© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 JJTP 16.1 Also available online – www.brill.nl

Kabbalah, Philosophy and the Jewish-Christian Debate: Reconsidering the Early Works of Joseph Gikatilla.*

Hartley Lachter

Muhlenberg College

Abstract:

Joseph Gikatilla’s early works, composed during the 1270s, have been understood by many scholars as a fusion of and philosophy – an approach that he abandoned in his later compositions. This paper argues that Gikatilla’s early works are in fact consistent with his later works, and that the differences between the two can be explained by the polemical engagement during his early period with and

Christian missionizing. By subtly drawing Jewish students of philosophy away from

Aristotelian speculation and towards Kabbalah, Gikatilla sought in his early works to lay the foundation for an understanding of based on kabbalistic mytho-poesis and ecstatic mystical experience.

A number of important texts composed in Castile during the mid 1270s present us with a puzzling philological anomaly. It seems that a prominent Castilian kabbalist,

Joseph Gikatilla, began his career by writing a kind of pre-theosophic Kabbalah that

differed in an essential way from the kabbalah that preceded him - as well as from his own later kabbalistic works – in that it does not embrace a theosophic understanding of the ten sefirot as the mysterious inner aspects of the divine self. Texts that fit into this category from Gikatilla’s early works to be considered below include Ginat Egoz1 –the largest and most influential composition of this genre; Hassagot al ha-Moreh2 – a critical gloss on parts of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed; two short poems;3 Sefer ha-

Meshalim and Kelallei ha-Mitzvot; 4 a fragmentary commentary on Genesis;5 and an untitled manuscript fragment.6 The general consensus among scholars has been that in the early stages of Gikatilla’s intellectual development, philosophy and mystical speculation were fused for a short time, before a radical shift took place in his intellectual

*I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Elliot Wolfson for reading a draft of this article and offering many helpful comments and insights. I would also like to thank Prof. Robert Chazan for his advice and suggestions during the preparation of this article. 1 Published by Yeshivat ha-Hayyim ve-ha-Shalom: , 1989. 2 Published in, Abravanel, Ketavim ‘al Mahshevet Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1967) vol. 3, 19a-31d. Ephraim Gottleib considers this work to occupy an intermediary position between Gikatilla’s early and late works, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, ed. Joseph Hacker (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1976), 78. 3 Published by Ithamar Gruenwald, “Two Cabbalistic Poems by Joseph Chicatella,” Tarbiz, 36:1 (September 1966): 73-88. 4 Both published by R. Boruch Heifetz, Jerusalem, 1995. 5 JTSA (Jewish Theological Seminary of America microfilm) 2156, fols. 39a-45a. 6 JTSA 1891, fols. 62a-97b. Other similar works from Gikatilla’s corpus include Sefer ha-Niqud, MS Mantua 80 (long recension), JTSA 2314 13r (short recension); Sod ha-Hashmal, published in Arzei Levanon. Venice, 1601. Comparable texts written by other 13th century kabbalists might include de Leon’s Or Zarua published by Alexander Altmann, “Sefer ‘Or Zarua le-R. Moshe de-Leon,” Kovez ‘al , N.S. 9 (1980), 219-93, who compares a number of passages with Ginat Egoz, pp. 235-240, Baruch Togarmi’s Maftehot ha-Kabbalah, published by , The Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temunah and Abulafia, edited by J. Ben-Shlomo, Jerusalem, 1965, (Hebrew) pp. 229-239; Shemayahu ben Isaac ha-Levi’s somewhat later Tzror ha-Mor, published by , R., Jerusalem: 2000; and the anonymous Tisha Perakim mi-Yihud, published by Vajda, G., in Kobetz al Yad 5 (1951): pp. 105-137. One might also include the ha-Ne’elam in this grouping, though it is not exactly analogous to the other texts. On the relationship between Ginat Egoz, ‘Or Zarua and Midrash ha-Ne’elam, see Altmann, “Sefer ‘Or Zarua” pp. 241-242. See also, Asi Farber, “Ikvotav shel Sever Ha- be-Kitvei R. Yosef Gikatilla,” Alei Sefer 9 (1981): 70-83; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1956), 181-186; Elliot Wolfson, The Book of the Pomegranate (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1988), 5-6 n.14. On the relationship between early Gikatilla and Moses de Leon, see Idem, “Letter Symbolism and Merkavah Imagery in the Zohar,” in Alei Shefer: Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought Presented to Dr. Alexander Safran (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Press, 1990), 196-209. A full consideration of the interrelationship of these texts in the development of Castilian Kabbalah remains a desideratum.

development leading him to fully embraced the theosophic doctrine of the ten sefirot which came to dominate his later work.7

Regarding Gikatilla’s early period as a temporary fusion of kabbalistic and philosophical ideas is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Fist, Gikatilla never repudiates his earlier works in his later writings. Moreover, while his early works do incorporate philosophical terminology, many of them also contain strong against philosophy, and claim to be presenting an alternative based on the mysteries of the – mysteries that Gikatilla often claims he is only partially revealing, implying that there remains esoteric content that he feels he cannot reveal.8 It is significant that what he does reveal is very consonant with the main images and themes of subsequent

13th century kabbalah, namely: a theory of creation as the emanation of the world from

God, the connection between the divine essence and the Tetragramaton, a tradition of interpretation of the sodot or secrets of the Torah, frequent use of gematria or numerology9 and letter permutation, and an emphasis on devekut or mystical experience.

7 See Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbala Literature, 63-89; 261; Scholem, Major Trends, 194-95; idem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), 59.; Moses Hayim Weiler, “Iyyunim be-Terminologia ha-Kabbalit shel Rabbi Yoseph Gikatilla ve-Yahaso le-Rambam,” Hebrew Union College Annual. 37 (1966): 13-44; Idem, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla be-sefarav ‘Ginat Egoz’ ve-‘Sha’arei Orah’” Temirin 1 (1972): 157- 186; Isadore Twersky, “ and Law,” in S. D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a Religious Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974), 74; Altmann, “Sefer ‘Or Zarua,” 242; Shlomo Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism (Ph.D. Dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1983). One interesting exception to this scholarly consensus Gruenwald’s comment with regard to the short poetic compositions from Gikatilla’s early period that “it is difficult even to understand Gikatilla without assuming that concealed behind the words of the poems is the doctrine of the theosophical emanation of the sefirot, though it is more often alluded to than openly stated,” “Two Cabbalistic Poems,” 74. 8 To take one example, after hinting at the mysteries of opposites - right and left, life and death, etc – as they pertain to the Tetragrammaton, Gikatilla states, “this matter is a great secret among the secrets of the Kabbalah, and not all are able to bear it, because of its extreme subtlety,” Ginat Egoz, 298. See also the interesting passage from Ginat Egoz adduced by Wolfson, Along the Path, 129, n. 121. 9 On the influence of the numerological techniques of the German Pietists on Kabbalah in Castile during this period, see Daniel Abrams, “From Germany to : Numerology as a Mystical Technique.” Journal of 47,1 (1996): 85-101.

It is my contention that Gikatilla’s early works bear a strong affinity to his later writings, and that his earlier compositions take the particular form that they do because they are designed to introduce kabbalistic images and ideas in an incremental way to audiences of readers who were uninformed about and potentially even hostile to

Kabbalah.10 These texts were written in response to two separate but related controversies raging in the latter part of the thirteenth century in Castile: the internal

Jewish conflict over philosophy,11 and the external conflict with the Christian majority.12

In his early compositions, Gikatilla’s goal was to bring his readers over to a mystical- kabbalistic understanding of Judaism based on an exclusively Jewish esoteric tradition, thereby seeking to counter the influence of both philosophy and Christian missionizing. It would thus be quite conceivable that Gikatilla embraced the theosophic doctrine of the ten sefirot at the time of the composition of his early works, but he intentionally muted it in these texts because he was concerned that an abrupt presentation of kabbalistic

10 The period between the 1270s and 1290’s in Castile was a time of unusual intellectual foment and creativity, which has described as a “window of opportunities” for the development and dissemination of new ideas and paradigms by a “secondary elite” of kabbalists who were mainly autodidacts and tended not to be important rabbinic or political figures. See Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalah’s ‘Window of Opportunities’, 1270-1290,” in Me’ah She’arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky, Fleisher, Gerald Blidstein, Carmi Horowitz, and Bernard Septimus, eds., (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001); Idem, “Kabbalah and Elites in Thirteenth Century Spain,” Mediterranean Historical Review, 9:1 (1994): 5-19. 11 For an overview of the medieval Maimonidean controversy, see Jospeh Sarachek, Faith and Reason: The Conflict over the Rationalism of Maimonides (Willimasport: The Bayard Press, 1935); Yitzhak Baer, A History of the in Christian Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1992): vol. 1, 96-110; Silver, Maimonidean Criticism and Maimonidean Controversy: 1180-1240 (Leiden: Brill, 1965); Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, “The Maimonidean Controversy,” in History of Jewish Philosophy, Daniel Frank and Oliver Leaman, eds., (London and New York: Routledge Press, 1997), 331-349; Bernard Septimus, Hispano- in Transition (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1982). chap. 4. 12 The body of scholarly literature on medieval Jewish-Christian polemics is considerable. For a representative example, see Robert Chazan, Daggers of Faith (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989); Idem, Barcelona and Beyond (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992); Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1982); Idem, Living Letters of the Law (Los Angeles: University of California Press), 1999; and Gilbert Dahan, The Christian Against the Jews in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998).

symbolism might be rejected by young students of philosophy and/or traditional rabbinic

learning. Gikatilla’s early texts were intended to prepare his audience for the more

striking imagery that he presents in his later works.

Below I will focus on six of Gikatilla’s early works, which can be divided into

two groups. The first group consists of Ginat Egoz, Hassagot al ha-Moreh, MS JTSA

2156, and MS JTSA 1891. These texts are written primarily for Jewish students of

Aristotelian philosophy. While philosophical ideas and terminology frequently appear in

these works, a careful reading reveals a strong aversion to a rationalist approach to

Judaism and the beginnings of a kabbalistic understanding of Scripture, ,

and the observance of the commandments, based on esoteric principles consistent with

later Castilian Kabbalah. Though Kabbalistic theosophy does not appear in these texts in

its full articulation, there is no reason to think that this is because Gikatilla was not yet

privy to the mysteries of the ten sefirot, especially since he makes reference to

“theosophic” kabbalists such as Nahmanides and Yakov ben Shehset in his early works,13

and is clearly familiar with the writings of other kabbalists.14 It is more likely that he

was already fully immersed in the study of the theosophic kabbalah and deliberately

concealed it in these works with the intention of leading the reader by small increments

from the rational/philosophical or traditional/literal understanding of Judaism over to the

mystical/kabbalistic model. Works such as Ginat Egoz were, in that sense, intended to be

the first step in a process of introducing Kabbalah to an audience of erudite Jewish men

13 See JTSA 1891, 89r. 14 See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 97-107; Asi Farber, "On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon's Early Kabbalistic System," in Joseph Dan and Joseph Hacker eds., Studies in Philosophy, Mysticism, and Ethical Literature presented to Isaiah Tishby on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986) pp. 92-93, n.57.

trained in rational philosophical speculation and beset by the conversionist project of the

Church.

The second group consists of Sefer ha-Meshalim and Kelallei ha-Mitzvot. These works are designed to appeal to Jews with some degree of familiarity with biblical and traditional rabbinic literature, but no real training in either philosophy or Kabbalah. By hinting at secrets related to the mysteries of the human form and the theurgic impact of human actions, as well as the mystical reward for the performance of the commandments,

Gikatilla seeks to lead his readers towards a more kabbalistic understanding of Judaism less susceptible to Christian anti-Jewish argumentation

Reacting to Philosophy and Christian Missionizing

In the poetic introduction to Ginat Egoz, written in Medinacelli, Castile in 1274,

Gikatilla states that he felt compelled to compose the book because he saw that many of his contemporaries were drawn to the works Aristotle, and consequently began to deny creation ex nihilo, divine providence, and the revelation of the Torah.

Thus says Joseph the Small, son of Rabbi Abraham of blessed memory, Gikatilla, who dwells on the frontier of Castile, in Medinacelli, on the extreme of the border. I built a stately house15 when I saw the masses of the people [of ], in all of these paths, “though he walks in darkness, and has no light” (Isaiah 50:10). I saw the land, and behold, it was chaos. “They denied and said ‘He is not’” (Jer. 5:12). And I saw that they spoke of earthly matters in their utterances, “that their creator had sold them, and God had abandoned them”16 to the spheres and the rest of the

15 Based on 1 Kings 8:13. 16 Based on Deut. 32:30.

hosts of the heavens and earth, “and the deserted sites are many in the midst of the land” (Isaiah 6:12). And they relied upon the words of Aristotle and his works, for he said, ‘it is an accident.’17 In these ways they covered their eyes. “Is God among us or not?” (Ex. 17:7) I also saw them decree that the world is not created, and that nothing is new. And they say that all things in the natural order sustain themselves, “and none of this was wrought by God” (Deut. 32:27)… And [they say that] there is none who divides between the waters.18 And they say that the Torah is not from heaven! And when I saw these evil things, and the lack of knowledge, and that the heresy extends to the very boundaries, “for her punishment reaches to heaven” (Jer. 31:9), I put on my garments of zeal, and I relied upon the foundation of all foundations. And as I am twenty six years old, I relied upon twenty six. And since my years are “crown of the Torah,”19 I made a protective barrier for the Torah, so that she will not miscarry and become barren, bereaved and without children, like one of the foreign , a sore of dull white.20

The object of Gikatilla’s criticism would appear to be those of his Jewish contemporaries

who were involved in the “foreign sciences” of medieval neo-Aristotelianism.21 He raises a number of issues that we know were particularly at issue during the 13th century debates

over the role of Aristotelian philosophy in Judaism, which, interestingly, he considers tantamount to the denial of God, as indicated by his citation of Jeremiah 5:12. He first observes that many of the Jewish admirers of Aristotle deny individual divine providence

17 Based on I Kings, 20:26. 18 Based on Gen. 1:6. 19 Twenty six spelled out in Hebrew letters has the same numerical value as keter torah. 20 Based on Lev. 13:39. 21 See also, Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, 433 n.45. I would disagree with Blickstein’s claim that “a close examination of all polemical statements or references – implicit as well as explicit – in Ginat Egoz, does not reveal any special group(s) or ideology against which Gikatilla primarily wrote” Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 106. My findings are more in keeping with Idel’s conclusion that the dissemination of a philosophical interpretation of the “Sitrei Torah,” especially through the teaching of Maimonides, served as a “principal catalyst of the crystallization of early Kabbalah,” “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” in Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 35. See also, Joseph Dan, “The Epic of a Millennium: Judeo-Spanish Culture’s Confrontations,” in Jewish Mysticism: General Characteristics and Comparative Study (Northvale: Jason Aaronson Press, 1998), 14- 16. I would add that the Jewish-Christian controversy was also an important factor. On the possible Jewish- Christian origins of some of the symbols in the Sefer ha- and the reinterpretation of those symbols on the part of the kabbalists in light of the medieval Jewish-Christian controversy, see Elliot Wolfson, “The Tree that is All: Jewish-Christian Roots of a Kabbalistic Symbol in Sefer ha-Bahir,” in Along the Path, 63- 88.

and believe that “God has abandoned them,” leaving their fate to the natural forces of the

spheres and stars of the heavens. He then notes the philosophers’ denial of creation ex

nihilo. Third, he criticizes the Aristotelians for their belief in natural law, in that “all

things in the natural order sustain themselves.” Like Nahmanides22 a decade before him,

Gikatilla regards the supposition of natural law as incompatible with Judaism. Those who

adopt the scientific approach to the natural order are among those, according to Gikatilla,

who “say that the Torah is not from heaven!” The world-view he intends to lay out in

Ginat Egoz is thus presented from the outset in a highly polemical tone as an alternative

to the philosophizing trends of certain Jewish intellectuals.

We can see from the immediate continuation of the passage cited above that

philosophy is not Gikatilla’s only opponent - he also intends to demonstrate the

superiority of Judaism to other religions on the grounds that they lack a hidden or secret dimension.

For they [the religions of the other nations] do not contain the revealed and concealed (nistar ve-nigleh), and they lack the [combination of] outward and the hidden (galui u-muflah). They are not designed [to reveal] any other [hidden] meaning. Of themselves they cease and perish, for they shall be beset by afflictions, for their fate is to return to their primordiality, only a thin line shall remain. “They shall be trampled under foot” (Isaiah 28:3), and “let their ears be deafened” (Micah 7:16).

22 Torat ha-Shem Temima, in Kitvei Ramban, ed. Hayim Chavel, (Jerusalem: Mosad ha- Kook, 1963), 153. One the importance of this idea in Nahmanides’ thought, see the study by David Berger, “Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides,” in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (RAMBAN): Explorations in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1983), 107-128. See also Gikatilla’s discussion of the power of the articulation of the divine name (haskarat ha-shem) to work wonders and miracles in the natural world, based on the fact that all being is emanated from the name, and in that sense, everything is essentially miraculous, Ginat Egoz, 293-94.

Given the intensely charged polemical engagement between and Judaism in the environment in which Gikatilla was living,23 it is revealing that he chooses to present his book as inspired by his observation that philosophy was spreading, and that the other nations of the world lack the combination of the “outward and the hidden.”24 As Robert

Chazan has pointed out, “[f]rom the 1160’s through the 1260’s, the Jews of southern

France and northern Spain seem to have been exposed to intense Christian pressures. The leaders of these communities were called upon to clarify and rebut the Christian challenges. In the process, they became trail-blazers in the creation of a previously missing Jewish polemical literature.”25 After Nahmanides’ departure from Spain in the

1260’s, 26 men like Gikatilla living in Castile may have felt a sense of responsibility for responding to these Christian challenges. By disclosing kabbalistic secrets in a controlled manner to specific audiences, Gikatilla sought to defend the traditional boundaries of

Jewish life.27

23 On the increasing intensity and coerciveness of Christian polemical engagement with Jews in the 13th century, see Chazan, Daggars of Faith, 25-48. On the engagement with Christianity in medieval Kabbalah, see Elliot Wolfson, Langauge, Eros Being (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005)255-59; 458 n.224; Idem, Along the Path, 83-86; Idem, “The body in the Text : a Kabbalistic Theory of Embodiment,” Jewish Quarterly Review 95,3 (2005): 479-500; , Studies in the Zohar (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 139-162. 24 For a similar argument, see Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 20b. See also, JTSA 1891, 81r-81v. On secrecy in medieval Kabbalah, see See Elliot Wolfson, Abulafia – Kabbalist and Prophet: , Theosophy, Theurgy (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2000), 38-93; Idem, “Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah,” in Rending the Veil: Concealment and Revelation of Secrets in the History of Religions, ed. Elliot Wolfson (New York and London: Seven Bridges Press, 1999). 25 Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 121. 26 See also Bernard Septimus’ argument that the ascendancy of kabbalistic rabbinic leaders like Nahmanides and Jonah Gerundi in the middle of the thirteenth century undermined the power of the nesiim, who tended to be more sympathetic to the study of philosophy in dialogue with . This shift in power may have helped to create an audience of sympathetic readers for Gikatilla’s early works, “Piety and Power in Thirteenth-Century Catalonia,” in Studies in Medieval and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 197-230. 27 Harvey Hames has demonstrated that Ramon Llull began to use Kabbalistic methods in his writings in the latter part of the thirteenth century as part of his unique attempt to utilize elements of contemporary Judaism for the purposes of gaining Jewish converts to Christianity. If Kabbalah did in fact come to serve as a barrier to anti-Jewish Christian argumentation as Gikatilla hoped, it stands to reason that Llull would find it necessary to resort to Kabbalah as part of an attempt to beak down Jewish resistence, The Art of

According to another poetic introductory section to Ginat Egoz found in some

manuscripts, Gikatilla begins by describing his mission to write this book with the

biblical rhetoric of a prophet called by God to speak to the people of Israel “to reveal the

secrets of the Torah and her hidden treasures… to show the [foreign] peoples and princes

her beauty,28 for the hidden things are concealed within the revealed, ‘all glory of the princess is inward, ‘her gown embroidered with golden mountings’ (Psalms, 45:14).”29

This passage does not imply that Gikatilla intended for this text to be read by gentiles. It does demonstrate, however, that the Gikatilla is deliberate and explicit about revealing secrets with the looming threat of the Christian majority in mind. His true audience is his

Jewish contemporaries living under the strain of Christian missionizing and polemical argumentation. Gikatilla represents his composition of Ginat Egoz as a divinely ordained project to demonstrate the beauty and superiority of Judaism based on its esoteric dimension.30 Such a project may have had a number of supporters among Jewish men

not fully satisfied with either their traditional or philosophical

interpretations of their religion. Kabbalah, in this case, is presented as the alternative that both reveals the spiritual depth of Judaism that many seekers after philosophy were looking for in thirteenth century Castile, and responds to Christian conversionist

Conversion (Leiden: Brill, 2000), especially 25-26. See also, Moshe Idel, “Ramon Llull and Ecstatic Kabbalah: A Preliminary Observation,” Journal of Warburg and Courlauld Institutes, 51 (1998): 170-174. 28 Based on Esther, 1:11. 29 Ginat Egoz, 2. 30 For a discussion of the relationship between the literal (pehsat) and secret or kabbalistic (sod) meaning of scripture, see ibid, 406-407. In that passage, Gikatilla makes the intriguing comment that he has seen members of his generation who, due to their ignorance of Kabbalah, are able only to understand only the peshat, or the sod, but not both. In accordance with classical kabbalistic symbolism, he refers to the pehsat as the “bride,” and the sod as the “groom.” The hallmark of Kabbalah for Gikatilla would thus be the interconnection of the literal and secret meanings of scripture. See also Wolfson’s citation of this passage and noted influence of Abraham Abulafia in Abraham Abulafia: Kabbalist and Prophet, 188 n.25. On the importance of this approach to secrecy in zoharic hermeneutics, see Idem, Langauge, Eros, Being, p. 223; Idem, “Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes: Peshat and Sod in Zoharic Hermeneutics,” in The Midrashic Imagination, ed. Michael Fishbane (Albany: State University Of New York Press) 1993. See also Gikatilla’s use of this image in Gruenwald, “Two Cabbalistic Poems,” 79, and JTSA 851, 95r. See Gottlieb’s discussion in, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 277.

arguments that belittle Judaism as outmoded, overly carnal, and intellectually backward.31

After asserting that the secrets he is about to reveal constitute the superiority of

Judaism over other religions, Gikatilla begins to lay out his argument for the importance

of basing all knowledge on the Torah, which he understands to contain many secrets

imparted by an unknowable and transcendent Deity.

Our pleasant Torah, however, the “perfect Torah of God” (Ps. 19:8), “beautiful as the moon, radiant as the sun” (Song. 6:10), all of her paths are well ordered, “great blocks of choice stone, [so that the foundations of the house might be laid with hewn stone]” (I Kings, 5:31), she is the source of all sources. And all seas and rivers and springs of streams, she does not withhold. “They continued to bring to her and she continued to pour” (2 Kings, 4:5). And we know that He, may He be blessed, is her composer, “the Lord understands her way, [He knows her source]” (Job 28:23)… For from her we are able to understand the secret of world and its configuration, and the secret of being and the creation of being… For if we will not understand the secret [of He] “who made Pleiades and Orion” (Amos 5:8), “what good is money in the hand of a fool, [to purchase wisdom when he has no mind]?” (Prov. 17:16). For wisdom is already with him as a confidant,32 and he “cannot distinguish between his right and his left” (Jonah 4:11). And further I saw the children of the world, “the watchmen are blind, all of them” (Isaiah 56:10). And I have observed men called ‘wise ones’ (hakhamim)… “They worshipped the Lord, while serving their own [according to the practices of the nations from which they had been deported]” (2 Kings 17:33) and the truth of the unity [of God] is hidden from them. “[This is the nation that would not obey the

31 See Hames, The Art of Conversion, Chapter 1. 32 Based on Prov. 8:30.

Lord their God, that would not accept rebuke.] Faithfulness has perished, vanished from their mouths” (Jer. 7:28)… I [have also] heard those who say, “all is gloom and disarray” (Job 10:22), it is better for us to worship with modesty and glory, rather than that we should know the Unique One who created us. “Who is he and where is he?” (Esther 7:5)… But if our Torah has no base and foundation, and we do not know what to do, and we do not know the secret of unity, in that He is distinct from all in His unity, “the Lord alone is exalted” (Isaiah 2:17), and that all of the essences (havayot) are created anew through the power of His truth, “their king marches before them, and God at their head” (Micah 2:13), and many other such noble forms of inquiry, that are written in books…. For He, may He be exalted, bequeathed the Torah to us for the sake of knowing Him.33

Gikatilla’s main concern in this passage is to argue that the Torah is of infinite capacity34

since it is given by an infinite and transcendent deity and is the source of all knowledge

of both the divine and cosmic realms. He presents his secret of divine unity in

contradistinction to the “wise ones” of his generation who “worship the Lord, while

serving other gods,” a biblical citation intended as an oblique criticism aimed at the

proponents of philosophy. While the philosophers contend that rational Aristotelian

speculation reveals the secret truth of the Torah, Gikatilla argues that through the Torah

alone one is “able to understand the secret of the world and its configuration, and the

secret of being and the creation of being” if it is placed upon the proper foundation.

Interestingly, the proper basis for understanding the truth of the Torah is the principle of

divine transcendence and the creation of all “essences” (an important kabbalistic term to

33 Ginat Egoz, p. 7. 34 See Moshe Idel, “Infinities of Torah in Kabbalah,” in Geoffrey Hartman and Sanford Budick, eds., Midrash and Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).

be considered below) by God. This is clearly an understanding of the Torah that fundamentally differs from the Jewish philosophical schools of thought.35

Moreover, it is not sufficient, according to Gikatilla, simply to be aware of these

principles in a general way - they take considerable effort and study. Abandoning such

inquiry would mean leaving the Torah without a proper foundation. This seems to be the

source of his criticism of another group of his contemporaries, the traditionalists, who

shun the study of matters beyond the realm of halacha, who say “it is better for us to

worship with modesty and glory, rather than that we should know the Unique One who

created us.” Gikatilla’s critique is not that they have adopted a ‘foreign god’ like the

philosophers, but rather that in their simplicity, these traditionalists have missed the true

depth and essence of the Torah by not paying heed to the ‘foundation.’ His concern is

that without a firm grounding in the esoteric and transcendent dimensions of God and the

Torah, such an approach to Judaism is weak and subject to collapse.36 It is certainly

worth asking why Gikatilla regards the simple legalistic and traditional approach to

Judaism as poorly founded. Could it be that he is concerned about the potential for the

intellectually curious to become dissatisfied with such study and possible susceptible to some of the Christian criticisms of Judaism? An anxiety of this sort is clearly discernible

in Gikatilla’s words.

A delicate subversion of philosophy

35 On the infinity of meaning contained within the Torah as the reason why it written without vowel points, see Ginat Egoz, 98. See also, Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 21b. 36 See Elliot Ginzberg, The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah (Oxford and Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), 18-19.

Gikatilla’s argument against philosophy in Ginat Egoz is not a simple and outright rejection. While his orientation to philosophy is clearly quite negative, he continues to engage with philosophical terminology and ideas. It is quite possible that his audience would not have been prepared to accept a book as deeply theosophical as Sha’arei Orah if he had written it in 1274. It was, therefore, necessary for him to establish his credentials as an expert in rabbinic literature and philosophical matters first before he could be taken seriously as a kabbalist. He also needed to prepare his philosophically educated readers for the boldly mythic and poetic images and anthropomorphism that he describes at length in his latter works. He therefore mixes philosophical concepts together with kabbalistic ideas in Ginat Egoz in order, ultimately, to undermine the rational conception of Judaism and replace it with a new approach based on the kabbalistic secrets of the divine name and unity. Had his engagement with philosophy been nothing but a summary dismissal, followed by an immediate excursion into kabbalistic symbolism,

Gikatilla may have lost many of his readers.

We find interesting corroboration of this kind of approach from a text by a disciple of Abraham Abulfia. In a book written in 1295 called Shaarei Tzedek, a title that

Gikatilla himself also adopts for one of his latter works, the anonymous author describes his initial interest in philosophical studies and Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. He claims that after studying this book, along with some works on logic and natural science,

“[i]f I had not previously acquired strength of faith by what little I had learned of the

Torah and the , the impulse to keep many of the religious commandments would

have left me, although the fire of pure intention was ablaze in my heart.”37 He claims that he continued in this way “until the Lord had me meet a godly man, a Kabbalist who taught me the general outlines of the Kabbalah. Nevertheless, in consequence of my smattering of natural science, the way of the Kabbalah seemed all but impossible to me.”38 This teacher of kabbalistic matters is presumably Abraham Abulafia. The

anonymous author describes his teacher as very sensitive to his student’s great affinity for

the rationalism of the philosophical and natural sciences or the “philosophical path,” which the author of Shaarei Tzedek considers to be very problematic since “the student will experience extreme difficulty in attempting to drive it from his soul because of the great sweetness it holds for the human reason and the completeness with which that reason knows to embrace it.”39 Because of this the anonymous author says that “in order

to make things sweet to me until my reason might accept them and I might penetrate into

them with eagerness, he used always to make me grasp in a natural way everything in

which he instructed me.”40 He even says that he asked his teacher, “’why then do you,

Sir, compose books in which the methods of the natural scientist are coupled with

instruction in the holy Names?’ He answered: ‘For you and the likes of you among the

followers of philosophy, to allure your human intellect through natural means, so that

perhaps this attraction may cause you to arrive at the knowledge of the holy Names.’”41

37 Cited from , Jewish Mystical Testimonies (New York: Schocken Books, 1977), 82. See also, Scholem, Major Trends, 146-155. On the synthesis of theosophic and ecstatic Kabbalah in this texts, see Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 116-117, n.61. 38 Jacobs, Jewish Mystivcal Testimonies, pp. 82-83. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. An interesting comparison can also be made between Gikatilla’s use of Kabbalah in his early works and the method of the Sefer ha-Yahshar, which seems to be responding to a similar set of concerns, and was written about a decade before Ginat Egoz. See Sefer ha-Yashar: The Book of the Righteous, ed. and trans. S. Cohen (New York: KTAV, 1973); Shimon Shokek, and Jewish Mysticism in Sefer

We know that Gikatilla studied briefly with Abraham Abulafia in the very city where he wrote Ginat Egoz.42 It is clear from Abulafia’s comment that “he [Gikatilla] doubtless succeeded in a wondrous way concerning what he studied under my guidance, and he added much from his strength and God as with him,”43 that Gikatilla was not a regular disciple and perhaps was already in possession of other kabbalistic traditions from other sources before he began studying with Abulafia.44 Studying with Abulafia for even a short time would have provided Gikatilla with the opportunity to observe Abulafia’s teaching technique and perhaps absorb something from it. It is possible that Gikatilla may have adopted Abulfia’s teaching style vis a vis the use of philosophical concepts and ideas in the presentation of Kabbalah to a new student or group of students. If that is the case, then we must consider rethinking the place of philosophy in Gikatilla’s early works.

Rather than presenting a synthesis of philosophy and Kabbalah, he may very well be employing a device for promoting Kabbalah among an audience attracted to philosophy.45

ha-Yashar, (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991); Hames, The Art of Conversion, 145-158; and Dan, “The Epic of a Millenium,” 12-14. 42 See Moshe Idel, “Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,” Jewish History 18 (2004): 211. 43 Cited from ibid. 44 See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 111-115. Idel argues that since Gikatilla is the only kabbalist other than Abulafia to write a commentary on the Guide, it would be more correct to say that Abulafia was Gikatilla’s teacher primarily in matters of Maimonide’s philosophy, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” 63. 45 Gikatilla also appears to be influenced by Isaac ibn Latif, who makes such frequent use of philosophical ideas and terminology – despite his sharp criticisms of the negative impact of philosophy on Judaism - that he has been famously difficult to categorize as a philosophers or a kabbalist. Both Gershom Scholem and Heller-Wilensky have argued, however, that Isaac ibn Latif was in fact a theosophical kabbalist. See Scholem, Kabbalah, 53, and Sarah Heller Wilensky, “Isaac Ibn Latif--Philosopher or Kabbalist?," in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967) 185-223; Idem, “The Relations Between Mysticism and Philosophy in the Teachings of Rabbi Isaac ibn Latif,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 6:3-4 (1987): 367-382. Heller Wilensky has also described ibn Latif’s Sha’ar ha-Shamayim as a kind of Guide of the Perplexed for Kabbalists who were both impressed and disturbed by Maimonides’ philosophy. See “The Dialectical Influence of Maimonides on Isaac ibn Latif and Early Spanish Kabbalah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 7 (1988): 289-306. See also the discussion in Idel, “The Kabbalah’s ‘Window of Opportunities’” 203. On the evidence of the

Throughout Ginat Egoz Gikatilla employs this technique by both criticizing

philosophy while at the same time utilizing a large number of philosophical terms and

concepts.46 He also advances a number of arguments to convince the reader that the

Kabbalah is even more sound and convincing than anything based exclusively on rational

speculation. Rather than simply reject the philosophical sciences as completely foreign

and forbidden for all Jews, Gikatilla argues that the philosophical sciences were

originally Jewish, but have since been taken from Israel, corrupted, and then turned into a

weapon against the Jews. To this end Gikatilla argues that:

The speculative wisdoms found among the children of Edom and Ishmael, used to be the possession of Israel.47 But when they were displaced to a foreign people, “they played false like a treacherous bow” (Ps. 78:57), and the words of the living God were reversed… The foundations of wisdom and foolishness were transposed, “those who were reared in purple have embraced heaps of refuse” (Lam. 4:5), “and they shall all come and alight in the rugged wadis” (Isaiah 7:19). And a foreign people took all of the words of faith, and understood them in opposition to their intention… And behold the pursued became the pursuer… and the children were left orphaned among their enemies when they were exiled from their father’s table. And they are now immersed in the mud of the exile among Edom and Ishmael, the entire community of Israel, and they have been taken away to [speak] the languages of the masses of peoples, and the children of Judah and Jerusalem have been sold to the children of the Greeks, in order to distract their thoughts from their Redeemer, and remove them from their borders. And when the Greeks saw Israel in distress, they opened their mouths and said “who will lift up , for he is small?” (Amos 7;5). “God has abandoned him. Pursue him and capture him.” (Ps. 71:11). And they composed books beyond number, “they bend their tongues like bows for treachery” (Jer. 9:2), and Israel was left with a broken heart, “perplexed in the land, the desert closing in upon them” (Ex.

influence of Isaac ibn Latif on Gikatilla found in Ginat Egoz, see Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 97-101. 46 For a discussion of the influence of philosophical ideas, and not just the terminology, of Maimoniden philosophy on the early kabbalists, see Elliot Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings of the Great Eagle: Maimonides and Thirteenth Century Kabbalah,” in George K. Hasselhoff and Otfreid Fraisse, eds., Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) – His Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Wirkensgeschichte in Different Cultural Contexts (Wurzburg: Ergon, 2004), 209-237. 47 Based on Num. 31:16.

14:3). And now there are opinions towards which the leaders of the tribes incline – they themselves are the paths of heresy, and they have left the paths of the Torah. For all of these reasons, we must arouse hearts, for those who pass through the valley of tears, to send them out from the darkness, for the hour is pressing.48

This argument makes it very clear that the motivation for composing Ginat Egoz was the

danger posed to Judaism by the political and intellectual climate of Gikatilla’s day.

Philosophy is described as a bastard science derived from an ancient Jewish source, but extant only in a degraded form in the hands of Christian and Moslem philosophers who

adopted it from the Greeks. Gikatilla is following a fairly common Medieval Jewish

understanding of the origin of philosophy49 – sometimes used as an argument in favor of

studying it, in the case of Maimonides,50 and sometimes against it, in the case of Judah

Halevi.51 Gikatilla’s use of this argument, while clearly negative towards philosophy on

the whole, does allow for some positive ideas to emerge from philosophy without forcing

him to admit that fundamental concepts, such as the principle of divine transcendence and

incomprehensibility, are of a non-Jewish provenance. Also of particular interest is the fact that Gikatilla describes philosophy as a tool in the hands of Christians and Moslems,

“Edom and Ishmael,” for the purpose of attacking Israel and prolonging their exile.52

Philosophy thus represents a double threat to Judaism according to Gikatilla – it is a

48 Ginat Egoz, 9-10. 49 See Norman Roth, “The ‘Theft of Philosophy’ by the Greeks from the Jews,” Classical Folia 32 (1978): 52-67. 50 Guide of the Perplexed 1:71. See Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides’ Attitude Toward Jewish Mysticism,” in Studies in Jewish Thought, ed. Alfred Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 200-219; Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” 34-35; Idem, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” 292. 51 Kuzari, II:66. 52 On the use of philosophy and rational argumentation in medieval Jewish-Christian polemical attacks, see Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 237-246, 250-274; Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: Ketav, 1977); Idem, “Popular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christianity,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 8 (1999): 243-259; Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 160-165, 167-218; John Y. B. Hood, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia: Universirty of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 87-88.

perversion of Jewish truth, and it strengthens the hands of the non-Jewish powers over the Jewish people.53

In another passage in Ginat Egoz Gikatilla argues that all true science or wisdom

must be founded upon the Torah, which has been transmitted exclusively to Israel. It is

for this reason, according to Gikatilla, that the philosophers have mistakenly

posited the erroneous principle of cosmic pre-eternity. In the following somewhat prolix

passage, typical of his style in Ginat Egoz,54 Gikatilla connects two important ideas: the

falsehood of the basic tenants of Aristotelian cosmology, and the exclusive Jewish access

to truth through the Torah.

All science that has no foundation has no stability… Thus the true and correct foundation is for intellectual wisdom to be founded upon the foundation of the Torah, which has always been the foundation of the intellect, since she was with Him as a confidant (be-‘amanah ‘ito).55 All intellectual wisdom that the truth attests to has, without a doubt, the faithful Torah as its primary foundation. When we speak with wisdom according to the intellect, we rely upon the foundation of truth which is the torah… However, the wisdom of the philosophers is according to the intellect and not the foundation, for since they have no Torah from heaven, upon what can they found the foundations of the intellect? Their edifice has no stability without the foundation that is received from the source of the intellect, which is the foundation of the Torah… Therefore we say that when the philosophers speak with regard to astronomical matters, they have no power to enter into the inner foundation, which is the foundation of the Torah. They are all outside. They have “reached the birth stool, but the strength to give birth is lacking,”56 since they have nothing upon

53 For a discussion of similar passages in the works of Joseph ben Todros and Jacob ben Sheshet, see Dov Schwartz, “Changing Fronts in the Controversy over Philosophy in Medieval Spain and Provence,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 7 (1997): 65-67. 54 In an apologetic comment on his style in Ginat Egoz, which is highly repetitive, Gikatilla explains that “I repeat and duplicate because of my caution that the students should not make a mistake, since the matters are very subtle,” Ginat Egoz, 24. This could also be taken as further evidence that Gikatilla composed this book with the intention that it serve as an introduction for those with little exposure to many of its core ideas. 55 A reference to the Torah’s relationship to God before creation, based on Prov. 8:30, and numerous interpretations in rabbinic literature. See, for example, , (Buber), Genesis, 5. 56 Based on 2 Kings, 19:3; Isaiah, 37:3.

which to rely. In the culmination of their investigation, they circle fruitlessly, and they never attain the inner point, which is the point of the Torah, as it is said, “they are both dull and foolish,” (Jer. 10:8), which is to say, all of the wise men of the gentile nations move about the circumference of the circle, and their intention is to attain the inner point, and they have nothing upon which to rely in order to know that point, since the Torah has not been transmitted to them… Through all of this they reach the King’s house, but they do not enter even the gate house, since they have no Torah. However, Israel, made distinct and unique as His portion, may He be blessed, knows the wisdom of the Torah and bases intellectual wisdom upon it, for the Torah is the source from which all sciences flow, and therefore they are able to attain the truth of unity.57

Gikatilla undermines the philosophical position by arguing that without the Torah as its foundation, rational philosophical speculation alone cannot provide access to God, thus granting a primary and exclusive claim on all true knowledge to the Jewish people. While philosophers, through the exercise of their reason, are able to observe the motion of the spheres58 and draw whatever conclusions they can through the exercise of their rational

faculty, Israel is able to know the true essence of the order of the spheres and their

creation through the knowledge imparted to them by the Torah, associated here with the

central point.59 This special knowledge, Gikatilla explains, allows Israel “to attain the

truth of unity,” a reference to the secret nature of divine unity that we will explore in

greater detail below. Gikatilla is not simply saying that the conclusions of the gentile

philosophers contradict the Torah and therefore rational speculation is forbidden. Such a

position would be similar to the traditionalists mentioned above, with whom Gikatilla

also takes issue. Rather, his tactic is to argue that the philosophers may appear to be

57 Ginat Egoz, 340-41. 58 For further discussion of God as the ultimate cause of the rotation of the spheres, see JTSA 1891, 84r- 84v. 59 On the influence of the image of the “point” in Ginat Egoz on the Zohar see see Scholem, Major Trends, 173; on the association of the Torah with the point and Tetragrammaton, and the connection of this idea to the works of Abraham Abulafia, possibly through a common source, see Moshe Idel, Langauge, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 40-41.

moving in the right direction, but they only arrive at the gateway to the divine abode (a clear reference to Maimonides’ famous parable of the palace in the Guide 3:51) because their speculations are not based upon the foundation of the Torah, which is the source of all true science.60 Gikatilla even makes a vague reference to the midrashic image of the

Torah as God’s confidant and blueprint before the creation of the world as the reason why it is the source of all wisdom. He thus connects the “truth of unity” that only Israel can attain with an understanding of the Torah as something very close to a divine hypostasis. Moreover, he makes this the basis for an ethno-national triumphalism, since

Jews are the only ones left in possession of the truth with regard to all scientific matters, and Israel alone has direct access to the attainment of the secret of divine unity.

Gikatilla’s alternative to Philosophy

In light of his concerns described above regarding philosophy and the gentile nations, Gikatilla proposes an alternative mode of inquiry based upon esoteric aspects of the Jewish tradition.61 The advantage of this approach according to Gikatilla is that it places access to truth and mystical experience with God squarely within an exclusively

60 On p. 233 of Ginat Egoz he makes the even more conciliatory comment that among those things professed by the philosophers “that does not detract at all from our faith, we will pay heed to that which is said and not consider who said it, and the wise man eats the fruit and discards the peel.” This comment is inserted into a tirade against the philosophers’ attribution of all occurrences on Earth to the movements of the planets. Gikatilla may simply be trying to accommodate himself to his readers by acknowledging that there are certain philosophical ideas that have merit, though he believes they should be isolated from the overall approach of the philosophers. On Gikatilla’s acceptance of the philosophical doctrine of the active intellect, see ibid, p. 315. On the identity of the intellects with the last of the ten sefirot, see ibid, p. 330. See also, ibid, p. 338. 61 Gikatilla’s assertion that Jews alone posses a true secret tradition concerning the underlying nature of God and the universe and the proper means for accessing the divine mysteries is in keeping with Kocku van Stuckrad’s observation that “[t]he identity of Kabbalists had always rested upon a unilinear theory, which believed the revelation of the Torah the fount of all knowledge and that non-Jewish authorities had received the teachings from Jewish sages like Moses or Abraham.” Western Esotericism: A Brief History of Secret Knowledge (London and Oakville: Equinox, 2005), 57.

Jewish domain. Gentiles, as outsiders to the tradition, can attain neither truth nor

experience with God since all of their efforts are based merely upon intellectual

speculation, which, Gikatilla argues, leads to incorrect conclusions without a foundation

of true tradition. Rational argumentation over which religion – Judaism or Christianity –

is the “true” religion, thus become moot. In the presentation of his alternative to the

philosophical or traditional/literal approaches to Judaism, Gikatilla advances a complex

theology and ontology that embraces many of the ideas that will become the core of late

13th century Kabbalah. Below we will examine three of the main ideas that Gikatilla discusses in Ginat Egoz and similar compositions from his early period; the theory that the Tetragrammaton is the foundation of all being and is identical with God, an emanationist model of creation based on a “chain of being,” and an emphasis on devekut

or mystical experience.

The Tetragrammaton

In his introduction to Ginat Egoz Gikatilla argues that “in truth, the proper

opinion and the tradition of the covenant and the boundary of belief is for our faith to be

constructed on the foundation of our Torah, and to learn from it through the paths of

inquiry… that the Name of God is the foundation of all that is.”62 What is of particular

interest here is that Gikatilla advocates not only an emphasis on an esoteric interpretation

62 Ginat Egoz, 10. See also, JTSA 1891, 65v.

of Torah, but also a uniquely kabbalistic ontology in which the divine name is the ground

of all being.63 It is this inquiry into the secrets of the divine name and the mysteries of

Jewish scripture and tradition that Gikatillia advocates as the alternative to the dangers of

the “Greek” philosophy of the gentiles.64

The establishment of all being upon the Tetragrammaton, and the connection

between that name and the essence of God is a topic to which Gikatilla returns many

times in Ginat Egoz. He begins the first chapter with the following description of the

Tetragrammaton:

Know, my brother, may God protect you, that none of the names by which He, may he be exalted, is called, bear explicit and absolute witness to the secret of His unity, except for the name that bears witness to the essence (hawaya)65… Therefore, He united Himself with the name of the essence [the Tetragrammaton], since all beings other than Himself came to be from the truth of His essence. This name bears witness to Him in the secret of His unity that indicates the truth beyond which there is no truth… And therefore, since this name bears witness to the essence, it alone is called the explicit name (shem ha-meforash) and the unique name (shem ha- meyuhad), for this is the name that was singularly designated to indicate His truth, and it bears witness to His being separate from all, and that He bears all, and that He is in all and is outside of all (hu ba-kol ve-hutzah la- kol)66… All of His names, except for the unique name, were generated during the creation of the world, and the essence precedes them all, for it is what causes all existants to be.67

63 On the connection of this idea in Gikatilla’s Ginat Egoz to the works of Abraham Abulafia, see Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 60-61, n.171 64 See also, JTSA 2156, 41v. 65 On the hawwayot or essences in early Kabbalah, see Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 279-282. Consider also Gikatilla’s statement, “behold, the secret of the unique name is the beginning and the end of all of the essences” ibid, p. 44. On the possible connection between Gikatilla’s understanding of the havayot and the Gerona kabbalists, see Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 102-103. 66 Compare with Ginat Egoz, 464 “He is one, with none who bears Him, devoid of all deficiency, change or division, without His being constrained by place or boundary or encompassed by anything that He bears. He, may He be blessed, is the place of everything and bears everything and is outside of everything and is immanent in everything (be-‘emtza ha-kol).” 67 Ibid, pp. 19-20. See also, Weiler, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 159.

By giving ontological priority to the Tetragrammaton as the name that indicates the

divine essence, Gikatilla begins to build an ontology and theory of divine names that

marks a radical departure from the rational/philosophical as well as from traditionalist

models. He even employs an apophatic articulation of the dialectic of divine immanence

implied by this theory of the essentiality of the Tetragrammaton, in that it bears witness

to that fact that “He is in all and is outside of all (hu ba-kol ve-hutzah la-kol).”68 This is

made all the more clear with his assertion that “since the essential name (shem hawayah)

is the secret of the truth of all being… and the beginning of all beginnings… and the

cause of all being, it was necessary for Him, may He be blessed, to be called by the

essential name, since He, may He be blessed, is the cause of all being.”69 Gikatilla makes

the striking argument that since the Tetragrammaton is the cause of all being, as is God, it

was necessary for God to be called by the Tetragrammaton. It would almost appear from

his words here that the divine name is more the cause of all being than the Divine. This

tension is resolved a few pages later with an interpretation of Isaiah, 42:8, “I am YHWH,

it is my name.” Gikatilla explains the verse in the following way:

Consider this wondrous matter and you will see that it says ‘I am YHWH’ to say ‘I am the being in the secret of the name YHWH, for My name is the secret of My truth, and it alone indicates the secret of essence,’ and it is as though He said, ‘I am the true essence, that from my truth all beings came to be, and my name and my truth are one, for my name is the secret of my essence, and my essence is the secret of my truth. My name and the truth of my being are one.70

68 See also ibid, 118, “Everything that is other than Him is composite, and thus He, may He be blessed, is the foundation of all, and He is not encompassed by that for which He is the foundation, for He, may He be blessed, is in all and outside of all.” See also p. 464. On the formulation “He is in all and all is in Him” in Gikatilla and other early Spanish kabbalists, see Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 145-146, 347, nn. 296-299. 69 Ginat Egoz, 23. 70 Ibid, 24-25. See also, ibid, 30.

The identification of God with the Tetragrammaton is the first major idea that Gikatilla

presents in Ginat Egoz, and it serves as the basis for the rest of his claims about the nature of both the cosmos and the divine realm.71

In one very interesting passage on the relationship between other divine names

and the Tetragrammaton, Gikatilla notes that “all of the names by which He, may He be

blessed, is called, receive power and emanation (hamshakha) from the unique name, and

without it they have no subsistence, for from the truth of His being and essence they

come to be. In this way you should become awakened to how the essential name bestows

power to all beings. It would appear to me that what we have awakened [you to]

concerning this matter is sufficient.”72 An important idea for all kabbalists in the late 13th century is the principle that all beings exist by partaking in the divine reality in one way or another, usually through some form of overflow or emanation - designated throughout

Ginat Egoz by the term hamshakha - mediated by hypostatic divine potencies. In this passage Gikatilla describes the divine names in their relation to the Tetragrammaton in a way that is entirely consistent with his later works, in that the Tetragrammaton is the core and essence, and all other names or cognomens (kinuiyim) – an important term in his later works that he also employs in his early works73 - are derivative, and are part of the series

71 See also, Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 24a. 72 Ginat Egoz, 30. 73 See, for example, his comment that “the great principle that you must be awakened to is that the name elohim indicates a cognomen (kinui) and not a name. Behold, elohim is a kinui for Him, may He be blessed, to perform all functions of nature (teva), and this is the first name of creation” Ginat Egoz, 34. See also, Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 74; Weiler, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 160. Gikatilla’s emphasis upon the terms elohim, kinui and teva contains a secret in that all three of these Hebrew terms carry the identical numerical value of eighty six, implying a divinely revealed principle that the name elohim, along with other cognomens, are connected with the divine governance of natural phenomena and creation of the cosmos. See also, ibid, p. 38, 39, 426; JTSA 2156, 39r, 44r, 45r; JTSA 1891 76r. Moshe Idel notes that Gikatilla likely adopted this gematria association between elohim and teva from Abraham Abulafia, barring an unknown common source, “Deus sive Natura – The Metamorphasis of a Dictum from Maimonides to Spinoza,” in Robert S. Cohn and Hillel Levine, eds., Maimonides and the Sciences (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000) 94-95, 109 n.45. See also Gikatilla’s comment in

of interconnections that bring the divine effluence into the world. In keeping with this model of reality, Gikatilla goes on to clarify the idea that the Tetragrammaton is the source for the other divine names in that it is the only name that existed before the creation of the world, since it is united with His essence. By presenting the other divine names as deriving from the Tetragrammaton, and forming a continuum between the cosmos and God that supports the existence of the world, Gikatilla moves away from

Maimonidean philosophical understanding of the Tetragrammaton and embraces a kabbalistic model in which the derivative names serve as middot or divine hypostases that mediate the connection between the divine and the cosmic through a process of emanation. The enfolding of the other names into the Tetragrammaton through a process of emanation that culminates in creation is an essential difference between the kabbalistic and philosophical understandings of the Name,74 and in his early works Gikatilla already advocates the kabbalistic model. It is for this reason, according to Gikatilla, that the name elohim is “created” in the first verse of Genesis.75 It is hard to imagine why Gikatilla would be so invested in establishing these ideas about the nature of the divine names, and the identity of the Tetragrammaton with God, if it were not for the fact that he is seeking

Hassagot al ha-Moreh, “He, may He be blessed, found it necessary to conceal the unique name in the beginning of the Torah and to employ the cognomen (kinui) elohim, since it relates to creation.” On the creation of the name elohim by the name YHWH, see ibid, 24b. Gikatilla also says that the name elohim is only considered a cognomen in relation to the Tetragrammaton, while it is considered a name in relation to all other beings, Ginat Egoz, 40. On the relation of the intellects with the name elohim, see ibid, 68-69. Moreover, the second chapter of Ginat Egoz is called the sha’ar ha-kinui or “the chapter of the cognomen.” At the end of the chapter he comments that “in the rest of the chapters I will embark upon a clarification of the secret of the ways of the cognomens, each in the manner that is appropriate for it, to an extent that will serve as an introductory beginning for all enlightened ones,” 90. This is further evidence that Gikatilla regarded Ginat Egoz as an introductory instruction in the secret traditions of divine names. On Gikatilla’s criticism of Ibn Ezra and Shmuel ha-Nagid for considering linguistic derivations for the divine cognomens, see ibid, 112-113. 74 I would like to thank Elliot Wolfson for drawing my attention to this point. 75 See, for example, Ginat Egoz, 31; MS JTSA 1891, 65r, where Gikatilla discusses the creation of the cognomen elohim in the first verse of Genesis. This reading of the first verse of Genesis would appear to be along the same lines as what we find in later kabbalah, made famous by the passage in the Zohar, 1:15a that the proper way to read the Hebrew would be ‘In the beginning He created elohim.’

to inculcate a certain kind of ontology in his readers to prepare them to receive a more

explicitly kabbalistic theosophy.

Emanation and the Chain of Being

After establishing the Tetragrammaton as the source of all being and divine

cognomens, Gikatilla goes on to discuss the emanation or chain of interconnections that

extends from God/Tetragrammaton down to the level of physical reality. Gikatilla

employs a number of terms to indicate the emanation of being from God - most

frequently hamshakhah,76 but also hishtalshelut and atzilut. The basic premise of

Gikatilla’s ontology in Ginat Egoz is summed up in the following comment; “This is the secret of the knowledge of the flow (hamshakha) of the power of the essence (havaya) to the created beings, for without Him they have no sustenance, for all of them come to be in the emanation (atzilut) of the power that is emanated upon them from the truth of the unique name (i.e. the Tetragrammaton).”77

According to Gikatilla’s interpretation of Gen. 1:3, the Torah attests to creation ex

nihilo by the use of the Hebrew term yehi (let there be), spelled YHY, in the phrase “let

there be light.” YHY is significant for Gikatilla because it employs the first two letters of

the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, as well as the letters of a secondary divine name, YH (yah),

and indicates a primary form of creation through the divine essence, HWYH.78 After the

76 See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 62-72. Blickstein notes that Gikatilla likely adopts this term from Jacob ben Sheshet, ibid, 68. 77 Ginat Egoz, 83-84. See also, JTSA 1891, 78r, “The entire intention is drawn after the Tetragrammaton, and from it the emanation (atzilut) flows to all receiving entities (kol ha-nishpa’im).” See also Gikatilla’s emanative language in Gruenwald, “Two Cabbalistic Poems,” 77, 80. 78 See also, JTSA 2156, 40r.

creation of light from the HWYH to serve as the foundation of all being, all things flow

forth from one another through a chain-like series of interconnected gradations of being.

And therefore, since He initiated creation with the language of HWYH, in that he created something that did not exist [i.e. light], it was necessary to employ the language of “let there be,” YHY, that is to say, let there be something that did not exist. After He created the foundation of created beings, it was not necessary to employ the term YHY, but rather, ‘let there be this from that,’ and the beings emanated forth as a chain (yishtalshelu ha-devarim) this after that… for in the emanation of beings as a chain,79 it is not necessary to say [the words associated with] HWYH, for the HWYH already cleaves to them. Guard this great principle regarding the language of YHY, for this is the first foundation of the foundation of our Torah, in that all of the created beings are created from nothing, since the beginning of their creation was HWYH, and nothing more.80

While light81 is the only thing created from nothing directly by the divine essence or

HWYH, all things have their origin in this primal light and thus can be said to be created ex nihilo. In that sense the world in toto is not created from nothing directly by a simple act of divine volition. Gikatilla presents a more complex model of reality in which a primary substance, light, is said to come to be from nothing but also in some sense from the divine essence,82 while all other beings flow from that primary creative act in a chain that finds its ultimate source in the essence and name of God.83

79 See also, JTSA 1891, 91v, 80 Ibid, 73. See also Gikatilla’s comment on the meaning of the term ehiyah; “’That which I will be (asher ehiyeh)’ (Ex. 3:14), as though He said, ‘I am the being, who, from the truth of my being, all other beings have come to be.’” For Gikatilla’s criticism of Maimonides’ treatment of the divine name ehiyeh asher ehiyeh in the Guide 1:63, see ibid, 59. 81 On the further breakdown of the created light into “intellectual light (ma’or ha-sekhel),” “splendorous light (ma’or ha-Zohar),” and “perceptive light (ma’or ha-shimush),” see the continuation of the above citation on p. 74. See also ibid, 166, 172, 180, 286. 82 This dialectical understanding of the earliest stage of creation is discussed in Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 20a, where Gikatilla says that the emergence of the first substance from God is an unknowable mystery, and it is for this reason that the Tetragrammaton is absent from the first verse of Genesis. See also his discussion of the emergence of the first light in JTSA 2156, 40r, 41v. 83 On the image of the “chain of emanation,” see also, Hassagot, 21b, 24a. Gikatilla even associates Ma’aseh Merkavah with the secrets of the ontological interconnection of all things “from the first emanation to the naval

The key point that Gikatilla emphasizes to his readers is that the principle of

creation ex nihilo is not to be understood as a simple generation of the cosmos though

inexplicable divine volition. While being is brought forth from nothing in the initial

creative act implied in Gen. 1:3, “let there be light,” this is only the first step in an

emanative process in which everything derives its being from the essence of God and the

Tetragrammaton through a continuum of being. This ontology is compatible with

classical Castilian and Zoharic Kabbalah, and one gets the sense that Gikatilla’s aim in

his descriptions of creation in his early works is to prepare his readers for more detailed

kabbalistic interpretations of creation that include the symbolism of the ten sefirot.84

This would help explain why Gikatilla finds it necessary to dissuade his readers from

embracing either the philosophical principle of cosmic pre-eternity or an overly simplistic

understanding of creation ex nihilo. As Gikatilla comments in the continuation of the

passage cited above, “Behold, ‘let there be (YHY) light,’ (Gen. 1:3) is the beginning of

creation, and this is clear testimony for the creation of all beings from nothing, and not

according to those who deny Him, may He be blessed, who believe in the pre-eternity of

the world. This is also not according to those who say that the world was created from

pre-existent matter, for if there was pre-existent matter, what need would there have been

to say YHY?”85 By appealing to this way of reading the third verse of Genesis, Gikatilla

tries to distance his readers from the Aristotelian understanding of creation. Were

of the earth,” ibid 19b. On this idea in Gikatilla’s Hassagot see Idel, “Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,” 201. On the chain or shalshelet in de Leon, see, Scholem, Major Trends, 222-223; Joseph Ben- Shlomo, “The Research of Scholem on in the Kabbalah,” in Gershom Scholem: The Man and his Work, ed. Paul Mendes Flohr (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 17-31; Elliot Wolfson, “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer ha-Rimmon,” Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 239-240, n. 122. See also, Moshe Idel, Enchated Chains (Los Angeles: Cherub Press), 44. 84 See, for example, Gikatilla’s interpretation of Isaiah 48:13, “I call unto them, let them stand up together,” to mean that all of creation, including the separate intellects, was created simultaneously with a single divine utterance, and was only subsequently differentiated,” 182. Compare with Zohar 2:20a. 85 Ginat Egoz, 73.

Gikatilla simply trying to combat what he perceived to be philosophical heresy, a forceful assertion of a literal reading of the first verses of Genesis would be sufficient. Clearly,

Gikatilla has other goals in mind by presenting such a complex emanative schema in place of the philosophical position.86 I would argue Gikatilla is trying to impart an ontology that embraces the dialectical emanative principles characteristic of classical

Kabbalah.87

For Gikatilla, creation is an emanative process which, while still compatible with the notion of creation ex nihilo, embraces an understanding of being in which all reality, including physical terrestrial beings, is connected with the transcendent divine essence through a procession of names and cognomens,88 and graduated levels of being or

“gradations” that receive overflow or shefa89 – a significant kabbalistic term - from one another. As Gikatilla puts the matter in a discussion of the same idea in MS JTSA 1891,

69v, the relationship between God and the world is one in which “all things cleave to His being, but His being does not cleave to all things.”

86 On the secrets of the biblical account of creation, consider Gikatilla’s comment, “all of the ma’aseh bereishit is in accordance with its literal meaning. However, there are wondrous matters concealed within them and contingent upon their literal sense” ibid, 243. 87 See Gikatilla’s use of the “separate” or “incorporeal” intellects in his emanative schema, Ibid, 78, 145-46, 149-50. See also, JTSA 1891, 70v-74r. Compare with Gikatilla’s comment in his commentary on Ezekiel’s chariot vision, “Know and contemplate that the being of the world, from the beginning of the being of the intellect until the end of the smallest creation in the world, is all united in one unification, each species according to its kind. This draws from that and this from that, until it reaches the four letters of the name YHWH, may He be blessed.” R. Joseph Gikatillla’s Commentary to Ezekiel’s Chariot, ed. Asi Farber Ginat, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1998), 68, and his comment on the next page that “everything depends upon the secret of the great name, may He be blessed, for He is the source that brings forth everything and supports everything and sustains everything, and there is nothing that can exist without Him.” On the relationship between knowledge of the divine name and unity and Merkavah speculation in Gikatilla’s early works, see Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism and Merkavah imagery in the Zohar,” 207. 88 See Gikatilla’s comment on p. 107 of Ginat Egoz that the fact that all beings bear a name is proof that they derive their being from the name of God; “We have already made known to you that all beings come to be from the truth of the essential name, and without it they have no sustenance. Thus it is proper that all beings should have a name, dependant upon His name, may He be blessed, for it serves as clear testimony of the fact that all beings are reliant upon the name YHWH, and all of them are reliable witnesses to His unity, may He be blessed, and His truth and primordiality, since they have a name that encompasses them.” 89 On this term in Hebrew translations of Maimonide’s Guide, see Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 63 n.1.

Gikatilla returns to this idea in another passage in Ginat Egoz:

He, may He be blessed, is the culmination of all things and the end of all questions, in that the terrestrial world (olam ha-shafel) is emanated (nimshakh) from the truth of the world of the spheres, and the world of the spheres is overflowed (nishpa’a) from the truth of the world of the intellects, and the world of the intellects is overflowed from the truth of the primordial essence (ha-hawaya ha-kadmonit). Behold, all culminations arrive at the essence which is the secret of His name, may He be blessed. Therefore, all of the hosts of the world cleave to the truth of His essence, HWYH, for everything is dependant upon Him, and He bears all and creates all… and there is no emanator or bearer other than Him… He, may He be blessed, alone, is the foundation that has no foundation, and this foundation is not encompassed by that for which He is the foundation, for He is external to all, and he encompasses (magbil) all of the worlds unto infinity (‘ad ein sof). Blessed be the glorious name of his kingdom for ever and ever.90

Here again the emanation of the world from the divine essence and name is the source of

all being.91 Gikatilla is very deliberate in his emphasis that the connections between the intellects, spheres and terrestrial realm create a smooth continuum from the essence of

God to the world. In this way he can say that the “hosts of the world cleave to the truth of

His essence.” The root of the word cleave – dvk – is the same verbal root that Gikatilla employs to describe the relationship of identity between the Tetragrammaton and God.92

It would seem then that Gikatilla is making a very strong pantheistic claim. However, he

qualifies that claim by reiterating that God, as the foundation of all being, “is not

encompassed by that for which He is the foundation.” What we are left with is a

dialectical relationship between God and the world in which there is an emanative

contiguity, but not a simple identity. The paradoxical tension of this idea is emphasized

90 Ginat Egoz, 120-121. 91 On the founding of all being on the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which in turn are derived from the Tetragrammaton, see ibid, 377. 92 See below.

by the end of the citation in which God is said to be “external to all” yet also to

“encompass all worlds unto infinity (‘ad ein sof).” The use of the Hebrew phrase ‘ad ein sof is very interesting. It occurs nowhere else in the entire book, and its placement here in a discussion of the connection of God to the world as the source of emanation, despite the absolutely transcendent nature of the divine, could be an allusive reference to the ideas and writings of the Geronese kabbalists.93

Union with God and the Centrality of Israel

The complexity of this emanative schema serves as the basis for another important idea in Ginat Egoz – devekut or mystical experience. As the book unfolds,

Gikatilla argues that Israel is the only people in the world who have had the secrets of the universe revealed to them; that everything in the world is emanated from God through his name and the Torah. Through the study of the Torah and inquiry into the mysteries of the divine name, Jews alone are capable of founding their intellectual speculation upon the

Torah, thus enabling them to attain mystical experience with God. Gikatilla compares the situation to a circle with a central point – an image we have already seen above. The

93 According to Weiler, the use of ein sof here contains no allusion to kabbalistic usage, “Iyyunim be- Terminologia ha-Kabbalit,” 40; Idem, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 169. On my reading, however, the construction of the language in this passage could be taken as an intentional nod towards kabbalistic ideas. If Gikatilla was merely using this term as a descriptor, why would he use it only once in his entire early corpus? See also Gikatilla’s discussion of the words ein and ayin and the “secrets of negation” (sod ha-shelilla) at the end of Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 31b. Unfortunately, the manuscript ends in the middle of Gikatilla’s words on the subject, which he describes as “principles derived from concealed secrets.” It is possible that Gikatilla is referring to an idea that he expresses in one of his poems about the thirty paths “emanated from the emanation of negation (‘atzulim mi-‘atzilut ha-shelilla)/ the sefirot of belimah are his works/ He is concealed, and His kingdom is revealed.” Gruenwald, “Two Cabbalistic Poems,” 78. If the doctrine alluded to in the Hassagot is connected with the passage from the poem, it could be understood as an only slightly veiled allusion to the emanation of the sefirot from ein sof, culminating in the revelation of malkhut (kingdom).

Torah and name of God are the center point, which is accessible only to Israel, while the

rest of the nations of the world are outside this prime domain. As Gikatilla argues:

We have already spoken as great length in this book to strengthen our claims, that all of the foundations of the world are founded upon the Torah of God,94 for it is what teaches us the path of life, and makes known to us the path of the intellect by way of the true foundation, which is the foundation of the Tetragramaton, upon which the entire world depends… Those who know the Torah attain God [ha-Shem] may He be blessed, face to face, since they are in the center of the point that is the sacred inner courtyard, while the rest of the nations circle the perimeter that surrounds the point, and they remain outside.95

Continuing this theme a few pages later:

From all of these matters that I have made known to you, you should consider the distinction between Israel and the peoples of the world, worshipers of stars and planets, in the attainment of the truth of His unity, may He be blessed, in that the Torah has been given to them [Israel], which is the inner wisdom, and through the secret of the inner one, they can attain the innermost, as it is said, “And God spoke to Moses face to face,” (Ex. 33:11) and contemplate the allusion.96

Gikatilla’s use of circle imagery is highly instructive. By imagining the Jewish people at

the center of the point of the circle, while the rest of the nations of the world remain

outside, Gikatilla inverts the social/political reality of an embattled Jewish community

surrounded by hostile forces. Instead, Jews are imagined as the most central people in the

94 The Hebrew term here is torat YHWH, perhaps a pun implying “explication of the Name,” similar to the interpretation of this term in his later works. See Gershom Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” in Essentual Papers on Kabbalah, ed. Lawrence Fine (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 187-88. 95 Ginat Egoz, 343. Elliot Wolfson notes the influence of Abraham Abuliafia on Gikatilla in this passage. See Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 76 n. 240. On the relationship of this text to Gikatilla’s later work, see Elliot Wolfson, Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 101-103. 96 Ibid, 345.

world with exclusive access to the truth and God, while all of the other nations remain outside and lack the keys necessary to gain entrance, namely, the Jewish traditions of the

esoteric interpretations of the Torah and the divine name.97 Gikatilla even makes an

allusion to the rise of Christian Hebraism - which was clearly polemical and threatening

in its intent - as an envious attempt on the part of gentiles to attain the great treasures of

Israel. In this way, “the wise ones of the idolatrous nations are searching to find a path by

which to enter the study of our Torah, ‘and the pursuers searched the entire path, but they

did not find them’ (Joshua 2:22), since the Torah is hidden and far from all idolatrous

nations, and is only united with Israel, so that they may believe the truth and distance

themselves from falsehood.”98

Both of the above cited passages employ the striking image of Israel seeing God

“face to face,” an image that Gikatilla specifically instructs his readers to contemplate

carefully. The implication is that the Jews, through their secret traditions of the divine

name, have exclusive access to mystical experience. Gikatilla employs this image towards the end of his introduction in which he claims that, as a result of his study of the secrets of the Torah; “When I investigated her true paths, I saw God face to face, through my attainment of His concealed unity. He is the living God and king of the world. And

[when] I understood the concealed from within its externality… I composed this book with great willingness.”99 The direct implication of Gikatilla’s words is that the secrets that he reveals in this book regarding the divine names and the esoteric interpretation of

the Torah as a combination of the revealed and concealed leads one to an encounter with

God. This could even be taken to be the main goal of the book, since such encounter, as

97 See Weiler, “Iyyunim be-Terminologia ha-Kabbalit,” 19, 32-33. 98 Ginat Egoz, 346. 99 Ibid, 12.

we saw with the previous citation, demonstrates the superiority of Israel over the gentiles, accorded to them through their attainment of the secret and mystical dimension of the

Jewish tradition.100

Gikatilla fleshes out his mystical understanding of Judaism and Jewish praxis in a comment on the implications of the merits of the patriarch Abraham:

You should contemplate the trials that came upon Abraham our father, peace be upon him, and that which can be perceived from his actions, for it is all according to divine intention for Abraham to be the foundation of a people born from him. And if such is the foundation, consider how the edifice will remain forever… And in this way you should contemplate this great principle, in that Israel is the people singled out for Him, may He be blessed, and that Abraham is the beginning of this people… and you will see that this people is determined according to the divine determination (mekhuvenet be-seder hakavanah ha-elohit), which is the edifice that has no cessation…. We have deviated from our primary intention, however, it is all connected, for from these paths you can know and become awakened to that which came upon Abraham when he worshiped before Him with the worship of the heart and the worship of the hands, for he upheld the entire Torah – through testimony, which is speech, and worship, which is action… And it is all in accordance with that which he upheld. And he drew forth His will, may He be blessed, through his worship of the heart and worship of the hands, for these are the two paths of the Torah. Therefore we have said that since the carrying of fire is prohibited for us on the Sabbath, this is in reference to the actual worship of the hands, for through the worship of action, the worship of the heart is completed. If so, one may not discontinue the worship of action… for action is more important that speech, and speech is more important than testimony (edut). Contemplate that through worship we draw ourselves to His truth, and we cleave to His light, as it is said, “Him you shall worship and to Him you shall cleave” (Deut. 13:5).101

100 Giktilla also connects the exclusivity of Jewish access to God with the fact that they alone are capable of studying the mysteries of the Tetragrammaton; “You will find that all peoples, other than Israel, are outside of the vestibule [of the divine abode]… since the unique name is not capable of being studied except by Israel” Ginat Egoz, 349. He even associates the public declaration of the mysteries of divine unity with messianic redemption, 473. 101 Ginat Egoz, 178-79.

This passage carries significant implications for understanding the mystical dimension of

Gikatilla’s project in Ginat Egoz. He begins by arguing for the eternality of the Jewish

people based on their derivation from Abraham.102 He further connects this with

Abraham’s mode of “worship (avoda),” which is a combination of inner contemplation or

“worship of the heart” (avodat ha-lev), and physical action or “worship of the hands”

(avodat ha-yadayim), likely a reference to the standard actions and formulas required by traditional Jewish liturgical practice. This serves as the basis for Gikatilla’s argument that the commandments must be fulfilled by both of these “paths of the Torah” and cannot be upheld merely through thought - an obvious reference both to those philosophically inclined Jews who regarded the physical observance of the commandments as absurd, and the Christian arguments that the most subtle form of worship is the “worship of the heart” and not the carnal observance of the law.103 According to Gikatilla, it is only

through the combination of contemplative and physical praxis that one can, like Abraham,

draw “forth His will, may He be blessed, through his worship of the heart and worship of

the hands.” This passage is a striking example of Gikatilla’s theurgic understanding of

the commandments.

The combined effect of these two modes of worship for the Jews, according to

Gikatilla, is that they are drawn to God and cleave to him. Throughout Ginat Egoz

Gikatilla uses the term dvk to imply union and identity rather than proximity. Consider,

for example, his use of this term to designate the relationship between the

102 See Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 105 n.366. 103 Gikatilla reiterates this point in Ginat Egoz, 216, with the additional comment that contained within the literal and physical observance of the commandments “there are numerous concealed matters and hidden chambers within hidden chambers.” Consider also his comment on p. 438 that “the lower entities posses the power to rule over the middle entities through the power of the supernal entities. It is not proper to explain further at present, and the enlightened will remain silent.”

Tetragrammaton and the divine essence, which, as we saw above, is one of identity; “His

name, unique to Him, may He be blessed, cleaves (davak) to His essence (hawayato).”104

Gikatilla also says is Hassagot al ha-Moreh that “every man who is a true man cleaves to the name YHWH, and there is no intermediary between them.”105 The physical

observance of the commandments for Gikatilla are thus simultaneously theurgic

technique for drawing down the divine will and a form of mystical praxis for attaining

mystical union. Moreover, it is this dimension of the commandments that is the special

patrimony of Israel from their father Abraham, granting them eternal sustenance. One can

perceive in Gikatilla’s presentation of these ideas a response to Christian missionary

claims of the obsolescence of the mitzvoth, as well as a kabbalistc re-imagining of

Judaism in a deliberately non-philosophical way.

In a discussion of the significance of the recitation of the shema, Deut. 6:4 “Hear,

oh Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord, is one,” Gikatilla attributes mystical and

theurgical power to this liturgical act.

You already know… [that] all of our Torah and faith is founded upon His great name, may He be blessed. Therefore, we must be mindful every place that we mention His great name [of] the important principles that indicate His truth. Then we will fulfill our purpose, through our knowing His truth from the power of his great name that has been transmitted to us. Then we will be able to unify Him and grant Him kingship with a full heart… And then we will be united to the Unique One who unites with us (nihiyeh meyuhadim le-yahid ha-mityahed banu), and He will cleave to our love, and His great name will be sanctified by us. And the Lord our God will desire us and show us the path upon which we should walk and the actions that we should perform.106

104 Ibid, 27. 105 Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 24b. See also, Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 60, 178-79. 106 Ginat Egoz, 375-76.

Cleaving and uniting with God, according to Gikatilla, is enabled through the recitation of the shema, but only when the one uttering God’s name knows “the important principles that indicate His truth.” It is safe to surmise that the important principles to

which Gikatilla is referring are the ideas about divine unity and the centrality of the

Tetragrammaton that are the core of his concern throughout Ginat Egoz. For one properly informed about these matters, Gikatilla regards the recitation as a mystically powerful act.

Moreover, it is not just the one who prays who is impacted, but God as well is influenced through the sanctification of the Tetragrammaton, which has the effect of bringing him to desire Israel and teach them the proper mode of behavior in this world. Once again, we can see that the secrets of the name of God have mystical implications for Gikatilla, which themselves serve to bolster the Israelite relationship with God through proper praxis.

In another articulation of this idea, Gikatilla describes the Torah itself as the means by which Israel is able to ascend to a realm higher even than the angels and intellects:107

This is a great principle and glorious foundation, in that Israel is able to ascend above the level of the spheres and intellects through the power of the Torah. If this is the case, Israel is superior to the ministering angels, much less the rest of the hosts of the heavens. In this way we can say that all other beings were created for the sake of Israel… All of this is because the Torah has been transmitted to Israel… and through it Israel is able to ascend above all of the supernal gradations until they arrive at the gradation of the Torah, which is above all beings, and she draws Israel to elevate them above all of the supernal gradations to the concealed dwelling (beit nistar).108

107 On this point see Weiler, “Iyyunim be-Terminologia ha-Kabbalit,” 24-25. 108 Ibid, 259-60. On the ability of the [Jewish] human to ascend above the level of the intellects and “inner ones” (penimiyim) by means of the Torah and observance of the commandments in Gikatilla, see ibid, 208. See also, Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 101, n.340, 189, n.10.

Through the Torah – and it would be safe to say that for Gikatilla this would mean both through the observance of the commandments of the Torah and through the interpretation of the secrets of the divine unity contained within the Torah according to the hermeneutical method presented in Ginat Egoz – Israel is able to attain an extremely high level of spiritual elevation. He does not employ the terms “cleaving” or “unity” here, but it would be fair to say that whatever Gikatilla specifically intends by saying that Israel is able to ascend above the level of the angels and intellects and into the “concealed dwelling” carries some degree of mystical connotation.109 Moreover, the Torah is described as both a means for attaining such elevation and as that which draws Israel up to the divine realm, perhaps hinting at a secret pelroma or realm of divine fullness above the levels of the angels and intellects familiar to the philosophers.110

As the inheritors of the Torah, Gikatilla boldly describes Israel as the purpose of all creation and the superior entity in all of the cosmos. Gikatilla’s hyperbolic emphasis upon the superiority of Israel reflects an element of polemical defensiveness.111 His

109 In another passage Gikatilla uses the image of “entering” a divine realm in connection with the verb dkv; “The righteous are able to enter the world to come while alive, and if while alive such is the case, how much more so with regard to the cleaving of the Unique One (hitdabek ha-yehida) in the source of the intellect in the bundle of life” ibid, 350. See also, pp. 415-416, and the comment on p. 98 that through the contemplation of the gematria values of the Tetragrammaton, (26), elohim, (86), adonia, (65) = 177 = gan eden, “through the attainment of these [secret numerical equivalences] one can enter the Garden of Eden while alive.” On the relationship of this gematria in Ginat Egoz to the writings of Baruch Togarmi and Abraham Abulafia, see Idel, “Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,” 215. 110 Even in his early works, Gikatilla embraces a complex angelology for which the doctrine of the separate intellects is only the starting point. For a discussion of Gikatilla’s understanding of the teli – primordial serpent or uroburos – from in Ginat Egoz, see Haviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 236, n.52 (Hebrew). 111 For a detailed treatment of the ethnocentrism of thirteenth century Kabbalah, see Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, chap. 1. On the importance of the polemical engagement with the Christian majority in Zoharic formulations of gender, sexuality and embodiment, see idem, “Re/membering the Covenant: Memory, Forgetfullness, and the Construction of History in the Zohar,” in Elisheva Carlbach, John Efron, and David N. Myers, eds., Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in honor of Yoseph Hayim Yerushalmi, (Hanover and London: University of New England Press, 1998); Idem, “The body in the Text : a Kabbalistic Theory of Embodiment,” Jewish Quarterly Review 95, 3 (2005): 479-500.

message is one delivered in defiance of the prevailing reality of the subjugation and

political vulnerability of the Jews, made all the more pressing by the public and persistent attempts on the part of the Franciscan and Dominican friars to convert the Jews to

Christianity. By challenging their understanding of scripture, the rabbinic tradition and the law, the Jewish-Christian debate forced 13th century Jews to confront the theological

implications of their declining place in history.112 For Gikatilla, kabbalistic secrets are more than just another hermeneutical tool – they are a response to the Christian challenge, demonstrating Israel’s superiority and access to God. Gikatilla makes this point clear a few pages later; “From all of these matters to which we have awoken you, you can know the difference between Israel and the gentile nations of the world, in that He, may He be blessed and exalted, gave Israel His perfect Torah through which they are made unique from among all the nations, and they are called precious (segula)… and all of this is

through the power of the Torah that has been transmitted to them, for by means of her

they ascend above all.”113

The Place of the Ten sefirot in Ginat Egoz.

The most striking aspect of Gikatilla’s early works is his constant recourse to secret, esoteric doctrine and mystical experience with God as the true, unique core of

112 See, for example, Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 63-64, 181-197. 113 Ginat Egoz, 265.

Judaism which he refers to as Kabbalah, without articulating the theosophic doctrine of

the ten sefirot as we are familiar with it from his later works. One of the primary reasons

why scholars have assumed that Ginat Egoz and the associated texts are not true

theosophic kabbalah is that Gikatilla repeatedly interprets the ten sefirot belimah - a

neologism from Sefer Yetzirah of unclear meaning - as the ten sefirot beli mahuto, meaning the ten sefirot “without His being.”114 However, I would maintain that a close

examination of Gikatilla’s discussions of the ten sefirot in Ginat Egoz yields a different result. If this text was in fact intended as an initial introduction of kabbalistic ideas for

Jewish students of philosophy, it makes sense that concepts with which this audience would be more familiar with and sympathetic to, such as the radical transcendence of

God, would be given more emphasis, while the full articulation of theosophic symbolism would be introduced slowly. Sefer Yetzirah and its numerous commentaries already enjoyed a well respected place in many Jewish intellectual circles by the 1270’s. Since his readers were almost certainly interested in this text - if not also perplexed by it -

Gikatilla uses it as a vehicle for broaching deeper kabbalistic mysteries. Consider the following example of how Gikatilla presents the ten sefirot:

114 See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 85. Baruch Togarmi in his Sefer Maftehot ha- Kabbalah employs the same expression with reference to the ten sefirot; “Ten sefirot belimah, that is to say, ten sefirot without being (beli mahut), for God, may He be blessed, Himself is not enumerated with the sefirot, and He is not in the gradation of one of them, but rather above them. He is the one who brings them forth [into being], and it is impossible to bring Him forth from them. In relation to Him they are as naught, for He is the one who brings them into being (ki hu yeishnan) in every respect, and He is in all and all is in Him. This is a matter that cannot be grasped by fleeting words, but rather through many investigations of wisdom.” Cited from Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temunah and Abraham Abulafia, ed. J. Ben-Shlomo, (Jerusalem, 1965), 231 (Hebrew). On the relationship between Togarmi and Gikatilla, see Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 109-111, 184-87; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism and Merkavah Imagery,” 206; Asi Farber, “A New Passage from Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Introduction to Ginat Egoz,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 159-60 n.5 (Hebrew).

From His truth, may He be blessed, all things came to be, which are contained in the mystery of the ten sefirot. Therefore, He, may He be blessed, is not of their category, for he bears all of them and transcends all of them. This is alluded to by “ten sefirot belimah,” that is to say, without His being (beli mahuto), may He be blessed, for nothing can contain Him. Thus, you can [also] explain “ten sefirot belimah” as ten sefirot without being, which is to say, after they had no being, they came to be – and all of this is from the truth of His primordiality, may He be blessed. Furthermore, you should know that the term belimah is from the word blum, which is to say, something that is encompassed and bound by a bond or restraint (bolem), “[Be not like a senseless Horse] whose movements must be curbed by bit and bridle (be-meteg va-resen edyo livlom).” (Ps. 32:9). For all of the bonds of the sefirot are curbed (balim), and are finite in their being, and they are curbed (balim) by a restraint (bolem). Therefore you must know that the ten sefirot belimah are created, and thus, because they are created, they can be curbed and restrained by His will, may He be blessed… Contemplate these matters that I have explained to you regarding belimah, for it is a great and wondrous subject.115

If we examine this explanation of the ten sefirot, taking into account the fact that Ginat

Egoz is intended at least in part as an initiation into Kabbalah for students of Aristotelian

philosophy, we can see that this articulation does not contradict the theosophic

interpretation of later Castilian Kabbalah. In the passage cited above the ten sefirot are, like everything else in the world, emanated from God and thus under divine control. The

term belimah is taken to mean that God’s essence is not constrained and confined within

the limits of the ten sefirot, but rather the opposite - they are tools that function in

accordance with the divine will, since God is their ontological origin.116 Gikatilla’s

repeated emphasis of this point, namely, that the sefirot are said to be belimah because they are under divine control or restraint, is his main point in this passage. Nothing in this

115 Ginat Egoz, 330. 116 A similar depiction of the ten sefirot and the term belimah can be found at the end of Shemayahu ben Isaac ha-Levi’s Tzror ha-Mor, citing the same verse from Ps. 32:9, “and they are restrained by a restraint (bolem), and you know that the ten sefirot are created from the power of His truth, may He be blessed. And if they are created, it is possible for them to be constrained by His will… And understand that the ten sefirot are emanated from Him, may He be blessed, like one candle from another, and He is not diminished,” 95. Moses de Leon also makes use of this interepretation of the ten sefirot belimah in Or Zarua, edited by Altmann, “Sefer ‘Or Zarua le-R. Moshe de-Leon,” 266.

interpretation of the ten sefirot conflicts with classical kabbalistic doctrine. No kabbalist

from the late 13th century would argue that God is confined within the ten sefirot. Instead, they embrace a dialectical relationship between God and the sefirot.117 A similar idea is

present in Ginat Egoz, but in a more subtle way. The sefirot, like everything else in the world, are under God’s control since they are emanated from him. If Gikatilla is responding to an idea that he finds troubling in this passage, it is not the theosophic

understanding of the ten sefirot, but rather the philosophical weakening of divine

providence – according to which natural law rather than the will of God controls the

minutia of events in the physical realm.

Furthermore, Gikatilla says near the beginning of the above cited passage that all

things in the cosmos, which come to be through the mystery of divine truth, “are

contained in the mystery of the ten sefirot” - a very capacious conceptualization of the ten

sefirot. It is also significant that at the end of the passage he implores his reader to

carefully consider his interpretation of the term belimah, since “it is a great and wondrous

subject.” By emphasizing that the mysteries of the ten sefirot are worthy of further

consideration, Gikatilla is marking them for his readers as a secret that will be revealed

only partially. It would seem that there is more to this matter than meets the eye, and we

would be remiss to take passages like this one as evidence that Gikatilla’s understanding

of the ten sefirot in his early works is in stark contrast to his later works.

117 Weiler argues that Gikatilla’s interpretation of the ten sefirot in Ginat Egoz is cateforically different from Sha’arei Orah since in the latter text he argues that “the name YHWH is the pillar by which all of the upper and lower sefirot are grasped, and they unite with it from below to above, and they receive overflow from it from above to below.” I would argue that this understanding of the relationship between the Tetragrammaton and the sefirot is not at variance with the doctrine put forth in Ginat Egoz, in that in both cases the sefirot are secondary to the name of God and receive their being and sustenance from it. The difference is that in Sha’arei Orah Gikatilla emphasizes the interconnection and dialectical relationship between the divine self and the sefirot, while in Ginat Egoz Gikatilla emphasizes the fact that the emanation of the sefirot from God places them under divine control, without in any way limiting God within their confines.

While the ten sefirot are “without His being,” in the sense that they are emanated from God and under his absolute control, they are also super-cosmic potencies that encompass all being. In another passage, Gikatilla expands on this idea and discusses the place of the ten sefirot in the emanation of the world from God.

Know, my brother, that the sefirot belimah are ten. However, the first element,118 which is the element of fire, leads the remaining nine sefirot, since things emanate as a chain (mishtalshin) from one another. Therefore it is said that the first element encompasses all of the nine… Know that the sefirot, which encompass all that is created from matter, form and admixture, are ten, and they are; one, fire above; two, air, balancing principle (hok makhri’a); three, water below; four, earth below below; five, height; six, depth; seven, east; eight, west; nine, south; ten, north. These ten sefirot encompass all created things. Therefore, all of them are encompassed within the first element, which is fire, since from it all of the rest came to be, since this flows from that (zeh ahar zeh nimshakhim). Behold, the first is the foundation of all. Therefore, the first element, which is fire, has been established as a cognomen for Him, may He be blessed, as it is said (Deut. 4:24) “For the Lord your God is a consuming fire.” Do not be troubled by the fact that sometimes I say that the first encompasses [all], and [sometimes] the [that the] tenth encompasses [all], for it all revolves continually, and sometimes the tenth is first and the first is tenth.119

As we have seen above, Gikatilla regards light/fire as the first substance to emerge from

God during creation. It is therefore quite significant that the first of the sefirot is identified with this primal light, and the other nine are said to be encompassed by the first

– an idea that may possibly find another articulation in his later works in the identification of the highest sefirah, keter, with ein sof.120 This places the sefirot at a very high level, well above that of the intellects, which Gikatilla identifies with the last of

118 The Hebrew word for “element” is yesod, which also means “foundation.” Both connotations are at play here. 119 Ibid, p. 141. 120 See Weiler, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 169-170; Joseph Ben-Shlomo, “Introduction,” Sha’arei Orah, ed. Joseph Ben-Shlomo (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 3rd edition, 1996), 29-34 (Hebrew).

the sefirot; “for the tenth sefirah is also the sefirah of the separate intellects, and they are

under His control (blumim hem lefanav), and they can do nothing without His permission.”121 The sefirot are thus, even in Gikatilla’s Ginat Egoz, a domain of divine

fullness above the level of the celestial spheres and the separate intellects that connect the

cosmic realm with the God and, most significantly, places all material entities directly

under divine control.

Why does Gikatilla go to such great pains to emphasize the meaning of belima in

the way that he does? As we have seen above, Gikatilla was very opposed to the

philosophical position that all events in the cosmos are governed by natural law. By

representing the ten sefirot as the tool whereby God controls all things, Gikatilla seeks to

present an alternative way of understanding the world that includes a place for individual

divine providence. In the passage cited above, the ten sefirot correspond to the four

elements and the six directions122 - an image that recurs in Gikatilla’s later works, and

can also be found in the Zohar123 – all of which is encompassed by the first element, fire

or light. Gikatilla offers this as an explanation for why fire is a cognomen for God, as

stated in Deut. 4:24. The point he is trying to emphasize is that all things, through the

mediation of the ten sefirot, are under divine control or belimah124 by virtue of being

connected to or encompassed by God through the chain-like emanation of all being.

This interpretation of the term belimah in relation to the ten sefirot is clearly

intended to combat the philosophical notion that all events in the physical world are the

121 Ginat Egoz, 330. See also ibid, 332. 122 See also, ibid, 134; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 144, n.135. 123 See, for example, Zohar 2:134b. 124 This reading is further supported by another passage in which Gikatilla explains the term belimah, Ginat Egoz, 333. See also Gikatilla’s comment, “Thus all being depends upon Him/ drawing belimah upon belimah,” Gruenwald, “Two Cabbalistic Poems,” 85.

result of natural law. Gikatilla is at pains to explain how God, who transcends all being, can control the minutia of the physical world, and he employs the ten sefirot to explain divine providence. The point of describing them as beli mahuto, “without His being,” is two-fold for Gikatilla. First, it allays any fears that his philosophically-minded audience might have about a simple conflation of the sefirot with God that would seriously violate the principle of divine unity and transcendence. We know from the later writings of

Gikatilla and other Castilian kabbalists that the relationship between God and the sefirot is deeply paradoxical and dialectical. In that sense, it is not, strictly speaking, inconsistent for Gikatilla to say that the sefirot are “without His being” in the sense that “He is not encompassed by them.” Second, by emphasizing that the sefirot emerge from God and remain under his control, Gikatilla is able to construct a cosmology and theology whereby all events are attributable to God, since everything emerges through a chain-like series of emanations that begin with light/fire/the first sefirah, and all being is encompassed by and under the control of the ten sefirot, which are themselves under the control of God. By presenting the ten sefirot in this way, Gikatilla lays the foundation for further reflection on the mysteries of divine unity and providence that will involve the more complex mytho-poesis of his later kabbalistic works.

Hinting at Secrets

Gikatilla often says in his early works that he is only hinting at much greater

secrets, but he is unable to reveal them all.125 In MS JTSA 2156, 42r he laments, “I desire to write more, but I am not permitted, therefore, let this be sufficient.” Similarly in

MS JTSA 1891, 62r “This is a great, concealed and hidden secret. I desire to write more, but I am not permitted, and I desire not to write, but I cannot leave off from completing it.

Therefore I circle around in “running and returning” (Ezek. 1:14), and the wise one remains silent.”126 In an interesting comment on his reasons for revealing secret matters in Ginat Egoz, Gikatilla makes an apologetic argument for why he and those like him are

free to reveal secrets pertaining to the name of God that the sages of the Talmud saw fit to conceal. He argues that he felt compelled

to enter into the fiery furnace, to explain matters that I had not seen anyone before me explain. And if I have clarified anything, I have not explained it explicitly, but only by way of allusion. However, I have relied upon the [rabbinic] dictum, “It is time to act for the Lord because they have violated your Torah”127 when I saw some of our masses (hamoneinu) straying from the common path (kav ha-shaveh) and the secrets of our Torah and her foundations, and the miracles and wonders that were necessitated (mukhrahim) by His will, may He be blessed. They consider them to be impossible rather than possible, much less necessary. Since the light has been concealed, “and darkness upon the face of the deep” (Gen. 1:2), “no signs appear for us, there is no longer any prophet” (Ps. 74.9). These things have compelled me to reveal that which has been concealed, and my intention has been for [the sake of] heaven.128

Gikatilla connects his sense of urgency regarding the revelation of secrets with the spread of the opposition to miracles and divine providence. As we have seen above, divine

125 See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 75-79. 126 Gikatilla makes reference to his esoteric method with regard to secrets of the “Kabbalah” and/or “chariot” in a number of other places in this manuscript fragment. See 64v, 65v, 79r-79v, 81r. On the connection of this element of Gikatilla’s esoteric method to Baruch Togarmi, see Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 64, n.10. 127 Roughly according to one of Rava’s interpretations of Ps. 119:126 in Berachot, 63a. 128 Ginat Egoz, 335. See also, Weiler, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 158.

providence is central to his exposition of the ten sefirot. In a more general comment in his

introduction as to why he felt compelled to reveal secrets, Gikatilla states that when he

realized that the “truth of unity” is hidden from so many, “I therefore became animated,

and I composed this book, for perhaps from it the simple ones may be induced to

recognize Him, and ‘many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake’ (Dan.

12:2).”129

While there is no overt recourse in Gikatilla’s early compositions to the standard images and motifs of late thirteenth century kabbalistic theosophy that we find in

Gikatilla’s later works, the overall approach is not inconsistent with theosophic Kabbalah.

Moreover, there are a number of possible hints scattered throughout his early works in which Gikatilla may be making subtle reference to sefirotic kabbalistic terminology that he elaborates in great detail in his later works. For example, in his continued criticism of both the traditionalists and the philosophers, Gikatilla argues that “the true unity is hidden from them, and the matter of the kingdom (malkhut) has not been told to them… for they do not know the secret of divinity… And in truth we know that He is the seal of all seals130 and the place of all places.”131 It is possible that these are subtle allusions to

terms associated with the tenth sefirah, malkhut or shekhinah. Indeed, it is hard to

imagine that by referring to a secret associated with malkhut and the mystery of divine

unity known only to kabbalists, Gikatilla could have intended anything else. Moreover,

this “matter of the Kingdom” that the philosophers and traditionalists do not know is not

something that they have simply failed to understand, but rather, something that has not

been “told” to them. It would seem, then, that the basis of Gikatilla’s sweeping criticisms

129 Ginat Egoz, 8. 130 See also, JTSA 2156 42v; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 94. 131 Ginat Egoz, 8.

of these two groups - which would constitute virtually all of his non-kabbalist contemporaries - is that they have not been privy to a chain of transmission of secrets132

regarding the mystery of divine unity related to the matter of malkhut.

In another possible hint at sefirotic terminology at the end of the book, Gikatilla

says, “We must now awaken you to a glorious subject with which we will complete this

book, in the secret of His unity, may He be blessed, in that He is called one in a way that

is different from all other ones… [since] He never changes His desire, and this is the

epitome of the unity and the kingdom (ha-malkhut) and the crown (keter) of all

sovereignty.”133 Gikatilla’s choice of words to describe the secret of divine unity is

intriguing, in that it incorporates the terms for the first and last of the sefirot, malkhut and

keter. To cite just one other passage, “The name YHWH is united with the secret of his

essence, may He be blessed, and the cognomen elohim is derived in accordance with

action, and the cognomen adonai is derived in accordance with sovereignty and kinship

(malkhut). And when you understand the secret of these three names by which He, may

he be blessed, is called, you will attain a true comprehension in your attainment of His

unity of the secret of his actions and kingship, for in these the entire matter is

encompassed.”134

While it is only conjectural to take these terms as hints at theosophic ideas, it is

worth considering the fact that in his description of the sections of Ginat Egoz, Gikatilla

describes the final chapter from which the above quote is taken as dealing with “the

secret of unity… including a number of secrets (sodot) containing that which is sufficient

132 On this idea in Nahmanides, see Moshe Idel, “Transmission in Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” in Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni, eds., Transmitting Jewish Traditions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 144-46. 133 Ginat Egoz, 470. 134 Ibid, 105. See also 299-301; Weiler, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 176-77.

for all enlightened ones (maskilim) and masters of Kabbalah.”135 Taken together, these

hints sound very much like a kabbalist laying the ground work for presenting a

kabbalistic worldview to an audience immersed in philosophical speculation.

Appealing to the Masses: Sefer ha-Meshalim and Kelallei ha-

Mitzvot.

Scattered throughout Gikatilla’s other early compositions we can find further

evidence of his subtle efforts to spread kabbalistic images and motifs to wider audiences.

Two of Gikatilla’s early works, Sefer ha-Meshalim (The Book of Parables), and Kelallei

ha-Mitzvot (General Principles of the Commandments), appear to be geared towards a readership with a reasonable knowledge of rabbinic literature and legal codes, but no

particular exposure to Aristotelian thinking. In this sense we could say that Sefer ha-

Meshalim and Kelallei ha-Mitzvot are popular works, while Ginat Egoz, Hassagot al ha-

Moreh, MS JTSA 1891, and MS JTSA 2156 are tailored to fit the needs of a more

specialized audience. Though we need to be careful with the term “popular” in this

context - since it was not every Jew who bought and read books in Castile of the 1270s -

it is clear from the way Gikatilla designed these compositions, with their relatively short

and uncomplicated discussions, and almost exclusive use of biblical and rabbinic

135 Ibid, 16.

literature to support his claims, that he hoped their contents would spread to the broader

community in either written or sermonic form. These books would therefore appear to be

written for the “traditionalists” mentioned above who tended towards a more simple and

literal faith and were not aware of or sufficiently interested in exploring the secret

dimensions of Judaism.

Yitzhak Baer has noted that the communities in which Gikatilla lived and worked

were apparently quite small and presumably close-knit; the Jewish community of

Medinacelli where Gikatilla composed Ginat Egoz was probably of no more than twenty

or thirty families, and the community of Penafiel, where Gikatilla reputedly was buried,

was even smaller.136 By composing books and circulating ideas designed for a non- specialist audience in such a small community, even if the intention was for the book to find a readership in numerous other communities, Gikatilla may have reasonably hoped for his words to have a profound impact on the local Jewish population in terms of proportions, if not in terms of numbers. The fact that Gikatilla was not a towering rabbinic figure on a par with Nahmanides or Jonah Gerundi would in that case be less important since, at the time of the composition of his early works, there was no hegemonic center of rabbinic power in the region, allowing him the possibility of significant influence.

It is also important to consider that in such small communities, encounter and dialogue with Christians would have been the norm rather than the exception. The general terms of the medieval Jewish-Christian debate was likely well understood by almost every member of the Jewish community. In the absence of any other clear

136 Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966), 192.

rabbinic authority, scholars like Gikatilla may have felt a sense of responsibility to respond to Christian challenges.

Given the popular bent of kellalei ha-Miyzvot and Sefer ha-Meshalim, it is all the more telling that Gikatilla chooses to hint at and partially explain “secrets” of a distinctly kabbalistic nature. For example, Gikatilla argues in his introduction to Sefer ha-Meshalim that parables are essential for grasping very subtle concepts, “and the understanding of this matter has been transmitted to the masters of true wisdom… and the great wise ones, pillars of the world, are worried about the loss of the science of parables and their comprehension, for it is by means of them that wise men enter into the inner chambers of the Torah to understand her hidden secrets [matzfuneiha].”137 As we have seen in Ginat

Egoz, Gikatilla is concerned that too few of his coreligionists are aware of the esoteric dimensions of the Jewish tradition. Here he argues that through parables and mytho- poetic expression, the “hidden secrets” of the Torah can be revealed. The proper interpretation of parables is a matter that has been transmitted only to the “masters of true wisdom,” a reference that we can safely assume to refer to the kabbalists.

In one of his parables, Gikatilla indicates something of his esoteric style when speaking to a broader audience:

To what does a man’s knowledge compare? To salt in a cooked dish… Just as a prepared dish in which one has placed too much salt is not palatable, so too, when a man wishes to conduct himself with people using a degree of knowledge greater than that which they can bear, his words are not received and everyone distances themselves from him. What is the remedy? Even though his knowledge may be very great, he should

137 Sefer ha-Meshalim, 2. See also Gikatilla’s comment on the same page, “by means of parables we can descend to the depths of the Torah.”

conduct himself in a manner such that everyone will be able to bear, and not more.138

If Gikatilla followed his own council, it would be a mistake to assume that the absence of explicitly kabbalistic ideas from one of his compositions implies that he was unaware of

or uninterested in kabbalistic theosophy. On the contrary, he regards it as both a virtue

and a duty of the knowledgeable scholar to try to educate those less informed in a way that is apposite with their level of understanding. Gikatilla describes his goal in this work as explicitly designed to address the needs of a broader readership; “Our intention in this composition is to make known the intellectual wisdoms and to reveal them to the masses

[legalotam l’ayin ha-hamon].”139 Sefer ha-Meshalim is thus a popular work in which the

author reveals esoteric secrets of the Jewish tradition for the benefit of a general audience,

but only to the degree that he thinks they can bear.

Unlike Ginat Egoz, in which Gikatilla was primarily concerned with the

deleterious and possibly Christianizing effects of Aristotelianism - and therefore focused

more on questions relating to creation, divine providence, and the secrets of the divine

names - the secrets alluded to in Sefer ha-Meshalim focus more on the symbolic

significance of the human form and the theurgic impact of ritual observance, for good or

evil. Since a general audience would not be nearly as concerned about logical and

philosophical issues related to creation ex nihilo and God’s knowledge of individuals or

control over the details of events in the physical cosmos and human life, Gikatilla spends

more of his time focusing on the importance and relevance of Jewish law and praxis.

138Ibid, 14. 139 Ibid, 3.

The starting point for his argument is that the human form symbolically embodies

the entire gamut of sublime mysteries. It is important to note that while I adopt the usage

of “human” to translate the Hebrew term adam, this does not imply that Gikatilla is

expressing a universalistic humanism in his discussions of the mysteries of the human

form. I am in agreement with Elliot Wolfson that Kabbalists, following strong rabbinic

precedent, regard Jews alone as the only full human beings denoted by the word adam.140

We should therefore consider Gikatilla’s presentation of the mysteries pertaining to the human form as part of his polemical engagement with Christianity. In one of the first parables that Gikatilla discusses, he says the following about the human form:

To what does the creation of the first man compare? To a King who wished to show his servants the wealth of the glory of His kingdom. Explanation: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world, He created within it numerous awesome and wondrous acts, and numerous different kinds of forms, some concealed and some revealed. He saw that the created beings lack the strength to understand his greatness and beauty and the power of His deeds in his wondrous and concealed actions. [Therefore] He created man, and formed within him signs in the manner of all of the kinds of forms that He created in the supernal entities and lower entities.141

Gikatilla was clearly not writing for readers likely to take him to task over the precise

implications of the “supernal and lower entities” or the feasibility of imagining creation

140 For a detailed treatment of anthropology and otherness in rabbinic and kabbalistc sources, see Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 17-129. On the conception of gentiles in Gikatilla’s later works in particular, see ibid, 97-107. 141 Sefer ha-Meshallim, 4. This idea has clear antecedents in rabbinic literature. To cite just a few examples, “one man is equal to the entire work of creation.” Avot de R. Natan, Version I, 31:91a. “the is equal to the entire world, and it is equal to the creation of man, who is a small world [olam katan].” Tanhuma, Buber edition, pekudei, 3, or “all that the Holy One blessed be He created on earth He created in Man.” Avot de R. Natan, version I, 31:46a. For a useful discussion of these passages see Urbach, The Sages, 233. See also, Alexander Altmann, “’Homo Imago Dei’ in Jewish and Christian Theology,” The Journal of Religion, 48:3 (1968): 235-259. Compare with Zohar 2:75b, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created man, He arranged within him all of the images of the supernal mysteries of the world above, and all images of the lower mysteries of the world below, and all of them were inscribed in man, who subsists in the image of God.”

as an act of divine volition unfettered by natural causation. Rather, his point is that both

God and his actions in the world are beyond the grasp of the human mind, and for this reason God chose to create man as the paradigmatic expression of the ineffable, the special sign that reveals all of his “wondrous acts” and the “glory of His kingdom,” the latter phrase possibly serving as a subtle hint at the sefirotic symbol of malkhut. Gikatilla is asking his readers to look beyond the literal implications of things and imagine the world - and most especially the self – as symbolic manifestations of the unknowable.142

As he goes on to say further down on the same page, “He included within him [man] forms of all of the worlds… He breathed within him a soul [neshamah] emanated from

His spirit (or throne in alternate reading)… In all of the forms of all of the limbs in man,

He placed a sign of all of the forms of the worlds, above and below, hidden and revealed.”143

142 In his Hassagot al ha-Moreh Gikatilla claims that while Maimonides is not wrong in the way he understands biblical anthropomorphisms, they still connote a great mystery “according to the depth of the secrets of the Kabbalah,” 26a. On the connection of this interpretation and the use of the term “depth” to the works of Abraham Abulafia, see Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” p. 62; Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, p. 222 and n.137. See also Gikatilla’s comment in the Hassagot on p. 29a, “eye, ear, front, back and other [biblical anthropomorphisms] like them are also true names for supernal intellectual forms… according to the depth of the wisdom of the Torah… These are the secrets that were transmitted to Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, on Sinai,” and his discussion of images, ibid, 30b. Compare with his comment in the introduction to Sha’arei Orah concerning biblical anthropomorphisms that “all terms that we read in the Torah, such as hand, foot, ear, eye and others like them, what are they? Know and believe that all such matters, even though they indicate and bear witness to His greatness and truth, no creature can know and contemplate the being of that thing that is called hand or foot or ear or others like them… they are the innermost of concealed matters in the truth of the being of God, may He be blessed.” Sha’arei Orah, 1:49. On the importance of this formulation in Gikatilla for later kabbalists, see Boaz Huss, “Rabbi Joseph Gikatilia`s Definition of Symbolism and its Influence on Kabbalistic Literature,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (l996): 158-176 (Hebrew). 143 See also his gamatria identification of the terms temunah, image, and partzuf ‘adam, form of man, = 501, in Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 26b. As Idel notes, Abraham Abulafia employs this same gematria in his own commentary on the Guide, and Elazar of Worms also employs this gematria in one of his compositions, “Maimonides and Kabbalah” 63. On “man” donning the Tetragrammaton as a garment to ascend to God through the revelations of Sinai, see Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 31a. On the relationship of the ten sefirot and the Tetragrammaton to the human form through the symbol of the , see Ginat Egoz, 155, 159- 160.

This symbolic figuration of the human form becomes the basis for a few allusions

to the theurgic influence of human acts on the divine realm. Consider Gikatilla’s comment regarding the form of Adam and the impact of his sin in the Garden of Eden:

One who gazes at the form of the First Man, it is as though he gazes at the forms of all of the worlds, for the exaltation or flaw of all of the worlds depends on the form of Adam, since the form of Adam is like a sign for all of them… What did Adam do? He debased his form with the sin that he sinned, causing a flaw with that sin in the Creator and the creation (notenet pegam ba-bore u-vanivra’im).144

Because the form of Adam symbolizes all of the worlds, the sin of Adam is capable of

causing a flaw in both creation and God himself! Contained within this comment is the

important kabbalistic idea that God and the cosmos are in a state of flaw145 caused by the

sin of Adam and perpetuated by the sins of later generations, primarily through laxity in

the performance of the commandments - or the commission of sins such as sexual

transgressions146 - on the part of Jewish males. The symbolism of the human form and

the connection of the soul to God thus imparts gravity and theurgic significance to sinful

behavior. Gikatilla makes this connection to contemporary sin – in addition to the

paradigm-setting sin of Adam – in the following interpretation of repentance; “To what does repentance compare? To a bone that has been broken and mended. Explanation:

144 Sefer ha-Meshallim, 6. 145 On this theme in the writings of Isaac the Blind, see Haviva Pedaya, “Flaw and Correction in the Concept of the Godhead in the Teachings of Rabbi Isaac the Blind,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 157-286 (Hebrew). 146 In a number of places Gikatilla employs symbolism regarding the sexual embrace of the husband and wife that bears the stamp of kabbalistic theosophy. See, for example, his comment “To what does a man and his wife compare? The sun and the moon. … Just as the sun is the root of the light, since the moon has no light of its own other than that which it receives from the power of the moon, so too a woman has no blessing and success and offspring except by way of her husband.” Sefer ha-Meshalim, 68. See also Gikatilla’s affirmation of the sexual act between a married (Jewish) couple as desired by heaven and comparable to a raised seal placed into a depressed seal, ibid, 70.

Since man’s soul is connected to the supernal world, like the branch is connected to the

tree, if that soul sins grievously and becomes subject to the punishment of karet, she is severed from the place of her connection, which is the Tree of Life.”147

Good deeds in the form of the performance of the mitzvot also carry powerful

implications. “When a man ponders a good thought concerning the observance of the

commandments and good deeds, that thought cleaves to God, may He be blessed, since

God, may He be blessed, is good, and good cleaves to good.”148 The corollary between

the human and the divine finds its expression here in the cleaving of thought to God

through the good intention to perform the commandments. As we have seen above,

mystical experience is an important aspect of Gikatilla’s doctrine in Ginat Egoz, and this

statement hints at this important idea.

Kelallai ha-Mitzvot

The theme of the theurgic and mystical dimensions of the mitzvot is discussed in greater detail in another one of Gikatilla’s early popular works, Kelallai ha-Mitzvot.149

Gikatilla states in the introduction that his intention is to make known the “power” and

“precious attributes (segullot)” of the performance of the commandments in general, even though he considers the specific reasons for the individual commandments to be

147 Ibid, 33. Consider also his description in Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 31a, of reward as cleaving to God, and punishment as severing the link “from the Emanator who is completely pure and clean from the aspect of His truth.” 148 Ibid, 64. 149 Gottlieb argues that this book contains no connection to kabbalistic ideas, Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 81.

unknowable.150 His concern is that an overemphasis on the details of the law may lead to lax observance when it is not combined with an understanding of the many benefits that accrue to the Jew who leads an observant life. Gikatilla makes the following analogy:

“All who occupy themselves with the details of the commandments, but have not merited to grasp the clarification of their general principles, are like one who buys a gem stone, but does not know its powers and precious attributes (segulloteiha) and it is cheapened in his eyes and he sells it for a small price.”151 By explaining the general principles behind the observance of the mandates of Jewish law, Gikatilla hopes to correct this

“cheapening” of the law.

Given his emphasis in many places on the reward in the world to come that accrues to those who persists in their observance of the commandments in this world despite great suffering,152 his repeated insistence that the commandments will never be nullified by any later prophet or teacher153 and his robust defense of Rabinic law against the claim that it is a late innovation or addition to the Law of Moses,154 Gikatilla is clearly responding in this text to the conversionist activities of Christian missionaries. His

150 Kelallei he-Mitzvot, ed. Boruch Heifetz (Jerusalem: Hemed Publishers, 1992), 1-2. Regarding the impossibility of knowing the ta’amei ha-mitzvot or reasons for the laws, see Gikatilla’s comment on p. 45, “Man lacks the power to fully understand the commandments of the Torah and their roots. Their reasons were not revealed because of their extreme depth and mysteries [sic].” Gikatilla even denies the possibility of knowing the exact enumeration of the commandments, over which he has seen the “lions” – a reference to Maimonides and Nahmanides – arguing. According to Gikatilla, “this matter does not depend upon the weighing of knowledge (shikul ha-da’at), nor reasoning (savra), until a tradition (kabbalah) arrives that resolves all doubts and difficulties… One who enumerates the commandments of the Torah from reason treats the Torah lightly, as though it is in his eyes one of the chronicles written for a foreign king, thinking in his mind that there is nothing [in the Torah] other than that which appears to the eyes,” ibid, 136. It is interesting to consider the comparison between Gikatilla’s criticism of those who focus on an overly literal reading of the Torah as treating it as though it is “one of the chronicles written for a foreign king,” and the famous usage of this image in Zohar 3:152a. 151 Kelallei ha-Mitzvot, 2. 152 See ibid, 24-27, 92. 153 Gikatilla makes this claim no fewer than eight times in Kelallei ha-Mitzvot, 38, 49, 66, 67, 79, 145, 153, 167. 154 Ibid, 50, 67-79. Christian arguments against the legitimacy of post-biblical Judaism in the form of attacks on the Talmud and rabbinic law were increasingly common in the thirteenth century. See the discussions in Cohen, The Friars and the Jews; Chazan, Daggers of Faith.

fear seems to be that some Jews might abandon Judaism because Jewish life is filled with

many difficulties, and the tremendous value of the observance of the commandments has not been properly explained to them. An example of this kind of argumentation can be

found in Meir bar Simon’s polemical treatise Milhemet Mitzvah:

A Christian sage asked a Jewish Sage: “Why do you not leave the religion of the Jews? For you see that they have been in exile for a very long time and decline from day to day. Conversely, you see with regard to the faith of the Christians that they become greater from day to day. Their success had been great for a long time. Now, you will live among us with great honor and high standing, instead of being in exile and fearfulness and accursedness.” He spoke at length on this issue.155

Arguments of this kind against the validity of Judaism were common in the 1270s in

northern Spain and may have been persuasive for some Jews.156 Evidence of the impact

of this argument in later Kabbalah can be detected in an interesting passage found in the

Zohar:

A gentile wise man asked [Rabbi Eleazar]… You say that you are closer to the King than all other peoples. Should not those who are closest to the King always be joyous, with no affliction, fear or oppression? For you live in constant suffering, oppression and misery, more than any other people in the world, whereas we are not affected by suffering, oppression or misery at all. We are closest to the supernal king, and you are far from Him… Rabbi Eleazar glared at him until he was made into a heap of bones. When his anger abated, he hung his head and cried… “The words that this

155 Cited from Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 190. On the importance of this argument in the history of Jewish-Christian polemics, see Robert Chazan, Jewish Suffering: The Interplay of Medieval Jewish and Christian Perspectives. Lectures on Medieval Judaism at Trinity University: Occasional Papers II. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1998). 156 While it is unlikely that Gikatilla harbored any anxiety about a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity, he may have entertained a real fear that one or two disaffected young students with rabbinic and/or philosophical training might do great harm if they chose to convert and join in the Christian missionizing project, as was the case with such notable examples as Pablo Christiani and Nicholas Donnin not long before Gikatilla began his first compositions. See Chazan, Daggers of Faith, especially p. 36.

evil man asked I myself asked one day of Elijah, who said that he put them before the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Supernal .”157

This passage demonstrates not only that Spanish kabbalists in the late thirteenth century

were conscious of this argument and could imagine spontaneous conversations and

challenges of this sort, but also that the kabbalists themselves were concerned about the theological implications of the historical predicament of the Jewish people and sought

answers from no lesser authority than God himself.158

Gikatilla’s emphasis on the exclusivity of Jewish access to mystical pleasures

through the observance of the commandments can be understood as a reaction to this

form of anti-Jewish argumentation. Gikatilla’s doctrine in this text concerning the power

of the commandments is similar to that which we find in other more explicitly

kabbalisitic texts, but is presented in a manner acceptable for a general audience with

little or no previous exposure to kabbalistic ideas and symbolism. Moreover, just as Ginat

Egoz provides Gikatilla with the opportunity to display his knowledge of philosophy (as well as his aversion to it), Kellalei ha-Mitzvot evinces considerable Talmudic erudition and may have served to establish his credentials as a scholar of Jewish law.

Throughout the book, Gikatilla draws a distinction between the “reward” for the

performance of a commandment, which generally accrues to one in the world to come,159 and the power and segulla, or “precious attribute,” that every commandment contains. As

Gikatilla introduces the subject, “it is now appropriate for us to clarify an important

157 Zohar 3:120b-121a, and the discussion in Wilhelm Bacher, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in the Zohar, Jewish Quarterly Review, 3:4 (1891): 781-784. 158 Interestingly, the answer that God gives is that Israel is comparable to the heart of the world. Just as the heart is more susceptible to pain and suffering than the other limbs, Israel feels more pain in this world. This is very similar to Yehuda ha-Levi’s argument in the Kuzari II:37-44. 159 Gikatilla reiterates this point many times in Kellalei ha-Mitzvot. See, for example, his discussion on pp. 25-26.

foundation in the matter of the reward for the [observance of the] commandments and their precious attributes (segullotam). Know that just as the element of fire has many functions that are dissimilar from one another, so too, each and every commandment has numerous kinds of precious attributes (segullot) that are dissimilar from one another.”160

Gikatilla goes on to clarify his meaning in greater detail:

Therefore, [as a result of] the performance of the commandments in this world, there comes forth from the power of that commandment that is performed numerous kinds of goodness and success to the one who performs it, deriving from that fact that there are [numerous] kinds of powers and precious attributes (segullot) in that commandment. And these are not the reward for that commandment, but rather the powers and precious attributes that flow forth from its power, whether they are called “fruits” or “precious attributes” or any other name that you wish.161

By attributing a mysterious power to the commandments that goes beyond the traditional and material terms of merit or recompense, either in this world or in the world to come,162 Gikatilla introduces a new element that bears a close resemblance to the kabbalistic principle of the theurgic power of the commandments. Though he does not go into any great detail as to how this “power” works or what exactly the “special attributes” of the commandments are composed of, he achieves his aim by simply impressing upon his reader the importance of perceiving a mysterious and amorphous but enormously powerful dimension to the otherwise mundane performance of the details of Jewish law.163 This is yet another example of Gikatilla taking pains in a popular work to encourage his audience to accept a domain of mystery beyond the literal in the hopes that

160 Ibid, 30. 161 Ibid, 31. See also, Ginat Egoz, 174-75. 162 On the performance of the positive commandments as a protection in the world to come for the transgressions that one commits in this world, see Kellalei ha-Mitzvot, 28-29, 41, 172. 163 See Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 269-71.

this will bring them to value the literal all the more highly. Moreover, this esoteric domain of mystical power of the commandments serves to justify the suffering Jews endure in this world in order to perform the commandments. While there is no this- worldly recompense for observance, the practice of Jewish law is not without its benefits according to Gikatilla’s doctrine of the special powers of the mitzvoth.

The further development of this idea scattered in various places throughout the book164 is remarkably close to what one would expect from a late 13th century kabbalist.

In one place, for example, Gikatilla states that “the commandments that a man performs in this world, they themselves are his adornments (tikkunav), and they themselves are his witnesses.”165 In another place he addresses this topic at greater length:

Know that the performance of the commandments is itself the root of their reward, for in each commandment there are many hidden treasures, and many kinds of pleasure and delights without end or cessation (she-ein lahem sof ve-keitz). And thus with each and every commandment of the Torah there is reward and pleasure, each one different from the other. The pleasure (ta’anug) of one commandment is not the same as the pleasure of another, just as the taste of wine is not the same as the taste of meat, and the taste of meat is different from the taste of fish… And when a man observes the commandments in the proper way according to the law, he merits those pleasures and delights concealed within that commandment, and there is no merit or recompense in the world greater that the good things and pleasures and delights in every one if the commandments… Understand this great principle, for it is a great foundation in the commandments.166

164Regarding his esoteric method in Kellalei ha-Mitzvot Gikatilla says, “We will speak further, with the help of God, may He be blessed, in may places in this composition of a subject that requires you to collect all of the statements [concerning it], each with that which is appropriate for it, and then you shall attain great benefit, with the help of God,” ibid, 35. 165 Ibid, 157. 166 Ibid, 171.

By emphasizing the unique pleasures associated with each commandment, Gikatilla provides a rationale for observing all of the commandments as the only way to attain the full gamut of benefit they contain. But by arguing that highest purpose for observing the commandments is the literally endless “pleasures” and “delights” that they contain,

Gikatilla begins to build a much more mystical and kabbalistic conception of Judaism and the performance of the law.

By re-conceptualizing the benefit and reward derived from the commandments in this way, Gikatilla may also be seeking to head off the criticism of Judaism and the physical observance of the law common among Christian missionaries and polemicists. It is easy to imagine that the continuing difficulties of Jewish life in the 13th century may have left many Jews at a loss for how to understand the reward for the observance of

Jewish law. If there is to be some measure of recompense in this world, what is it if not physical and economic safety and security? Had the Jews lost favor with God?

Gikatilla’s response is that the very act of the law itself contains its own reward in the form of a secret and mysterious power that brings boundless pleasure to the one who observes it with the right intention. The aim of the law is thus removed from the contingencies of history and the wrangling over power in the physical realm, and transferred to a personal, uniquely Jewish domain of mystical delight. This idea is brought out even more explicitly in the following passage:

Know that… there are commandments that bring one to holiness and cleaving to the Name, like fringes, phylacteries, recitation of the shema, the Sabbath, circumcision,167 , , , charity, Torah study,

167 On the relationship of the ten sefirot and the Tetragrammaton to the human form through the symbol of the circumcision in Gikatilla’s early works, see Ginat Egoz, 155, 159-160. On the importance of this idea in Gikatilla’s later works, see Elliot Wolfson, “Circumcision, Secrecy, and the Veiling of the Veil:

and many others like them, wherein the one who observes them merits great reward, and by means of them one cleaves to the Shekhinah. These commandments… are a throne and site for the Shekhinah to dwell upon those who observe them. And these commandments have no cessation or measure to their merit or the greatness of their reward.168

The most important outcome of the observance of the commandments for Gikatilla is the experience of God that they produce, articulated in the above cited passage in terms of

“cleaving” to the Shekhinah and causing “the Shekhinah to dwell upon those who observe

them.” This terminology is highly kabbalistic, and it is hard to imagine that Gikatilla is

not hinting at an understanding of God and approach to Judaism consonant with the ideas

that he develops in greater detail in his later works. The “dwelling” of the Shekhinah

upon the virtuous kabbalist is an image that we encounter, for example, in the

introduction to Sha’arei Orah. Gikatilla also addresses the interaction of love and fear in

the cleaving of the self to God in Kelallei ha-Mitzvot that finds parallels in his later

works.169

Gikatilla’s understanding of the transgression of the commandments is articulated

in terms of a distancing of the self from God; “There are a number of branches and

details of prohibitions the transgression of which causes a man to become ostracized

(menudah) with the ban (nidui) of the Shekhinah.”170 He offers a similar explanation of

Phallomorphic Exposure and Kabbalistic Esotericism,” in The Covenant of Circumcision, ed. Elizabeth Wyner Mark (Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press, 2003), 65-67. See also, idem, “Circumcision, Vision of God, and Textual Interpretation: From Midrashic Trope to Mystical Symbol,” History of Religions 27 (1987): 189-215; “Circumcision and the Divine Name: A Study in the Transmission of Esoteric Doctrine,” Jewish Quarterly Review 78 (1987): 77-112. 168 Kellalei ha-Mitzvot, 200. Compare with Sha’arei Orah, 1:50. 169 See Kellalei ha-Mitzvot, 203-04, “One who wishes to cleave to God (le-hidabek ba-Shem), it is appropriate for him to love Him with the love of fear, and he should direct his desire to cleave to Him, and he should stand before Him constantly in fear, so that the King will not find in him anything unseemly and distance him from His courtyard.” Compare with Sha’arei Orah 2:99-104. See also Gottlieb’s discussion, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 85-86. 170 Kelallei ha-Mitzvot, 146.

the punishment of karet, (a position that he claims is different from those of Rashi and

Maimonides, and is an expansion of the comment of Nahmanides to Lev. 15:29):

Know that all use of the word karet in the Torah refers to cutting and severing, really! (kerita ve-hitukh mamash) like the cutting of a branch from a tree. Karet pertains to the soul that is cut from the Bundle of Life, in which it was bound from the beginning of its creation, and from that bundle life and delight flow forth to it from God, may He be blessed. This is as it is written in the Torah, “And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen 2:7), and it is explained in the Kabbalah that in the end it is written, “the life of my lord will be bound in the bundle of life” (First Sam, 25:29). If a man transgresses a commandment punishable by karet, that soul is cut from the bundle that it had cleaved to.171

This interpretation of karet is similar to the one cited above from Sefer ha-Meshalim, only in this case Gikatilla makes direct reference to “the Kabbalah” as the source for his claim that, as a result of certain transgressions, the soul can loose its connection to the

“Tree of Life” or “Bundle of Life.”172

Both Sefer ha-Meshalim and Kelallei ha-Mitzvot are significant for the present study in that they further demonstrate an interest on Gikatilla’s part in presenting

kabbalistic ideas in a veiled and truncated form to audiences previously unfamiliar with

them. It is also quite telling that he indicates that he felt compelled to do so because of

the perception that these ideas were not commonly known, and that some Jews might not

171 Ibid, 119. 172 Gikatilla’s understanding of the soul is complex. In Hassagot al ha-Moreh, 23b-24a he is critical of Nahmanides for claiming that the soul is from God’s essence. See Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 72, 77, 282-83. Gikatilla advocates the position that the soul is emanated from the first light emanated from God, and is the closest thing to God in this world. One should bear in mind, however, the paradoxical dialectic that Gikatilla attributes to the emergence of the first light from God. The soul/self would thus be the primary locus of this tension between divine transcendence and emminence. See also his discussion on Hassagot 24b, and JTSA 1891, 65r of the close relationship between man and God and the gamatria identification of the letters of the Tetragrammaton spelled out, yod heh vav heh = 45 = ‘adam “man.” See Blickstein, Between Philosophy and Mysticism, 157-161. Consider also his description on Hassagot 31a of reward as cleaving to God, and punishment as severing the link “from the Emanator who is completely pure and clean from the aspect of His truth.”

value their Judaism highly enough as a result of their ignorance. Like Ginat Egoz, these two books were written for the benefit of a group of readers whose commitment Judaism was somehow perceived to be at risk. The kabbalistic ideas that Gikatilla cleverly weaves into these compositions are intended to strengthen the commitment to Judaism and the observance of the commandments on the part of his readers by awakening them to the mystical dimension of Judaism. In that sense, these works are best understood as a response to crisis, in which Gikatilla reveals, if only subtly, kabbalistic secrets and mysteries in order to advocate a more secure understanding of Judaism.

Commentaries on the commandments and their theurgical/mystical significance became a common genre in later Castilian kabbalah. While this can be understood as a reaction to the philosophical interpretation of the reasons for the commandments by

Maimonides and his followers,173 Christian anti-Jewish missionizing is also an important factor. We have seen above that in works like Ginat Egoz Gikatilla expresses grave concerns over the negative influence of both the teachings of the Jewish philosophers and

Christian anti-Jewish argumentation. However, Sefer ha-Meshalim and Kelallei ha-

Mitzvot were not written for an audience of students of philosophy. Gikatilla may have decided to reveal these secrets regarding the nature of the self and the observance of the commandments in response to a new need on the part of the Jewish community in the face of an increasingly pointed attack by the Church upon the physical observance of the commandments by Jews as ineffective and useless.174 By presenting the commandments as secret, exclusively Jewish pathways to gain access to divine segulah and power, infinite rapturous pleasures of many kinds, and the opportunity to unite with the

173 See Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” 46. 174 See Chazan, Fashioning Jewish Identity, 63-64, 182-83.

Shekhinah, Gikatilla is using important elements from kabbalistic teachings to construct an approach to Judaism resistant to the criticisms leveled against it by Christian missionaries.

In his later works, most notably Sha’arei Tzedek and Sha’arei Orah, which became famous introductions to Kabbalah, Gikatilla picks up where he left off in his earlier compositions, taking his readers one decisive step further away from philosophical speculation or simple literalism and towards the mytho-poesis of theosophic Kabbalah, thus contributing in no small way to the constituency of sympathetic readers of the Zohar, if not the very text of the Zohar itself.175 As we can see from Gikatilla’s early works, the

process of developing receptive readers for the remarkable proliferation of Kabbalistic

texts towards the end of the thirteenth century in Castile began in the 1270s and was

motivated by concerns over philosophical speculation and Christian missionizing. While

Gikatilla’s early works are strikingly different in many respects from later works like

Sha’arei Orah, this can be accounted for by a change in the audience for whom Gikatilla

is writing, in that they are less committed to philosophy and more open to kabbalistic

ideas, possibly as a result of having read Gikatilla’s early works and others like them.176

By carefully presenting kabbalistic ideas to wider audiences, Gikatilla sought to

counteract the interrelated influence of both Jewish philosophy and Christian anti-Jewish

argumentation by establishing an irreducible, uniquely Jewish realm, in which all aspects

of the Jewish tradition are recast in terms of poetic mystery and theosophic symbolism,

175 On the composition of the Zohar by a fraternity of kabbalists and the possible role of Gikatilla as a member of this circle, see Yehuda Liebes, “How the Zohar was Written,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 1-72 (Hebrew). 176 As Weiler points out, “Torat ha-Kabbalah shel R. Yoseph Gikatilla,” 157, polemical engagement with philosophy is a prominent feature of Ginat Egoz, while Sha’arei Orah contains only one polemical reference to philosophy. This is an indication that Gikatilla’s later works take the form that they do because they were written for a different kind of reader - one who is not (or possibly no longer) heavily invested in philosophical ideas.

culminating in mystical experience accessible only to Jewish men versed in the secrets of the Kabbalah.