SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
Daniel ABRAMS*
SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES: THE CAREER OF THE BEASTS OF THE THRONE-WORLD IN HEKHALOT LITERATURE, GERMAN PIETISM AND EARLY KABBALISTIC LITERATURE1
Two central concerns of Jewish mystical texts, both ancient and medieval, are God's shape and the status of angelic beings. Behind these themes is not just the interpretation of anthropomorphic statements about the divine, but the question of the question of the hypostization of God's attributes or the agencies of his activity in the world. At this level of debate, the physical shape of the divine is often assumed, with attention being focused on whether to extend these characteristics to divine and angelic beings. The acceptance, and at times, the unquestioning assumption that Jewish tradition recognizes God's form, produced other areas of concern and speculation. Does God appear in this form to man or is what man sees an earthly manifestation which represents His unseen supernal form? The background for these questions is established in the Pentateuch, where God's limbs are mentioned, implying that He has form or shape, attributes apparently shared by angels who appear to the prophets. These traditions indeed compete against each other, the tension resting in the status of angels and the God who cannot be seen or will not allow it (Ex. 33:20). The prophet Ezekiel brings these poles together when he offers the sharpest for- mulation of these themes in the Hebrew Bible: (1:27) ‘And above, on the figure of a throne was a figure with the appearance of a human being'. Unlike other prophets to whom God appeared through some manifestation of nature or sent angelic messengers, Ezekiel had a prophetic vision of the divine world or chariot. His vision of a seated human form is of course the manifestation of God himself, the enthroned divine king. A human or an- gelic form no longer represents an extension or manifestation of the divine
* Adresse de l'auteur: Mendele Str. 12b. Talbieh. Jerusalem (Israël). 1. This study is one of several concentrating on the texts and symbolism of the Special Cherub and made possible through a Warburg post-doctoral fellowship at the Hebrew Uni- versity and a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.
Revue des Études Juives, 155 (3-4), juillet-décembre 1996, pp. 363-386 364 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES will acting in the world, but is attributed to the divine King enthroned in the heavenly world. This imagery forms the ground for medieval mystical speculations concerning the nature of the divine. Medieval mystical sources prior to the Kabbalah, and to an extent also these of the first generation of the historical and literary appearance of the Kabbalah, are sometimes equivocal on whether God has a definite shape or human form, relegating this imagery to a supreme angelic being, the Glory (Kavod) or the Divine Presence (Shekhina). In other words, even though the biblical imagery provided sufficient fertile ground for speculations which would bridge the distinctions between angel and God, the early medieval mystics were reluctant to connect the two. As the symbolism of thirteenth century Kabbalah crystallized, these divine hypostasies were integrated into the divine ontology, identified with the last and lowest of theosophic pow- ers known as sefirot, which in turn were collectively described in anthropo- morphic terms2. In separate studies, I have discussed the history of traditions regarding (the high angel) Me†a†ron and his inclusion in, or exclusion from, the divine ontology3, the development of the intention of prayer to the intermediary divine being known as the ‘Special Cherub'4, and the first presentation of the Shekhina as a being separate from, but dependent on, God5. Each of these studies sought to outline the stages in the development of a Kabbalis- tic conception beginning with pre-Kabbalistic mystical sources. The present study will complement the above, treating the special character of the angelic and animal-like beings of the chariot-world in pre-Kabbalistic sources. The Kabbalistic reception of these literary traditions will then be tracked, comparing them to similar Kabbalistic formulations which lack these early roots.
2. Moshe Idel, ‘Une figure d'homme au-dessus des sefirot', Pardes 8 (1983), pp. 129-150 translated from the Hebrew, Da}at 4 (1980), pp. 41-55. The Kabbalistic view, as with Ezekiel's description, is based on the tradition that man was created in God's image (Gn. 1:26). The form of God must therefore be in the shape of man. See for example the statement from the opening lines of the Commentary of the Ten Sefirot found in Ms. Paris BN 843, fol. of man as a (בניין) 85a: ‘Behold the ten sefirot are structured according to the construction type of model of that which is above. This is what is written (Gn. 1:26) in our image, in our form'. 3. ‘The Boundaries of Divine Ontology: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Me†a†ron in the Godhead', 87 (1994), pp. 291-321. 4. ‘The Evolution of Intention of Prayer to the “Special Cherub”: From the Earliest Works to a Late Unknown Treatise', Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 22 (1995), pp. 1- 26. 5. ‘The Shekhina Prays Before God: A New Text Toward the Theosophic Orientation of the German Pietist and Their Method for the Transmission of Esoteric Doctrines' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 63 (4) 1994 pp. 509-533 and ‘“The Unity of God” of R. Eleazar Ha-Darshan' [He- brew], Qovetz }al Yad 12 (1994), pp. 149-160. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 365
The few scholarly discussions on this subject have consistently focused on the linguistic background to Kabbalistic symbolism, trying to discover the immediate roots of the later symbolism in earlier sources. These efforts have therefore limited themselves in scope by not seeking other formula- tions of a similar phenomenon. That is, it has often been the assumption that when a later system employs a symbol or term common to an earlier body of texts, it must be a development which is based on the earlier layer. However, overlooked in the context of medieval Jewish mysticism is the possibility that pre-Kabbalistic German mystics and early Kabbalistic fig- ures speculated on material which predated both circles and formed a com- mon pool of symbolism for independent speculations of various types. However, this is not to say that no link can be made between these vari- egated discussions. On the contrary, it will be argued that certain similari- ties point to a continuity in the methods of interpretation which produced these differing systems and the predilection for understanding biblical texts in a certain way.
Early Interpretations of Ezekiel's Vision
Jewish mystical speculation on the subject of angelic beings, and in fact Jewish mystical literature, begins with the Hebrew Bible and its interpreta- tions. In a study on Ezekiel's vision, David Halperin discussed the character of the tenth chapter of the Book of Ezekiel as a commentary to the first chapter6. The author of this section, whom Halperin characterizes as the ‘commentator', transforms the meaning of ophanim from wheels, the me- chanical elements of the divine vehicle, to angelic beings, parallel to the cherubim (Ez. 10:9-17)7. Halperin further notes that the Ìayyot who bear the throne in the first chapter are directly parallel to the function of the cherubim from earlier biblical sources (2 S 22:11), ‘The cherubim rose; they were the creatures, Ìayyot, I saw at the Chebar canal' (Ez. 10:14). These associations are of great importance to later speculation for two reasons. First, a mechanical element of the chariot has been personified, receiving angelic or at least animal status, and second, two different heavenly beasts have been identified with each other. This ‘commentator' has there- fore provided us with a nexus of symbolic language concerning the divine beasts who support God's throne, and has layed the ground for special in- terest in this creature. 6. David Halperin, ‘The Exegetical Character of Ezek. X 9-17', Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976), pp. 129-141. 7. See also Gershom Scholem's remark concerning the role of the Ophanim in the Hekha- lot literature, Origins of the Kabbalah, Princeton 1987, p. 116 n. 118. 366 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
It must be emphasized that the author(s) of Ezekiel, chapters one and ten, did not identify the angelic beings, Ìayyah or cherub, with the enthroned figure. This association will be shown to be particular to the Kabbalistic view. So for example, the authors of the so-called Hekhalot texts had little problem distinguishing the angelic beings from the enthroned figure. Even in the larger framework of the Shi}ur Qomah traditions where the tremen- dous measurements of God's body are described, the heavenly beings do not receive any similar description of an anthropos. Medieval mystics, on the other hand played one theme off the other, elevating a celestial being to near-divine status, describing it as the seated form. Gershom Scholem ar- gued that the medieval speculation of the ‘Special Cherub' who sits on the throne, distancing God from any anthropomorphic attribution, is rooted in a strong reading of the switch to the singular form of the word ‘cherub' in Ezekiel 10:48. In a later study, Asi Farber argued that textual and ideational roots could be found prior to the medieval interpretation of Ezekiel which Scholem suggested. She pointed to the angel Kerubiel who first appears in the Hekhalot literature as well as to the tradition there of the single Beast who rises above the other seraphim9. We will now re-explore these claims concerning the cherub in early mystical literature against the background of other traditions concerning various heavenly beasts.
‘3 Enoch'
The work known as ‘3 Enoch' treats many of the central themes found in Ezekiel's vision. The symbolism and structure of the vision is here recasted according to a new and different outlook whose interests are vastly different from those in the Bible10. As in the vision itself, the description of the chariot and the throne which it supports has a greater role in this work than does God Himself11. In the relatively short textual unit12 which describes the
8. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 3rd Revised Edition, New York 1954, p. 113; See also his note to the Kabbalistic understanding of the tradition concerning the ‘Beast named Israel'. Scholem argued that this tradition as well sprouted from the singular form of the Ìayyah in Ez.1:22. ‘Kabbalaot R. YitzÌak ve-R. Yakov Ha-Kohen', Mada}ei Ha- Yahdut 2 (1927), p. 262 [100], n. 2 [Hebrew]. 9. Asi Farber, ‘Jacob ben Jacob Ha-Kohen's Commentary to Ezekiel's Chariot' M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University 1978, p. 115 [Hebrew] — (henceforth: Farber, M.A.). Asi Farber, ‘The Concept of the Merkabah in Thirteenth Century Jewish Esotericism: Sod Ha- }Egoz and Its Development' Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University 1986, pp. 309-310. [Hebrew] (Henceforth: Farber, Ph.D.). I have translated this passage below. See also Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, Cambridge 1928, pp. 148-149. 10. Scholem, Major Trends, second lecture, esp. p. 42. 11. As noted by Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, Albany 1992, p. 124. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 367 chariot, we encounter a series of angels whose names seemingly describe their functions: Rekhaviel, Îayyli}el, Keruviel, Ophann}el and Seraphi}el. These angelic figures are respectively appointed over the following ele- ments of the divine chariot and encourage these elements to sing praises to God: the wheels of the chariot, the cherubim, the four beasts of the chariot, the ophanim (also, wheels), and the seraphim. These successive and formu- laic descriptions are hierarchically presented. The name of each angel is apparently derived from elements of the chariot which appear in fours. Ac- cording to the passage concerning Keruviel, And why is he named Keruviel YW"Y, the archon? Because he administers over the chariot of the Cherubim13… And Keruviel YWY, is his name, [who] is the archon who administers over them [the Cherubim] and arranges them in pleasant and beautiful arrangements [of song]. (§34) A similar formulation appears for the angel named Ìayyli}el, whose original name was in all likelihood Ìayyi}el, angel of the beast and not as above, ‘the soldier-angel'14. In the greater context of this section, the appointed angel is not seen as a figurative representation of its corresponding part of the chariot, nor is it one of these, elevated as its captain. Rather, Keruviel is included in a retinue of angelic figures which complete an arrangement of forces for the liturgy sung before God. We can conclude therefore that at least in ‘3 Enoch', no one angelic being related to Ezekiel's vision and the chariot possesses a special or unique status15. Rather, particular roles are attributed to each in accordance with a larger framework and literary struc- ture.
12. Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, ed. P. Schäfer, Tübingen, 1981, §§30-34, 39-44 as treated by Schäfer, The Hidden and Manifest God, p. 130. 13. Compare Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch, Cambridge 1928, p. 75 and in the text published by A. Marmorstein, ‘A Fragment of the Visions of Ezekiel' Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1918), pp. 367-378, (p. 370): ‘The Chariot of the Cherub where- upon he rides and descends to the lower (heavens or regions)…' This text is parallel to Jacob Mann's edition ‘Pereq Reu}yot YeÌezqel', HaÂofe 5 (1925), p. 263. See I. Grünwald's anno- tated edition, ‘Reu}yot YeÌezqel: A Critical Edition and Commentary', Temirin 1 (1972), p. 134 [Hebrew]. 14. See the differing views of Odeberg, p. 70, Charles Mopsik, le Livre Hébreu D'Hénoch ou Livre des Palais, Paris 1989, p. 268; Peter Schäfer, p. 130 n. 39. See further, L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, I, p. 84. 15. Compare to Farber, Ph.D., p. 364. Compare also the tradition in §411 of the double Offan whose roles are compared to that of the cherubim. In her study on angels in Hekhalot literature, Rachel Elior commented that the names of the angels include the ineffable Name, YHWH, implying that ‘the unity of the divinity is appropriated in this tradition, while its unque characteristics are attribbuted to additional divine forces'. R. Elior, ‘Mysticism, Magic and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature', Jewish Studies Quarterly 1 (1993/94), p. 33. 368 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
The Single Beast and its Early Reception in Germany
The German Pietists who possessed these Hekhalot texts understood these angels differently and used these sources as a base for their own theo- logical interests. Their speculations were closely tied to a second tradition found in the manuscript copyings of the Hekhalot literature, the ‘single Beast' (Ìayyah aÌat), or the ‘Beast Named Israel'16: And a single beast (Ìayyah) ascends above the seraphim and descends to the tabernacle (mishkan) of the youth whose name is Me†a†ron. And it [the Ìayyah] says in a strong voice, a subtle and silent voice: pure is the Throne of Glory. Immediately the angels are silent and the watchers and the holy ones are still… And the beasts turn their faces to the ground. And this youth whose name is Me†a†ron, deafens the ears of the beasts so that they won't hear the voice of the Holy One blessed be He which speaks the Holy Name17. The text adds the dimension of the Ìayyah who is either one of the four beasts of the chariot or, more likely, an additional one who serves this added function in the angelic liturgy. This beast is distinguished from the others and joins the angel Me†a†ron in a special role in the cycle of praises and prayer. This enhancement of the description of the heavenly liturgy as described in the Hekhalot texts is not a late product of the German Pietists who copied and transmitted the manuscripts in medieval Europe due to the parallel found in the Geniza which was published by Schäfer18. Instead, this passage seems to be an early development in the text's history. Still other passages found in the manuscripts of the Hekhalot literature can be shown to be medieval developments. One such passage is found in the Budapest manuscript §§296-297 and is clearly marked as an addition, ending with the words: ‘Until here is an addition'19. The addition consists
16. Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, ed. Peter Schäfer, Tübingen 1981; see Mss. Munich 40 (§§736, 961) and Oxford 1531 (§736) and in variations in Ms. Munich 22 (§476 which is the same as §736). The redactor of the material found in Ms. New York JTSA 8128 incorpo- rated both into the flow of this text (§390, §399). For later Kabbalistic uses of this tradition see R. Margolioth, Malakhei Elyon, Jerusalem 1945, p. 98. 17. Ms. New York, JTSA Mic 8128, §390. 18. Schäfer, ekhalot Studien Tübingen 1987, chapter 8. 19. In his batei Midrashot, (Jerusalem 1950, I, p. 117), Wertheimer published this text with the addition according to a Jerusalem manuscript, noting differences to the Lemberg printing of the same (n.d.). This version contains no indication that the passage was an addi- tion, leading to comments by Scholem and Farber that it represented important and early speculation on this theme. See Farber, M.A., p. 115, and Scholem, ‘Kabbalaot R. YitzÌak ve- R. Yakov Ha-Kohen', Mada}ei Ha-Yahadut 2 (1927) p. 262 n. 2. Compare Schäfer's Hekhalot Studien, p. 171. Of note is its appearance in the redaction according to Ms. New York, JTSA Mic 8128, §§405-406, whose editor knew of a derivative manuscript, but which lacks the final words. The question here is whether some later figure recognized that passage was an SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 369 of two passages. The first describes the elevated place and rank of Me†a†ron and the second describes the roles of Me†a†ron and the ‘Beast Named Is- rael' in the liturgy. ‘Every day, a single angel stands in the middle of the firmament,
Kabbalistic sources of the German pietists, posing the question: when and where did this symbolism first emerge? Did the German pietists equate the enthroned figure with the ‘Beast' or Cherub or is this association particular to the Kabbalistic view? And if not, did the authors of the ‘Special Cherub' texts emerge from the circle of the pietists, inheriting the texts and speculat- ing on them in a new direction, or did they develop their symbolism inde- pendently?
Eleazar of Worms and the Speculation of Other Schools
The relationship between the works of Eleazar of Worms and the sym- bolism of the ‘Special Cherub' works has been a matter of much debate since it was first described in the beginning of this century21. The initial confusion arose from attribution in manuscript of certain Special Cherub works to Eleazar. Once this matter was clarified, the more difficult task of comparing the usage of the different symbolisms was undertaken22. In a study published some thirty year ago, Joseph Dan collected and described the works containing the symbolism of the ‘Special Cherub', describing how they differed from the writings of the main pietist circle23. More recently, Asi Farber sought to show that Eleazar of Worms identified this beast (Ìayyah) with the Cherub, bringing these traditions together, thereby laying the foundation for the later symbolism found in the ‘Special Cherub' works24. This line of thought was continued by Elliot Wolfson who argued this same identification within a larger web of symbolism. We will return below to the question of Eleazar's true esoteric doctrine25. For now, we will
21. Abraham Epstein, ‘The Origins of the Ashkenazi Kabbalah', Ha-Hoqer 2 (1934), pp. 1- 11, 37-48; reprinted in his collected studies edited by A. Habermann, MeKadmoniot ha- Yehudim, Jerusalem 1957, I, pp. 226-248. 22. For a summary of the scholarship and the background of these attributions see my forthcoming study: ‘The Evolution of Intention of Prayer', above note 4. 23. Joseph Dan, ‘“The Exceptional Cherub” Sect in the Literature of the Medieval Ger- man Hasidim', Tarbiz 35 (1966), pp. 345-372 [Hebrew]; reprinted in his Studies in Ash- kenazi-Hasidic Literature, Ramat Gan 1975, pp. 89-111 [Hebrew]; See also his The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi Hasidism, Jerusalem 1968, pp. 156-164 [Hebrew]. 24. Farber, Ph.D., pp. 103, 364, 553. Further discussions on this theme can be found in her work on pp. 304-306, 311-312, 423, 546, 553-561. See already in her M.A., p. 98 where she claims that Jacob Ha-Kohen was the first to identify the beast with the ‘image of Jacob'. 25. Elliot Wolfson, ‘Ther Image of Jacob which is Enscribed on the Divine Throne: An Additional Study on the Esoteric Doctrine of German Pietism', Massu}ot: Studies in Kabba- listic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, ed. Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 131-185 [Hebrew]. In a separate study Wolfson described the role of the angel Me†a†ron in the thought of Eleazar of Worms as a special or distinctive chariot, functioning like the throne (or cherub) upon which the glory SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 371 focus our attention on the problem of Eleazar's treatment of the Cherub and reinvestigate his relationship to traditions from other schools, including those which may have preceded him. It will be argued here that special interest in the Cherub predates Eleazar and was known to him. Eleazar was apparently not impressed by these speculations and did not expand upon them in his own works. Rather it seems that anonymous figures contemporary to Eleazar and in the generation or two following him received these same traditions along with Eleazar's works and developed the cherub symbolism in a more radical fashion. To demonstrate the existence of early speculation concerning the Cherub we will compare a passage from the Hekhalot work, ‘3 Enoch', and its citation by Eleazar in his Sodei Razaya26. 3 Enoch, Ms. Vatican 288, fol. 47a (§9): Sodei Razaya, Ms. London, The British Museum 737, fol. 112b: R. Ishmael said: The angel Me†a†ron, R. Ishmael said: The angel Me†a†ron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me: when the Holy One, blessed be he, me: when the Holy One, blessed be he, desired to bring me up to the height, he desired to bring me up to the height, he sent me Prince Anafiel YH"Y and he sent me Prince Anafiel Y"Y and he took me from their midst, before their took me from their midst, before their very eyes, and he conveyed me in great very eyes, and he conveyed me on a glory on a fiery chariot, with fiery hor- great Cherub and with a fiery chariot ses and glorious attendants27, and he and fiery horses and attendants of His brought me up with the Shekhina to the Glory28. And he brought me up with the heavenly heights. Shekhina to the heavenly heights.
By comparing these texts, it is apparent that the more original reading found in Ms. Vatican has been altered in accordance with a specific medieval view. It would be very difficult to explain away the transformation of the reading {in great glory' to ‘on a great cherub' as a miscopying of these words, (כרוב) and Keruv (כבוד) Glory and Cherub; for although the words Kavod sits: ‘Me†a†ron and Shi}ur Qomah in the Writings of Haside Ashkenaz', Proceedings of the Conference on Mystik Magie und Kabbala im Aschkenasischen Judentum, held at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt a./M., West Germany, Dec. 9-11, 1991. 26. We will follow the translation of P.S. Alexander which is based on Ms Vatican 288 and Ms. Oxford-Bodleian 1656: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth, Garden City, New York 1983, vol. 1, p. 261. 27. Alexander cites in a note the reading of A = Ms. Vatican 288: ‘“he conveyed me on a great cherub with fiery chariots and fiery horses and glorious attendants” and he brought me up with the Shekinah to the heavenly heights'. This reading is found in various manuscript witnesses to the Hekhalot literature, but not in Ms. Vatican. See further below. 28. I have translated these words in accordance with how they would most likely be read in the Pietist circle. 372 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES are orthographically very similar, the prepositions have also been changed to provide a different meaning to the sentence. It can therefore be argued that this passage underwent the following four stages of development. The first stage is the original state of the text of the (redacted) work of 3 Enoch as preserved for example in Ms. Vatican. In the second stage, a certain medieval figure, possibly a member of the Pietist circle in the eleventh or twelfth centuries, understood the term Kavod to be the hypostatic mani- festation of God instead of the ‘glorious' way in which R. Ishmael was conveyed. In this second stage, the text was not changed but understood differently. This understanding formed the basis of the third stage where a new reading was introduced into some of these manuscripts of 3 Enoch: ‘conveyed me upon the Glory'29. In the fourth and final stage, the textual change was made from ‘Glory' to ‘Cherub'. Another example of a change in a Hekhalot text concerning the Cherub can be found in Eleazar's works. A separate passage from 3 Enoch discusses the etymology of Keruviel, defining him as the angel who presides over the ‘chariot of the cherubim'. In Eleazar of Worms' works, Keruviel presides over the Chariot and is identified with the Prince of the Countenance. 3 Enoch, Ms. Vatican 288, §34: 3 Enoch §34 as cited by Eleazar of Worms31: Why is his name called Keruviel? Be- Why is his name called Keruviel? Be- cause he is in charge of the chariot of cause he is in charge of the chariots of the cherubim. And the mighty cheru- the creatures [Ìayyot]32. And the mighty bim are committed to his keeping. He cherubim are committed to his keeping. shines the crowns on their heads and He shines the crowns on their heads and furbishes the diadems on their fore- furbishes the diadems on their fore- heads30. heads.
Eleazar's citation has extracted the angel Keruviel from the literary context of 3 Enoch. Whereas the name Keruviel is derived from its role as he who presides over the cherubim, in Eleazar's version Keruviel is assigned a greater role, presiding over the chariots of [all] the beasts. In both of these examples, Eleazar possesses a unique tradition related to the theme of the Cherub which emerges from a variant reading of a
29. Admittedly, no manuscripts of the reading have survived and must be assumed for the purposes of the argument. 30. According to Alexander's translation, p. 278. 31. Sodei Razaya, Ms. London, The British Library 737, fol. 96a; Commentary to the Chariot, Ms. Paris BN 850, fol. 71b. The latter reads merkavo instead of merkavot, which can be explained as the omission by the copist of the final letter or the slash which represents the final letter of the word. 32. In his translation, Alexander cites this variant reading according to ‘B' = Ms. Oxford 1656. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 373
Hekhalot text. These alterations of the text were made either by Eleazar himself or were already found in the source upon which he depended. The matter cannot at present be decided definitely as all other witnesses of this Hekhalot text are dependent on, or related to, Eleazar's circle and works33. The matter is further complicated if we assume that those who preserved the Hekhalot texts were all from Eleazar's circle, filtering out original read- ings of the subjects of interest in favor of those which are central to their theological agenda34. This same argument also applies to any circles of mystics who may have also transmitted Hekhalot material prior to Eleazar and then disappeared. On this matter we can only speculate and assume the existence of a circle whose members focused on the Cherub just as the main circle of German Pietists focused their speculation on the Glory. And even if we assume that these figures existed, from the minimal evidence dis- cussed here, no necessary connection can be drawn between their theologi- cal speculations and those of the later authors of the writings concerning the ‘Special Cherub'. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Eleazar is responsible for this corruption of the text for it does not lend to his theology and has no parallel to other paraphrases of earlier sources in his work. We can further reinforce the claim that the above changes in ‘3 Enoch' was made according to a specific ideology concerning the Cherub by com- paring it to similar changes made in other manuscripts of another Hekhalot text: Massekhet Hekhalot. These differences in the manuscripts were al- ready noted in part by Asi Farber in her unpublished Ph.D. thesis on the ‘Secret of the Nut' and Merkabah speculation in thirteenth century Jewish mysticism (1978) and independently in Klaus Herrmann's extensive study of Massekhet Hekhalot (1994) which includes a critical edition, stemma, translation and commentary35. Following a translation of the passage in 33. Many notebooks exist of these Hekhalot texts which may be directly dependent upon the works or teachings of Eleazar of Worms, as noted already by Alexander, p. 252. See Mss. Oxford 175 = Neub. 2257; 256 = Neub. 1748; 495 = Neub. 1568; Ms. New York, JTSA Mic 1786. The same reading to §9 can also be found in Ms. Jerusalem, JNUL 40 381 which may have similar roots. My thanks to Dr. Klaus Herrmann who provided me with these references as well as the unknown manuscript he has recently uncovered, Ms. Jerusalem, JNUL 80 5226, which was earlier housed in the Israelitische Kultgemeinde of Vienna. See §34 on fol. 23a which agrees with Eleazar's version. Another notebook of Hekhalot texts can be found in Jacob Ha-Kohen's Book of Illumination. See the edition in Daniel Abrams. ‘The Book of Il- lumination of R. Jacob ben Jacob Ha-Kohen, A Synoptic Edition from Various Manuscripts', Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University, 1993, pp. 228-234. 34. Ms. Munich 40 is closely related to the text found in Ms. Vatican cited above, and includes later interpolation from Eleazar's Sodei Razaya. So, for example §34 reads ‘chariots of creatures'. See the introduction to the forthcoming German translation of 3 Enoch, to be published by J.C.B. Mohr (Tübingen) in the series edited by Peter Schäfer. I would like again to thank Dr. Klaus Herrmann for information regarding these texts. 35. Klaus Herrmann. Massekhet Hekhalot: Traktat von den himmlischen Palästen, Edi- tion, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Tübingen 1994. 374 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES question according to Ms. Vatican 288 (§231-2)36, we will compare and dis- cuss the conclusions of the above scholars, neither of whom knew of the other's research. The seventh chapter. Above them (the Ìayyoth37) is dwelling like the image of the firmament38, [something] like the terrifying ice [which is] above the heads of the Ìayyoth which is full of majesty and splendor, as it is written ‘majesty and splendor are before him' which is placed and arranged39 like many fiery appearances and in flaming appearances, and is placed in majesty and splendor above the heads of the Ìayyoth, as it is written: ‘like the image of their faces40 above the heads of the Ìayyah41. (§232) And there, arranged in the plenty of the wondrous wonders, are the wheels of the chariot…
Asi Farber compared the version presented above, according an inferior witness of the same family of manuscripts, ‘which is placed and arranged like many fiery appearances'42 to that of the reading found in Ashkenazi manuscripts of Massekhet Hekhalot, ‘and there are arranged the most wondrous cherubim, [the] wheels of the chariot'43. She argued that the reading of ‘Cherub' forms one of the earliest sources for the speculation of the ‘Special Cherub'44. This source is telling of Eleazar's relationship to the symbolism of the Cherub because this while new reading originated in Ashkenaz, it was unknown to him. For although Eleazar cites numerous passages from Hekhalot texts, he did not possess Massekhet Hekhalot. This work was therefore received, copied and altered by contemporary(?) mys-
36. Herrmann, pp. *70-*71. 37. See Herrmann's edition §224. 38. The Ashkenazi manuscripts lack the word ‘firmament' to read ‘like the image [of] like the ice' as in Ms Oxford 183. So, in Ms. Oxford 741 the copist struck the second ‘like' so the text would read more fluidly, ‘like the image [of] ice'. 39. There are various corruptions to this reading in the manuscripts which need not be discussed here. See Herrmann's line edition for the various readings. 40. ‘faces' found only in Ms. Vatican. 41. Other manuscripts read ‘Ìayyoth'. 42. Ms. Firenze-Laurensiana II.41, fol. 161b. This manuscript, copied by a professional copist, suffers from a number of lacunae due to homoioteleuton or homoioarkton in this passage alone. The manuscript, copied in Lerida in the year 1326, includes a number of central Kabbalistic texts and was copied numerous times. See further Asi Farber, M.A., In- troduction, p. 16. The title of Massekhet Hekhalot, Pirque Merkava is specific to Text Type C which is represented by Ms. Florence. This text type influenced many Kabbalists such as Azriel of Gerona (p. 285) and certain authors of texts belonging to the ‘Iyyun Circle' (p. 323). On Text-Type C see Herrmann, pp. 91-95. 43. These readings formed the basis of the text published in the first printing, Sefer Arzei Levanon, Venice 1601, fol. 42b; As Klaus Herrmann has shown, the editor elegantly com- bined his witnesses to provide a fluid reading of the passage which would accord with his understanding of the larger context of the work. See Herrmann, p. 62 n. 175. 44. Farber, Ph.D., p. 556. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 375 tics outside of his immediate circle45. Unfortunately, here again there is lit- tle indication about the character of these speculations concerning the Cherub. Instead, we can only note what is most likely a predisposition to enter the reading of Cherub into these texts, based either on an incidental misreading or on a theological motivated interpretation.
Eleazar of Worms' Own Speculation
Eleazar of Worms was clearly familiar with the tradition of the ‘Beast named Israel' which he incorporated into his works46. And while Eleazar based many interpretations on the speculations of others, he did not expand on all of them. Eleazar did not for example include the theme of the ‘Single Beast' into a more elaborate theology. As stated above, Asi Farber remar- ked that Eleazar at one point identified the Cherub with the ‘single Beast'47. While Eleazar does indeed state: ‘the Cherub is the beast (Ìayyah)', in the context of this passage he is referring to the faces of these beings. That is, the Cherub is used to describe the face of the beast and is not identified with it. This is validated by the lack of the identification of the Cherub with the Ìayyah in the remainder of his vast corpus and the repeated discussions of the face of the Cherub in other passages48. This point notwithstanding,
45. As noted by Klaus Herrmann, Massekhet Hekhalot is found in Ms. Oxford-Bodleian 1921, copied at the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century, which con- tains as well sections from Eleazar's Sodei Razaya. Unfortunately the section which contains the corruption concerning the Cherub is missing from this witness. 46. See especially his Hilkhot Metatron, a chapter of his Sodei Razaya which was omitted from Kamelhar's edition: Ms. London, The British Museum 737, fol. 111b-116b; Sefer Ha- Rokeach, Jerusalem 1967, §320, p. 210, cited in the name of the ‘midrash'; §362, p. 250; The Poems of Rabbi Eleazar ben Yehudah of Worms, ed. Isaac Meiseles, Jerusalem, 1993, p. 27; 'שמע ישראל אשר בך אתפארה / בעת שלוש קדושה תקדיש לבארה / גאותי לתפארתי ישראל מנשק באורה / דמות פני אדם מחבק לתארה / המון שיריך עלי צפירה תפארה. וחיה קמע ישראל / פותחת ,See also Perushey Siddur Ha-Tel-filah La-Rokeach, ed. Hershler, Jerusalem 1992 .למהרה... pp. 20, 131 (both cited in the name of Sefer ha-Merkava, the latter reference stating that it was ‘copied' there implying that he might have realized it was an addition), 249-250; Com- mentary to the Chariot, Ms. Paris BN 850, fol. 72b; Abraham bar Azriel's Arugat Ha-Bosem, ed. E. Urbach, Jerusalem 1948, vol. 3, p. 107 n. 14; finally, see ‘The Seventy Names of Metatron', printed as Sefer ha-Îesheq, Lemberg 1865, §9. Of note is the commentary to the Prayers of Shlomo Germaiza who cites §390 in the name of the Berayta of Shemot, a matter which requires further research: Ms. Cambridge Add. 394, fol. 12d and Ms. Moscow- Günzburg 3266, fol. 22b-23a, and see M. Hershler's edition, Jerusalem 1972, p. 82. 47. On p. 115 of her M.A. thesis, Farber cites three passages in Eleazar's Commentary to the Chariot, Ms. Paris BN 850, fol. 58a, 61a, 73b. The first passage cites §390: ‘four beasts and another single Ìayyah above', in the second Eleazar remarks ‘And the Cherub is the Ìayyah', and in the third he states that the additional Ìayyah corresponds to the throne. 48. See for example Ms. Mussayef 145, fol. 22b, cited below, note 73. 376 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
Farber is correct in pointing to these texts as the ground for later specula- tions outside of his circle which unify the symbolism of angelic beings such as the Cherub, Me†a†ron, Sandalfon and the Beast. At issue is the question whether the Cherub receives special significance in Eleazar's works, identified with the beast which ascends above the others and/or the enthroned human figure. In a recently published study49, Elliot Wolfson has argued these identifications, claiming that the nexus of sym- bolism found in the ‘Special Cherub' works — as well as various Kabbalis- tic reinterpretations of Eleazar's doctrine — can be found already in Eleazar's works. The starting point for arguing this web of association is the collective identification of the four beasts of the chariot with the ‘single beast'. This ‘single beast', according to Wolfson, assumes the form of the Cherub or man which is the enthroned figure50. However, the first conclu- sion is in fact inferred from a series of texts written by Eleazar and is not stated by him directly. This connection appears in Kabbalistic texts written in the following generations. In the texts cited by Wolfson, the closest state- ment by Eleazar concerning the collective nature of the beast, is found in .51(ברייה) 'his Sodei Razaya where he calls the four beasts a ‘single creature And although Eleazar does identify the head of a human figure with the Cherub, he does not equate this cherub with the beast, nor with a complete anthropomorphic form. Finally, Eleazar does not identify any of the above symbols with the enthroned figure; while the text of the printed edition of Sodei Razaya which is cited by Wolfson identifies the enthroned form with the correct reading found in manuscript is ,(כמלאך) the likeness of an angel And indeed, as noted by .52(כמלך) that the prophet envisions God as King Wolfson, these images are conflated — in our view, for the first time — in later Kabbalistic symbolism, in the works of R. Jacob ha-Kohen53, R. Moses
49. ‘Image of Jacob', as cited above. 50. Ibid., pp. 139-141, and esp. p. 183. 51. Ed. I. Kamelhar, Bilgoraj 1936, p. 33, cited by Wolfson, p. 139. In his Commentary to חיה הוא קיבוץ) 'the Prayers, p. 177, Eleazar states that ‘the Ìayyah is the sum of the faces Indeed, as noted by Wolfson, p. 139, the identification of the s as a single beast can .(פרצופין be found in sources which predate Eleazar. Therefore, even if the identification can be illus- trated within Eleazar's system, it is not unique of his thought. For a tradition of the fifth beast see Ms. Paris 850, fol. 73b. 52. Sodei Razaya, ed. Kamelhar, p. 33; cited by Wolfson, p. 139. See my edition of Hilkhot ha-Kavod published as an appendix to my study, ‘“The Secret of Secrets”: The Con- cept of the Divine Glory and the Intention of Prayer in the Writings of R. Eleazar of Worms', Da}at 34 (1994), pp. 61-81, esp. pp. 77-78 [Hebrew]. See further Eleazar of Worms'- ‘Sefer “Sha}arei ha-Sod ha-YiÌud ve-ha-Emunah”', ed. Joseph Dan, Temirin1 (1972), p. 151 [He- brew]; ‘For the [Divine] Glory refers [or: hints at] an angel [which can] change to various forms'. 53. See his article, p. 151 n. 105. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 377 of Burgos and the various works of the ‘Special Cherub Circle'. In the following sections of this study we will seek to fill in the gaps between Eleazar's view and that of the Spanish Kabbalists, showing how the nexus of traditions developed gradually in the circles of unknown pre-Kabbalistic German mystics.
Speculation Following Eleazar of Worms
The main circle of German pietist represents only one group of Jewish mystics in pre-Kabbalistic Europe. Beyond the early figures who speculated on the Cherub and the later speculation on the ‘Special Cherub', most of them Kabbalistic, there existed other circles of mystics. These assorted mystics who are known to us only through their writings, include the author of Sefer Ha-Îayyim54, the author(s) of the parabolic description of Eze- kiel's Chariot entitled ‘Secret of the Nut' and the authors and editors of the early versions of the Book Bahir and its medieval sources55. The relation- ship between these schools has not been fully explored and explained. While Joseph Dan's claim that the main pietist circle did not produce the works according to the doctrine of the ‘Special Cherub', the extent to which these works were based on the former has yet to be investigated56. On this matter, new manuscript evidence shows that the two are indeed connected, the various writings concerning the Cherub representing chapters in the his- tory of the reception of the teachings of Eleazar of Worms. One such text is the ‘Secret of the Nut' which is attributed to Eleazar of Worms in one of the manuscript witnesses57. Another manuscript, now lost, includes an additional gloss which compares an additional beast to the fifth of five parts of the nut.
54. See Dan, The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi Hasidism, Jerusalem 1968, p. 51 [Hebrew]. 55. See my book: The Book Bahir: An Edition Based on the Earliest Manuscripts, Los Angeles 1994 [Hebrew]. 56. Scholem commented that the writings were written in the ‘style' of the works of the pietists. Kabbalah, Jerusalem 1974, p. 41. 57. See the texts published by E. Urbach in his edition of ‘Arugat Ha-Bosem of R. Abraham ben Azriel, Jerusalem 1947, vol. 2, pp. 168-171 [Hebrew]. See also A. Altmann, “Eleazar of Worms” Hokhmath Ha-}Egoz', Journal of Jewish Studies 11 (1960), pp. 101- 113, Joseph Dan, ‘Hokhmath Ha-}Egoz, its Origin and Development', Journal of Jewish Studies17 (1966), pp. 73-82; Idem, ‘Toward a History of the Text of “Hokhmat ha-Egoz”', Alei Sefer 5 (1978), pp. 49-52 [Hebrew]; Farber, Ph.D. 58. This sentence can also be found in some of the other recensions. 378 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
mament is mentioned on the second day, and once the firmament is called heaven…'59 In a study on the Egoz text, Alexander Altmann commented that ‘the exist- ence of the one Ìayyah may be suggested by the use of the singular instead of the usual plural in Ezekiel 1:22, 10:15,20'60. Altmann claimed this to be analogous to the ‘Special Cherub' and tried to explain how it accords with these works61. This tradition, however, can be seen as a commentary to the Hekhalot tradition of ‘the single beast that ascends above the seraphim'. The author of this gloss understands the ‘Secret of the Nut' through this tradition, equating this fifth beast with the masculine element of the nut. Where the fifth and protruding segment of the nut was conceived as masculine, associated with the throne in the text of the ‘Secret of the Nut', the author of the gloss has apparently elevated the masculine element from the throne to the beast which is seated upon it. This gloss is the first textual evidence of speculation which places an angel from the chariot world on the divine throne. While we do not know when and where the author of the gloss lived, simi- lar speculation can be documented in German texts written sometime after Eleazar of Worms. In a Cambridge manuscript there exists a collection of brief commentaries to Ezekiel's vision of the chariot-world and its angelic beasts which includes excerpts from early works concerning the ‘Special Cherub'62 as well as excerpts from the works of Eleazar of Worms63. The authors of the new material apparently edited their own material into note- books on particular themes of interest which included other materials they received. These figures should then be placed in the thirties or forties of the thirteenth century and should be seen as a new movement which sought to combine the various trends. While this collection includes material from various authors, a common theme which unites the anonymous and new material is the role of the beasts in relation to the divine throne. In one passage the enthroned figure is explicitly stated as being an angel and not God64. In another section, the ‘Secret of the First Recitation of the Trishagion [Qedusha]', the role of the
59. Following Altmann's translation, pp. 106-107. 60. Ibid., p. 107. 61. At the time Altmann believed Eleazar was the author of the Special Cherub work, the ‘Pesaq ha-Yirah'. 62. Most notably, the ‘Pesaq ha-Yirah'. See my article, cited above, note 4. 63. Ms. Cambridge Add. 858, fol. 9b-32a. See especially fol. 16b which is an excerpt from Eleazar's Commentary to the Prayers. See also fol. 25a: ‘Sod }Aza}el, the words of [our] teacher, R. Eleazar ben R. Y[ehudah] ben Q[olonimus]. 64. In the ‘Secret of the Îayyoth', fol. 10b. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 379 single beast is discussed where it is distinguished from the angel Me†a†ron, and from the Cherub: ‘To them'65, is numerically equivalent to ‘And the Seraph' which is also nu- merically equivalent to ‘prince of the throne'. [This is] the [angelic] prince which presides over the throne. And he is Me†a†ron [who] says to the angels [the words from the prayer] ‘Blessed, they say'. And a single beast stands in the middle of the firmament; and when Me†a†ron says this, it says ‘Blessed are you Lord who is blessed'. And all the angels respond: ‘Blessed are you Lord, who is blessed forever and ever', with the beast [named] Israel and it [acts as] the cantor above. ‘Blessed' is numerically equivalent to ‘he who rides' and to ‘Cherub'66. This speculation is highly significant because it places its authors prior to the main writings concerning the ‘Special Cherub' where the symbolism of the Cherub, Me†a†ron and the beast are collapsed into one. Another figure of great importance following Eleazar of Worms is Elea- zar ben Moses ha-Darshan, the grandson of Judah the Pious. This member of the pietist circle lived about half a generation after Eleazar of Worms. And although he at one point mentions Eleazar of Worms as deceased, he was nevertheless unfamiliar with the Kabbalistic doctrine of the sefirot which was circulating amongst contemporaries in Provence and Gerona. In his commentary to the Torah entitled Sefer Gema†riot where he wrote: And there is another67 angel above, and his name is Israel. And [he] stands in the middle of the firmament and says: ‘Bless the Lord who is blessed'. And the upper [beings] answer ‘Blessed is the Lord who is blessed forever', as is written in the Book of the Chariot. And this is [the meaning of the verse, Gn. 47:31] ‘and Israel bowed down [at the head of the bed]'. This same angel which is on high ‘at the head of the bed'. ‘The bed' is the chariot above, upon which the Shekhina is likened to rest there and to there bows the angel68. Eleazar ha-Darshan has reinterpreted the biblical verse, replacing the hu- man Israel, Jacob, with the angel by the same name, so that it too bows be- fore the divine. It is unclear whether the angel named Israel assumes the place of the Shekhina, or joins it in order to bow to an upper aspect of the
.to equal to 580 לעמתם but should read לעומתם Transcribed as .65 66. All composed of the same three letters. 67. He previously mentioned ‘the face [parÂuf] of Jacob which is drawn (me-Âuyar] above'. 'וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה. התגין הללו של ישראל ושל המטה :Ms Munich 221, fol. 133 .68 מהפכין הפשט של הפסוקים ומוצאין אותן ממשמעותן. וככה יש לדרושו: י ש ר אל התגין שעליו. וכן ה מ ט ה, מרמזין כלפי מעלה, רמז כי למעלה יש פרצוף יעקב מצוייר ועליו מרמז. ועור מלאך יש למעלה ושמו ישראל ועומד באמצע הרקיע ואומר ברכו את יי המבורך. ועונים העליונים ברוך יי' המבורך לעולם ועד, כדאיתא בספר המרכבה. וזהו וישתחו ישראל – אותו מלאך שבמרום על ראש המטה. המטה היא המרכבה Compare to .של מעלה שהשכינה כאילו שוכנת עליה ולשם משתחוה המלאך. וזהו על ראש המטה'. Rashi on Gn. 47:31 and Rashi to BT Nedarim 40a where he comments that the Shekhina rests above the bed. 380 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES divine69 or whether the angel is situated on some high place and bows be- fore the enthroned Shekhina. What is clear, however, is that the ‘image of Jacob' mentioned previously by him is distinguished from this angel. One last example of speculation on the beast following Eleazar of Worms can be found in a collection of material from Eleazar of Worms and the ‘Special Cherub' works. In the middle of a copying of Eleazar's ‘Sha}arei ha-Sod Ha-YiÌud ve-ha-Emunah we find the following comment which ex- pands upon Eleazar's view, but yet is still quite distant from that of the ‘Special Cherub' works. Ascribe might to God whose majesty is over Israel whose might [is in the skies - Ps. 68:35]'. This means, there is a single great beast above the four beasts which are below the throne of Glory and it is the Image of Jacob our father, may his memory be blessed. And none of the heavenly forces is permitted to sing until it [the beast] begins [to sing] and he [in turn] does not begin until Israel below begins…70 The anonymous author is commenting on the Shi}ur Qomah, the measure- ments of the divine body as described in the Hekhalot tract of the same name. This tradition merges the anthropomorphic description of this text with Isaiah's vision (6:1) and the symbolism of Ezekiel's chariot. In other words, this author follows the tradition that the chariot, with its four beasts, lies below the throne upon which the ‘Beast named Israel' sits. It is to this beast that the anthropomorphic associations are made. This stands in con- trast, on the one hand to Hekhalot traditions which demonstrate no unique view concerning the single Ìayyah71, and on the other hand to Ashkenazi traditions, such as the appended passages to the Hekhalot texts themselves (tosefet) which allocate a liturgical role for the ‘Beast named Israel'72. We can also point to the further association of the ‘Beast named Israel' with the ‘Image of Jacob' and show how the above author goes beyond earlier teachings. Finally, this text seems to be the earliest source in which the beast named Israel is elevated to the throne itself and is identified with the 69. This tradition would accord with his view of the Shekhina in his treatise on the ‘Unity of God' (above note 5). 'תנו ע"ה לאלהי' לרוחב על ישראל גאותו, פי' חיה .Ms. Oxford-Bodleian 1267, fol. 187a .70 אחת גדולה למעלה על ד' החיות כסא הכבוד והיא דמות דיוקנו של יעקב אע"ה ואין אחד מכל צבאות עליוני' רשאי לשורר עד שהיא מתחילה והיא אינה מתחלה עד שיתחילו ישראל מלמטה הרי למעלה ואותו גאותו נכרת על ישראל למטה בזמן שגואל אותם מצרתם ועושה נקמה בצריהם כדכתי' בגאולת מצרי' .אשירה ליי' כי גאה גאה ובגאולה לעתי' (187 ב) שתהיה בקרב נאמ'...' 71. Synopsis §§390, 399 and parallels. 72. Synopsis, §§295-6, 405-406, particularly the later of each block of material. Further additions can be found in §§149-151. The relationship of this Ìayyah to the four Ìayyot is ambiguous in these passages. On §406, see Farber, Ph.D., p. 546 and related comments on pp. 11, 13. Regarding §296, see Halperin, Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision, Tübingen 1988, p. 416. SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 381 enthroned figure. Once the additional association is made to the Cherub, the symbolism common to the various ‘Special Cherub' texts is satisfied. This text can therefore be viewed as the critical link between the corpora of literature.
The Special Cherub Doctrine Compared to Eleazar's Works
The works of Eleazar of Worms supplied various elements which were assembled or reinterpreted into a new doctrine concerning the ‘Special Cherub'. By comparing the two doctrines it is possible to distinguish them from one another. We will limit this comparison to a few central points not discussed in previous studies. Eleazar identifies the face of the Cherub with the human face, the fourth beast of the chariot73. In the ‘Special Cherub' works, the Cherub is identi- fied with the whole of the human form, the enthroned figure. So for exam- ple, we can compare two passages, one from Eleazar's commentary to the Chariot and one from the Berayata of Yosef Ben Uzziel, a central work of the ‘Special Cherub Circle'. In the first passage, Eleazar outlines the basic symbolism: It is known that the human being is the most glorious of the creatures, and the head of a human is the most glorious of all the limbs, and so it is above. This head is in the image of Jacob… who is engraved upon the throne of glory… Jacob is called small, and similarly the cherubim have small faces… Since the human countenance is that of Jacob engraved on the throne… And Jacob said, “Am I under God?” The word “I” (}anokhi) is numerically equivalent to the throne (kise)74. Eleazar has woven a web of associations between the faces of the cherubim, the face of Jacob and the throne. While the first and last two are explicitly identified, Eleazar elsewhere seems to suggest that the Cherub is a meto- nym for the throne when he compares the role of the Cherub — according to the verse (2 S 22:11) ‘he rode upon the Cherub' — to that of the throne75. This connection, between the singular cherub upon which God rides and the chariot which bears the throne arises from their parallel func-
73. Commentary to the Chariot, Ms. Mussayef 145, fol. 22b. ‘And this head is [that of] man [which] is the cherub'. On fol. 35b he further connects this face to that of Jacob which is enscribed on the throne. See also the texts cited by Wolfson, ‘Image of Jacob', p. 140. 74. Excerpted here according to the translation of Elliot Wolfson in his study, ‘Images of God's Feet: Some Observations on the Divine Body in Judaism', People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective, ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, Albany 1992, p. 157. Eleazar's Commentary to the Chariot, Ms Mussayef 145, fol. 35b, corrected in part by Ms. Paris BN 850, fol. 56b-57a. 75. Wolfson, Ibid., pp. 158-159. 382 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES tion and need not be an identification between the two. Indeed, while Eleazar develops further the Rabbinic motif of the sexual relation between the two cherubim in the tabernacle76, there is no indication that he extends this to the singular cherub, beyond the unrelated element that each support or carry the divine figure77. This distinction, between the single Cherub and the pair of Cherubim, can be found in the relatively early ‘Special Cherub' work, the Berayta of Yosef ben Uziel. In this text the singular or ‘Special' Cherub is identified with the Divine Glory, the enthroned human form. This stands in contrast to the two cherubim which support the throne: The Divine Glory is the Cherub. And the cherubim(!)78 are the beasts; and (Ez. 11:22) ‘the Glory of the God of Israel is upon them, above'. This is (Ez. 10:19-20) the beast that I saw under the God of Israel… And the cherubim and the ophanim and the entire account of the chariot are called the ‘single beast'. And the cherub is the beast. And the biblical first man is created in his image and in79 his likeness, as it is written (Ez. 1:26) ‘and on the throne is the image of the likeness of man'80. The symbolism of the collective beast nothwithstanding, the Special Cherub should not be understood as the elevation of a beast which supports the throne to its enthronement above. Rather, in this source, the divine was elevated above the throne world and in its place was seated a special beast, extraneous to the biblical imagery. At best, the imagery of the enthroned Special Cherub is the appropriation of the single beast of the Hekhalot lit- erature or even the singular cherub of Ezekiel, as first noted by Scholem, to the biblical imagery of a human form81. It seems that the tradition of a col-
76. See M. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, New Haven and London, p. 130; Wolfson, ‘Image of Jacob', p. 171. 77. In his study, ‘Image of Jacob', Wolfson claims that the ‘Image of Jacob' symbolizes the Glory (pp. 166-167, 180) as well as the Cherub or Throne (pp. 163, 165, 170). These identifications seem to contradict each other for the Cherub cannot be both the enthroned fig- ure and the throne. Wolfson solves part of this problem (pp. 176, 183) by arguing that the seated (lower) Glory, is together with its throne a throne to the upper Glory which is also termed a Cherub. The two cherubim therefore have ontic status, arranged vertically as the two powers or attributes which are each termed Cherub or Glory. This description, however, does not explain the symbolism of the cherub with respect to the lower throne and lower Glory. 78. Ms. Paris reads in the singular: ‘the cherub is the beasts'. The reading in Ms. Paris is certainly a corruption. See later in the same copying, fol. 34a, which again emphasizes the face of the cherub(im): ‘And the beasts (Ìayyoth) are called cherubim, as is written “and the face of the ox were changed to that of a cherub”'. 79. Ms. Paris 770 reds: ‘according to his likeness'. 80. Ms. New York JTSA Mic 1885, fol. 72b. Compare to Wolfson, ‘Image of Jacob', p. 141 who cites this passage according to the corrupt reading in Ms. Paris. 81. So for example in R. Moses ha-Darshan's Commentary to Shi}ur Qomah speaks of the single beast, drawing on the Hekhalot tradition discussed above. See Ms. Rome-Angelica 46, SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 383 lective beast was employed to explain the Hekhalot tradition of a single beast rising above the other four and was contrasted to the enthroned form. Therefore, in the Special Cherub works, as in Eleazar's works, the en- throned being does not represent one of the two cherubim who support the throne, nor the single beast82. Another major difference between the two bodies of literature is their use of symbolic language. Most notably, Joseph Dan pointed to the repeated description of the Special Cherub as ‘holy' and ‘great'. Prior to these works, Eleazar states that the cherubim are more ‘holy' than the angels83. This theme was apparently appropriated in the writings of the Special Cherub, particularly the earliest works, where the ‘holiness' is the object of prayer, the place of origin of the emanated Cherub84. Finally, Eleazar permutates the letters of the Hebrew CheRuB, to produce BaRuCh, blessing, (and RoCheB, riding)85. These associations are the main themes of the Special Cherub doctrine: directing one's prayers through or at the Cherub, and the cherub who sits on the divine throne, riding on the chariot86. Eleazar falls short from both the Kabbalistic orientation as well as that of the Special Cherub because he fails to equate the enthroned figure with the Cherub. Both views are pivoted on the issue of anthropomorphism. The Kabbalistic view accepts the anthropomorphic description of the divine and incorporates it into the arrangement of powers termed sefirot. The early Special Cherub works split the anthropomorphic form, identified with the Cherub, from the upper aspect of the divine, while the later works merged this understanding with the Kabbalistic view identifying the Cherub with the lowest sefirah.
Kabbalistic Interpretations to the Beast and the Cherub
Spanish Kabbalists of the thirteenth century were most certainly sensitive to the tradition of the ‘beast named Israel' and the Cherub without necessar- fol. 11b: ‘And a single beast rises above the seraphim and this beast is the cherub. See also Wolfson, ‘Image of Jacob', p. 141 n. 46. 82. Compare to Farber's formulation of this distinction, p. 304. 83. Ms. Paris BN 850, fol. 71b, 72a. On the angels being created from the ‘holy light' see ‘The Secret of Unity of R. Judah the Pious', published by Dan, Studies, p. 81. 84. See Dan, Studies, p. 110. 85. Commentary to the Prayers, ed. Hirshler, pp. 216, 539. See further, Eleazar's Sodei Razaya as cited by Farber, p. 312 and the Commentary to the Torah attributed to Eleazar of Worms, cited by Wolfson, ‘Image of Jacob', p. 176 n. 197. 86. For sources and parallels see my study ‘The Intention of Prayer' (cited above, note 4), note 45. 384 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES ily being acquainted with the most radical understandings from Germany87. The symbol of the cherub was by far more predominant in early Kabbalistic literature, receiving various definitions88. While the theosophic Kabbalah incorporated the Cherub into its sefirotic symbolism, it was careful to distinguish the one sefirah from the two cheru- bim which were positioned above the ark. The single Cherub was most of- ten identified with the tenth sefirah, malkhuth89 the two cherubim either with the third and fourth sefirot (Ìesed and gevurah) or the sixth and tenth (tifereth and malkhut)90. Most interesting though is the tradition recorded by Isaac of Aco that each one of the ten sefirot is called ‘cherub', ‘god' (el), your God (elo}hekha)… each according to the context (}inyan)91. It seems that the Cherub is here viewed in general terms, as the divine hypostasis of earlier Jewish litera- ture, which can be appropriated at will for the various symbolic systems. Other associations by Isaac of Acco on the single Cherub parallel those of other Kabbalists without necessarily being based on them. In his Ozar ha- Îayyim, Isaac of Acco equates the Cherub with Me†a†ron, the high angel, enthroned next to God in Tractate Îagiga of the Babylonian Talmud92. And although one might believe that this association is dependent upon tradi- tions which view these two angelic figures as Logos-like beings, Isaac of Acco bases his identification on a comparison of traditions from Hekhalot and Rabbinic literature. Isaac states that both are like young boys, Me†a†ron is called na}ar, understood as youth93, and the etymology of Cherub is based upon its appearance, like a boy according to the Aramaic, ke-re- vaya94. These traditions were combined in a passage from an early four-
87. In my ‘The Intention of Prayer', I traced the reception of the Special Cherub doctrine in Kabbalistic works. See further below. 88. See R. Goetschel, ‘Les métamorphoses du chérubin dans la pensée juive', L'Interdit de la représentation, Paris 1984, pp. 89-106, esp. pp. 101-106. 'העשירית והיא הנקראת כרוב שבו מתפאר :See for example Ms. Vatican 428, fol. 67a .89 הרוכב בשמי שמי קדם ועליו ר"ל על הרוכב ועל הכרו"ב וירכב על כרוב. הי"א כסא הכבוד שהוא .See further, Farber, p. 311 כדמות כסא לכבוד העשירי'. 90. See for example the sources collected by Farber in her Ph.D., p. 312, and Abraham Ardutiel's Stones of Remembrance, Ms. Jerusalem, Klausner 2, fol. 4b. 91. Sefer Me}irat Einayim, ed. Amos Goldreich, Jerusalem 1981, p. 20; also found in Keter Shem Tov of Shem Tov Ibn Gaon, Ma}or va-Shemesh, ed. J. Koriat, Livorno 1879, fol. 26b; Compare to the statement of Levi ben Abraham in his Sefer Livyat Îen concerning the ‘tenth cherub'; Ms. Munich 58, fol. 11a (as cited by M. Idel in his doctoral thesis, The Writ- ings of Abraham Abulafia and his Doctrine, Jerusalem 1976, p. 89 n. 21 [Hebrew]). 92. Ms. Moscow-Günzburg 775, fol. 7a. 93. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, Second Improved Edition, 1965, pp. 49-50. 94. Tractate Hagigah, fol. 13b and Tractate Succah fol. 5b. See also, Farber, Ph.D., pp. 212, 310 who cites a Commentary to the Thirty-Two Paths in Ms. Munich 83, fol. 103: ‘…Cherub .'כרוב הוא כדמות נער יפה' – 'and he has the appearance of a fair young boy SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES 385 teenth century Kabbalistic lexicon of angelic figures which identifies the single cherub as one of the pair of the cherubim: Cherub: why is his name such? Because he serves before the second cherub which is the grade of Kingdom (Malkhuth)… and so a child is called [in Ara- maic] re}ia and therefore they are called cherubim. And they refer to [the ninth and tenth sefirot,] Âaddik and malkhuth, which are [connected one to another] like the flame is to the coal. Until here one is permitted to speak [about this matter]. And this is the angel whose standing is great, whose name is like his master95, and therefore he is called Cherub96. The single beast or the Beast named Israel were also absorbed into the sefi- rotic symbolism of thirteenth century Kabbalah, most often identified with the sixth sefirah, tifereth, at times further identified with the first of two cherubim97. An exception to this is R. Asher ben David, an early thirteenth century Provençal Kabbalist, who identifies the beast which Ezekiel saw with the Shekhina and the Divine Glory98. The Zohar by contrast identifies the beast positioned above the other four as the third sefirah, Binah99. The sixteenth century Spanish Kabbalist, R. Meir Ibn Gabbai offers a sefirotic recasting to the Hekhalot tradition of the single beast: It is written in the midrash: a single beast stands in the middle of the firma- ment and Israel is its name. Each morning it says: ‘Bless the Lord, who is blessed'. And all the heavenly forces answer: ‘Blessed is the Glory of the Lord from His place'. And this is its secret [meaning]: ‘Bless the Lord who is bles- sed' — that is to say the efflux and blessing is drawn down from the source of
95. That is, Me†a†ron. 96. Sefer Toldot Adam, printed in Sefer ha-Malkhut, Casablanca 1930, fol. 70c. Ephraim Gotleib identified the author as the author of the ‘Rationale of the Commandments' (written by Joseph of Shushan). See his Studies in Kabbalistic Literature, ed. Joseph Hacker, Tel Aviv 1976, pp. 251-253 [Hebrew]. 97. For the identification of the single beast alone see The Prayerbook of Naftali Treves, ,Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer ha-Emunah ve-ha-BitÌon, ch. 3 ;(10מThiengen 1560, fol. 55b (2 published in Chavel's Kitvei Ramban, Jerusalem 1964, vol. 2, p. 361. I would like to thank Ari Ackerman for this reference. Moshe Idel, ‘The World of Angels in Human Form', Studies in Jewish Mysticism Philosophy and Ethical Literature Presented to Isaiah Tishby on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Jerusalem 1986, p. 37 [Hebrew], cites Recanati's Ta}amei Ha- (אינן אלא) Mitzvoth, ed. Lieberman, London 1963, p. 15 where the four beasts are certainly one beast, based on Jacob Ha-Kohen's Commentary to the Chariot. See also the fragment of a lost work of Moses de Leon in Ms. Munich 47, fol. 339a (cited by Wolfson, ‘Image of 'ואמנם כי הוא החיה שאמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה חיה יש ברקיע ושמה ישראל, :(Jacob', p. 137 n. 36 על כי סוד כל המדות העליונות הן נקראות חיות הקדש. ואמנם כי חיות הן של קדש שהיא החכמה העליונה. ועל כל פנים סוד החיות הן מעל גבוה, למטה מעשר ספירות העליונות... ואמנם כי דמות דיוקנו On the further identification of the Beast with the first of של יעקב הוא הסוד הקו המכריע בנתים'. two cherubim see Sefer Ma}arekhet ha-Elohut, Mantua 1518, fol. 163b and Farber, M.A., p. 116. 98. Commentary to the Divine Name, Kabbalat R. Asher ben David, ed. J. Dan, Jerusalem 1980, p. 14 [Hebrew]. 99. See I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, Jerusalem 1949, p. 417. 386 SPECIAL ANGELIC FIGURES
את) 'the blessing100 to the bride who contains [all]101 who is called ‘the Lord .And they answer ‘Blessed is the Lord, etc.'102 .(ה' The first Hekhalot passage discussed above describes the angelic liturgy which parallels that of Israel below. The second passage assigns a role to the single beast in this liturgy. The passage added to the manuscripts by the pietists, expands on this theme describing the role of the beast named Israel in relation to the recitation of the liturgy by Israel below. The Kabbalistic recasting of these liturgical traditions describes this activity according to the relationship between the sefirot themselves103. Ibn Gabbai, on the other hand comes full circle by reinstating the original context of the passage. By transforming the angelic liturgy in its entirety into a theurgic act, he has re- moved the angelic beasts below the sefirot and above the people of Israel. With the recitation of the prayer, the beast named Israel, like Israel below, affect the world of the sefirot, causing the efflux to descend.
ABSTRACT
Angelic beings and heavenly beasts have played a major role in the throne world as described in mystical interpretations of Ezekiel's vision. In this study, the vari- ous traditions regarding these beasts are traced through the Hekhalot literature, Ger- man Pietism, the ‘Special Cherub Circle' and early Kabbalistic texts. By clarifying the meaning of certain text-traditions in their original context, it is possible to un- derstand better the development and cross fertilization of interpretation in various mystical circles in the thirteenth century. This reevaluation leads to some conclu- sions which have historical ramifications for the development of traditions which in the past have come to characterize certain texts and mystical schools. Speculation on the unique role of the Cherub in the throne world can be found in additions to the Hekhalot literature prior to the European reception and reworking of this texts. In medieval Europe we can point to further speculations on the Cherub prior to the works of Eleazar of Worms, the main figure of thirteenth-century German Pietism, and separate from the main works of the ‘Special Cherub Circle'. The relationship between these schools is further assisted by comparing traditions on the ‘Beast named Israel' in various texts. The article concludes with a discussion of the recep- tion of these traditions in Kabbalistic texts. The traditions concerning the beasts of the throne-world have been shown to have evolved through the interpretation, redaction and reception of Jewish texts in various periods.
100. The third sefirah, Binah. 101. tenth sefirah, Malkhuth. 102. The ninth sefirah, Yesod; Tola}at Ya}akov, Jerusalem 1967, ‘Sod Barchu', fol. 12d. 103. For sources as well as other Kabbalistic and philosophic interpretations to the Beast named Israel see my dissertation cited above, p. 111; See further Moshe Idel, ‘The Writings of Abraham Abulafia', pp. 89-91 (above note 91) who brings thirteenth century Kabbalistic sources which identify the Beast named Israel with the active intellect.