sign in sign up
<<
Home , Eliezer ben Nathan, Isaac the Blind, Theurgy

cover next page >

title : : New Perspectives author : Idel, Moshe. publisher : Yale University Press isbn10 | asin : print isbn13 : 9780300046991 ebook isbn13 : 9780585375892 language : English subject Cabala--History. publication date : 1988 lcc : BM526.I338 1988eb ddc : 296.1/6 subject : Cabala--History. cover next page > < previous page page_iii next page > Page iii

Kabbalah

New Perspectives

Moshe Idel

< previous page page_iii next page > < previous page page_iv next page > Page iv Copyright © 1988 Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers.

Designed by Nancy Ovedovitz and set in Garamond No. 3 type by The Publishing Nexus Incorporated, Guilford, Connecticut. Printed in the United States of America by Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton, New York.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Idel, Moshe, 1947 Kabbalah: new perspectives Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. CabalaHistory. I. Title. BM526.1338 1988 296.1'6 87-12137 ISBN 0-300-03860-7 (cloth) 0-300-04699-5 (pbk.)

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

10 9 8 7

< previous page page_iv next page > < previous page page_v next page > Page v

To Shoshanah, Sarit, Ofrah, and Hemdah * with love

< previous page page_v next page > < previous page page_vi next page > Page vi

Contents

Preface ix

Introduction xi

1. Remarks on Kabbalah Scholarship 1

2. Methodological Observations 17

3. Varieties of in 35

4. Unio Mystica in Jewish Mysticism 59

5. Mystical Techniques 74

6. Kabbalistic 112

7. Ancient Jewish Theurgy 156

8. Kabbalistic Theurgy 173

9. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics 200

10. From Jewish Esotericism to European : An Intellectual Profile of Kabbalah as a Cultural Factor 250

Abbreviations 273

Notes 279

Sources 399

Indexes 401

< previous page page_vi next page > < previous page page_ix next page > Page ix

Preface

Habent sua fata libelli. This work enjoyed a special fate even before it became a book. The idea of my writing a comprehensive study on Kabbalah emerged in a midnight discussion with my friends Professor Ivan Marcus of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and Professor David Ruderman of Yale University. Since that discussion, which took place at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1984, the initial idea underwent several substantive changes until it took the present form. A first draft of this book was submitted at a colloquium organized by the Jewish Theological Seminary in the summer of 1986 as part of that institution's centennial events. Owing to the kind interest of Professor Gershon Cohen, the former chancellor of the seminary, and Professor Ray Scheindlin, the provost of the seminary, and Professors Marcus and Ruderman, the colloquium was designed to include about thirty American scholars of Judaica and general mysticism who discussed and argued the content of this work. Both their criticism and their encouragement contributed greatly to the final draft. The hospitality of the seminary community, the careful organization of the colloquium, and the interest of the participants came together in a way that was, at least for me, a unique experience.

Especially helpful were the remarks and suggestions I received from Professors Ewert Cousins, Louis Dupré, Michael Fishbane, Arthur Hyman, and Bernard MacGinn. Two well-known scholars were kind enough to undertake a meticulous perusal of the manuscript, suggesting important corrections and improvements of both style and the content. The late Professor Alexander Altmann devoted much energy and wisdom to proposing numerous suggestions

< previous page page_ix next page > < previous page page_x next page > Page x concerning all the chapters of the book; Professor Morton Smith kindly contributed his vast knowledge regarding most of the chapters. Helpful discussions with Professor Geoffrey Hartman, Professor , Professor Shelomo Pines, and Professor Isadore Twersky contributed to the formulations of several issues. For any mistakes still occurring in the presentation, I alone am responsible.

The writing of this book would have been impossible without the constant and generous assistance of the Institute of Microfilms of Hebrew Manuscripts, which is part of the National and University Library in Jerusalem. The institute, which became my second home and whose staff is famous for its efficiency, helped me in numerous ways, for which I would like to thank them. The National Library in Jerusalem, the Widener and Andover libraries in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York provided indispensable material for my researches. Part of the research was performed with the generous assistance of grants from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.

The time needed for studying and writing was diverted from the members of my family, and my dedication of this book to them is only a feeble recognition of their contribution. Jonathan Chipman kindly undertook the task of typing two drafts and improving my English; his devotion to this work contributed to its accomplishment. Finally, Yale University Press, and especially Charles Grench, changed what could have been a frustrating experience into a very pleasant cooperation whose fruit is now accessible to the reader.

< previous page page_x next page > < previous page page_xi next page > Page xi

Introduction

This study is based upon the assumption that there are two major trends in Kabbalah: the theosophical-theurgical and the ecstatic. This distinction is confirmed both by a phenomenological analysis of the Kabbalistic material and by the Kabbalists' own self-awareness. The first type encompasses two central subjects: theosophya theory of the elaborate structure of the divine worldand the ritualistic and experiential way of relating to the divinity in order to induce a state of harmony. This is a highly theocentric form of religiousness that, while not ignoring the needs of the being, tends to conceive of religious perfection as instrumental for exerting effective influence on high. On the other hand, ecstatic Kabbalah is highly anthropocentric, envisioning the mystical experience of the individual as itself the summum bonum, regardless of the possible impact of this mystical status on the inner harmony of the Divine.

This distinction involves different types of religiousness, transcending the question of interest in various themes or clusters of themes. The major issues discussed in ecstatic Kabbalahsuch as devekut, the importance of isolation, or the centrality of letter combinationare far more than themes treated in a scholastic manner. Rather, they are cardinal matters that strongly molded the via mystica of the ecstatic Kabbalist; he was practically oriented to mystical goals other than those of his fellow, the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalist.

I now turn to the evidence of the Kabbalistic sources. According to the characterization of the Kabbalah by an early fourteenth-century Kabbalist, 1 the topics dealt with by this lore are the nature of the

< previous page page_xi next page > < previous page page_xii next page > Page xii ten and the mystical meaning of the commandments, which is an excellent definition of theosophical- theurgical Kabbalah.

On the other hand, , the main representative of ecstatic Kabbalah, described his Kabbalah as focused upon the divine names, in contradistinction to what he considered to be a lower type of Kabbalah, referred to by him as "the way of the Sefirot," evidently a reference to the theosophical Kabbalah. 2

The differences between the two kinds, however, are not merely a matter of self-perception or a scholar imposing his own categories on the material; the historical development of the two trends itself confirms the necessity for a clear distinction between them. From the very beginning, the ecstatic Kabbalah was attacked by a major representative of theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah; the first clash between Kabbalists was a sharp criticism of Abulafia's prophetic and messianic activity, as well as of his Kabbalistic theory, issued by R. Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret, a leading figure of theosophical Kabbalah.3 This attack generated a sharp reaction on the part of Abulafia, who noted the theological danger inherent in the doctrine of the ten Sefirot as divine potencies and compared some Kabbalists, probably including Adret, to the Christians who believed in the Trinity.4 The result of this controversy was the exclusion of ecstatic Kabbalah from , which became from the 1280s onward the scene of the most important developments within theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah. The ecstatic trend migrated to and the Orient, where it developed in a Muslim ambience,5 strikingly different in its mystical conceptions from the Christian environment of the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah.

Thus, the broad domain of Kabbalistic experiences comprised two major types of religiousness, each with its own particular focus. For a better understanding of the Kabbalistic phenomena, it will be helpful to deal with the two types separately before reconstructing the basic elements of each.

Rather than concentrate upon the Kabbalistic schoolsor trends, as designated themand their historical sequence, I will take a phenomenological approach that will deal primarily with the major religious foci of the Kabbalahtheir nature, significance, emergence, and development. Instead of presenting a historical sequence of Kabbalists or of ideas, I adopt an essentialist attitude to the contents of Kabbalistic material that places greater emphasis upon their religious countenance than on their precise location in place and time. Such issues as esotericism versus exotericism, innovation versus conservatism, theocentrism versus anthropocentrism, the role of theurgy versus that of mystical union, philosophy versus Kabbalah, mystical salvation of the individual versus national eschatologyall are

< previous page page_xii next page > < previous page page_xiii next page > Page xiii parameters as significant as the temporal and spatial data that delineate any particular Kabbalistic text. The interrelationships among these various spiritual components of Kabbalistic texts constitute the fundamental structure or texture of one Kabbalistic system as opposed to another. Therefore, it is as fruitful to discuss Kabbalistic phenomena in contradistinction to one another as to give a chronological account. The unfolding of the key concepts that characterized and directed Kabbalistic activity and thought, their exposition as atemporal modes, and the understanding of their interplay in various Kabbalistic schools is the "inner" history of Kabbalah or of Jewish mysticism, just as the temporal description can be considered the "outer" history.

As we shall see below 6 the theurgical approach was part of the classical rabbinic conception of the commandments and could justifiably be regarded as an important rationale for the mizvot* that, inter alia, helped motivate the persistent observance of the commandments by . This theocentric attitude assumed an "open" or theosophy, conditioned by the dynamics of human activity; centered on the halakhah, it was a strictly nomian system and, consequently, exoterically open to all Jews and therefore obligatory. The theurgical performance of mizvot did not include dangerous or ecstatic moments and could be regarded as part of what Max Kadushin described as "normal mysticism." Medieval Kabbalah, which elaborated this approach, had to articulate the precise correspondence of the commandments to the theosophical realm, so that a detailed theosophy became much more central for the Kabbalists than for their predecessors. I want to emphasize that theosophical motifs and structures also existed among the Jews in ancient times; the relationship between them and the commandments seems to have been implicit, as demonstrated by the correspondence between ma'amarot and dibberot.7 These theosophical structures were effectively suppressed by the rabbinic authorities, however, who focused their literary activity on the presentation and elaboration of the halakhah rather than on its conceptual superstructure. Speculative or mystical, metahalakhic issues, as they were designated by Isadore Twersky, were regarded as esoteric. The theosophical Kabbalah, which presumably inherited these ancient traditions, structured them into complex systems by which the specific theurgical meaning of each commandment was specified.

On this ground, it is easy to understand why the emergence of more complicated theosophies was accompanied by the composition of larger commentaries on the mystical rationale of the commandments.8 Indeed, the bulk of thirteenth-century Kabbalistic literature was dedicated to ta' amey ha-mizvot*. Sefer ha- includes several important discussions on the theurgical mean-

< previous page page_xiii next page > < previous page page_xiv next page > Page xiv ing of such commandments as ''," "," "priestly blessing." 9 R. had already composed a lost work dealing with this subject or, at least, transmitted mystical traditions that were cited in his name by later Kabbalists.10 R. 'Ezra of Gerona devoted a large part of his Commentary on the Song of Songs to the systematic treatment of the commandments, which constituted a treatise in itself. Extensive discussions on this topic are to be found, too, in the works of R. 'Azriel, where the prayer liturgy is Kabbalistically interpreted, as are the and the answering of "'Amen." The issue of prayer seems to have been especially important to the early Kabbalists, preceding R. 'Azriel, as indicated by short remarks of R. and of R. Jacob of Lunel, and particularly by R. Yehudah ben Yakar's Commentary on the Prayer. The first full-fledged Kabbalistic treatment of this issue, however, seems to have been done by R. 'Azriel, who integrated within his commentary the views of R. Isaac the Blind and others, paralleling some terms and concepts recurring in the literature close in time and subject matter to the Book of 'Iyyun. R. 'Azriel's contemporary, R. Jacob ben Sheshet, wrote polemically on the significance of the prayer, attempting to counteract the philosophical under-estimation of the ritualistic performance of this commandment.11 Nahmanides*' Kabbalah seems to have revolved uniquely around the Kabbalistical understanding of the commandments,12 although he only tantalizingly hinted at the existence of such a meaning, without disclosing its details.

The golden age of the Kabbalistic ta' amey mizvot*, however, occurred during the last two decades of the thirteenth century. A creative time also in other kinds of literary activity, this period generated an immense number of folios dealing with our topic, for this literary genre had been cultivated by most of the leading Kabbalists in Spain. An interesting commentary on the commandments spuriously attributed to R. , Ma' amar ha-Sekhel, was composed during this period and included some important Kabbalistic discussions. 's Sefer ha- Rimmon, R. Joseph Gikatilla's Kelaley ha-Mizvot*,13 and several shorter discussions of particular commandments were disseminated in printed works and manuscripts. R. Joseph of Hamadan's work, or works,14 on Ta'amey ha- mizvot; an anonymous Kabbalistical commentary on this subject; the lengthy discussions in the , which included not only a special treatise on the issue15 but also numerous elaborationsall these and more unidentified manuscript materials apparently from this period are ample evidence of a renaissance of interest in the rationales of the commandments.

Nor did this phenomenon cease at the turn of the century. R. Menahem* Recanati's commentary on Ta'amey ha- Mizvot and on the prayer at the begin-

< previous page page_xiv next page > < previous page page_xv next page > Page xv ning of the fourteenth century and R. David ben Yehudah he-Hasid *'s 'Or Zaru' a on the prayer and later on the Ra'ya Meheimna (the later zoharic stratum composed under the influence of R. Joseph of Hamadan's work mentioned above) were influential works that continued the impetus of the previous generation. In the early fifteenth century, the Sefer ha-Kaneh, a Kabbalistic classic written in Byzantium, dealt exclusively with the rationale of the commandments, and at the end of the century in Russia, R. Moses of Kiev compiled his Shoshan Sodat, which included numerous Kabbalistical treatments of the mizvot*. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, R. Joseph of Hamadan's work was circulated under the name of R. Isaac Farhi*,16 and other works, such as R. Isaac Shani's Meah She' arim,17 R. Meir ibn Gabbay's Tola' at Ya' akov, and R. David ben Zimra's Mezudat* David,18 continued to reflect the impact of Spanish Kabbalah. With the emergence of the Lurianic system, a large exegetical literature of commandments and prayer was produced that reinterpreted the and the significance of the mizvot in terms of Lurianic theosophical concepts. Lurianic writings on this theme remained the last major Kabbalistic production in this literary genre, because Sabbatianism was not interested in commandments and because the interest in theosophy and theurgy declined in Hasidic* mysticism. Important as they may be, such oeuvres as Hemdat* Yamim, R. Menahem* Mendel of Lubavitch's Derekh Mizvotekha*, and R. Isaac Yehudah Safrin of Komarno's 'Ozar* ha- generally presented Lurianic explanations, the last two on occasion incorporating Hasidic perspectives.

We can conclude by emphasizing that, just as each major development in the field of Kabbalistic theosophy produced its commentary on prayer,19 so with the commandments in general. As I have already pointed out, the theurgical-theosophical Kabbalists were not interested in extreme types of devekut, their religious focus being the Kabbalistic performance of the mizvot.

Quite different was the phenomenological structure of the other major focus in Jewish mysticism, the mystical- ecstatical trend. Its first clear state is to be found in the Heikhalot literature,20 where the use of anomian techniques was intended to induce paranormal experiences of ascent to the realm of Merkavah and of the Divinity. It is worth emphasizing that this type of contemplation was not a regular response to the request of the Divine, as were the commandments, nor was seen as the beneficiary of this kind of human activity. It was mostly a human initiative that brought the individual to undertake the perilous path of ascending to the high for the sake of attaining an extraordinary and fascinating experience. In contrast to rabbinic theurgy, Heikhalot ecstasy was fraught with dreadful dangers that threatened to annihi-

< previous page page_xv next page > < previous page page_xvi next page > Page xvi late the unworthy mystic. Whereas the theurgical interpretation of the commandments did not detract from their fulfillment by ordinary people, the ecstatic nature of the path of Heikhalot literature made it usually, although not always, 21 appropriate only to the elite few. Many of these features were preserved in Ashkenazic Hasidism*, where the existence of an anomian technique was coupled with that of "prophetical" experiences that naturally were also individualistic in their exceptional nature. Like their ancient predecessors, the Ashkenazic masters employed divine names rather than halakhic precepts in order to obtain their mystical revelations or visions.

The next stage was the ecstatic Kabbalah, which was influenced by Ashkenazic mystical techniques used to attain a goal formulated by the Judeo-Arabic philosophical epistemology: the perfect act of cognition was interpreted mystically as the union of the knower with the Divine as intelligibilia.22 Even more now than in its two preceding stages, the ecstatic Kabbalah emphasized the need for isolation for the effective performance of its anomian practices; it had also since the early fourteenth century included equanimity as a prerequisite of the mystical process. Just as in the Heikhalot literature, the ecstatic Kabbalist was embarking on a spiritual adventure that might end in death. The medieval mystic, however, was endangered not by malevolent angels but by the weakness of his own physical or psychic structure, which might be unable to resist the pressures of the Divine invading his personality so that he would die a "death by kiss"a beatific one.23 Now, more than earlier, mystical union was viewed as the highest religious achievement. But this school of Kabbalah paid a price for its anthropocentrical emphasis: a retreat from collective worship as the central and highest form of religious experience and concentration on an individualistic escapism. The complicated mystical techniques cultivated by the ecstatic Kabbalists were suitable to only a very few, although esotericism was not an essential feature of this type of Kabbalah.

Leading Safedian Kabbalists, such as R. Moses Cordovero and R. Hayyim* Vital, conceived the ecstatic practices as the highest type of Kabbalah, superior to the theosophical-theurgical version.24 They nevertheless practiced both, regarding the theosophical one as more appropriate for dissemination to a larger public and the ecstatic as suitable for more limited audiences.

This appraisement was inverted in Hasidism; theosophy was regarded either as a subject too difficult to be studied and practiced by the masses or as theologically suspect.25 Although the Hasidic* masters did not publicly expound ecstatic techniques in the same manner as did Abraham Abulafia and his followers, they were probably acquainted with them, either directly, through the study of their writings,26 or indirectly, by means of Cordovero's

< previous page page_xvi next page > < previous page page_xvii next page > Page xvii presentation of them in Rimmonim. The founders of Hasidism *, however, did emphasize some of the mystical values that characterized ecstatic Kabbalah; devekut understood as unio mystica, inspiration and revelation, the need for seclusion and equanimity for concentration, the psychological understanding of theosophy, and a unique interest in linguistic mysticism formed the basic structure of Hasidic* mysticism. Notwithstanding these affinities, Hasidism also emphasized the importance of the mystical performance of the commandmentsa nomian techniqueas a vital key to mystical life. Therefore, we may consider the emergence of Hasidism not so much as a reaction toward Sabbatianism or Frankism but as a restructuring of Jewish mysticism already initiated by the Safedian Kabbalists. With them, as with the Hasidim*, one major interest was the achievement of a certain balance, previously peripheral, between the theurgical-theosophical and the ecstatic elements in the Kabbalah. Although such an attempt to integrate these different and even conflicting religious values had already been adumbrated in R. Isaac of Acre's works Me'irat 'Eynaim and 'Ozar* Hayyim*,27 which were studied in Safed, it would appear that Spanish Kabbalah itself rejected this syncretistic approach and had to await the disintegration of the stronghold of Kabbalah in the Iberian Peninsula in order to soften its resistance to ecstatic Kabbalah. Phenomenologically, we indeed can see R. Isaac of Acre a precursor of the Safedian and Hasidic synthesis, although the major impact of this novel approach was felt only after its "canonization" by Cordovero and Vital.

A proper understanding of the last major Jewish school of mysticism, Hasidism, must take into consideration the merging of these two mainstreams, which had competed with each other for more than a millennium and a half: ecstasy and theurgy, or anthropocentrism and theocentrism. The result was a synthesis that, on the one hand, attenuated the theurgical-theosophical elements and, on the other, propagated ecstatic values even more than previously. Or, as we shall see in a passage from R. Meshullam Phoebus, classical Spanish and were reinterpreted ecstatically.28 This emphasis on individual mystical experience may be one of the major explanations for the neutralization29 of nationalistic messianism in Hasidism.30 Although the aftermath of Sabbatianism could also have prompted interest in a more individualistic type of mysticism and redemption, we can envision the emergence of the Hasidic type of mysticism as part of the dissemination of religious values crucial for the ecstatic Kabbalistic model. From this perspective Mendel Piekarz's emphasis on the importance of Mussar literature for the understanding of Kabbalah can be understood within the larger context of the prevalence of Cordoverian thought long after the emergence of Lurianism.

< previous page page_xvii next page > < previous page page_xviii next page > Page xviii Let me dwell briefly upon the manner in which I understand the term mysticism and its derivatives in the context of the following discussions. I consider a phenomenon to be of a mystical nature when there is achieved a contact with the Divine, differing from the common religious experiences cultivated in a certain religion both in its intensity and in its spiritual impact. Accordingly, the interest in ecstatic and unitive experiences as they occur in Kabbalistic literature are conspicuously mystical.

I also, however, consider certain types of experiences as mystical even when they differ substantially from the previous type of mysticism: I refer to the theurgical performance of the commandments as this appears in certain texts. As I shall argue below, Kabbalistic intention or kavvanah implied a cleaving to the Divine that preceded the theurgical operation. 31 According to other textsand these are the great majoritythe theurgical action involved a specific contact with the Divine in order to influence it (according to the moderate Kabbalistic theurgy) or even to sustain it or to "make" it, in still other texts.32

Moreover, the performance of the commandments in a Kabbalistic manner not only entailed the capacity to influence the supernatural world; it consisted of an initiation of the Jew into the secrets of the mizvot*, that is, into their rationale, including the theosophical systems that facilitated their Kabbalistic performance. The transition from the self-perception of the Jews as observant of the mizvot with no particular mystical implication to that of the theurgist whose religious activity was fraught with cosmic and theosophical implications and repercussions must have had a profound impact upon the initiated. Although I assume that such a passage was different in nature from the more well- known rites of passage, it seems likely that a change of weltanschauung was indispensable for the new attitude to the idea of God and religion in general. Even if this change was a gradual one, sometimes even a matter of years, its profound impact was indispensable for the formation of a Kabbalistic type of personality. Therefore, whereas the ecstatic Kabbalah strove mainly toward a drastic change of personality that brought the Kabbalist into a direct relationship to god, in theurgical Kabbalah the change sought was in the sefirotic pleroma.

The main approach in this book is phenomenological: my assumption is that the two main foci of Kabbalistic mysticism were the ecstatic-unitive and the theosophical-theurgical. While focusing primarily upon the descriptions of these two cores of Kabbalah, I shall also take into consideration the historical development of these two themes recurring in Kabbalistic literature. Thus, my approach uses phenomenology in order to isolate significant phenomena and

< previous page page_xviii next page > < previous page page_xix next page > Page xix only thereafter to elaborate upon the possible historical relationships between them. In other words my starting point is the unfolding of the phenomenological affinity between two mystical patterns of experience, preceding their historical analysis per se. Hence, the phenomenological approach also serves historical aims, although not exclusively. In this sense, history plays a significant, but not central, role in the discussions included in this work.

For example, among the significant issues discussed in this book is the question of the antiquity of Kabbalaha clearly historical question. My principal interest is not, however, to prove the antiquity thesisan issue to be dealt with in detail elsewherebut to allow for the comparison between ancient Jewish sources and the medieval mystical literature that derived from them. The detailed elaboration of the antiquity thesis is therefore secondary to my interest here. The historical dimension is nevertheless important for the conception of Kabbalah as a Jewish mystical phenomenon, one deriving from Gershom Scholem's descriptions of Kabbalah as basically a Gnostic phenomenon.

My approach therefore combines phenomenology with history, thereby avoiding "pure" phenomenological descriptions. The juxtaposition of these two methods does not lie in their unique "deviation" from adherence to a single approach; by and large, I have tried to solve problems emerging from the texts, while using various approaches that may propose solutions. From this point of view, I am rather a pragmatist, allowing myself to be directed by the problems generated by the texts rather than attempting to superimpose one method upon all analyses. I hope that this methodological "inconsistency'' will avoid the reductionist attitudes that characterize those scholars who subscribe to "pure" methodologies. Phenomenology, textology, history, and psychology must in principle be used intermittently and combined in order to do justice to all the various aspects of Kabbalistic texts and ideas.

The structure of this work consists of the exposition of the two mystical concerns of the Kabbalists. Following the first two chapters, which deal with the state of research and some methodological observations, are three chapters devoted to the subject of mystical experience and some of the mystical techniques of the Kabbalists; theurgical and theosophical aspects of the Kabbalah are the subjects of the next three chapters. In two of these chapters, I focus upon issues representing the extremes of the ecstatic and theurgical trends of Kabbalah: chapter 4 treats of written evidence of extreme descriptions of unitive experiences, which, although relatively rare in Jewish mysticism, are nevertheless an interesting component of this type of mystical lore; chapter 8 discusses some rather daring views of theurgy that surpass the more common

< previous page page_xix next page > < previous page page_xx next page > Page xx views of this type of Kabbalistic activity. These two extreme phenomena have been neglected by modern scholarship, and I hope that an elaborate exposition of them will contribute to a more variegated picture of Kabbalah. I should like to emphasize that the phenomena treated in chapters 4 and 8 are not merely marginal or bizarre but part of an inner development of the particular Kabbalistic trends they represent, albeit in a more accentuated way. Finally, the last two chapters deal with more general issues shared by the two main Kabbalistic lines referred to above: an interest in hermeneutics and symbolism crosses these lines, while some features of Kabbalistic anthropology are a common denominator of Kabbalah in general.

< previous page page_xx next page > < previous page page_1 next page > Page 1

Chapter 1 Remarks on Kabbalah Scholarship

Our little systems have their days, or their hour; as knowledge advances they pass into the history of the efforts of pioneers. Andrew Lang to Georgina Max Müller, Life and Letters, 2:452

The aim of this short survey of Jewish Kabbalah scholarship is to point out the main trends in the critical approaches to this mystical lore. 1 Accordingly, it is neither an attempt to summarize the achievement of the scholars nor a criticism of their findings. The focus is upon noting the development of the first historical observations on the Kabbalah written by non-Kabbalists and concisely tracing their impact on later scholarly treatments of Kabbalah. A full account of the evolution of scholarship regarding this lore is still a desideratum, without which an accurate understanding of the achievements made in modern times in the portrayal of Kabbalah is impossible. For the time being, only a few limited surveys of this subject are available, primarily in the works of Gershom Scholem.2

I Scholarship of Kabbalah from the Renaissance On

The earliest critical discussions of the phenomenon of Kabbalah are found in Provençal literature produced shortly after the appearance of the first Kabbalistic documents. R. Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne sharply criticized both the polytheistic implications of the Kabbalistic doctrine of to varied divine manifestations and specific books containing Kabbalistic ideas. Strangely enough, despite the gradual broadening of Kabbalah as a religious movement, the critique against it became silenced, although it does seem that once

< previous page page_1 next page > < previous page page_2 next page > Page 2 there was more anti-Kabbalistic material than is extant in the surviving documents. 3 Some critical remarks may also be found in the works of Kabbalists who criticized different Kabbalistic approaches, although they attacked not Kabbalah itself but its misunderstandings.4 No elaborate and detailed survey of the nature and history of this religious movement is known, however, until the period of the Renaissance. The independent events that took place in the circle of Christian scholars connected to the family of the Medicis in Florence contributed to the emergence of a critical attitude to Kabbalah, and thus to the attempts to understand it with the help of philological-historical tools.

The first event was Marsilio Ficino's translation of a large corpus of Platonic and Neoplatonic writings from Greek into Latin; for the first time, the Western intellectual world had the opportunity to study Platonic thought in its various Neoplatonic or Hermetic versions. Two leading figures in the intellectual life of the Jews, and even in that of the Christians, in northern ItalyR. Elijah del Medigo and R. Yehudah Messer Leonwere Aristotelian philosophers;5 their acquaintance with Platonic views enabled them to perceive the affinities between Platonism, which they rejected as a philosophy, and Kabbalah, with which they were already acquainted. R. Yehudah accused the Kabbalists of attributing corporeality, change, and plurality to God;6 in the same context, he indicated that their concepts were close to Platonic ones, a fact that could not pass unnoticed by these philosophers.7 More elaborate, though less acid, was the critique of R. Elijah del Medigo. He described the views of the Kabbalists in the following words: "They are in line with what was said by the ancient philosophers, who have been totally rejected by those who know. Whoever has seen what the ancient philosophers and some of the Platonists said, as well as what these said, know that this is the truth."8

As del Medigo pointed out, following a lengthy comparison of Kabbalistic and Platonic views, "These statements are very far removed from the words of the Peripatetics and their principles."9 The "philosophers" cited by Messer Leon and the ''learned people" of del Medigo were the philosophical establishment of the Jews, who continued to adhere to medieval Aristotelian thought. The recent access to Platonic views in their Latin versions facilitated their articulation of Kabbalah as cognate to Platonism, and thus as a negligible way of thinking. Until the period of the Renaissance, references to the affinity of Kabbalah to Plato's corpus had invariably carried a positive significance, mainly among the Kabbalists.10

From an Aristotelian viewpoint, this affinity had a derogatory overtone.

< previous page page_2 next page > < previous page page_3 next page > Page 3 Messer Leon drew no historical conclusions from his remarking of the resemblance of Platonism and Kabbalah; del Medigo, however, did. Although he did not explicitly mention any linkage between the nexus of Platonism-Kabbalah and his assertion that the book of the Zohar is a late forgery, it seems to me that such a linkage was implicit; del Medigo openly distinguished between "ancient philosophers"the prisci theologi of the Renaissance syncretistic theoryand some "Platonics," which apparently referred to later authors, that is, in our terminology, Neoplatonic philosophers. If del Medigo had some knowledge of the history of later Platonism, 11 he must have been aware of the fact that most of them lived after the time of R. Simeon bar Yohai*, to whom the authorship of the Zohar had been ascribed. As del Medigo stated that the affinities of Kabbalah to the "ancient philosophers'' and "Platonists" were the result of the elaboration by the Kabbalists of Platonic and ancient philosophic themes,12 then Kabbalah's development must have been seen as occurring after the emergence of . According to del Medigo, or his anonymous sourcesif he indeed had such13the Zohar had been known for only about three hundred years, that is, since the end of the twelfth century. Del Medigo might have been aware of the existence of a Jewish Neoplatonic school that flowered in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as evidenced by the works of R. Solomon Gabirol, Bahya* ibn Pakuda, or Joseph ibn Zaddik*;14 such an awareness could explain why he located the appearance of the Zohar shortly after the expansion of Jewish Neoplatonism.

An interesting parallel to this use of a comparative approach in order to demonstrate the forgery and, implicitly, the lateness of an allegedly ancient mystical classic is found in Lorenso Valla's assertion that Dionysius Areopagita's works were spuriously attributed to a contemporary of Paul, as they were influenced by Neoplatonism.15 No doubt the critical acumen of the humanists with whom del Medigo might have come into contact during the years of his teaching in Padua and his presence in Florence contributed, in one way or another, to his discovery of correlations between Platonism and Kabbalah, and his dating of the Zohar as a late work. Finally, before leaving this issue, it should be added that this recognition of the Platonic bent of Kabbalistic thought must be seen against the background of the growing trend to interpret Kabbalah Platonically, a direction shared by Pico della Mirandola, Yohanan* Alemanno, and later on, R. Isaac and Yehudah Abravanel. Those same resemblances that helped del Medigo to postdate Kabbalah helped his contemporaries to regard it as a source of Platonism, and hence as of greater antiquity.16

The second reason for the criticism of Kabbalah, particularly on the part of

< previous page page_3 next page >