Mystical Union in Early Kabbalah

Home , Gershom Scholem, Haviva Pedaya, Isaac the Blind, Moshe Idel

Chapter 7 Mystical Union in Early Kabbalah

With the emergence of medieval Kabbalah at the end of the 12th century in Provence and Catalonia, a unique new theosophical language developed with a strong affinity between theosophical dynamics and symbols, theurgical practice, and mystical experience. In sharp contrast to Maimonides, these Kabbalists developed a dynamic, diverse, and only sometimes unified godhead. At the same time, they were influenced by the spiritual Neoplatonic “path of return” developed in Muslim and Jewish sources, and made a consid- erable effort to incorporate some elements of the Neoplatonic path and the Jewish halakhic life form. The language of mystical union in the writings of the early Spanish Kabbalists was largely founded on the language of devequt. The notion of communion/union was introduced as a mystical goal in and of itself, and usually associated with the biblical commandment to “cleave” to the Lord. Even the more technical form of union with the divine as part of theurgic unification was associated with the fulfillment of the commandments to “cleave” to and “love” the Lord. One of the most important elements developed in light of the Neoplatonic discourse was the religious and mystical ideal of devequt and union, situated now in the heart of religious life and correlated with a set of other key religious values. In the Neoplatonic Kabbalah of Isaac the Blind (1160?–1235?), the first Kabbalist in Europe to compose a written treatise, we find theurgy and mystical union as two parts of the same dynamic.1 The contemplative, Neoplatonist form of mysticism practiced by Isaac the Blind (“The Hasid”) and his disciples was based on three concepts: devequt—mystical union/communion with the godhead; kavannah—mystical intention and concentration of thought during performance of ritual and commandments; and theurgy—an exchange of power between the illuminated and the godhead while and during the union and concentration of thought. The unique combination of contemplative ele- vation of thought and soul, union with the divine Name and sefirot, and theurgic practice (intended to affect the godhead and unify its different dynamic elements) formed the central core of the early Kabbalistic understanding of a

1 See: Scholem, Origins, 199–364; Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 73–102; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 288–306. I argued in Devequt, 169–175, in contrast to Scholem, that the ideal of communion and union is not yet developed in the Bahir.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_008 Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah 131 mystical practice that could accompany all forms of daily worship and ritual observance.2 The process of mystical cleaving and union in this type of Kabbalah is usually focused on the divine Wisdom, identified both with one of the higher “mental” sefirot or potencies in the godhead and with the Neoplatonic Nous. Simultaneously, the Kabbalist gathers the divine elements into a unified name that may be embodied in the human, and cleaves to it. The theurgical-mystical experience includes two unitive aspects: the union of human thought with its corresponding element in the godhead, as well as an “embodied union” described as the dwelling of the unified divine name in the midst of the Kabbalist. Early 13th-century Kabbalah incorporated the language of union from the various philosophical and theological sources discussed above, by which it introduced new forms of religious practices. Besides cultivating their pro- found interest in mystical experience and empowerment, vision and cleaving, and union with God as a goal in and of itself,3 the early Kabbalists incorporated these unitive practices as key elements in their theurgical performance, and as a tool for understanding the inner dynamics of Kabbalistic theosophy. Fundamentally, the Kabbalist’s engagement with the godhead is designed to lead to their mutual integration, as well as to the unification of the godhead itself, which may later embody the Kabbalist. The dynamics that are set off at the moment of union with a particular element in the godhead are then completed

2 See: Moshe Idel, “Some Remarks on Ritual and Mysticism in Geronese Kabbalah,” Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 111–130; Moshe Idel, “On R. Isaac Sagi Nahor’s Mystical Intention of the Eighteen Benedictions,” in Massu’ot, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, eds. Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994), 25–52 (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “Did Rabbi Isaac Sagi Nahor Believe in Metempsychosis? Some Remarks on the Study of Provencal Kabbalah”, in Romania, Israel, France: Jewish Trails, Volume in Honor of Prof. Carol Inacu, ed. D. Delamaire et al. (Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 2013), 51–60; Moshe Idel, “Prayer in Provence Kabbalah”, Likkutei Tarbiz 6 (2003): 421–442 (Hebrew); Adam Afterman, “Letter Permutation Techniques, Kavannah and Prayer in Jewish Mysticism,” Journal of the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6, no. 18 (2007): 53–59; Adam Afterman, The Intention of Prayers in Early Ecstatic Kabbalah: A Study and Critical Edition of an Anonymous Commentary to the Prayers, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004), 80–82, 90–92, 111–112, 121 (Hebrew); Haviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 163–164 (Hebrew); Scholem, Origins, 65, 100–102, 195–196, 306; Gershom Scholem, “The Concept of Kavvanah in the Early Kabbalah,” in Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, edit. Alfred Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 168, 174. 3 Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 288–306; Afterman, Devequt, 227–265.