
Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From
Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol,” History of Religions, 27, 1987,
pp. 207-213; idem, “The Hermeneutics of Visionary Experience: Revelation
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 101
and Interpretation in the Zohar,” Religion, 18, 1988, pp. 323-324; idem,
“Female Imaging of the Torah: From Literary Metaphor to Religious Sym-
bol,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Under-
standing: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, ed. facob Neusner, Ernst S. Frerichs,
and Nahum M. Sarna (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 295-298,
302-305.
23. I owe this formulation to David Weiss Halivni, who uses it, however, to
describe “the peshat of a halakhic text.” See his Peshat and Derash: Plain and
Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
24. See especially Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early
Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies London, 1, 1964,
pp. 140-185.
25. See Sarah Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization in Respect to the Distinction
Between Peshat and Derash (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), pp. 31-32
(Hebrew).
26. See Sefer ha-Mitswot le-ha-RaMBaM we-Hassagot ha-RaMBaN, ed. Hayyim
D. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1981), p. 45.
27. Ibid., p. 44.
28. Nahmanides, Perusheiha-Torahvol. 2, p. 203 (adNum. 3:1). See also ibid. vol. 1,
p. 4 (introduction). On the use of the word remez in Nahmanides, see Elliot R.
Wolfson, “By Way of Truth: Aspects ofNahmanides’ Kabbalistic Hermeneu-
tic,” Association for Jewish Studies Review, 14, 1989, pp. 164-165.
29. See Kitvei Ramban, ed. Hayyim D. Chavel, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Mosad
ha-Rav Kook, 1982), vol. 1, p. 180. In my earlier study, “By Way of Truth,”
pp. 128-129, 1 interpreted this passage in a somewhat different manner, argu-
ing that in this context Nahmanides used the word mashal synonymously
with melitsah, both referring to the literal or external sense. After reconsider-
ing the passage, however, it seems that the word mashal here, as elsewhere in
Nahmanides’s oeuvre, denotes the figurative or parabolic sense. Cf. Ezra
of Gerona’s introduction to his Perush le-Shir ha-Shirim in Kitvei Ramban,
vol. 2, p. 480.
30. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 63a; Yevamot lib, 24a. This principle has been
the focus of much scholarly discussion. For representative treatments, see
Israel Frankel, Peshat in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Toronto: LaSalle
Press, 1956), pp. 71-77; Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral
Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity
(Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1961), p. 66; Loewe, “‘Plain’ Meaning,”
pp. 164-167; Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization, pp. 37-43.
31. Sefer ha-Mitswot, p.44.
32. Ibid., p. 45. For a different understanding of Nahmanides’ statement, see
Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization, p. 38.
33. See Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination, p. 215, who
considers Nahmanides an example of the maximalist approach that sees “the
whole body of science and theology ... epitomized in the Bible.” The task of the
interpreter is thus to decode that which is contained in the biblical verses.
Funkenstein’s statement that “Ramban ... went as far as to claim that the
philosophical translation actually constitutes the simple, literal sense of
the Scriptures, while allegory is the mystical, kabbalistic dimension of under-
standing, in which the whole Scripture is nothing but a continuous name [of]
God,” is to me problematic.
34. Bernard Septimus, “ ‘Open Rebuke and Concealed Love’: Nahmanides and
the Andalusian Tradition,” in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban ): Explorations
102 LUMINAL DARKNESS
in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 18.
35. Perush Mirkevet Yehezqel le-R. Ya'aqov ben Ya'aqov ha-Kohen mi-Qastilyah,
ed. Asi Faber, M.A. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1978, p. 46.
36. See Septimus, “ ‘Open Rebuke’,” p. 21 n. 37; David Berger, “Miracles and the
Natural Order in Nahmanides,” in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides, p. 1 12 n. 19. See
note 37.
37. Wolfson, “By Way of Truth,” pp. 129-153.
38. Kitvei Ramban, vol. 2, p. 479.
39. See Moshe Idel, “La historia de la cabala a Barcelona,” Curs La Cabala
(Barcelona, 1989), pp. 59-74; idem, “Nahmanides: Kabbalah, Halakhah, and
Spiritual Leadership,” in Jewish Mystical Leaders and Leadership in the 13th
Century, ed. Moshe Idel and Mortimer Ostow (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson,
1998), pp. 15-96. It is difficult to date Jacob ben Sheshet’s career with any pre-
cision, though Scholem surmises that he was writing around 1240. See
Scholem, Origins, p. 251.
40. Scholem, Origins, p. 380.
41. This understanding of Nahmanides has been most fully worked out by
Moshe Idel, “We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This,” in Rabbi
Moses Nahmanides, pp. 53-71; see also idem. Kabbalah: New Perspectives,
p. 215.
42. Kitvei Ramban, vol . 1, p .190.
43. Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, in Kitvei Ramban, vol. 2, p. 364. In several
contexts Jacob ben Sheshet notes that the kabbalistic reason he offers reflects
his own opinion in contrast to something he has received either orally or from
an authoritative text; see, e.g., pp. 361, 368, 385.
44. Ibid., p. 378.
45. Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, ed. Georges Vajda (Jerusalem: Israel, 1968),
p. 83. The passage is already cited, with a different rendering, in Scholem,
Origins, p. 381.
46. See Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, pp. 107-108; Sefer ha-Emunah
we-ha-Bittahon, p. 370; Joseph Gikatilla, Sha‘arei Tsedeq, printed in Gottlieb,
Studies, p. 154; Recanati, Perush al ha-Torah, 40b. For further discussion of
these sources, see Moshe Idel, “Infinities of Torah in Kabbalah,” in Midrash
and Literature, pp. 146-147, 150.
47. Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, p. 370; see Idel, “We Have No Tradition,” p.
68 n. 58; idem, “Infinities,” p. 146. The innovative posture of Jacob ben
Sheshet appears later on in Recanati; cf. Sefer Ta‘amei ha-Mitswot (Basel,
1581), 3a, 4b.
48. See, e.g., (a) Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, p. 357: “Thus I have heard
from the mouth ( shama'ti mi-pi ) of the Hasid, R. Isaac the son of the great
R. Abraham, may his memory be for a blessing, who said in the name of his
father;” (b) p. 362: “Thus I have heard this formulation ( shama‘ti zeh
ha-lashon) in the name of the Hasid, R. Isaac the son of the great R. Abraham,
may his memory be for a blessing;” (c) p. 364: ‘Thus I have heard from the
mouth of the sage, R. J oseph the son of Samuel, may his memory be for a bless-
ing” (cf. Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, pp. 193-196]; (d) p. 380: “Thus I
have received from the mouth ( qibbalti mi-pi) of R. Isaac the Frenchman,
blessed be his memory” (cf. p. 396; on the identity of this figure, see Scholem,
Origins, p. 251); (e) p. 401: “Thus I received in the name ( qibbalti be-shem) of
the Hasid, R. Isaac the son of the great R. Abraham, may his memory be for a
blessing;” (f) p. 409: “Thus I have heard this formulation in the name of the
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 103
Hasid, R. Isaac the son of the great R. Abraham, may his memory be for a
blessing.” Cf. Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, p. 82.
49. See, e.g., Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, p. 369.
50. Scholem, Origins, pp. 384-386.
51. The term employed and popularized by Idel; see “We Have No Kabbalistic
Tradition.”
52. See “By Way of Truth,” pp. 103-129, 153-178.
53. As already noted by Chavel in his edition of Sefer ha-Emunah
we-ha-Bittahon, p. 379 n. 1.
54. Numbers Rabbah 13:16.
55. Cf. Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, p. 180.
56. Sefer ha-Emunah we-ha-Bittahon, p. 379.
57. See ibid., p. 418.
58. See ibid., pp. 390-391, 402.
59. See Scholem, Peraqim le-Toledot Sifrut ha-Qabbalah (Jerusalem: Azriel,
1931), p. 113.
60. Ibid., pp. 112, 113-114.
61. See note 46.
62. Scholem, Peraqim, p. 1 15.
63. Ibid.
64. Mosheldel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 83-87.
65. See ibid., pp. 73-77.
66. MS Vatican 233, fols. 43a-b.
67. Kabbalah: New Perspectives, pp. 207-208.
68. The same word is employed in Midrash ha-Ne‘elam for the literal sense, and
its Aramaic equivalent is used in the main body of the Zohar. See notes 81,98,
123. On the word ma'aseh in Amoraic literature to denote narratives, see
Wilhelm Bacher , Die exegetische Terminologie derjudischen Traditionsliteratur,
2 vols. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899), vol. 2, p. 116.
69. Sefer Ta‘amei ha-Mitswot (London, 1963), 2a.
70. Babylonian Talmud, Ta'anit 7a.
71 . Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38a; Eruvin 65a.
72. MS Oxford 352, fol. 189b.
73. This expression reflects the language of Azriel of Gerona. See his Sha‘ar
ha-Sho’el ( Perush Eser Sefirot), in Meir Ibn Gabbai, Derekh Emunah
(Jerusalem, 1967), 2b.
74. MS Guenzberg 775, fol. 50a.
75. See Isaac of Acre, Sefer Me’irat Einayim, pp. 58-59. where is cited the text
criticizing the philosophers from Jacob ben Sheshet’s Sha‘ar ha-Shamayim.
See the editor’s comments on pp. 409-414, and especially 414 n. 16, where he
cites the relevant passage from Otsar Hayyim.
76. See Matt, Zohar, p. 31.
77. See Idel, “Infinities of Torah,” p. 1 5 1 .
78. Printed in Sefer ha-Malkhut (Casablanca, 1930), 6b. For an analysis
of this motif from the vantage point of the Zohar, see Elliot R. Wolfson,
“Anthropomorphic Imagery and Letter Symbolism in the Zohar,” Jerusalem
Studies in Jewish Thought, 8, 1989, pp. 147-181 (Hebrew).
79. See note 20.
80. Betty Roitman, “Sacred Language and Open Text,” in Midrash and Literature,
pp. 171-172.
See note 68.
81 .
104 LUMINAL DARKNESS
82. See Frank Talmage, “The Term ‘Haggadah’ in the Parable of the Beloved in
the Palace in the Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought , 4, 1985-86,
pp. 271-273 (Hebrew).
83. Zohar Hadash, 83a.
84. Zohar 3:202a.
85. Zohar 1:234b; 2:230b; 3:71b, 73a, 75a, 98b.
86. Zohar 3:159a.
87. Zohar 3:162a-b.
88. The relation of aggadah to kabbalah is one of the critical questions in assessing
the role accorded the theosophic doctrine within the system of normative
Judaism (i.e. the Judaism determined by the rabbinic corpus) by medieval
Jewish mystics. This question has been the focus of various scholarly accounts.
For a review of the issue from the particular vantage point of Nahmanides,
cf. Wolfson, “By Way of Truth,” pp. 153-178. It must be noted that kabbalists
related the word haggadah to the Aramaic root nagad, i.e., to stretch, to draw or
pull, to flow. They thus localized the discourse of haggadah in the divine grada-
tion characterized by these verbs, viz. the sefirah of Yesod, which corresponds to
the membrum virile in the divine realm. As such Yesod is the locus of haggadah
and sod of esoteric gnosis; indeed, in some sense the two are identical. See Wolf-
son, “Circumcision, Vision of God,” pp. 205-2 1 5. See also the telling remark of
Moses Cordovero, Zohar im Perush Or Yaqar (Jerusalem, 1989), 17:144.
89. Zohar 1:152a. Cf. the formulation of Isaac of Acre, Sefer Me’irat Einayim,
p. 1 10: “The words and letters [of Torah] ...are like the garment of a person...
the plain meanings and the commentaries are the body, the true kabbalah and
the great powers and secrets ... are the soul, and this is [the import of] the
verse, ‘From my flesh I will see God’ (Job 19:26).”
90. The identification of the peshat as a garment is quite common in
kabbalistic literature, where the word is related to the verb pashat , i.e. to
remove one’s garment. The noun, peshat, derived from the verb, pashat, is
understood as the object that is removed, i.e., the garment. An interesting
exception to this rule is to be found in Elhanan ben Abraham Ibn Eskira, Sefer
Yesod Olam, MS Guenzberg 607, fols. lOa-b, wherein the peshat is described
as the material substratum that receives the different forms as garments: “We
must understand the matter concerning the peshat properly and thoroughly
... The word [is derived from] the language ‘he removed his clothing,’ for it
takes off a matter and puts on a matter. And this is their saying, ‘a verse should
not lose its literal sense,’ for the matter is permanent and the forms change.
The written Scripture is like the matter and the forms are taken off and put on,
but it endures.”
91. Fora similar critique of the Christian reading of Scripture, see Judah Barzillai,
Perush Sefer Yetsirah, ed. Solomon J. Halberstam (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1885),
p. 77. See also Frank Talmage, “R. David Kimhi as Polemicist,” Hebrew Union
College Annual, 38, 1967, pp. 219-220, who cites a passage in which RaDaQ
accused Christians of literalism connected to the anthropomorphic concep-
tion of God. On the other hand, as Talmage points out, RaDaQ on occasion
accuses Christians of being extreme allegorists who deny the literal meaning
of the legal portions of Scripture. See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: etude sur les
relations entre chretiens et juifs dans VEmpire romain, 135-425 (Paris: E. de
Boccard, 1948), p. 181.
92. On the relation of Shekhinah to the body (guf), see Liebes, Sections,
p. 178 n. 33; on the identification of Shekhinah as the locus of mitswot, see
Wolfson, Book of the Pomegranate, pp. 18-19 n. 35, and 59-62.
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 105
93. Zohar 2:98b.
94. That the garment is a locus of vision is attested as well in the continuation
of the zoharic passage (Zohar 2:99a): “That elder began to expound:
‘Moses went inside the cloud and ascended the mountain’ (Exod. 24:18).
What is this cloud? It is as it is written, ‘I have set My bow in the cloud’
(Gen. 9: 13). It has been taught that the bow sent its garments and gave them
to Moses, and by means of that garment Moses ascended to the mountain,
and from it he saw what he saw and delighted in all.” Cf. Zohar 2:229a. On
the theme of the garment as the locus of vision or esoteric knowledge, see
Dorit Cohen-Alloro, The Secret of the Garment in the Zohar (Jerusalem:
Research Projects of the Institute of Jewish Studies, 1987), pp. 69-74
(Hebrew).
95. Zohar 2:99a.
96. Ibid. 99b. For a slightly different interpretation of the expression used here,
peshatei di-qera, see Tishby, Wisdom, p. 1085.
97. See, for example, the views of Moses Cordovero and Abraham Galante cited
in Azulai, Or ha-Hammah 2: 125a-b.
98. The same term employed to connote the literal sense in Midrash
ha-Ne‘elam. See note 68.
99. SongofSongs8:14.
100. Ibid. 4:6.
101. Isa. 35:5.
102. The Hebrew expression used here is yom ha-ma‘aseh, which may reflect the
previous use of the word ma ‘aseh in this passage, denoting the literal sense of
the biblical narrative.
103. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 14b and parallels.
104. She’elot u-Teshuvot le-R. Mosheh de-Li’on be-Inyenei Qabbalah, in Isaiah
Tishby, Studies in the Kabbalah and Its Branches: Researches and Sources
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), 1:56, 64 (Hebrew). Cf. “Sefer ha-Mishkal,”
pp. 49, 105.
105. Cf. Zohar 2:257b, where Mishnah is described as “the secret that exists within
for one learns there the essence of everything ( iqara de-khola).”
106. Zohar 2: 1 76a. Cf. ibid. 61b-62a, where various levels of food are distinguished,
and designated specifically for the “comrades engaged in Torah,” i.e., the
kabbalists, is the “food of the spirit and soul,” which is said to derive from the
second gradation, supernal Wisdom.
107. For an alternative explanation of this passage, see Yehuda Liebes, “How the
Zohar Was Written,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 8, 1989, pp. 17-18
(Hebrew).
108. See note 110. The more frequent symbol for Torah in rabbinic literature is
bread. Cf. Sifre on Deuteronomy, sec. 45, p. 104; Babylonian Talmud, Shab-
bat 120a; Hagigah 14a; Sanhedrin 104b; Numbers Rabbah 13:16. Cf. the
expression “the leaven of the Pharisees,” in Mark 8:15; see also Matthew
16:1 1-12 and Luke 12:1. For a later use of bread as a symbol for Torah study,
see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah, 4:13; Guide of
the Perplexed 1 :30. On bread as a symbol for the Oral Law, see Zohar Hadash,
50b. See also Zohar 3:33b (Piqqudin).
109. Wolfson, “Anthropomorphic Imagery,” p. 155 nn. 33-34. To the sources
mentioned there, see also Zohar 3:188b ( Yanuqa ), where the wheat is identi-
fied as the Shekhinah that comprises the twenty-two letters within herself,
and cf. Tiqqunei Zohar, sec. 69, 1 14a.
110. Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 64a (already noted by Matt, Zohar,
106 LUMINAL DARKNESS
p. 203 n. 152); Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 7:7, p. 155 (where wheat refers more
specifically to the cultic laws in Leviticus).
111. Cf. the anonymous commentary on Sifra di-Tsemuta from a student of
Isaac Luria, published in Zohar ha-Raqi‘a (Jerusalem, n.d.), 119a; and the
commentary of Elijah ben Solomon, the Gaon ofVilna, on Sifra di-Tseni‘uta
(Jerusalem, 1986), la.
1 12. Matt, Zohar, p. 203 n. 152.
113. This stands in marked contrast to Tiqqunei Zohar , sec. 69, 1 14a, where the
wheat is associated with the inner essence of Torah apprehended by the
mystics, as opposed to the straw or chaff, which is identified as the literal
meaning. Cf. Zohar 3:272a ( Ra‘aya Meheimna).
114. Zohar 2:176b.
1 15. Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, trans. John B. Thomp-
son (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 164.
116. Cf. Hayyim Vital in his introduction to Sha‘ar ha-Haqdamot (Jerusalem,
1909), lb: “When [the Torah] is in the world of emanation it is called kab-
balah, for there it is removed from all the garments that are called the literal
sense ( peshat ) from the expression ‘I had taken off ( pashatti ) my robe’ (Song
of Songs 5:3), for [the literal sense] is the aspect of the external garment which
is upon the skin of a person, sometimes spread ( mitpashet) over him, and this
is the essence of the meaning of the word peshat.” See, however, Sha'ar
ha-Mitswot (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 83 ( Peri Ets Hayyim, ed. Meir Poppers
[Jerusalem, 1980], p. 356), where Vital speaks of the containment of all four
subjects, Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, and Kabbalah, within the world of
emanation insofar as the latter compromises within itself all that which is
below it in the chain of being. Still, it is evident from the context that
Scripture, the Written Torah, belongs most properly to the lowest of the
four worlds, the world of Asiyah, whereas the three aspects of Oral Torah -
Mishnah, Talmud, and Kabbalah - belong, respectively, to the remaining
three worlds, Yetsirah, Beri’ah, and Atsilut.
117. Or Yaqarto Ra‘aya Meheimna (Jerusalem, 1987), 15:87.
118. See note 17.
119. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shanah 26b.
120. Degel Mahaneh Efrayim (NewYork, 1984), 87b.
121. Matt, Zohar, pp. 31, 253.
122. Cf. Zohar 1:163a; 3:149a-b, 152a.
123. The Aramaic ovada parallels the Hebrew ma‘aseh used in Midrash
ha-Ne‘elam on Ruth for the literal meaning; see note 68.
124. Zohar 3:149b.
125. Ibid. 71b-72a.
126. Ibid. 14a.
127. Cf. the interpretation of Isa. 5:1 in Zohar l:95b-96a.
128. Cf. Palestinian Talmud, Ketubot 13:1 (ed. Venice, 35c); Sotah 1:4 (16d),
attributed to R. Hiyya; Midrash Tanhuma, ed. Buber, Wa-yeshev 17,
93b-94a, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi.
129. Genesis Rabbah 88:7, p. 1041.
130. See, by contrast, the comment of Rav reported in the name of R. Hanin in
Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 10a.
131. The attribution to Rabbi is found in Palestinian Talmud, Ketubot 13:1, but
in the other sources the attribution varies. See references in note 128.
132. See, especially, the wording of the version in Midrash Aggadah, ed. Solomon
Buber (Vienna, 1 894), p. 92: “ ‘And she sat down at the entrance to Einayim’
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 107
(Gen. 38-14). We reviewed all of Scripture and did not find a place whose
name was petah einayim. Rather this [expression] is to teach that she cast her
eyes upon the one ( be-mi) to whom all eyes are cast. And she said before the
Holy One, blessed be He, Let it be Your will that I do not leave this entrance
empty.”
1 33. Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 45a.
134. Zohar 3:265a.
135. Cf. Ibid. 7a.
136. To be sure, there are instances where the word dayqa signifies not a kab-
balistic meaning, but rather a more straightforward midrashic sense.
See, e.g., Zohar 1:133b in connection with the interpretation of the verse,
“Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac” (Gen. 25:5).
137. Zohar 2:185b.
138. Ibid. 3:68b.
139. Bacher, Die ExegetischeTerminologie der Judischen Traditionsliteratur, vol. 1,
p.49n. 1, 105; vol. 2, p. 113; Loewe, “‘Plain’ Meaning,”pp. 170-172.
140. See, e.g., Zohar 2:61b; 3:73a, 188b. In other contexts the word mammash
signifies the nonfigurative, though not necessarily kabbalistic, meaning.
See, e.g., Zohar 1:133a, where the verse, “Isaac then brought her [Rebekah]
into the tent of his mother Sarah” (Gen. 24:67), is interpreted in terms of the
tradition that Rebekah was in the actual image ( diyoqna mammash ) of Sarah.
Thus the verse reads “the tent of his mother Sarah” ( sara immo wadda’y). On
this use of the term wadda’y, see note 156. See also Zohar 3:160b, where we
find the expression mitqashsherei be-qudsha verikh hu mammash, which
must be rendered, “they were bound to the Holy One, blessed be He, in
actuality.” The Zohar also employs the term be-gufa to denote the sense of
actuality as opposed to a figurative or metaphorical sense. Cf. Liebes, Section,
p. 182 n. 45.
141. Zohar 1:94a.
142. For background on this hermeneutical principle, see Saul Lieberman,
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1962), pp. 58-62.
143. See Wolfson, “Circumcision, Vision of God,” p. 206.
144. I have studied this motif in depth in “Circumcision and the Divine Name: A
Study in the Transmission of Esoteric Doctrine,” Jewish Quarterly Review,
78, 1987, pp. 77-112.
145. Cf. Mishnah, Avot 6:2; Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 54a.
146. Zohar 3:6b.
147. Cf. ibid. 2:62a.
148. Ibid. 61a.
149. On the interpretation of demonstrative pronouns in kabbalistic literature
and its relation to midrashic precedents, see Betty Roitman, “Sacred
Language,” pp. 159-175, esp. 165 ff.
1 50. The potential randomness of the hermeneutical technique of gezerah shawah
is already evident from the statement of the rabbis to the effect that a person
should not adduce a gezerah shawah on his own (Palestinian Talmud,
Pesahim 6:1, 33a; Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 19b). See Lieberman,
Hellenism, p. 61; Loewe, “‘Plain’ Meaning,” pp. 152-153 n. 79. See ibid.,
pp. 164-165, where the author suggests that the Amoraic formula “a verse
does not its literal sense,” originating in Pumbeditha, was employed “to
counter exorbitant deductions from identity or close analogy of expression
(gezerah shawah).”
108 LUMINAL DARKNESS
151. My formulation here is deliberately lifted from Roitman, “Sacred Lan-
guage,” p. 167, which, however, takes the opposite position when describing
the kabbalistic system of textual exposition: “Most important, this deter-
mination of meaning is not channeled through the linguistic signification of
the terms in the utterance. Anagogic interpretation of this kind is dependent
on a code which is not linguistic in the sense of natural language, although it
integrates in its system certain linguistic elements not actualized in the dis-
course.” In my opinion the system of exposition operative in the main body
of Zohar functions precisely in the way which Roitman denies, viz. the sym-
bolic encoding of the biblical text - what she calls the “anagogic interpret-
ation” - is indeed dependent on the determination of meaning of the
relevant terms ( parole ) in terms of normal modes of discourse ( langue ).
Roitman herself reaches a similar conclusion; see pp. 171-172 (partially
cited in note 80).
152. Based on the passage in Babylonian Talmud, Mo‘ed Qatan 28a to the effect
that one’s children, livelihood, and sustenance are dependent on fate {mazzal)
and not merit ( zekhut ). In the interpretation of the Zohar the word mazzal
designates either Keter or, according to the more recondite doctrine of the
Idrot, one of the aspects of the upper partsuf Arikh Anpin or Atiqa Qaddisha.
153. Zohar 3:79b.
154. See William Braude, “Midrash as Deep Peshat,” in Studies in Judaica, Karait-
ica and Islamica Presented to Leon Nemoy on His Eightieth Birthday, ed.
Sheldon R. Brunswick (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1982),
pp. 31-38.
155. Bacher, Die Exegetische Terminologie, vol. 1, pp. 48-49; vol. 2, p. 60; Loewe,
“‘Plain’ Meaning,” pp. 170-172.
156. Here (as in the next two notes as well) I will cite only a sampling of the rele-
vant sources: See Zohar 1:8b, 10a, 45a, 63b, 87a, 91a, 95a, 108a, 110b, 133a
(cited in note 92), 142a, 153b, 175a, 192b, 219a, 221b; 2:4a, 10a, 44b, 47b,
48a, 49b, 62a, 66a, 146a, 183b, 187b, 225a, 243a, 247b; 3:6b, 77a, 98b, 147b,
163b, 239b. This particular usage is prevalent in Ra‘aya Meheimna and
Tiqqunei Zohar as well. See, e.g., Zohar 3:28a ( Ra‘aya Meheimna), 264b
(Ra‘aya Meheimna)-, Zohar Hadash, 31c ( Tiqqunim ).
157. See Zohar 1:74a, 86a, 96a, 132b, 158b, 247b; 2:65b, 148b, 189b;3:103a, 148a,
173b, 174a.
158. See Zohar 1:50b, 82b, 85b, 93a, 105a, 145a, 191b, 196b, 240a, 245b, 249a;
2:33a, 121b, 127b, 148b. It must be noted that kabbalists before the genera-
tion of the Zohar already employed the expression wadda’y to render the
simple meaning in terms of a mystical truth. Thus, for example, this usage is
found in a passage of Ezra of Gerona, alluded to briefly by Jacob ben Sheshet
(See Sefer ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittahon, p. 377) and cited more extensively by
Recanati, Perush al ha-Torah 48d). The same usage is found in Joseph
Gikatilla and Moses de Leon’s Hebrew writings. See Sha‘arei Orah, l:149n. 3.
159. Zohar 3:169b.
160. Cf. ibid. 1:82a.
161. Ibid. 140b.
162. I have translated the expression we-limekhaseh atiq according to the reading
of the Zohar, which follows that of Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 119a. The
more literal rendering of this expression is “clothe themselves eloquently.”
163. Zohar 3:105b.
164. Zohar 2:57b.
165. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin 15b.
BEAUTIFUL MAIDEN WITHOUT EYES 109
166. I have translated the verse in light of the zoharic reading and not as an accur-
ate rendering of the literal sense.
167. Zohar 2:60a-b.
168. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 49-51.
169. Zohar 3:179b.
170. See, e.g., commentaries of Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi), R. Samuel ben Meir
(Rashbam), Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno on the
relevant verse. See also Nahmanides on Exod. 36:5.
171. See, e.g., commentary of Rashi to the Mishnah in Babylonian Talmud,
Sukkah 45a, s.v., ani wa-ho.
172. Cited in J. Gellis, Tosafotha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1987), 6:42.
173. Perush ha-Roqeah al ha-Torah, ed. C. Konyevsky (Bene Beraq: 1980), 2:14.
174. Zohar l:70b-71a’.
175. Ibid. 3:69a-b.
176. Ibid. 2:95a.
177. The image of being covered with eyes is used in Ezekiel to describe the wheels
( ofanim ) of the chariot; see 1:18, 10:12. This very image is used in Heikhalot
texts, where, however, the ofanim designate a distinct class of angels. See Peter
Schafer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1981),
sec. 40. Cf. ibid., sec. 29, where the angels in general are said to be full of eyes.
See ibid., sec. 12, where God is said to have set 365,000 eyes in Metatron, who
is the transformed Enoch. And ibid., sec. 33, where the angel Kerubiel is
described by this image, as well as ibid., sec. 41, where the image is applied to
Serapiel. See also ibid., sec. 246, 596; Masekhet Heikhalot, in Beit ha-Midrash
2:43. In Heikhalot Rabbati we read about the eyes in the robe ( haluq ) of God;
see Synopse, sec. 1 02. Cf. MS Oxford-Bodleian 1 6 1 0, fol. 46a, where a tradition
is cited in the name of the ba‘alei merkavah to the effect that God is filled with
eyes from inside and outside. I have not yet located a text from ancient Jewish
mystical speculation that describes the mystic himself as full of eyes nor have I
located in rabbinic literature the notion that a sage or exegete is so described.
See, however, Philo, Questiones etSolutiones in Exodunv. 111:43, where the soul
is said to be “all eyes” so that it may “receive lightning-flashes” of illumination.
This is related to a motif repeated on a number of occasions by Philo concern-
ing God’s implanting eyes in an individual so that the individual will be able
to see God. See Gerhard Delling, “The ‘One Who Sees God’ in Philo,” in
Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel
Sandmel, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack
(Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 33-34.
178. Zohar 2:235b {Tosefta).
179. Wolfson, “Hermeneutics of Visionary Experience,” pp. 317 ff., esp. 321,
340-341 n. 86.
180. Cf.Num. 11:7, and see Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 3:2.
181. See, e.g., Mishnah, Shabbat 1:6.
182. Scholem, “Kabbalah of R. Jacob,” pp. 262-263. This source was already sug-
gested by Liebes, Sections, p. 190 n. 78. See also Todros Abulafia, Sha‘ar
ha-Razim, ed. Michal Kushnir-Oron (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1989), p. 65.
183. See Liebes, Sections, who cites this interpretation as that of later kabbalists
but rejects it as the intended or contextual meaning of the Zohar. But see
note 184.
184. Cf. Wolfson, “Female Imaging,” pp. 295-297. To the sources mentioned
there one should add Zohar Hadash, 55c-d ( Midrash ha-Ne‘elam).
See the references given in note 22.
185 .
110 LUMINAL DARKNESS
186. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. 208.
187. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 222-224, 241; idem. Kabbalah, pp. 147-148;
Joseph Ben-Shlomo, “The Research of Gershom Scholem on Pantheism in
the Kabbalah,” in Gershom Scholem: The Man and His Work (Jerusalem:
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1983), pp. 22-23 (Hebrew).
188. See note 17.
189. For this usage of the word remez in kabbalistic sources, see Wolfson, “By
Way of Truth,” pp. 164-165 n. 188.
190. Sha‘ar Ma’amerei RaZaL (Jerusalem, 1898), 8d.
191. Shenei Luhotha-Berit (Amsterdam, 1648), 3a.
192. See ibid. 16a-b; and Jacob Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1984), p. 98 (Hebrew).
193. The notion that the letters of the Torah serve as a conduit to draw down the
light of the Infinite is a commonplace in Hasidic literature, serving ulti-
mately as the background for the notion of Torah study as a contemplative
act. See Joseph Weiss, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 56-68. For a comprehensive discussion
of the earlier kabbalistic sources for this magico-mystical conception, which
influenced the Hasidic formulation, see Moshe Idel, “Perceptions of Kab-
balah in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Jewish
Thought and Philosophy, 1, 1991, pp. 76-104. See note 195.
194. Liqqutei Torah (New York, 1984), Wa-yiqra, 5b-c.
195. Elsewhere in his writings Shneur Zalman characterizes Torah study as a
vehicle by means of which one unites with the light of the Infinite (or ein sof)
insofar as the Torah itself is the very expression of the divine will and wisdom
rather than something ontically distinct from God. Cf. Tanya (New York:
Kehot, 1979), I, 9a-10a, 29a-b; IV, 145a (in that context he distinguishes
between two goals of Torah study, both rooted in Lurianic thought as trans-
mitted by Vital, to redeem the holy sparks from the demonic shells and to
unify the forces above by drawing down the light from the Infinite); and the
recent discussion in Naftali Lowenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The
Emergence of theHabad School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990),
pp. 59-60.
196. Liqqutei Torah, Wa-ethanan, 12c.
4 Forms of Visionary Ascent as
Ecstatic Experience in the
Zoharic Literature
In a recently published volume, The Foundations of Mysticism,
Bernard McGinn has noted that, in the history of scholarship on
Western Christian mysticism, an “overconcentration on the highly
ambiguous notion of mystical experience has blocked careful analy-
sis of the special hermeneutics of mystical texts .” 1 As a corrective to
this scholarly imbalance, McGinn calls for the “recognition of the
interdependence of experience and interpretation.” A growing senti-
ment amongst scholars of Jewish mysticism, spurred especially by
the work of Moshe Idel , 2 is that the opposite claim can be made with
respect to the dominant scholarly approach to kabbalistic texts. That
is, there has been for the most part in the academic treatment of
medieval Jewish mysticism an overconcentration on the hermen-
eutics of mystical texts and a concomitant neglect of the ecstatic
experiences that often underlie these literary compositions. In an
effort to counter the description of kabbalah as predominantly
theoretical rather than practical, Idel has in his own research paid far
greater attention to the experiential side of kabbalistic thought,
including the motifs of devequt , 3 unio mysticaf and a variety of other
meditative or contemplative techniques intended to induce religious
ecstasy . 5 Even in his discussion of kabbalistic hermeneutics Idel
includes a section on pneumatic interpretation and union with the
Torah, thereby focusing on a relatively neglected aspect of the Jewish
mystical tradition concerning the experiential dimension of study . 6
What is necessary to redress the imbalance of which I spoke above is
not a focus on experience divorced from interpretation, for, heeding
McGinn’s words, we must recognize the interdependence of one on
the other. It is evident from the kabbalistic sources themselves that
one cannot separate the interpretative and experiential modes: the
112 LUMINAL DARKNESS
nature of mystical experience is such that it is conditioned and
shaped by the concepts and symbols that inform the particular
kabbalist’s worldview as it is applied hermeneutically to the canoni-
cal texts and prescribed rituals of the tradition. It is certainly the
case, therefore, that the ideas expressed in Jewish mystical literature
represent a lived experience rather than some detached realm of
imaginative speculation. In that sense, the scholar must ultimately
focus on the “anthropology of experience” 7 to assess the cultural and
religious significance of Jewish mysticism in its different historical
phases. What I have just said is equally appropriate to both theo-
sophical and ecstatic kabbalah, but my immediate concern in this
study is one specific instance of the former trend, viz. the Zohar,
arguably the most influential work of Jewish mysticism in the
Middle Ages, which in time helped change the face of Judaism.
Any attempt to understand the Zohar must take into account
the fact that the theosophical ruminations contained in this anthology
are not merely speculative devices for expressing the knowable aspect
of God, but are practical means for achieving a state of ecstasy, i.e., an
experience of immediacy with God that may eventuate in union or
communion (most frequently designated by the traditional term
devequt). The texts themselves - at the compositional level - reflect a
state wherein the mystic experienced the divine pleroma and reinte-
grated his soul with its ontic source. This point, so basic to the under-
standing of the religious experience underlying this work, was well
understood by the anonymous author of the Tiqqunei Zohar, who thus
reflected on the verse, “And the enlightened will shine like the splendor
of the sky” (Dan. 12:3): “The enlightened are R. Simeon and his col-
leagues; they were illuminated when they gathered to produce this
composition. Permission was given to them and to Elijah who was with
them, and to all the souls of the [celestial] academy to descend amongst
them, and to all the angels.” 8 1 am employing the word “ecstasy” to refer
to an experience whereby the mystic transcends the confines of the
spatio-temporal world; this transcendence may be experienced
either as translation to otherworldly realms or as intense illumination
in this world. In my usage, therefore, “ecstasy” denotes a category of
religious phenomenology rather than a phenomenological typology.
Indeed, I hope to advance the discussion on the nature of ecstasy in
medieval Jewish mysticism by cutting across the phenomenological
boundaries and suggest that matters of theosophy are not merely
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 113
speculative forms, but rather are ontic paradigms that are experienced
in a state of ecstatic illumination, essentially facilitated by the
hermeneutic process. The point is well expressed in the following
comment in an anonymous kabbalistic commentary on the ten divine
emanations ( sefirot ): “For the one who merits this wisdom these
awesome entities are inscribed upon his heart and they increase upon
him all day; these entities are joyous in his heart and all the secrets of
Torah are revealed to him.” 9
It is evident that the authorship of the Zohar likewise
assumed that when the kabbalist gained knowledge of the divine
potencies he ecstatically entered a state of mind, such that he was
illuminated by these potencies and united with them. Thus, one finds
in the Zohar applied to the mystical comrades engaged in theosophic
speculation an Aramaic equivalent of the expression used to describe
Aqiva’s successful experience of the mystical orchard ( pardes ), to
enter and to exit. 10 In the case of the relevant zohar ic texts the expres-
sion man de-al we-nafaq, “the one who enters and exits,” denotes
entering into and exiting from an ecstatic state of illumination
wherein the mystical secrets are revealed. 11 To cite a few examples:
“Happy is the lot of one who cleaves to his Master, who enters and
exits.” 12 “Happy is the lot of one who enters and exits and who knows
how to contemplate the secrets of his Master to cleave to Him, for by
means of these secrets a person can cleave to his Master and know the
perfection of wisdom in the supernal mystery.” 13 “Happy is the lot of
the one who merits to know His ways and who does not deviate from
or err with respect to them, for these matters are hidden, and the
supernal holy ones shine in them like one who shines from the light
of a flame; these matters are transmitted only to one who enters and
exits.” 14 “Happy is the one who enters and exits to know the ways of
the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus it is written, ‘The path of the
righteous is like radiant sunlight [ever brightening until noon]’
( Prov. 4:18), and it is written, And your people, all of them righteous
[shall possess the land for all time]’ (Isa. 60:21).” 15 To be sure, in one
section of the Zohar, the Idra Rabba (“Great Assembly”), this termin-
ology seems to be used in a spatial sense, i.e., the frame of reference
of the entry and departure is a gathering of the group of mystics:
R. Simeon sat and wept, and said: Woe if I reveal! Woe if I do not
reveal! The comrades who were there were silent. R. Abba rose
114 LUMINAL DARKNESS
and said to him: If it pleases the master to reveal, as it is written,
“The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him” (Ps. 25: 14),
and these comrades are fearers of the Holy One, blessed be He,
and they have already entered the assembly of the Tabernacle,
some of them have entered and some of them have departed. 16
On one level the reference to the assembly of the Tabernacle
( idra de-vei mashkena) refers to an apparently lost literary unit that
dealt with the secrets of the Tabernacle in a form and style compara-
ble to the other Idrot sections of the zoharic anthology. 17 In that
sense, the meaning of the above passage is that R. Simeon can feel
confident about disclosing the deepest secrets, for some of the rabbis
present at the moment had already been tested by a previous gather-
ing wherein esoteric matters were revealed, i.e., those rabbis under-
went the experience and survived: they entered in peace and exited in
peace. On another level, this assembly maybe a symbolic reference to
the Presence ( Shekhinah ), the last of the ten divine emanations. 18
That is, the entry into and departure from the assembly of the Taber-
nacle (another standard symbol for the Shekhinah in kabbalistic
literature in general and the Zohar in particular) 19 signifies the union
of the mystic with the Presence. The two explanations are not con-
tradictory, for the textual account itself probably would have been
based on precisely some such experience of union: the entry into the
Shekhinah engenders the knowledge of mystical truths about the
structure of the Tabernacle, for the earthly Tabernacle is ontically
parallel to its supernal archetype. 20 One might go further and suggest
that, from the vantage point of the Zohar, the gathering of mystics
to expound the mysteries of Torah is a collective experience of
union with the Presence; 21 those who survive the experience depart
therefrom, whereas others who are unworthy die, 22 although in some
cases the death that ensues from the ecstatic union is viewed in a
positive light. 23
The mystical aspect of theosophic gnosis in the Zohar was
duly noted by Gershom Scholem in the opening paragraphs of the
sixth lecture in his pioneering study, Major Trends in Jewish Mysti-
cism, on the theosophic doctrine of the Zohar: “If I were asked to
characterize in one word the essential traits of the world of Kabbalis-
tic thought, those which set it apart from other forms of Jewish
mysticism, I would say that the Zohar represents Jewish theosophy,
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 115
i.e., a Jewish form of theosophy .” 24 Scholem goes on to clarify his
terminology: “theosophy signifies a mystical doctrine, or school of
thought, which purports to perceive and to describe the mysterious
workings of the Divinity, perhaps also believing it possible to
become absorbed in its contemplation. Theosophy postulates a kind
of divine emanation whereby God, abandoning his self-contained
repose, awakens to mysterious life; further, it maintains that the mys-
teries of creation reflect the pulsation of this divine life .” 25 It is evi-
dent, then, that in this context, Scholem placed primary emphasis on
the doctrinal aspect of zoharic theosophy, but he nevertheless con-
sidered the experiential dimension associated with this system of
thought: the theosophist does not merely describe the workings of
the divine in a detached manner; he perceives them and may even be
absorbed in mystical contemplation. In the continuation of the
above text Scholem remarks that in the history of kabbalah an
“original perception, born from deep meditation, of a given mode of
divine reality, was externalized and transformed into mere book-
learning, in which the symbols lost their tremendous meaning and
unfettered allegory filled their empty husks.” In the case of the Zohar,
however, the object of gnosis, the sefirot, “still had the unbroken real-
ity of mystical experience .” 26 This is consistent with other statements
made by Scholem to the effect that experience of ecstasy, encounter
with the Absolute, or even mystical union, often lie at the bottom
of many kabbalistic writings, even though most kabbalists were
reticent to discuss such experiences at length . 27
The important insight that theosophical speculations cannot
be understood without an awareness of the mystical aspect that
underlies them has not always been appreciated by scholars of the
Zohar; even Scholem himself at times veered from this orientation
and assumed a more rationalist or intellectualist approach to kab-
balistic sources. Thus, in Major Trends, Scholem comments that while
experiences of ascent or visualization do not disappear altogether
from kabbalistic texts, “on the whole, Kabbalistic meditation and
contemplation takes on a more spiritualized aspect .” 28 In the contin-
uation, Scholem signals out the Zohar by noting that this work “has
little use for ecstasy; the part it plays both in the descriptive and dog-
matical sections of this voluminous work is entirely subordinate.
Allusions to it there are, but it is obvious that other and different
aspects of mysticism are much nearer to the author’s heart .” 29
116 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Scholem even goes on to suggest that part of the success of the Zohar
can be traced to “this attitude of restraint which struck a familiar
chord in the Jewish heart .” 30 It is possible that one might remove any
contradiction here by stating that Scholem distinguished between
ecstasy proper, involving an ascent or translation to otherworldly
realms, and mystical experience of the sefirot, although I am not
inclined to resolve the tension in Scholem in this way.
It seems rather that with respect to this central issue, as in
some other cases, Scholem was genuinely ambivalent, contradictory,
or dialectical. On one hand, he understood the centrality of mystical
or ecstatic vision for the taxonomy of kabbalistic theosophy, but, on
the other, he tended to marginalize the place of ecstasy and mystical
experience in the history of theosophic kabbalah. The force of his
denial of the mystical or ecstatic component is captured in his claim
that kabbalistic contemplation takes on a more “spiritualized
aspect.” What Scholem intended by this expression is made clear in
another passage (written much later) where he is even more
emphatic in his denial of the visionary element in theosophic kab-
balah: “The concentration on the world of the Sefirot is not bound
up with visions, but is solely a matter for the intellect prepared to
ascend from level to level and to meditate on the qualities unique to
each level. If meditation activates at first the faculty of imagination,
it continues by activating the faculty of the intellect .” 31 This is not the
place to discuss at length Scholem’s phenomenology of mystical
experience as it applies to Jewish mysticism, for my ultimate purpose
is to discuss the Zohar, and not Scholem. But it must be noted that
Scholem’s characterization, especially in the passage I have just cited,
not only flies in the face of the explicit claims of many kabbalists, but
also contradicts his own earlier account of the visionary underpin-
ning of kabbalistic theosophy. It is probable that Scholem took as his
model the descriptions of the ascensio mentis in Isaac the Blind and /
or his disciples in Gerona . 32 But Scholem presents an over- rationalized
reading of these sources, for, as I have argued elsewhere in great
detail, in the case of these kabbalists (and subsequent authors influ-
enced by them) the mental or contemplative ascent to the divine
pleroma, culminating in a state of devequt, union or communion, is
facilitated by the faculty of the imagination and not the intellect . 33 It
is important to emphasize as well that a central concern of theo-
sophic kabbalists, in line with older forms of Jewish esotericism, was
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 117
the visualization of the divine in the form of an anthropos. The point
is underscored in one particular zoharic passage which notes that the
one who “knows the secret of wisdom,” connected especially to
the botsina de-qardinuta, the hard (or dark) flame that gives shape to
the various gradations of the sehrotic pleroma, 34 “can comprehend
and produce a measure in all aspects, until he knows the supernal
secrets, the secrets of his master, the secrets of wisdom so that he may
know and comprehend.” 35 By contemplating the process of emana-
tion above through the mechanism of the botsina de-qardinuta, the
kabbalist himself measures or constructs the divine form. 36 The
locus of that form is the imagination, for the latter was understood
by kabbalists, largely owing to neo-Platonic influences, as the faculty
wherein the imageless and incorporeal spiritual entity can assume
form. In that sense it is impossible to separate the experiential and
ecstatic elements in theosophic kabbalah, for any gnosis of the
sefirot involves some sort of imaginative translation into the divine
pleroma that is properly speaking an ecstatic state.
The degree to which this insight has been neglected by modern
scholars can be gauged by a cursory glance at the learned contri-
butions to the volume, The Age oftheZohar, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, pub-
lished in 1989: of the seventeen articles pertaining to the Zohar or
related literature, not a single one deals in any sustained manner with
mystical techniques or experiences. The only study that broaches the
subject in any manner is Ithamar Gruenwald’s “The Midrashic Con-
dition: From Talmudic to Zoharic Hermeneutics.” 37 After acknow-
ledging the contributions of both Isaiah Tishby and Moshe Idel in
emphasizing ( contra Scholem) the phenomenon of unio mystica in
Jewish sources, Gruenwald asserts that one of the more interesting
hermeneutical problems in the modern research into kabbalah
remains the need to establish a method that would enable us to eval-
uate whether a particular kabbalist “passes from the state of theoret-
ical description to an actual realization of his mystical wishes.” 38
From his study of the zoharic interpretation of the priestly blessing,
especially as compared with the Sefer ha-Bahir, Gruenwald finds a
strong theurgical or magical orientation, but not much evidence for
an ecstatic-mystical approach. Apart from Gruenwald’s essay, the
majority of the studies in the volume are concerned with textual,
compositional, historical, or exegetical issues, especially the decoding
118 LUMINAL DARKNESS
of the complex theosophic symbolism that fills the pages of the
Zohar. Yet, behind the multifaceted symbols and interpretations of
biblical verses found in the Zohar is the mind of a mystic (or group
of mystics, following the suggestion of Yehuda Liebes 39 ) ecstatically
transformed by contemplation of the divine light refracted in
nature, the soul, and the Torah. Genuine ecstatic experience indeed
underlies the hermeneutical posture of the Zohar, as I suggested in
several studies that pre-dated the publication of the aforementioned
volume . 40 One cannot, from the vantage point of theosophic
Kabbalah in general, and the Zohar in particular, separate theory
and praxis, gnosis and ecstasy, contemplation and imaginative
representation.
In honoring the jubilee anniversary of the publication of
Scholem’s seminal work, I would like to delve more deeply into the
experiential and mystical dimensions of the Zohar by focusing on
one particular motif, to wit, visionary ascents of the soul to the celes-
tial realms. To date, as far as I am aware, no systematic analysis of this
critical typology of mystical experience in zoharic literature has been
studied . 41 While other forms of experience are certainly emphasized
in the Zohar, it is true that the zoharic authorship placed great
emphasis on the experience of heavenly ascent. In this regard, the
Castilian kabbalists were not exceptional, for the older tradition of
celestial journeys was preserved - in a practical and not merely theor-
etical way - by the pietists of northern France and Germany 42 and the
theosophical kabbalists of Provence and northern Spain. In the case
of the latter, the upward journey was understood in a neo-Platonic
vein as a contemplative ascent achieved by means of words or
prayer and/or Torah study . 43 The motif of the heavenly ascent in
zoharic literature clearly draws upon these earlier kabbalistic
sources, although the nuances of the Zohar are somewhat different.
Beyond the obvious merit of providing the first in-depth analysis of
this motif in the different literary strata of the Zohar, the ensuing
study should contribute to our appreciation of the deeply mystical
and ecstatic nature of theosophic gnosis in the zoharic corpus. Cen-
tral to the lived experience underlying the Zohar is the belief that the
mystical sages, designated by several technical terms, including the
righteous ( tsaddiqim ), masters of faith ( ma’rei meheimanuta ), or
those who are worthy of faith ( benei meheimanuta), reapers of the
held ( mehatsdei haqla), and the enlightened ( maskilim ), occupy a
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 119
place in the divine pleroma. The mystic can, and on occasion does,
transport himself to that ontic sphere. In such a state the individual
is transformed from normal sensory perception and rational intel-
lection to a mode of experience that in a most exact sense should be
called ecstasy.
That the interest in the structures of ancient Jewish mysticism
had immediate practical implications for the zoharic authorship
is attested in the opening comments to the literary unit that deals
in an extensive manner with the palaces ( heikhalot ) from the side of
holiness : 44
R. Simeon said: It has been taught that there are palaces that
exist for the sake of arranging the order of praise of the Holy
One, blessed be He, whether the order is that which exists in
word or that which exists in will, for 45 there is an order that
exists in word and an order that exists in the will and intention
of the heart, to know and contemplate, i.e., to contemplate
above until the Infinite, for there are fixed all the intentions and
thoughts, and they cannot be uttered at all. Rather, just as He is
hidden so too all His words are hidden. Come and see that
which has been said regarding these palaces: All these orders
are one principle for the sake of comprising the lower in the
upper . 46
In the continuation of this text, mention is made of the long
and short prayers arranged by Moses, for in a fundamental sense the
ascent through the celestial palaces is a liturgical act . 47 Indeed,
throughout the descriptions of the palaces (in both the abbreviated
and extended versions) the vertical flight of the soul is linked to the
rising of the words of prayer. This is epitomized, for instance, in the
following words:
R. Simeon said: Who is the one who knows how to arrange the
prayer of his Master like Moses who when he needed it arranged
a long prayer and when he needed it arranged a short prayer?
R. Simeon said: I have found in the books of the ancients the
order of the secret of secrets in one bond, the times when it is
necessary to arrange one’s prayer as is appropriate, and to bind
the knots 48 to ameliorate [the judgments of] the Master as is
120 LUMINAL DARKNESS
app rop riate, and to know how to unify the p erfect unity, to rend
the heavens and to open the gates and doors so that no one will
stay his hand. Happy are the righteous who know how to
appease their Master, to annul the decrees, to cause the Presence
to dwell in the world, to draw down blessings. 49
The theurgical task of prayer is to unite the different cosmic
forces. “When one worships his Master in prayer with desire and the
intention of the heart, his will cleaves [to the divine] like a flame to
coal, 50 to unify those lower heavens on the side of holiness, to crown
them with one name below, and from there to unify those inner,
supernal heavens, so that all will be one in that supernal heaven that
stands over them.” 51 In one zoharic passage the very term maaseh
merkavah (usually rendered “account of the chariot”) is connected
with the fact that Adam has the capacity to combine ( leharkiv) one
thing with another, thereby uniting the different links in the chain of
being. 52 What needs to be emphasized again is the fact that according
to the Zohar, the visual contemplation of the palaces in the mind’s
eye provides an occasion for an ascent of the soul to the uppermost
reaches of the divine, the Infinite; by means of that flight one com-
bines all grades of being, which results in the overflow of the divine
influx upon earth. “All of these orders,” reflects the zoharic author-
ship, “are to cause the Presence to dwell in the world.” 53 In the main
body of zoharic literature the mystic ascent of intention in prayer
( kawwanah ) and the contemplative ascent of the soul are combined
in such a way that it is difficult to differentiate the two, especially in
the sections that describe the ascent through the celestial palaces. To
cite one final example:
It is written [“My beloved is like a gazelle or like a young stag;
there he stands behind our wall] gazing through the windows”
(Song of Songs 2:9). These exist so that he might see all those
worshippers who come first to the Synagogue and are counted
amongst the first ten. 54 Then they ascend and are written above
for they are called comrades ( haverim ) in relation to Him, as it
is written. “Lovers ( haverim ) are listening; let me hear your
voice” (ibid., 8: 13). Happy are the righteous who know how to
set their prayer as is appropriate, for when that prayer began to
ascend they ascend by means of that prayer, and they enter all
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 121
the heavens and all the palaces until the gate of the upper open-
ing [i.e., the Shekhinah \ and that prayer enters before the King
to be crowned . 55
A perusal of the relevant sources indicates that in most cases,
the zoharic authorship has contextualized the heavenly ascent in a
soteriological framework, i.e. the principal type of celestial voyager is
the righteous one who has departed from this bodily life. On numer-
ous occasions in the Zohar, one reads about the soul of the righteous,
separated from the body at death, entering the earthly Garden of
Eden, and from there, ascending through the various palaces to the
divine pleroma, particularly to the last of the emanations which is
called, inter aha, the tseror ha-hayyim, bundle of life, the ontic source
to which the soul returns . 56 In some passages, the zoharic authorship
notes that the visual ascent of the soul occurs at specific times, viz.
Sabbath, the Festivals, and the New Moon . 57 This may, properly
speaking, be called a flight into union , 58 for the goal of the ascent is
the unification of the soul and the Presence, a unification that is often
described in intensely erotic terms. Here we note a curious element:
it is the soul that rises to the heavenly regions and is ultimately
absorbed in the divine feminine, yet the soul experiences the ecstasy
of flight and union in bodily sensations. After separating from the
physical body and entering the earthly Garden of Eden, the soul
assumes a celestial or astral body , 59 sometimes depicted as the gar-
ment woven from the deeds of the soul 60 or alternatively described as
being composed of the celestial light or ether characteristic of the
paradisiacal state . 61 In virtue of this spiritual garment, which is in the
likeness of the physical body, the soul undergoes kinesthetic and tac-
tile experiences in the course of its ascent, and ultimately enjoys a
tangible sense of delight in the moment of the visual encounter with
the divine . 62 It is evident, moreover, from the zoharic accounts of the
celestial palaces that the subject of ascent is the soul that has sep-
arated from the body . 63 The very structure of the palaces is predicated
on the ontological parallelism between the seven palaces or halls in
the lower Garden of Eden, a physical place in the sublunar world, and
the seven palaces in the supernal Garden of Eden, i.e., the divine
Presence , 64 which in turn correspond to the seven lower emanations
in the divine pleroma (at times it appears that the seventh palace
is itself the last of those emanations, the Shekhinah 65 ). In these
122 LUMINAL DARKNESS
descriptions as well one can typically find the employment of
corporeal images to describe the experience of the soul.
The primary concern of this study, however, is not the ascent
of the soul through the palaces after death, but rather those instances
in zoharic literature where the soteriological model is applied to
mystical states achieved during the corporeal life of the individual. In
the first instance, according to one zoharic passage, an ecstatic ascent
to the spiritual realm recurs every Friday afternoon at the liminal
point between the cessation of mundane time and the inception of
Sabbath : 66
When R. Flamnuna the Elder would come out of the river on
Friday afternoon he would sit one moment, and raising his eyes
in joy he would say that he sat there to see the gladness of the
supernal angels, some ascending and others descending. Every
Friday evening a person dwells in the world of souls ( olam
ha-neshamot ) . Flappy is the one who knows the secrets of his
Master . 67
The Zohar thus presents the legendary Flamnuna the Elder
as the prototypical ecstatic. In sixteenth-century kabbalistic sources
this narrative was sometimes used as the textual basis to ground the
custom of ritual ablution ( tevilah ) on Friday afternoon . 68 While the
zoharic context probably implies bathing before Sabbath rather than
the specified ritual of ablution , 69 it is nevertheless interesting that the
protagonist is portrayed as coming out of a body of water before he
sits down to raise his eyes joyously and have a visionary experience.
One may assume that implied here is some kind of purificatory rite
of passage (if not technically ritual ablution) that must precede the
ecstatic vision. The reference to the body of water is also relevant
insofar as it may function here, reflecting a much older Jewish
tradition, as a medium for visualization . 70 The physical posture
and gestures by which Flamnuna enters the ecstatic state are also
noteworthy: he sits and casts his eyes upward to see the ascending
and descending angels. The ecstatic vision is thus facilitated by a
sitting pose as well as the raising of the eyes . 71 It is not reported
that Hamnuna himself experienced an other-worldly journey; on
the contrary, it seems that he saw events of the celestial realm as he
bodily sat upon earth near the river and gazed heavenward. By
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 123
contrast, the Zohar informs the reader that on Sabbath eve one is
transported to the world of souls. The language here is critical, “every
Friday evening a person dwells in the world of souls,” which implies
that one has ascended and does not merely see the angels going up
and down. That this entails some kind of prescriptive, and not
merely descriptive, knowledge is underscored by the concluding
remark, “happy is the one who knows the secrets of his Master,”
i.e., the one who possesses the practical knowledge that includes
techniques of ascent.
The details of the ascent experience are offered in the
passage immediately preceding the text that I have cited. The Zohar
presents an intensely mythical and dramatic account of the
concomitant ascent and descent of souls at the time of the arrival of
Sabbath, an account that is prefaced with the remark, “this mystery is
given to the wise .” 72 The souls of the righteous in the lower Garden of
Eden ascend to the upper Garden of Eden at the same time that the
extra souls descend to crown the people of Israel. “Souls ascend and
souls descend to crown the holy people; on Sabbath eve there is a
rotation of souls, some come and others go, some ascend and others
descend .” 73 This rotation of souls, also described in terms of the
image of holy chariots, is set into motion just before the beginning
of Sabbath, but reaches some kind of stasis at the moment that the
Sabbath is sanctified in the Amidah of the evening prayer:
So it goes until the [angelic] announcer rises and proclaims:
“Sanctified! Sanctified!” Then rest is found and contentment
for all. The wicked in Gehinnom are appeased in their places
and they have repose. All the souls are crowned, the ones above
and the ones below. Elappy are the people who may partake
of this ! 74
However, at a later point during the course of the night there
is another rotation of souls and the state of restfulness is disrupted:
At midnight of Sabbath eve the wise are aroused to have their
intercourse ( mifarin le-shimmusha dilhon ) [in] the upper spirit
in which they were crowned when the day was sanctified. When
they are asleep on their beds and their other souls want to
ascend to see the glory of the King, then that upper spirit that
124 LUMINAL DARKNESS
descended at [the inception of] Sabbath eve takes that soul and
elevates it above. That other soul is cleansed by the aromatic
fluids of the Garden of Eden, and there it sees what it sees. When
it descends to rest in its place at midnight, that soul returns to its
place. Those who are wise should say one verse for the arousal of
that upper holy soul, the crown of Sabbath, e.g., “The spirit of
the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; He
has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble etc.” (Isa. 61:1),
“When those moved, these moved; and when those stood still,
these stood still; and when these were borne above the earth
etc.” (Ezek. 1 :22), “Wherever the spirit impelled them to go, they
went etc.” (ibid., 20), for they are crowned by that spirit in virtue
of their arousal in the joy of intercourse, and the emanation of
that upper spirit of Sabbath is in that devotional act of inter-
course. 75
Without entering into all the technical details of this fasci-
nating passage, suffice it to say that it clearly demonstrates that the
zoharic authorship entertained the possibility of visionary ascent for
a living soul. It is evident, moreover, as I have already noted, that
through prayer, one can ascend in a way comparable to the post-
mortem ascent of the soul. Thus, for example, one reads in the
context of the explication of the dynamic processes of the third of the
seven palaces, “The one who knows the secrets and achieves perfec-
tion cleaves to his Master and abolishes all harsh decrees, and he
crowns his Master and draws down blessings on the whole world,
and this is the person who is called the righteous, pillar of the
world. 76 His prayer does not return empty, and his portion is in the
world-to-come, and he is counted amongst those of faith ( benei
meheimanuta)” 77 Through the utterance of prayer, one mystically
ascends to the sehrotic pleroma and then theurgically draws down
the divine energies. Mention should also be made here of a passage
that recurs several times in the Zohar that deals with an explication of
the uppermost aspects of the divine thought, especially as it relates to
the human capacity to attract this effluence from the supernal
source. 78 The theosophic exposition begins with the statement
(based on Gen. 14:22), “R. Simeon said: I raised my hands above in
prayer.” The implication of starting with this well-known prayer ges-
ture 79 is clear enough: by raising his hands in prayer, R. Simeon draws
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 125
down the divine overflow from the highest realm of the Godhead. As
a result of this process, the mystic is illuminated by the light of the
divine potencies, and only by virtue of this illumination can he
expound secrets that have been concealed. 80 This topos is repeated in
several contexts in the Zohar. Thus, in the beginning of the section
containing secrets of physiognomy and chiromancy, called Raza
de-Razin (“Secret of Secrets”), one reads, “R. Simeon said: I have
raised my hands in prayer to the One who created the world, for even
though the ancients revealed in this verse [Gen. 5:1 ] supernal secrets,
one must contemplate and look at the secrets of the book of primor-
dial Adam, for from there is derived the hidden book of King
Solomon.” 81 The lifting of the hands thus serves as a propaedeutic to
contemplate and reveal the hidden secrets that are registered in the
ancient esoteric works. The point was well understood by the anony-
mous author of Tiqqunei Zohar, who commented on the same verse,
no doubt reflecting the aforecited passage, “This is the book of the
generations of Adam (Gen. 5:1). R. Simeon began to expound and
said: I raised my hands to the One who created the world, so that He
would reveal to us hidden and concealed secrets, to utter them before
the Shekhinah and her 60 myriad hosts of holy angels above and
60 myriad holy angels below, so that I would not enter in shame
before You.” 82 Lifting of the hands in supplication implores and
impels God to reveal concealed truths through the agency of the
mystic. The same technique is alluded to at the beginning of the Great
Assembly, but in that case, all of the comrades are said to raise their
fingers before entering the field to hear the esoteric matters revealed.
The master, R. Simeon, prays and then begins to expound about the
disclosure and concealment of secrets. 83 Finally, in another passage,
one similarly reads, “R. Simeon said: I raised my hands in prayer to
the supernal Holy One so that these matters would be revealed by me
in the world as they are hidden in my heart.” 84 All of these examples
indicate that the raising of the hands serves as a device by which the
mystic draws down the influx of light from above before he begins to
disclose concealed secrets. To break the code of esotericism, it is nec-
essary for one to enter an ecstatic state, and the means to so enter is
through prayer. In these passages, however, it does not appear that the
gesture of raising the hands induces a flight of the soul.
From other passages in the various literary strata of the Zohar
it is evident that the study of Torah can serve as the mechanism to
126 LUMINAL DARKNESS
actuate the visionary ascent to the supernal realms of being. Thus,
for instance, in a passage from Midrash ha-Ne‘elam we read,
R. Judah taught: Whoever is occupied with [the study of] Torah
as much as is required, his soul is elevated above when he is
asleep, and he is taught from the depths of Torah ... R. Isaac
taught: Whoever is occupied with Torah for its own sake, when
he is asleep at night his soul rises and he is shown those matters
that will be in the world in the future . 85
The theme of nocturnal ascent is developed more fully in
other zoharic contexts wherein it is emphasized that during sleep
the soul separates from the body and rises upward. If the soul is
worthy, then it ascends without any obstruction until it reaches the
Shekhinah ; if, however, the soul is unworthy, the ascent is blocked
and it is forced to roam about the world . 86 In some passages of the
Zohar this theme is connected with the idea that at midnight God
takes delight with the righteous in the Garden of Eden. It is the latter
idea that serves as the mythic underpinning of the ritual (expressed,
of course, in the literary guise of R. Simeon and his colleagues) of
rising at midnight to study esoteric matters . 87 As it is put in one
zoharic text,
At midnight R. Abba and the rest of the comrades rose to be
occupied in [the study of] Torah. R. Abba said: From here on let
us say words to crown the righteous in the Garden of Eden, for
now is the time that the Eloly One, blessed be He, and the right-
eous in the Garden of Eden listen for the voices of the righteous
who are on earth . 88
The comrades who study kabbalistic matters at midnight
thus join the souls of the righteous located at that moment in the
upper Paradise, i.e., the divine Presence; it is through this study,
moreover, that the righteous are crowned. Just as the crown of God is
made from the words of prayer, so too the crowns of the righteous
souls in the supernal Garden of Eden are composed of words of
Torah that rise from the mouth of the righteous individuals below,
i.e., the kabbalists . 89 The kabbalists who occupy themselves with
Torah-study at midnight are, therefore, the righteous below who
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 127
correspond to the righteous souls who ascend from the lower to
upper Garden of Eden:
Each and every night the souls of the righteous ascend, and at
midnight the Holy One, blessed be He, comes to the Garden of
Eden to take delight in them. In whom? R. Yose said: In all of them,
those who are in their habitations in that world and those who sit
in their habitations in this world; the Holy One, blessed be He,
takes delight in them at midnight. Come and see: The world above
needs the arousal of the world below. When the souls of the right-
eous depart from this world and ascend above, they are clothed in
the supernal light in a glorious image, and in them the Holy One,
blessed be He, takes delight and desires them for they are the fruit
of His actions ... R. Yose said: [The Holy One, blessed He, delights
in] even those in this world. How is this so? He said to him: At mid-
night all the truly righteous rise to study Torah and to hear the
praises of Torah. It is said that the Holy One, blessed He, and all the
righteous that are with Him in the Garden of Eden come to hear
their voices. A thread of mercy extends to them during the day, as
it says, “By day may the Lord vouchsafe His faithful care, so that at
night a song to Him may be with me” (Ps. 42:9). 90 It follows that
the praises that rise before Him at night are a complete praise. 91
In several passages dealing with this motif, the Zohar cites
the verse, “O you who linger in the garden, lovers are listening; let me
hear your voice” (Song of Songs 8: 1 3 ), for the garden is the feminine
Presence, the lovers the masculine element of the divine and the
souls of the righteous, and the voice is that of the kabbalist occupied
with study of Torah. 92 The kabbalists, therefore, are truly partners
( haverim ) of the divine, for by means of their study they ascend to
join the pleroma, specifically the last of the emanations, which is the
opening that receives them. The homologous relation between the
righteous below, who group together to study the esoteric meaning
of Scripture, and the righteous souls above in the Garden of Eden is
not merely horizontal; there is a vertical intersection as well, for the
righteous below ascend to join the righteous above:
The souls of people ascend, each one as is appropriate ... Happy
is the lot of the righteous for their souls ascend upward and they
128 LUMINAL DARKNESS
are not obstructed in another place that is not necessary. At
midnight the herald stands and calls out, and the opening is
opened. Then the wind of the north side is stirred, and it strikes
the harp of David that plays by itself ... Happy is the lot of the
one who wakes at that time and is occupied with Torah. Who-
ever rises at that time and is occupied with Torah is called a
partner of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Community of
Israel. 93
From these passages, and many others that could have been
cited, it is clear that individuals occupied with esoteric study are
themselves united with the divine Presence 94 at the culmination of
their nocturnal ascent:
Come and see: When the north wind is stirred up the Commu-
nity of Israel is received in the left ... and the Holy One, blessed
be He, comes to take delight with the righteous who are in the
Garden of Eden. Whoever is aroused at that time to study Torah
joins her, for she and her hosts praise the supernal King.
All those who participate with her in the praise of Torah are
written amongst those who belong to the palace and are called
by their names, and these are inscribed in the day. 95
The point is reiterated in slightly different language in the
following passage:
R. Hizqiyah was sitting before R. Isaac. They rose at midnight to
study Torah. R. Isaac began to expound, saying: “Now bless the
Lord, all you servants of the Lord [who stand nightly in the
house of the Lord] ” (Ps. 134:1). This verse has been established
by the comrades. But this praise relates to all those who are
faithful ( benei meheimanuta) . Who are the faithful? Those who
study Torah and know how to unify the Holy Name as is appro-
priate. The praise of those faithful is that they rise at midnight
to study Torah and cleave by means of it to the Community of
Israel [ Shekhinah ] , to praise her before the Holy One, blessed be
He, in words of Torah. Come and see: When a person rises at
midnight to study Torah and the north wind stirs at midnight,
the doe [Shekhinah] rises and praises the Holy One, blessed be
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 129
He. When she rises several thousand and tens of thousands rise
with her, and they all begin to praise the Holy King. The Holy
One, blessed be He, listens to the one who is righteous and rises
at midnight to study Torah ... as it is written “O you who linger
in the garden, lovers are listening; let me hear your voice”
(Song of Songs 8:13) ...You are the glory of the Holy King, You
are the crown of the King. That doe is crowned by those people
and she stands before the King and says: See with which son I
have come before You, by which son I have been aroused in rela-
tion to You, they who are the most praiseworthy of all before the
King! He answered and said: “Those who stand nightly in the
house of the Lord,” these are the servants of the Lord who are
worthy to bless the Holy King, and their blessing is a blessing, as
it says, “Lift your hands toward the sanctuary and bless the
Lord” (Ps. 134:2). 96
Midnight is a propitious time to study Torah in a kabbalistic
vein, inasmuch as at that precise moment the masculine potency of
the divine (the Holy One, blessed be He) enters the feminine (the
Garden of Eden) to delight with the souls of the righteous. Through
study of Torah, the kabbalists ascend to cleave to the divine Presence,
a theme connected exegetically in the above passage to Psalm 134,
which begins “a song of ascents,” shir ha-maalot. Torah study leads
to an ecstatic ascent that ultimately serves a theurgical function inso-
far as the kabbalists who “stand in the house of the Lord,” i.e., are in
union with the Shekhinah, are capable of blessing the divine. Alter-
natively, the kabbalists become crowns on the head of the Shekhinah
(symbolized as the doe) so that she can stand before the masculine
deity and offer praises. Not only do the kabbalists cleave to the Pres-
ence (symbolically depicted by the image of their being crowned by
the Shekhinah), but they assist in the unification of the latter with her
masculine consort (expressed by the image of their crowning the
Shekhinah ) . “Come and see: When the north wind stirs at midnight
... those who belong to the supernal palace rise to be involved with
the praise of Torah, and they join the Community of Israel until the
day shines; when morning comes she and all those who belong to
the palace come before the Holy King, and they are called sons of the
King and Matrona ... At night they were occupied with the Matrona,
now they come with the Matrona to unite her with the King.” 97 In this
130 LUMINAL DARKNESS
respect, the kabbalists fulfill the role of Yesod, the conduit that con-
nects the masculine and feminine aspects of the Godhead:
At midnight the Holy One, blessed be He, enters the Garden of
Eden to take delight with the righteous. At that time one must
rise to study Torah. Thus it is said that the Holy One, blessed be
He, and all the righteous in the Garden of Eden listen to their
voice, as it is written, “O you who linger in the garden, lovers are
listening; let me hear your voice” (Song of Songs 8: 13). The one
who lingers in the garden, i.e., the Community of Israel, for she
praises him before the Holy One, blessed be He, by virtue of
the praise of Torah at night. Happy is the lot of one who joins her
to praise the Holy One, blessed be He, by means of the praise of
Torah. When morning comes the Community of Israel comes
and takes delight with the Holy One, blessed be He, and he
extends to her the sceptre of mercy [i.e., the sefirah of Yesod,
which corresponds to the phallus] , 98 She does not enter alone but
together with those who join her. Thus is it written, “By day may
the lord vouchsafe His faithful care, so that at night [a song to
Him maybe with me, a prayer to the God of my life] ” (Ps. 42:9)."
Hence, the kabbalist who rises at midnight to study Torah is
in the place of Yesod, the attribute that bestows the divine effluence
upon the Shekhinah. This is consistent with the view expressed in
sundry ways in the Zohar, as well as in other thirteenth-century kab-
balistic literature, to the effect that this particular gradation is the
locus of esoteric knowledge. Consequently, the maskil corresponds
to Yesod, and in the moment of mystical illumination it is precisely
that divine element that overflows to the kabbalist.
R. Hizkiyah said: Whoever is occupied with Torah at that hour cer-
tainly has a constant portion in the world-to-come. R. Yose said:
What is the meaning of constant? He said to him: Thus I have learnt
that every midnight when the Holy One, blessed be He, is aroused
in the Garden of Eden all those plants of the Garden are irrigated
more from that river, which is called the “raging torrent,” 100 the
“refreshing stream,” 101 whose waters never cease. For the one who
rises and studies Torah it is as if that river pours forth upon his head
and waters him from those plants of the Garden of Eden. 102
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 131
The ascent experience of the kabbalist, brought about
through the study of Torah at the midnight hour, culminates in the
ecstatic experience of ontic transformation. In the passage just cited,
the transformation is characterized as the pouring forth of Yesod, the
ever-gushing stream, upon the heads of the kabbalists such that they
draw sustenance from the sehrotic entities, the plants of the Garden
of Eden. Implicit here is the symbolization of the coronation motif as
some form of unification. 103 It is worthwhile to cite here a passage
from one of Moses de Leon’s Hebrew theosophic works that helps
illuminate the zoharic conception:
The secret of the splendor of the supernal light, the good that is
hidden for the souls of the righteous, “no eye has seen, O God,
but You” (Isa. 64:3). We must believe and know that the super-
nal Garden of Eden is the secret of the bundle of life, and the
Holy One, blessed be He, desires that Garden constantly, and
the souls of the righteous are bound there, and they enjoy its
splendor. The splendor 104 of the supernal Garden of Eden is
nothing but the light of the splendor of the river that comes
forth from Eden, which enters into it and bestows upon it the
light and inner splendor from the secret of the world-to-come,
which is the supernal holy of holies of which it says “no eye has
seen, O God, but You.” 105
De Leon’s description of the souls of the righteous in the
supernal Garden of Eden is applied in some zoharic texts to the souls
of the kabbalists that gain entry into this grade of being and shine
with the splendor of the river, i.e., Yesod, the gradation that corres-
ponds to the membrum virile of the divine anthropos. The image of
the river overflowing upon the heads of the kabbalists 106 indicates
that they are in a state of ecstatic illumination linked especially to that
grade, the source of all secrets, which is characterized by a dialectic
of disclosure and concealment appropriate to esoteric matters. 107 In
another zoharic passage, the transformation of the kabbalist who
studies at midnight is depicted in the following way:
“Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power” (Exod. 15:6).
R. Simeon said: When the morning shines and the doe rises, she
is filled from every side, and she enters hundreds of palaces of
132 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the King. When the north wind stirs and the desire of the doe is
to be aroused in the world, the one who at midnight is involved
in [the study of] Torah comes with her before the King. When
the morning shines the thread of mercy is drawn upon him. He
looks heavenward and the light of understanding of the holy
gnosis rests upon him, and he is crowned by it, and everyone is
afraid of him. At that point that person is called a son of the
Holy One, blessed be He, a son of the palace of the King. He
enters all the [heavenly] gates and no one obstructs him. When
he calls to the palace of the King, concerning him it is written,
“The Lord is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him in
truth” (Ps. 145:18). What is truth? As it has been established,
“You will give truth to Jacob” (Micah 7:20), for he knows how to
unify the holy name in his prayer as is appropriate. And this is
the worship of the Holy King. 108
Thus, the kabbalist who rises at midnight to study is totally
transformed in the morning light. He has not only assisted the
Shekhinah in her unification with the masculine aspect of God, but
he has himself become a full-fledged member of the divine pleroma;
he is, in the language of the zoharic text, a son of the Holy One,
blessed be He, a son of the holy palace. On account of this transfor-
mation, the prayers of the mystic are guaranteed to be successful, for
no one in the celestial realms has the power to block the passage of
his prayers; indeed, at that moment the mystic has attained a higher
ontic status than any of the angelic beings who populate the heavenly
palaces.
The analysis of the material cited in this study indicates quite
convincingly that the zoharic authorship considered visionary
ascents of the soul a real possibility. While all souls, to some extent,
experience a nocturnal ascent during sleep, the kabbalist is given a
privileged position in terms of attaining this peak religious experi-
ence. More specifically, the mechanism by means of which the
kabbalist ascends to the heavenly realms and beyond to the divine
pleroma consists of recitation of prayer and study of Torah. The two
ritual acts converge in what is one of the central ecstatic experiences
described in the Zohar regarding the midnight study of Torah on the
part of the kabbalist. As a result of studying Torah at this hour, when
God enters the supernal Garden of Eden and takes delight with the
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 133
souls of the righteous, the kabbalist himself is transported from the
terrestrial realm to the heavens, culminating in a union with the
Shekhinah. The transformative quality of the mystical experience is
underscored in the way that Moses de Leon refers to the kabbalists in
one of his writings, viz. “the holy enlightened ones, servants of the
Supernal One” ( maskilim ha-qedoshim meshartei elyon ). 109 This is
not simply a rhetorical phrase of approbation but rather a precise
attribution: the kabbalist is ontically transformed as a result of his
ascent through study to the higher realms of being. This transform-
ation is most fulfilled in the ecstatic state wherein the kabbalist par-
ticipates, indeed becomes one, with the Shekhinah. It is through this
union, moreover, that the kabbalist merits to receive knowledge of the
divine secrets . 110 Moreover, the Torah-study of the kabbalist has the
theurgical function of assisting the Shekhinah in standing before
the masculine aspect of the deity to utter prayers, and ultimately
facilitating the union of the male and female poles of divinity. In the
process, the kabbalist himself is transformed and receives the divine
influx from either Yesod or the Shekhinah. At that stage his own
(morning) prayers are offered before God and readily received as he
is now a member of the divine pleroma, that is, he has been divinized.
We are left to wonder if behind these dramatic and highly
visual characterizations, the zoharic authorship had some concrete
reality in mind. That is, are we justified in reading these passages as
allusions to a contemporary mystical rite that the Spanish kabbalists
in the last decades of the thirteenth century (and perhaps also the
first decades of the fourteenth century) experienced? Were there
midnight study groups in Castile that provided the context for
communal kabbalistic study and visionary ascents to the divine
pleroma? It is likely that the zoharic description of a similar ritual
connected with the night of Pentecost, involving the study of differ-
ent aspects of Torah throughout that night, was in fact rooted in
some actual practice on the part of this circle of kabbalists, which, as
Liebes has argued, may have had messianic implications . 111 It seems
to me that the zoharic references to the communal midnight study of
Torah also reflect actual practice and are not to be construed simply
as imaginative constructions of one idiosyncratic individual (Moses
de Leon). These actual gatherings set the stage for the narrative
drama that unfolds in the pages of the Zohar. The biographical data
of the thirteenth-century mystics are cloaked in the mythical garb of
134 LUMINAL DARKNESS
Simeon ben Yohai and his colleagues . 112 Like all mythologies, how-
ever, the mythic portrayal in the Zohar is anchored in a historical
reality. If that is the case, then perhaps some of the kabbalistic prac-
tices discussed in zoharic literature are not, as Scholem suggested,
“rites which its author had only dreamed of and projected back into
a remote archaic past. Many of these new rites recommended by the
Zohar, which attributed them to Simeon ben Yohai and his circle,
were practiced for the first time in Safed .” 113 That the mystical rites
mentioned in the Zohar were projected back to second-century
Palestine cannot be denied; however, the question of when they
were first actually practiced (or whether the zoharic descriptions
sometimes represent kabbalistic interpretations of existing rituals)
remains open. It may be the case that some of the rites described in
the Zohar refer to actual practices that were preserved in small circles
of kabbalists 114 or were recovered by the Safedian kabbalists and
eventually popularized through the influence of Lurianic kabbalah
on pietistic, devotional, and moralistic literature as Scholem con-
cluded. The determination of whether or not actual practice under-
lies the kabbalistic rites recorded in the Zohar depends upon one’s
orientation towards the literary nature of this work and the priority
that one gives to practice and experience as opposed to symbols and
myths . 115 In point of fact these two issues are not unrelated: by shift-
ing the focus from single to multiple authorship, scholars will begin
more readily to acknowledge the historical group behind the
fictional fellowship of Simeon ben Yohai, and will therefore appreci-
ate the lived and living experiences underlying many of the theor-
etical and exegetical deliberations in the Zohar. The particular motif
of visionary ascent, analyzed in detail in this study, provides an
excellent window through which one can view the profoundly
ecstatic and mystical elements of zoharic theosophy.
Notes
1 . Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century
(New York: Crossroad, 1991), p. xiv.
2. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives , pp. 27-29.
3. Ibid., pp. 35-58.
4. Ibid., pp. 59-73.
5. Ibid., pp. 74-111.
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 135
6. Ibid., pp. 234-249. See also my studies referred to in note 40, and Elliot R.
Wolfson, Through A Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in
Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994),
pp. 326-392.
7. Victor Turner and Edward Bruner (eds), The Anthropology of Experience
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986).
8. Tiqqunei Zohar, Introduction, la.
9. MS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 824, fol. 108a. On this text, see Gershom
Scholem, “Index of Commentaries on the Ten Sefirot,” Qiryat Sefer, 10,
1933-34, pp. 499 n. 7 and 508 n. 95 (Hebrew). The language of this text
resembles Recanati’s paraphrase of Ezra of Gerona in his Perush al ha-Torah,
37d.
10. According to some versions of this legend, the fate of Aqiva is described as
ascending and descending in peace. For the variant readings, see Saul
Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, Part V: Order Mo‘ed (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1962), p. 1290 n. 21; see also Ephraim E.
Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic
Period,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem
on his Seventieth Birthday , ed. Ephraim E. Urbach, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, and
Chaim Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), p. 14 n. 59 (Hebrew
section); David Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1980), p. 92.
11. Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 154-155, 240-241; Matt, Zohar, p. 279, s.v., “entered ...
emerged.”
12. Zohar 1:44a. Cf. Zohar 2:176a, 179a ( Sifra di-Tseni‘uta); Zohar Hadash, 2b
( Sitrei Otiyyot) and 6c ( Sitrei Otiyyot).
13. Zohar 2:213b.
14. Ibid. 3:290a (IdraZuta).
15. Ibid. 297a.
16. Ibid. 127b {Idra Rabba).
17. Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 153-154. The section in the printed Zohar marked as
the Idra de-Mashkena (2:122b— 123b) appears to be a mistake, even though it
does properly belong to the Idra stratum of zoharic literature. See Liebes,
“Messiah,” pp. 88 n. 7, 153 n. 238. It may be relevant to consider here as
well the section printed in Zohar 2:159a-160b, which begins, “From here are
[disclosed] the hidden secrets of the Tabernacle from the mouth of the light”
(i.e., Simeon ben Yoliai; cf. Liebes, Sections, pp. 137, 139-140, 158). It is evi-
dent from the end of the passage that this is a discrete textual unit that is
incomplete. Finally, in this connection it is of importance to note that a
significant portion of one of Joseph of Hamadan’s works, Sefer Tashaq, is an
elaborate kabbalistic commentary on the Tabernacle (exegetically linked to
Exod. 25 and Song of Songs 1:1 — 2:5). It will be shown, moreover, that
precisely this theme (which involves the hieros gamos of the King and the
Matrona) is the central issue and organizing principle of the entire work.
Cf. Gershom Scholem, Einige kabbalistische Handschriften im Britischen
Museum (Jerusalem: Soncino-Blatter, 1932), pp. 1 1-29; Alexander Altmann,
“Concerning the Question of the Authorship of Sefer Ta'amey ha-Mitswot
Ascribed to R. Isaac Ibn Farhi,” Qiryat Sefer, 40, 1964-65, pp. 256-276,
405-412 (Hebrew); Jeremy Zwelling, “Joseph of Hamadan’s Sefer Tashak:
Critical Text Edition with Introduction,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis
University, Waltham, MA, 1975, pp. xix-xx. It is possible that Hamadan was
drawing upon the zoharic text, entitled Idra de- Vei Mashkena, which dealt with
136 LUMINAL DARKNESS
the secrets of the Tabernacle. It should be recalled that in Sefer Tashaq , there
are passages that emulate the style and content of the Idrot. On the complex
relation between Joseph of Hamadan and the Zohar, see Liebes, “How the
Zohar Was Written,” pp. 25-34.
18. On the use of the word idra as a symbol for the feminine Presence, see Liebes,
Sections, pp. 94, 99, 104-105; Matt, Zohar, p. 279, s.v., “crossing the threshold
of the Dwelling.” See esp. the comment of David ben Yehuda he-Hasid, cited
by Matt, Zohar, p. 278, s.v., “the threshing house”: “The secret [is clear] ... to
anyone who has entered the threshing house.” See also Joseph Angelet, Livnat
ha-Sappir (Jerusalem, 1913), 28a: “I have understood from the Idra de-Vei
Mashkena in the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam [Angelet’s standard way of referring to
the Zohar] that every time it says in the midrash they entered the house of
assembly it means that they entered to see the splendor of the Presence.”
Angelet goes on to cite a passage that appears in Zohar 2:128b; see Liebes,
“Messiah,” p. 153 n. 239. The possibility that the gathering of the mystical
fellowship symbolically represents the Shekhinah is strengthened by the fact
that the entire group consists of ten rabbis who correspond to the ten
divine gradations, which, in turn, are all comprised within the last of them. On
the meaning of the gathering of the fellowship, see Liebes, “Messiah,”
pp. 128-134.
19. See, e.g., Zohar 2:130a, 159a (in that context the lower Tabernacle, or the
Tabernacle of Metatron, symbolizes the Shekhinah in contrast to the upper
concealed Tabernacle identified as Binah), 234b, 238a (although it should be
noted that on this very page the T abernacle is also interpreted as a reference to
Wisdom), 239b-240a; 3:114b. Needless to say, the examples could be greatly
multiplied.
20. This motif can be traced to much older sources, adumbrated in the Bible
itself (cf. Exod. 25:9, 40). For a convenient summary of the biblical motif in its
ancient Near Eastern context, see Carol L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah:
A Synthetic Study of a Symbol From the Biblical Cult (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1976), pp. 172-173. For the development of related motifs in rabbinic litera-
ture, see Victor Aptowitzer, “The Celestial T emple as Viewed in the Aggadah,”
trans. Aryeh Rubinstein, in Binah: Studies at Jewish Thought, ed. Joseph Dan
(New York: Praeger, 1989), pp. 1-29.
21. This is evident from any number of passages in the zoharic anthology. See,
e.g., Zohar 2: 163b, where the comrades ( havrayya ) are designated the “face of
the Shekhinah,” for she “is hidden within them, [s] he is concealed and they are
revealed.” Perhaps one of the more poignant accounts of the collective
state of ecstatic union with the Shekhinah occurs in Zohar 1:8a, which
describes the ritual of studying on the night of Pentecost: “R. Simeon was
sitting and studying Torah the night [of the day] that the bride [the Shekhinah]
unites with her husband [the Holy One] . It has been taught: All the comrades,
who belong to the palace of the bride, on the night the bride is prepared to
enter the next day into the nuptial chamber with her husband must be with her
the whole night. They must rejoice with her in her adornments with which she
is adorned, to study Torah, from the Pentateuch to the Prophets, from the
Prophets to the Writings, the collections of midrash of scriptural verses, and
the secrets of Wisdom, for these are her adornments and ornamentation. She
and her maidens enter and stand upon their heads and she is adorned through
them and is gladdened by them all that night. On the next day she does not
enter the nuptial chamber except with them, and they are called sons of the
nuptial chamber. When they enter the nuptial chamber the Holy One, blessed
FORMS OF VISIONARY ASCENT 137
be He, inquires concerning them, blesses them, and crowns them in the
crown of the bride; praiseworthy is their lot.” The mystical fellows adorn the
Shekhinah by means of their novel interpretations of Torah, especially per-
taining to esoteric matters (on the image of the different parts of traditional
literature being the adornments or ornamentations of the feminine Torah,
cf. Midrash Tanhuma , Ki Tissa 18, pp. 412-413). On this passage and its rela-
tionship to the Idra Rabba , see Liebes, “Messiah,” pp. 187-188, 208-209. See
parallel in Zohar 3:97b-98a, which also speaks of the “ancient pietists” staying
up the whole night of Pentecost to adorn the Shekhinah for her union the next
day. Those who fulfill this act are said to be crowned by the Shekhinah at night
and by the Holy One and the Shekhinah during the wedding ceremony of the
day. That passage ends with the statement: “in the world there is no one who
knows how to adorn the ornaments of the bride except for the comrades.” This
is clearly a reference to the group of practicing kabbalists active in late-
thirteenth-century Castile. Cf. the testimony of Moses de Leon in his kab-
balistic explanation of Pentecost, extant in MS Vatican 428, fol. 37b: “The
ancient ones, blessed be their memory, the pillars of the world who know how
to draw down the grace from the exalted heights, practiced the custom of not
sleeping these two nights of Pentecost. All night they would study the Penta-
teuch, Prophets, Writings, and from there they would skip over to Talmud and
haggadot, and then read in the wisdom of the secrets of Torah ( hokhmat sitrei
ha- tor ah) until the morning light. This is a tradition of the fathers in the hands
of these select individuals, the ‘remnant whom the Lord calls’ (Joel 3:5).”
22. Zohar 3:141a {IdraRabba).
23. Zohar 3:144a [Idra Rabba; cf. Zohar 1:217a); 3: 287b (Idra Zuta). See
also Zohar Hadash, 18d-19a ( Midrash ha-Ne‘elam), and see Liebes, “How
the Zohar Was Written,” p. 6 n. 20, and Elliot R. Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s
Letter and Commentary on ‘ Aleynu : Further Evidence of Moses de
Leon’s Pseudepigraphic Activity,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 81, 1991,
pp. 400-401 nn. 149-150.
24. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 205.
25. Ibid., p. 206.
26. Ibid., p. 207. It is curious that, in his paraphrase of Scholem, Mircea Eliade
ignores entirely the dimension of mystical experience or contemplation
underlying zoharic theosophy. “According to Scholem,” Eliade writes, “the
Zohar represents Jewish theosophy, that is, a mystical doctrine whose princi-
pal goal is the knowledge and description of the mysterious works of the
divinity” (A History of Religious Ideas, trans. Williard R. Trask [Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1978], vol. 3, p. 170). This is a very partial (perhaps
biased) reading of Scholem, for the latter, as I have indicated, insisted on the
experiential and contemplative dimension of zoharic theosophy. To be sure,
as will be noted in the continuation of this study, Scholem is not always con-
sistent on this issue, but the remark of Eliade simply ignores the dialectics of
Scholem’s thinking.
27. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 15, 121-122. It is appropriate here to recall
Scholem’s characterization of ancient gnosticism as a “mystical esotericism
for the elect based on illumination and the acquisition of a higher knowledge
of things heavenly and divine” ( Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and
Talmudic Tradition [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature
Elliot R Wolfson