This is a modern-English version of The Kabbalah: its doctrines, development, and literature, originally written by Ginsburg, Christian D. (Christian David).
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


London
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS LIMITED
Broadway House: 68–74 Carter Lane E.C.
1920
Reprinted verbatim from the first edition which contained (pp. 1–82) entitled “The Essenes.”
Reprinted verbatim from the first edition which contained (pp. 1–82) entitled “The Essenes.”
TO
TO
PERCY M. DOVE, ESQ., F.I.A., F.S.S., &c.,
PERCY M. DOVE, ESQ., F.I.A., F.S.S., etc.,
I AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBE THIS ESSAY,
I lovingly dedicate this essay,
AS AN EXPRESSION OF MY HIGH REGARD FOR HIM, BOTH AS A FRIEND AND A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN.
AS A SIGN OF MY DEEP RESPECT FOR HIM, BOTH AS A FRIEND AND A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN.
CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG. [83]
CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
THE KABBALAH.
I.
A system of religious philosophy, or more properly of theosophy, which has not only exercised for hundreds of years an extraordinary influence on the mental development of so shrewd a people as the Jews, but has captivated the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of Christendom in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, claims the greatest attention of both the philosopher and the theologian. When it is added that among its captives were Raymond Lully, the celebrated scholastic, metaphysician and chemist (died 1315); John Reuchlin, the renowned scholar and reviver of oriental literature in Europe (born 1455, died 1522); John Picus di Mirandola, the famous philosopher and classical scholar (1463–1494); Cornelius Henry Agrippa, the distinguished philosopher, divine and physician (1486–1535); John Baptist von Helmont, a remarkable chemist and physician (1577–1644); as well as our own countrymen Robert Fludd, the famous physician and philosopher (1574–1637), and Dr. Henry More (1614–1687); and that these men, after restlessly searching for a scientific system which should disclose to them “the deepest depths” of the Divine nature, and show them the real tie which binds all things together, found the cravings of their minds satisfied by this theosophy, the claims of the Kabbalah on the attention of students in literature and philosophy will readily be admitted. The claims of the Kabbalah, however, are not restricted to the literary [84]man and the philosopher: the poet too will find in it ample materials for the exercise of his lofty genius. How can it be otherwise with a theosophy which, we are assured, was born of God in Paradise, was nursed and reared by the choicest of the angelic hosts in heaven, and only held converse with the holiest of man’s children upon earth. Listen to the story of its birth, growth and maturity, as told by its followers.
A system of religious philosophy, or more accurately, theosophy, has significantly influenced the intellectual development of the Jewish people for hundreds of years and has also captivated some of the greatest thinkers in Christendom during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This system demands the attention of both philosophers and theologians alike. It's notable that among its followers were Raymond Lully, the well-known scholastic, metaphysician, and chemist (died 1315); John Reuchlin, the esteemed scholar and reviver of Eastern literature in Europe (born 1455, died 1522); John Picus di Mirandola, the prominent philosopher and classical scholar (1463–1494); Cornelius Henry Agrippa, the distinguished philosopher, theologian, and physician (1486–1535); John Baptist von Helmont, a remarkable chemist and physician (1577–1644); along with our own Robert Fludd, the famous physician and philosopher (1574–1637), and Dr. Henry More (1614–1687). These individuals, after tirelessly searching for a scientific system that could reveal to them "the deepest depths" of the Divine nature and the real connections between all things, found their intellectual needs fulfilled by this theosophy. Thus, the significance of the Kabbalah for students of literature and philosophy is unquestionable. However, the appeal of the Kabbalah is not limited to writers and philosophers; poets will also discover abundant material for their creative talents. How could it be otherwise for a theosophy that is said to have been born from God in Paradise, nurtured by the finest angelic beings in heaven, and only communicated with the holiest of humanity on earth? Listen to the story of its origins, development, and maturity as narrated by its followers.
The Kabbalah was first taught by God himself to a select company of angels, who formed a theosophic school in Paradise. After the fall the angels most graciously communicated this heavenly doctrine to the disobedient child of earth, to furnish the protoplasts with the means of returning to their pristine nobility and felicity. From Adam it passed over to Noah, and then to Abraham, the friend of God, who emigrated with it to Egypt, where the patriarch allowed a portion of this mysterious doctrine to ooze out. It was in this way that the Egyptians obtained some knowledge of it, and the other Eastern nations could introduce it into their philosophical systems. Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, was first initiated into it in the land of his birth, but became most proficient in it during his wanderings in the wilderness, when he not only devoted to it the leisure hours of the whole forty years, but received lessons in it from one of the angels. By the aid of this mysterious science the lawgiver was enabled to solve the difficulties which arose during his management of the Israelites, in spite of the pilgrimages, wars and the frequent miseries of the nation. He covertly laid down the principles of this secret doctrine in the first four books of the Pentateuch, but withheld them from Deuteronomy. This constitutes the former the man, and the latter the woman. Moses also initiated the seventy elders into the secrets of this doctrine, and they again transmitted them from hand to hand. Of all who formed the [85]unbroken line of tradition, David and Solomon were most initiated into the Kabbalah. No one, however, dared to write it down, till Simon ben Jochai, who lived at the time of the destruction of the second Temple. Having been condemned to death by Titus, Rabbi Simon managed to escape with his son and concealed himself in a cavern where he remained for twelve years. Here, in this subterranean abode, he occupied himself entirely with the contemplation of the sublime Kabbalah, and was constantly visited by the Prophet Elias, who disclosed to him some of its secrets which were still concealed from the theosophical Rabbi. Here, too, his disciples resorted to be initiated by their master into these divine mysteries; and here, Simon ben Jochai expired with this heavenly doctrine in his mouth, whilst discoursing on it to his disciples. Scarcely had his spirit departed, when a dazzling light filled the cavern, so that no one could look at the Rabbi; whilst a burning fire appeared outside, forming as it were a sentinel at the entrance of the cave, and denying admittance to the neighbours. It was not till the light inside, and the fire outside, had disappeared, that the disciples perceived that the lamp of Israel was extinguished. As they were preparing for his obsequies, a voice was heard from heaven, saying, “Come ye to the marriage of Simon b. Jochai, he is entering into peace, and shall rest in his chamber!” A flame preceded the coffin, which seemed enveloped by, and burning like fire. And when the remains were deposited in the tomb, another voice was heard from heaven, saying, “This is he who caused the earth to quake, and the kingdoms to shake!” His son, R. Eliezer, and his secretary, R. Abba, as well as his disciples, then collated R. Simon b. Jochai’s treatises, and out of these composed the celebrated work called Sohar (זהר) i.e., Splendour, which is the grand storehouse of Kabbalism.
The Kabbalah was first taught by God to a select group of angels, who established a theosophic school in Paradise. After the fall, the angels kindly shared this heavenly teaching with humanity, helping them find their way back to their original greatness and happiness. It was passed down from Adam to Noah, and then to Abraham, who was God's friend and took it with him to Egypt, where a portion of this mysterious knowledge was revealed. This is how the Egyptians gained some understanding of it, and other Eastern nations incorporated it into their philosophical ideas. Moses, who was well-versed in all the wisdom of Egypt, first learned about it in his homeland but became most knowledgeable during his time in the wilderness, dedicating the forty years to studying it and receiving lessons from one of the angels. With the help of this mysterious knowledge, Moses was able to handle the challenges that arose during his leadership of the Israelites, despite their journeys, wars, and hardships. He subtly communicated the principles of this secret teaching in the first four books of the Pentateuch, but kept them hidden in Deuteronomy. This represents the masculine and feminine aspects of the teaching. Moses also introduced the seventy elders to the secrets of this doctrine, and they passed them down through generations. Among all those who continued this unbroken line of tradition, David and Solomon were the most knowledgeable in the Kabbalah. However, no one dared to write it down until Simon ben Jochai, who lived during the destruction of the Second Temple. After being sentenced to death by Titus, Rabbi Simon escaped with his son and hid in a cave for twelve years. There, he devoted himself entirely to pondering the sublime Kabbalah and was visited frequently by the Prophet Elias, who revealed to him some of its secrets that were still hidden. His disciples also came to him to be initiated into these divine mysteries, and it was here that Simon ben Jochai passed away, discussing this heavenly doctrine with his students. As soon as he died, a brilliant light filled the cave, making it impossible for anyone to see him, while a fire blazed outside, standing guard at the cave's entrance and preventing others from entering. Not until the light inside and the fire outside disappeared did the disciples realize that the lamp of Israel had been extinguished. As they prepared for his burial, a voice was heard from heaven, saying, “Come to the wedding of Simon b. Jochai; he is entering into peace and will rest in his chamber!” A flame led the coffin, seemingly engulfed in and burning like fire. When his remains were laid to rest in the tomb, another voice from heaven declared, “This is the one who caused the earth to quake and the kingdoms to tremble!” His son, R. Eliezer, his secretary, R. Abba, and his disciples then gathered Rabbi Simon b. Jochai’s writings, which later formed the famous work called Sohar (זהר) i.e. Splendor, the great repository of Kabbalism.
From what has been said, it will be seen that the followers [86]of this secret doctrine claim for it a pre-Adamite existence, and maintain that, ever since the creation of the first man, it has been received uninterruptedly from the hands of the patriarchs, the prophets, &c. It is for this reason that it is called Kabbalah (קבלה from קבל to receive) which primarily denotes reception, and then a doctrine received by oral tradition. The Kabbalah is also called by some Secret Wisdom. (חכמה נסתרה), because it was only handed down by tradition through the initiated, and is indicated in the Hebrew Scriptures by signs which are hidden and unintelligible to those who have not been instructed in its mysteries. From the initial letters of this name, this theosophic system is also denominated Grace (ח״ן = חכמה נסתרה). Vague and indefinite as this name may seem to the uninitiated, inasmuch as it conveys no idea whatever of the peculiar doctrines of the system, but simply indicates the manner in which they have been transmitted, it is nevertheless the classical and acknowledged appellation of this theosophy. The difference between the word Kabbalah (קבלה receptio) and the cognate term Massorah (מסורה traditio, from מסר to transmit)—which denotes the traditionally transmitted various readings of the Hebrew Scriptures—is, that the former expresses the act of receiving, which in this technical sense could only be on the part of one who has reached a certain period of life, as well as a certain state of sanctity, implying also a degree of secrecy; whilst the latter signifies the act of giving over, surrendering, without premising any peculiar age, stage of holiness, or degree of secrecy. The name, therefore, tells us no more than that this theosophy has been received traditionally. To ascertain its tenets we must analyze the system itself or the books which propound it; and to this task we now betake ourselves.
From what has been discussed, it is evident that the followers [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of this secret doctrine claim it has existed since before Adam and argue that, ever since the creation of the first man, it has been continuously passed down from the patriarchs, prophets, etc. This is why it is called Kabbalah (Acceptance from Accept to receive), which primarily means reception, and then a doctrine received through oral tradition. Some also refer to the Kabbalah as Secret Wisdom (Wisdom hidden), because it was only passed down through tradition via those who are initiated, and it is indicated in the Hebrew Scriptures by signs that are hidden and unintelligible to those who haven't been taught its mysteries. From the initial letters of this name, this theosophical system is also called Grace (ח״ן = נסתרת חכמה). Although this name may seem vague and indefinite to outsiders since it conveys no specific idea of the unique doctrines of the system, merely indicating how they have been transmitted, it is still the classical and recognized name for this theosophy. The difference between the term Kabbalah (Receipt receptio) and the related term Massorah (Committed traditio, from Message to transmit)—which refers to the traditionally transmitted various readings of the Hebrew Scriptures—is that the former emphasizes the act of receiving, which in this specific context could only come from someone who has reached a certain age and state of sanctity, implying a degree of secrecy; whereas the latter signifies the act of giving over, surrendering, without specifying any particular age, level of holiness, or degree of secrecy. Therefore, the name tells us nothing more than that this theosophy has been passed down traditionally. To understand its teachings, we need to analyze the system itself or the books that present it; and this is the task we will now undertake.
The cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah are mainly designed to solve the grand problems about (I) The nature of the [87]Supreme Being, (II) The cosmogony, (III) The creation of angels and man, (IV) The destiny of man and the universe, and (V) To point out the import of the Revealed Law. Assenting and consenting to the declarations of the Hebrew Scriptures about the unity of God ( Exod. xx, 3 ; Deut. iv, 35, 39 ; vi, 4 ; xxxii, 39 ), his incorporeity ( Exod. xx, 4 ; Deut. iv, 15 ; Ps. xiv, 18 ), eternity ( Exod. iii, 14 ; Deut. xxxii, 40 ; Isa. xli, 4 ; xliii, 10 ; xliv, 6 ; xlviii, 12 ), immutability ( Mal. iii, 6 ), perfection ( Deut. xxxii, 4 ; 2 Sam. xxii, 31 ; Job xxxviii, 16 ; Ps. xviii, 31 ), infinite goodness ( Exod. xxxiv, 6 ; Ps. xxv, 10 ; xxxiii, 5 ; c, 5 ; cxlv, 9 ), the creation of the world in time according to God’s free will ( Gen. i, 1 ), the moral government of the universe and special providence, and to the creation of man in the image of God ( Gen. i. 27 ), the Kabbalah seeks to explain the transition from the infinite to the finite; the procedure of multifariousness from an absolute unity, and of matter from a pure intelligence; the operation of pure intelligence upon matter, in spite of the infinite gulf between them; the relationship of the Creator to the creature, so as to be able to exercise supervision and providence. It, moreover, endeavours to show how it is that the Bible gives names and assigns attributes and a form to so spiritual a Being; how the existence of evil is compatible with the infinite goodness of God, and what is the Divine intention about this creation.
The main teachings of the Kabbalah aim to tackle the big questions about (I) the nature of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Supreme Being, (II) the origin of the universe, (III) the creation of angels and humans, (IV) the fate of humanity and the universe, and (V) the significance of the Revealed Law. Agreeing with the statements of the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the oneness of God (Exod. xx, 3; Deut. iv, 35, 39; vi, 4; xxxii, 39), His lack of physical form (Exod. xx, 4; Deut. iv, 15; Ps. xiv, 18), eternity (Exod. iii, 14; Deut. xxxii, 40; Isa. xli, 4; xliii, 10; xliv, 6; xlviii, 12), unchanging nature (Mal. iii, 6), perfection (Deut. xxxii, 4; 2 Sam. xxii, 31; Job xxxviii, 16; Ps. xviii, 31), infinite goodness (Exod. xxxiv, 6; Ps. xxv, 10; xxxiii, 5; c, 5; cxlv, 9), the world's creation in time through God's free will (Gen. i, 1), the moral governance of the universe, special providence, and the creation of humanity in God's image (Gen. i. 27), the Kabbalah seeks to clarify the shift from the infinite to the finite; the emergence of diversity from a complete unity, and of matter from pure intellect; the influence of pure intellect on matter, despite the vast separation between them; and the connection between the Creator and the creation, allowing for oversight and care. Furthermore, it tries to explain how the Bible names and describes such a spiritual Being, how the existence of evil can coexist with God's infinite goodness, and what God's intention is regarding this creation.
In our analysis of the Kabbalistic doctrines on these grand problems, we shall follow the order in which they have been enumerated, and accordingly begin with the lucubrations on the Supreme Being and the Emanations.
In our analysis of the Kabbalistic teachings on these major issues, we will follow the order in which they have been listed, starting with the reflections on the Supreme Being and the Emanations.
I. The Supreme Being and the doctrine and classification of the Emanations, or Sephiroth.
I. The Supreme Being and the doctrine and classification of the Emanations, or Sephiroth.
Being boundless in his nature—which necessarily implies that he is an absolute unity and inscrutable, and that there [88]is nothing without him, or that the τὸ πᾶν is in him,1—God is called En Soph (אין סוף) = ἄπειρος Endless, Boundless.2 In this boundlessness, or as the En Soph, he cannot be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in words, for there is nothing which can grasp and depict him to us, and as such he is, in a certain sense, not existent (אַיִן), because, as far as our minds are concerned, that which is perfectly incomprehensible does not exist.3 To make his existence perceptible, and to render himself comprehensible, the En Soph, or the Boundless, had to become active and creative. But the En Soph cannot be the direct creator, for he has neither will, intention, desire, thought, language, nor action, as these properties imply limit and belong to finite beings, whereas the En Soph is boundless. Besides, the imperfect and circumscribed nature of the creation precludes the idea that the world was created or even designed by him, who can have no will nor produce anything but what is like himself, boundless and [89]perfect. On the other hand, again, the beautiful design displayed in the mechanism, the regular order manifested in the preservation, destruction, and renewal of things, forbid us to regard this world as the offspring of chance, and constrain us to recognize therein an intelligent design.4 We are, therefore, compelled to view the En Soph as the creator of the world in an indirect manner.
Being limitless in his nature—which means he is a total unity and mysterious, and that there [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]is nothing that exists without him, or that everything τὸ πᾶν is within him, 1—God is referred to as En Soph (אין סוף) = ἄπειρος Endless, Boundless.2 In this boundlessness, or as the En Soph, he cannot be understood by the intellect nor described in words, because nothing can grasp and illustrate him to us. In a certain sense, he does not exist (None) because, from our perspective, what is utterly incomprehensible cannot be said to exist.3 To make his existence noticeable and to make himself understandable, the En Soph, or the Boundless, had to become active and creative. However, the En Soph cannot be the direct creator, since he has no will, intention, desire, thought, language, or action, as these traits imply limitations and are characteristics of finite beings, while the En Soph is limitless. Furthermore, the imperfect and defined nature of creation eliminates the idea that the world was created or even designed by him, who cannot have will or produce anything but what is like himself, boundless and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]perfect. On the other hand, the beautiful design observed in the mechanism, the orderly process evident in the preservation, destruction, and renewal of things, prevents us from viewing this world as a result of chance and forces us to recognize an intelligent design within it.4 Thus, we are obliged to understand the En Soph as the creator of the world in an indirect manner.
Now, the medium by which the En Soph made his existence known in the creation of the world are ten Sephiroth5 (ספירות) or intelligences, which emanated from the Boundless One (אין סוף) in the following manner:—At first the En Soph, or the Aged of the Aged (עתיקא דעתיקין) or the Holy Aged (עתיקא קדישא), as he is alternately called, sent forth from his infinite light one spiritual substance or intelligence. This first Sephira, which existed in the En Soph from all eternity, and became a reality by a mere act, has no less than seven appellations. It is called—I, the Crown (כתר), because it occupies the highest position; II, the Aged (עתיקא), because it is the oldest or the first emanation—and this name must not be confounded with the Aged of the Aged, which, as we have seen, is the appellation of the En Soph; III, the Primordial Point (נקודה ראשונה), or the Smooth Point (נקודה פשוטה), because, as the Sohar tells us, “When the Concealed of the Concealed wished to reveal himself, he first made a single [90]point: the Infinite was entirely unknown, and diffused no light before this luminous point violently broke through into vision;” (Sohar, i, 15 a). IV, the White Head (רישא הוורה); V, the Long Face, Macroprosopon (אריך אנפין), because the whole ten Sephiroth represent the Primordial or the Heavenly Man (אדם עילאה), of which the first Sephira is the head; VI, The Inscrutable Height (רום מעלה), because it is the highest of all the Sephiroth proceeding immediately from the En Soph. Hence, on the passage “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold the King of Peace6 with the Crown!” ( Song of Solomon iii, 2 ) the Sohar remarks, “But who can behold the King of Peace, seeing that He is incomprehensible, even to the heavenly hosts? But he who sees the Crown sees the glory of the King of Peace.” (Sohar ii. 100 b.) And, VII, it is expressed in the Bible by the Divine name Ehejeh, or I Am (אהיה Exod. iii, 4 ), because it is absolute being, representing the Infinite as distinguished from the finite, and in the angelic order, by the celestial beasts of Ezekiel, called Chajoth (חיות). The first Sephira contained the other nine Sephiroth, and gave rise to them in the following order:—At first a masculine or active potency, designated Wisdom (חכמה), proceeded from it. This Sephira, which among the divine names is represented by Jah (יה Isa. xxvi, 4 ), and among the angelic hosts by Oplianim (אפנים Wheels), sent forth an opposite, i.e. a feminine or passive, potency, denominated Intelligence (בינה), which is represented by the divine name Jehovah (יהוה), and angelic name Arelim (אראלים), and it is from a union of these two Sephiroth, which are also called Father (אבא) and Mother (אמא), that the remaining seven Sephiroth proceeded. Or, as the Sohar (iii, 290 a) expresses it, “When the Holy Aged, [91]the Concealed of all Concealed, assumed a form, he produced everything in the form of male and female, as the things could not continue in any other form. Hence Wisdom, which is the beginning of development, when it proceeded from the Holy Aged, emanated in male and female, for Wisdom expanded, and Intelligence proceeded from it, and thus obtained male and female—viz., Wisdom, the father, and Intelligence, the mother, from whose union the other pairs of Sephiroth successively emanated.” These two opposite potencies—viz., Wisdom (חכמה) and Intelligence (בינה)—are joined together by the first potency, the Crown (כתר); thus yielding the first triad of the Sephiroth.
Now, the medium through which the En Soph revealed his existence in creating the world consists of ten Sephiroth5 (Sefirot) or intelligences, which emanated from the Boundless One (אין סוף) in the following way:—At first, the En Soph, also known as the Aged of the Aged (Ancient wisdom) or the Holy Aged (Ancient Sacred), sent out from his infinite light one spiritual substance or intelligence. This first Sephira, which existed within the En Soph from all eternity and became a reality through a simple act, has seven distinct names. It is called: I, the Crown (Crown), because it holds the highest position; II, the Aged (Ancient), because it is the oldest or the first emanation—and this name should not be confused with the Aged of the Aged, which, as we mentioned, refers to the En Soph; III, the Primordial Point (First point) or the Smooth Point (Simple point), because, as the Sohar states, “When the Concealed of the Concealed wanted to reveal himself, he first created a single [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]point: the Infinite was entirely unknown, and emitted no light before this luminous point erupted into sight;” (Sohar, i, 15 a). IV, the White Head (רישא הוורה); V, the Long Face, Macroprosopon (אריך אנפין), because all ten Sephiroth symbolize the Primordial or the Heavenly Man (אדם עליון), of which the first Sephira is the head; VI, The Inscrutable Height (High altitude), since it is the highest of all the Sephiroth coming directly from the En Soph. Therefore, regarding the passage “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold the King of Peace6 with the Crown!” (Song of Solomon iii, 2), the Sohar comments, “But who can behold the King of Peace, since He is incomprehensible, even to the heavenly hosts? However, he who sees the Crown sees the glory of the King of Peace.” (Sohar ii. 100 b.) Lastly, VII, it is represented in the Bible by the Divine name Ehejeh, or I Am (Will be Exod. iii, 4), as it signifies absolute being, distinguishing the Infinite from the finite, and in the angelic realm by the celestial beings of Ezekiel, referred to as Chajoth (Animals). The first Sephira encompassed the other nine Sephiroth and produced them in this order:—First, a masculine or active force, known as Wisdom (Wisdom), emerged from it. This Sephira, represented among divine names as Jah (יה Isa. xxvi, 4), and among angelic beings as Oplianim (אפנים Wheels), produced a counterpart, i.e., a feminine or passive force, called Intelligence (Intelligence), which is signified by the divine name Jehovah (יהוה) and the angelic name Arelim (אראלים), and it is from the union of these two Sephiroth, also known as Father (Dad) and Mother (Mom), that the remaining seven Sephiroth emerged. Or, as the Sohar (iii, 290 a) puts it, “When the Holy Aged, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the Concealed of all Concealed, took on a form, he created everything in the form of male and female, since things could not exist in any other way. Therefore, Wisdom, which is the beginning of development, when it emerged from the Holy Aged, appeared in male and female, for Wisdom expanded, and Intelligence came from it, thus resulting in male and female—specifically, Wisdom, the father, and Intelligence, the mother, from whose union the other pairs of Sephiroth successively emanated.” These two opposite forces—namely, Wisdom (חכמה) and Intelligence (Intelligence)—are united by the initial force, the Crown (Crown); thus forming the first triad of the Sephiroth.
From the junction of the foregoing opposites emanated again the masculine or active potency, denominated Mercy or Love, (חסד), also called Greatness (גדולה), the fourth Sephira, which among the divine names is represented by El (אל), and among the angelic hosts by Chashmalim (חשמלים, Comp. Ezek. i, 4 ). From this again emanated the feminine or passive potency, Justice (דין), also called Judicial Power (גבורה), the fifth Sephira, which is represented by the divine name Eloha (אלה), and among the angels by Seraphim (שרפים, Isa. vi, 6 ); and from this again the uniting potency, Beauty or Mildness (תפארת), the sixth Sephira, represented by the divine name Elohim (אלהים), and among the angels by Shinanim (שנאנים, Ps. lxviii, 18 ). Since without this union the existence of things would not be possible, inasmuch as mercy not tempered with justice, and justice not tempered with mercy would be unendurable: and thus the second trinity of the Sephiroth is obtained.
From the combination of the previous opposites came forth the masculine or active power, called Mercy or Love (Kindness), also known as Greatness (Awesome), the fourth Sephira, represented by the divine name El (אל), and among the angelic beings by Chashmalim (Electricians, Comp. Ezek. i, 4 ). From this again emerged the feminine or passive power, Justice (Din), also called Judicial Power (Courage), the fifth Sephira, represented by the divine name Eloha (אלה), and among the angels by Seraphim (Angels, Isa. vi, 6 ); and from this arose the uniting power, Beauty or Mildness (Splendor), the sixth Sephira, represented by the divine name Elohim (God), and among the angels by Shinanim (נשנאנים, Ps. lxviii, 18 ). Since without this union the existence of things would not be possible, because mercy without justice and justice without mercy would be unbearable: thus the second trinity of the Sephiroth is achieved.
The medium of union of the second trinity, i.e. Beauty (תפארת), the sixth Sephira, beamed forth the masculine or active potency, Firmness (נצח), the seventh Sephira, corresponding to the divine name Jehovah Sabaoth (יהוה צבאות), and among the angels to Tarshishim (תרשישים, Dan. x, 6 ); [92]this again gave rise to the feminine or passive potency, Splendour (הוד), the eighth Sephira, to which answer the divine name Elohim Sabaoth (אלהים צבאות), and among the angels Benei Elohim (בני אלהים, Gen. vi, 4 ); and from it again, emanated Foundation or the Basis (יסוד), the ninth Sephira, represented by the divine name El Chai (אל חי), and among the angelic hosts by Ishim (אישים, Ps. civ, 4 ), which is the uniting point between these two opposites—thus yielding the third trinity of Sephiroth. From the ninth Sephira, the Basis (יסוד) of all, emanated the tenth, called Kingdom (מלכות), and Shechinah (שכינה), which is represented by the divine name Adonai (אדוני), and among the angelic hosts by Cherubim (כרובים). The table on the opposite page exhibits the different names of the Sephiroth, together with the several names of God and the angels, which correspond to them.
The medium of connection for the second trinity, i.e. Beauty (Glory), the sixth Sephira, radiated the masculine or active force, Firmness (Eternity), the seventh Sephira, linked to the divine name Jehovah Sabaoth (Yahweh of Hosts), and among the angels, Tarshishim (תרשישים, Dan. x, 6 ); [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]this in turn gave rise to the feminine or passive force, Splendour (Notice), the eighth Sephira, corresponding to the divine name Elohim Sabaoth (God of Hosts), and among the angels Benei Elohim (Sons of God, Gen. vi, 4 ); and from it again, emerged Foundation or The Basis (Foundation), the ninth Sephira, represented by the divine name El Chai (El Hai), and among the angelic hosts by Ishim (אישים, Ps. civ, 4 ), which serves as the connecting point between these two opposites—thus creating the third trinity of Sephiroth. From the ninth Sephira, The Basis (Foundation) of all, emerged the tenth, known as Kingdom (Queen) and Shechinah (Divine presence), represented by the divine name Adonai (Sir), and among the angelic hosts by Cherubim (Cherubs). The table on the opposite page shows the different names of the Sephiroth, along with the various names of God and the angels that correspond to them.
From this representation of each triad, as consisting of a threefold principle, viz., the two opposites, masculine and feminine, and the uniting principle, the development of the Sephiroth, and of life generally, is symbolically called the Balance (מתקלא), because the two opposite sexes, are compared with the two opposite scales, and the uniting Sephira is compared with the beam which joins the scales, and indicates its equipoise.
From this view of each triad as made up of three parts—the two opposites, masculine and feminine, and the uniting principle—the development of the Sephiroth, and of life in general, is symbolically referred to as the Balance (ממתק), because the two opposite genders are likened to the two opposing scales, while the uniting Sephira is likened to the beam that connects the scales and represents its balance.
Before we enter into further particulars about the nature, operation, and classification of these Sephiroth, we shall give the Sohar’s speculations about the Supreme Being, and its account of the origin of the Sephiroth, and their relationship to the Deity. [93]
Before we dive deeper into the details about the nature, function, and classification of these Sephiroth, let's explore the Sohar’s thoughts on the Supreme Being, along with its explanation of how the Sephiroth came to be and their connection to the Deity. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
THE TEN SEPHIROTH. | THE TEN CORRESPONDING NAMES OF THE DEITY. | THE TEN CORRESPONDING CLASSES OF ANGELS. | THE TEN CORRESPONDING MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN BODY. | ||||
i. | 1. | Crown, Crown. | I'll be, I'm ( Exod. iii. 4 ). | Animals, ζῶον. | Head. | ||
2. | עתיקא, seniors. | ||||||
3. | First point, Primordial Origin. | ||||||
4. | Simple point, Smooth Point. | ||||||
5. | רישא הוורה, White Hat. | ||||||
6. | אריך אנפין, Macroprosopon. | ||||||
7. | Upper man, Heavenly Being. | ||||||
8. | Elevation, Mysterious Height. | ||||||
ii. | Wisdom, σοφία, Wisdom. | יה, Jah ( Isa. xxvi. 4 ). | Bikes, κίνησις. | Brains. | |||
iii. | Intelligence, νοῦς, Smarts. | יהוה, God. | אראלים, Arelim ( Isa. xxiii. 7 ). | Heart. | |||
iv. | 1. | Kindness, χάρις, Love. | אל, the Almighty. | Electronics, Chasheralim ( Ezek. i. 4 ). | Right Arm. | ||
2. | Big, Excellence. | ||||||
v. | 1. | דין, Judgment. | אלה, God. | Angels, Angels ( Isa. vi. 7 ). | Left Arm. | ||
2. | Fear, Justice. | ||||||
3. | Bravery, Strength. | ||||||
vi. | Glory, Beauty. | God, God. | Haters, Shinanim ( Ps. lxviii. 18 ). | Chest. | |||
vii. | Eternity, Stability. | YHWH of Hosts, Lord of Hosts. | תרשישים Tarshish ( Dan. x. 6 ). | Right Leg. | |||
viii. | הוד, Splendor. | God of Hosts, God Almighty. | Sons of God, God's Sons ( Gen. vi. 4 ). | Left Leg. | |||
ix. | Foundation, Foundation. | El Chai, Mighty Living Being. | אשים, Ishim ( Ps. civ. 4 ). | Reproductive organs. | |||
x. | 1. | kingdom sc. οὐρανῶν, Kingdom. | אדוני, God. | Cherubs, Cherubs. | Unity of the Whole Body. | ||
2. | Divine presence, Divine presence. |
The prophet Elias having learned in the heavenly college the profound mystery and true import of the words in Isa. xl, 25, 26 , “To whom will ye liken me, and shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who (מי) hath created these things (אלה),” revealed to R. Simon b. Jochai that God in his absolute nature is unknown [94]and incomprehensible, and hence, in a certain sense, non-existent; that this Who (אלה unknown subject) had to become active and creative, to demonstrate his existence, and that it is only by these (אלה) works of creation that he made himself known to us. It is therefore the combination of the unknown Who (מי) with these visible (אלה) works that showed him to be God (אלהים which is produced by מי transposed, i.e. יﬦ, and united with אלה). Or, as it is in the language of the Kabbalah;—
The prophet Elijah, having learned in the heavenly academy about the deep mystery and true meaning of the words in Isaiah 40:25-26, “To whom will you compare me, or who is my equal?” says the Holy One. “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who (מי) created these things (אלה),” revealed to Rabbi Simon bar Yochai that God, in His absolute nature, is unknown [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and incomprehensible, and thus, in a certain sense, non-existent; that this Who (These unknown subject) needed to become active and creative to prove His existence, and it is only through these (אלה) acts of creation that He made Himself known to us. Therefore, it is the combination of the unknown Who (Who) with these visible (These) works that revealed Him as God (God, which comes from מי transposed, i.e. יﬦ, and united with אלה). Or, as stated in the language of Kabbalah;—
“Before he gave any shape to this world, before he produced any form, he was alone, without a form and resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend him how he was before the creation, since he was formless? Hence it is forbidden to represent him by any form, similitude, or even by his sacred name, by a single letter or a single point; and to this the words ‘Ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you’ ( Deut. iv, 15 )—i.e. ye have not seen anything which you could represent by any form or likeness—refer. But after he created the form of the Heavenly Man (אדם עלאה), he used it as a chariot (מרכבה) wherein to descend, and wishes to be called by this form, which is the sacred name Jehovah. He wishes to be known by his attributes, and each attribute separately; and therefore had himself called the God of Mercy, the God of Justice, Almighty, God of Sabaoth, and the Being. He wishes thereby to make known his nature, and that we should see how his mercy and compassion extend both to the world and to all operations. For if he had not poured out his light upon all his creatures, how could we ever have known him? How could the words be fulfilled, ‘The whole earth is full of his glory’ ( Isa. vi, 3 )? Woe be to him who compares him with his own attributes! or still worse with the son of man whose foundation is in the dust, who vanishes and is no more! Hence, the form in which we delineate him simply describes [95]each time his dominion over a certain attribute, or over the creatures generally. We cannot understand more of his nature than the attribute expresses. Hence, when he is divested of all these things, he has neither any attribute nor any similitude or form. The form in which he is generally depicted is to be compared to a very expansive sea; for the waters of the sea are in themselves without a limit or form, and it is only when they spread themselves upon the earth that they assume a form (דמיון). We can now make the following calculation: the source of the sea’s water and the water stream proceeding therefrom to spread itself are two. A great reservoir is then formed, just as if a huge hollow had been dug; this reservoir is called sea, and is the third. The unfathomable deep divides itself into seven streams, resembling seven long vessels. The source, the water stream, the sea and the seven streams make together ten. And when the master breaks the vessels which he has made, the waters return to the source, and then only remain the pieces of these vessels, dried up and without any water. It is in this way that the Cause of Causes gave rise to the ten Sephiroth. The Crown is the source from which streams forth an infinite light: hence the name En Soph (אין סוף) = infinite, by which the highest cause is designated: for it then had neither form nor shape, and there is neither any means whereby to comprehend it, nor a way by which to know it. Hence it is written, ‘Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength.’ ( Ecclus. iii, 21 .) He then made a vessel, as small as a point, like the letter י, which is filled from this source (i.e. the En Soph). This is the source of wisdom, wisdom itself (חכמה), after which the Supreme Cause is called ‘wise God.’ Upon this he made a large vessel like a sea, which is called Intelligence (בינה): hence the name ‘intelligent God.’ It must, however, be remarked that God is wise, and through himself, for [96]wisdom does not derive its name through itself, but through the wise one who fills it with the light which flows from him, just as intelligence is not comprehended through itself, but through him who is intelligent and fills it with his own substance. God needs only to withdraw himself and it would be dried up. This is also the meaning of the words, ‘the waters have disappeared from the sea, and the bed is dry and parched up.’ ( Job xiv, 11 .) The sea is finally divided into seven streams, and the seven costly vessels are produced, which are called Greatness (גדולה), Judicial Strength (גבורה), Beauty (תפארת), Firmness (נצח), Splendour (הוד), Foundation (יסוד), and Kingdom (מלכות). Therefore is he called the Great or the Merciful, the Mighty, the Glorious, the God of victory, the Creator, to whom all praise is due, and the Foundation of all things. Upon the last attribute all the others are based as well as the world. Finally, he is also the King of the universe, for everything is in his power; he can diminish the number of the vessels, and increase in them the light which streams from them, or reduce it, just as it pleases him.” (Sohar, i, 42 b, 43 a, section בא.)
“Before he shaped this world, before he created anything, he was alone, without form and unlike anything else. Who can even understand how he existed before creation since he was formless? That's why it's forbidden to depict him in any form, likeness, or even by his sacred name, down to a single letter or point. This relates to the words, ‘You saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you’ (Deut. iv, 15)—meaning you haven’t seen anything that could be represented in any form or image. But after he created the form of the Heavenly Man (אדם מעולה), he used it like a chariot (Chariot) to descend and desired to be called by this form, which is the sacred name Jehovah. He wants to be recognized by his attributes, and each attribute individually; so he is called the God of Mercy, the God of Justice, Almighty, God of Sabaoth, and the Being. Through these names, he reveals his nature, showing how his mercy and compassion extend to the world and all actions. For if he hadn’t shared his light with all his creatures, how could we ever know him? How could the words ‘The whole earth is full of his glory’ (Isa. vi, 3) be fulfilled? Woe to anyone who compares him with their own attributes! Or even worse, with the son of man whose foundation is dust, who fades away and disappears! Therefore, the form in which we depict him merely describes [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] each time his dominion over a specific attribute, or over creatures in general. We can’t comprehend more of his nature than what each attribute represents. Hence, when he is stripped of all these things, he has no attributes, similitude, or form. The way he is usually depicted can be likened to an expansive sea; for the waters of the sea are inherently limitless and formless, and they only take shape when they spread across the earth (Imagination). We can now consider the following: the source of the sea’s water and the water stream coming from it to disperse are two. A large reservoir is formed, as if a giant hollow had been dug; this reservoir is called the sea, making it the third. The unfathomable deep divides into seven streams, resembling seven long vessels. The source, the water stream, the sea, and the seven streams together make ten. When the master breaks the vessels he made, the waters return to the source, leaving only the remnants of the vessels, dried up and void of water. In this way, the Cause of Causes produced the ten Sephiroth. The Crown is the source from which infinite light flows: hence the name En Soph (Infinity) = infinite, referring to the highest cause: for at that point, it had no form or shape, and there’s no way to comprehend it, nor a means to know it. Thus, it’s written, ‘Don’t seek out things that are too hard for you, nor search for things beyond your strength.’ (Ecclus. iii, 21.) He then created a vessel as small as a point, like the letter י, filled from this source (i.e. the En Soph). This is the source of wisdom, wisdom itself (Wisdom), after which the Supreme Cause is called ‘wise God.’ On this basis, he made a large vessel like a sea, called Intelligence (Intelligence): hence the name ‘intelligent God.’ It should be noted that God is wise, and through himself, because [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] wisdom doesn’t derive its name from itself, but from the wise one who fills it with light that flows from him, just as intelligence is not understood through itself, but through the one who is intelligent and fills it with his own essence. God only needs to withdraw himself for it to become dry. This also explains the words, ‘the waters have disappeared from the sea, and the bed is dry and parched’ (Job xiv, 11). Eventually, the sea is divided into seven streams, producing the seven valuable vessels known as Greatness (Great), Judicial Strength (Courage), Beauty (Glory), Firmness (Eternity), Splendor (הוד), Foundation (Foundation), and Kingdom (Kingdom). Therefore, he is referred to as the Great, the Merciful, the Mighty, the Glorious, the God of victory, the Creator, to whom all praise is due, and the Foundation of all things. All other attributes and the world itself rest on the last attribute. Lastly, he is also the King of the universe since everything is under his control; he can decrease the number of vessels or increase the light flowing from them, or reduce it, according to his will.” (Sohar, i, 42 b, 43 a, section בא.)
In another place again the same authority gives the following description of the Deity and the emanation of the Sephiroth. “The Aged of the Aged, the Unknown of the Unknown, has a form and yet has no form. He has a form whereby the universe is preserved, and yet has no form, because he cannot be comprehended. When he first assumed the form [of the first Sephira], he caused nine splendid lights to emanate from it, which, shining through it, diffused a bright light in all directions. Imagine an elevated light sending forth its rays in all directions. Now if we approach it to examine the rays, we understand no more than that they emanate from the said light. So is the Holy Aged an absolute light, but in himself concealed and incomprehensible. We can only comprehend him through those luminous emanations (ספירות) which [97]again are partly visible and partly concealed. These constitute the sacred name of God.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 288 a.)
In another place, the same authority provides this description of the Deity and the emanation of the Sephiroth: “The Aged of the Aged, the Unknown of the Unknown, has a form and yet lacks a form. He has a form through which the universe is sustained, yet he is formless because he is beyond comprehension. When he first took on the form (of the first Sephira), he caused nine brilliant lights to emerge from it, which, shining through it, spread a bright light in all directions. Picture a high light sending its rays everywhere. If we try to approach and examine the rays, we can only understand that they come from that light. The Holy Aged is like an absolute light, concealed and incomprehensible within himself. We can only grasp him through those radiant emanations (ספירות) which [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] are partially visible and partially hidden. These make up the sacred name of God.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 288 a.)
Four things must be borne in mind with regard to the Sephiroth. I. That they were not created by, but emanated (נאצל) from, the En Soph; the difference between creation and emanation being, that in the former a diminution of strength takes place, whilst in the latter this is not the case.7 II. That they form among themselves, and with the En Soph, a strict unity, and simply represent different aspects of one and the same being, just as the different rays which proceed from the light, and which appear different things to the eye, form only different manifestations of one and the same light. III. That since they simply differ from each other as the different colours of the same light, all the ten emanations alike partake of the perfections of the En Soph; and IV, that, as emanations from the Infinite, the Sephiroth are infinite and perfect like the En Soph, and yet constitute the first finite things.8 They are infinite and perfect when the En Soph imparts his fulness to them, and finite and imperfect when the fulness is withdrawn from them, so that in this respect these ten Sephiroth exactly correspond to the double nature of Christ,—his finite and imperfect human nature and his infinite and perfect divine nature.
Four things should be kept in mind regarding the Sephiroth. I. They were not created by, but emanated (נושע) from the En Soph; the key difference between creation and emanation is that creation involves a reduction in strength, while emanation does not. 7 II. They form a strict unity among themselves and with the En Soph, simply representing different aspects of one and the same being, much like the different rays that come from light, which appear as distinct to the eye while actually being different manifestations of one and the same light. III. Since they only differ from each other as the various colors of the same light, all ten emanations share in the perfections of the En Soph; and IV. As emanations from the Infinite, the Sephiroth are infinite and perfect like the En Soph, yet they form the first finite things. 8 They are infinite and perfect when the En Soph shares its fullness with them, and finite and imperfect when that fullness is withdrawn. In this way, these ten Sephiroth correspond to the dual nature of Christ—his finite and imperfect human nature and his infinite and perfect divine nature.
In their totality and unity these ten Sephiroth are not only denominated the world of Sephiroth (עולﬦ הספירות) and the world of Emanations (עולﬦ אצילות), but represent and are called the Primordial or Archetypal Man (אדﬦ קדמון = πρωτόγονος), and the Heavenly Man (אדם עילאה). In the figure, the Crown (כתר) is the head; Wisdom (חכמה), the brains; and Intelligence (בינה), which unites the two and [98]produces the first triad, is the heart or the understanding—thus forming the head. The fourth and fifth Sephiroth, i.e., Mercy (חסד) and Justice (פחד), are the two arms of the Lord, the former the right arm and the latter the left, one distributing life and the other death. And the sixth Sephira, Beauty (תפארת), which unites these two opposites and produces the second triad, is the chest; whilst the seventh and eighth Sephiroth,—i.e., Firmness (נצח) and Splendour (הוד), of the third triad,—are the two legs; and Foundation (יסוד), the ninth Sephira, represents the genital organs, since it denotes the basis and source of all things. Thus it is said “Every thing will return to its origin just as it proceeded from it. All marrow, all sap, and all power are congregated in this spot. Hence all powers which exist originate through the genital organs.” (Sohar, iii, 296 a.) Kingdom (מלכות), the tenth Sephira, represents the harmony of the whole Archetypal Man. The following is the archetypal figure of the ten Sephiroth.
In their entirety and unity, these ten Sephiroth are not only called the world of Sephiroth (עולמות הספירות) and the world of Emanations (עולם של אצילות), but they also represent and are referred to as the Primordial or Archetypal Man (Old-fashioned text = primitive), and the Heavenly Man (אדם עליון). In this figure, the Crown (Crown) represents the head; Wisdom (Wisdom) stands for the brains; and Intelligence (Intelligence), which connects the two and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]creates the first triad, is the heart or the understanding—thus forming the head. The fourth and fifth Sephiroth, namely, Mercy (Kindness) and Justice (Fear), are the two arms of the Lord, with Mercy being the right arm and Justice the left, one giving life and the other bringing death. The sixth Sephira, Beauty (Glory), which brings together these two opposites and creates the second triad, is the chest; meanwhile, the seventh and eighth Sephiroth, namely Firmness (Eternity) and Splendour (הוד), of the third triad, are the two legs; and Foundation (Foundation), the ninth Sephira, represents the genital organs, as it signifies the foundation and source of all things. Thus it is said, “Everything will return to its origin just as it came from it. All marrow, all sap, and all power are gathered in this area. Hence, all powers that exist originate through the genital organs.” (Sohar, iii, 296 a.) Kingdom (Queen), the tenth Sephira, represents the harmony of the whole Archetypal Man. The following illustrates the archetypal figure of the ten Sephiroth.
It is this form which the prophet Ezekiel saw in the mysterious chariot, and of which the earthly man is a faint copy. Moreover, these Sephiroth, as we have already remarked, created the world and all things therein according to their own archetype or in the likeness and similitude of the Heavenly Man or the World of Emanations. But, before we propound the Kabbalistic doctrine of the creation of the world, it is necessary to describe a second mode in which the trinity of triads in the Sephiroth is represented, and to mention the appellations and offices of the respective triads.
It is this form that the prophet Ezekiel saw in the mysterious chariot, which is merely a faint copy of the earthly man. Furthermore, these Sephiroth, as we’ve noted, created the world and everything in it according to their own archetype or in the likeness of the Heavenly Man or the World of Emanations. But before we discuss the Kabbalistic teaching on the creation of the world, we need to describe a second way the trinity of triads in the Sephiroth is represented and to mention the names and functions of the respective triads.

אין סוף
THE ENDLESS
Crown CROWN |
||||
Wisdom WISDOM |
||||
בינה INTELLIGENCE |
||||
Glory BEAUTY |
||||
Kindness LOVE |
Fear JUSTICE |
|||
Foundation FOUNDATION |
||||
הוד SPLENDOUR |
Eternity FIRMNESS |
|||
Kingdom KINGDOM |
Now in looking at the Sephiroth which constitute the first triad, it will be seen that they represent the intellect; hence this triad is called the Intellectual World (עולם מושכל). The second triad, again, represents moral qualities; hence it is designated the moral or Sensuous World (עולﬦ מורגש): whilst the third triad represents power and stability, and [99]hence is designated the Material World (עולﬦ המוטבע). These three aspects in which the En Soph manifested himself are called the Faces (אנפין and פרצופין = πρόσωπον, the two words are identical, the former being pure Aramaic, and the latter from the Greek). In the arrangement of this trinity of triads, so as to produce what is called the Kabbalistic tree, denominated the Tree of Life (עץ חיים), or simply the Tree (אילן), the first triad is placed above, the second and third are placed below, in such a manner that the three masculine Sephiroth are on the right, the three feminine on the left, whilst the four uniting Sephiroth occupy the centre, as shown in the following diagrams:—
Now, when we look at the Sephiroth that make up the first triad, we see that they represent the intellect; therefore, this triad is called the Intellectual World (Smart world). The second triad represents moral qualities; thus, it's referred to as the Moral or Sensuous World (עולם מורגש), while the third triad signifies power and stability, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]is called the Material World (עולם המוטבע). These three aspects through which the En Soph manifested are known as the Faces (אנפין and Emojis = πρόσωπον, the two terms are the same, the former is pure Aramaic, and the latter is derived from Greek). In arranging this trinity of triads to create what is known as the Kabbalistic tree, called the Tree of Life (Tree of Life), or simply the Tree (אילן), the first triad is positioned at the top, while the second and third are below it, organized so that the three masculine Sephiroth are on the right, the three feminine on the left, and the four uniting Sephiroth are centered, as illustrated in the following diagrams:—

I.
I.
Crown 1 Crown |
||
3 בינה Intelligence |
Wisdom 2 Wisdom |
|
5 Fear Justice |
Kindness 4 Love |
|
Splendor 6 Beauty |
||
8 הוד Splendour |
נצח 7 Firmness |
|
יסוד 9 Foundation |
||
Queen 10 Kingdom |
[100]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

II.
II.
The end The Infinite.
Crown Crown 1 |
||
בינח Intelligence 3 |
Wisdom Wisdom 2 |
|
Fear Justice 5 |
Kindness Love 4 |
|
Glory Beauty 6 |
||
הוד Splendour 8 |
Eternity Firmness 7 |
|
Foundation Foundation 9 |
||
Kingdom Kingdom 10 |
The three Sephiroth on the right, representing the principle of mercy (חסד), are called the Pillar of Mercy (סטרא ימינא עמודא דחסד); the three on the left, representing the principle of rigour (דין), are denominated the Pillar of Judgment (סטרא דשמאלא עמודא דדינה); whilst the four Sephiroth in the centre, representing mildness (רחמיﬦ), [101]are called the Middle Pillar (עמודא דאמצעיתא). Each Sephira composing this trinity of triads is, as it were, a trinity in itself. I, It has its own absolute character; II, It receives from above; and III, It communicates to what is below it. Hence the remark, “Just as the Sacred Aged is represented by the number three, so are all the other lights (Sephiroth) of a threefold nature.” (Sohar, iii, 288 b.) Within this trinity in each unit and trinity of triads there is a trinity of units, which must be explained before we can propound the Kabbalistic view of the cosmogony.
The three Sephiroth on the right, symbolizing mercy (Kindness), are known as the Pillar of Mercy (Right side, pillar of kindness); the three on the left, representing strictness (דין), are called the Pillar of Judgment (סטרא דשמאלא עמוד דין); while the four Sephiroth in the center, symbolizing gentleness (רחמים), [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] are referred to as the Middle Pillar (Middle Page). Each Sephira in this trio of triads is, in a sense, a triad in itself. I, it has its own distinct character; II, it receives from above; and III, it communicates to what lies beneath it. Hence the saying, “Just as the Sacred Aged is represented by the number three, so too are all the other lights (Sephiroth) of a threefold nature.” (Sohar, iii, 288 b.) Within this trio in each unit and trio of triads, there is a trio of units, which needs to be explained before we can present the Kabbalistic perspective on cosmogony.
We have seen that three of the Sephiroth constitute uniting links between three pairs of opposites, and by this means produce three triads, respectively denominated the Intellectual World, the Sensuous or Moral World, and the Material World, and that these three uniting Sephiroth, together with the one which unites the whole into a common unity, form what is called the Middle Pillar of the Kabbalistic tree. Now from the important position they thus occupy, these Sephiroth are synecdochically used to represent the worlds which by their uniting potency they respectively yield. Hence the Sephira, Crown (כתר), from which the Sephiroth, Wisdom (חכמה) and Intelligence (בינה), emanated, and by which they are also united, thus yielding the Intellectual World, is by itself used to designate the Intellectual World (עולﬦ המושכל). Its own names, however, are not changed in this capacity, and it still continues to be designated by the several appellations mentioned in the description of the first Sephira. The sixth Sephira, called Beauty (תפארת), which unites Sephiroth IV (הסד, Love) and V (פחד, Justice), thus yielding the Sensuous World, is by itself used to denote the Sensuous World, and in this capacity is called the Sacred King (מלכא קדישא), or simply the King (מלכא); whilst the Sephira called Kingdom (מלכות), which unites the whole Sephiroth, is here used to represent the Material World, [102]instead of the ninth Sephira, called Foundation (יסוד), and is in this capacity denominated the Queen (מלכתא) or the Matron (מטרוניתא). Thus we obtain within the trinity of triads a higher trinity of units,—viz., the Crown (כתר), Beauty (תפארת), and Kingdom (מלכות),—which represents the potencies of all the Sephiroth.
We have seen that three of the Sephiroth serve as connecting links between three pairs of opposites, creating three triads known as the Intellectual World, the Sensuous or Moral World, and the Material World. These three connecting Sephiroth, along with the one that unifies everything into a single whole, form what is known as the Middle Pillar of the Kabbalistic tree. Given their significant position, these Sephiroth are metaphorically used to represent the worlds that their unifying power respectively produces. Therefore, the Sephira, Crown (Crown), from which the Sephiroth, Wisdom (Wisdom) and Smarts (Intelligence), emanated, and by which they are also united, thus yielding the Intellectual World, is used to signify the Intellectual World (עולף המושכל). Its own names, however, remain unchanged in this context, and it continues to be referred to by the various titles mentioned in the description of the first Sephira. The sixth Sephira, known as Attractiveness (Glory), which connects Sephiroth IV (הסד, Love) and V (Fear, Justice), thus producing the Sensuous World, is solely used to denote the Sensuous World and is referred to in this context as the Sacred King (Holy King), or simply the King (מלכא); while the Sephira known as Kingdom (Royalty), which unites all the Sephiroth, is used here to represent the Material World, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]instead of the ninth Sephira, called Foundation (Foundation), and in this context is referred to as the Queen (מלכתא) or the Matron (מטרוניתא). Thus, within the trinity of triads, we find a higher trinity of entities—namely, the Crown (Crown), Beauty (Glory), and Kingdom (Kingdom)—which represent the powers of all the Sephiroth.
II. The Creation or the Kabbalistic Cosmogony.
II. The Creation or the Kabbalistic Cosmogony.
Having arrived at the highest trinity which comprises all the Sephiroth, and which consists of the Crown, the King, and the Queen, we shall be able to enter into the cosmogony of the Kabbalah. Now, it is not the En Soph who created the world, but this trinity, as represented in the combination of the Sephiroth; or rather the creation has arisen from the conjunction of the emanations. The world was born from the union of the crowned King and Queen; or, according to the language of the Kabbalah, these opposite sexes of royalty, who emanated from the En Soph, produced the universe in their own image. Worlds, we are told, were indeed created before ever the King and Queen or the Sephiroth gave birth to the present state of things, but they could not continue, and necessarily perished, because the En Soph had not yet assumed this human form in its completeness, which not only implies a moral and intellectual nature, but, as conditions of development, procreation, and continuance, also comprises sexual opposites. This creation, which aborted and which has been succeeded by the present order of things, is indicated in Gen. xxxvi, 31–40 . The kings of Edom, or the old kings as they are also denominated, who are here said to have reigned before the monarchs of Israel, and are mentioned as having died one after the other, are those primordial worlds which were successively convulsed and destroyed; whilst the sovereigns of Israel denote the King and Queen who emanated from the En Soph, and who have given birth to and perpetuate the present world. Thus we are told:— [103]
Having reached the highest trinity that includes all the Sephiroth, which consists of the Crown, the King, and the Queen, we can begin to explore the cosmogony of the Kabbalah. It wasn't the En Soph who created the world, but this trinity, represented through the combination of the Sephiroth; or more accurately, creation emerged from the combination of the emanations. The universe was born from the union of the crowned King and Queen; in Kabbalistic terms, these royal opposite sexes, which emanated from the En Soph, created the universe in their own likeness. We are told that worlds were indeed created before the King and Queen or the Sephiroth gave rise to the current state of existence, but those worlds could not endure and inevitably perished because the En Soph had not yet taken on a complete human form, which not only entails a moral and intellectual nature but also includes sexual opposites as essential conditions for development, reproduction, and continuity. This earlier creation, which failed and was followed by the current order, is referenced in Gen. xxxvi, 31–40. The kings of Edom, or the ancient kings as they are also called, who are listed as having ruled before the monarchs of Israel and are noted to have died one after another, symbolize those primordial worlds that were successively shaken and destroyed; while the sovereigns of Israel represent the King and Queen who emanated from the En Soph and who have given birth to and sustain the present world. Thus we are told:— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
“Before the Aged of the Aged, the Concealed of the Concealed, expanded into the form of King, the Crown of Crowns [i.e. the first Sephira], there was neither beginning nor end. He hewed and incised forms and figures into it [i.e. the crown] in the following manner:—He spread before him a cover, and carved therein kings [i.e. worlds], and marked out their limits and forms, but they could not preserve themselves. Therefore it is written, ‘These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’ ( Gen. xxxvi, 31 .) This refers to the primordial kings and primordial Israel. All these were imperfect: he therefore removed them and let them vanish, till he finally descended himself to this cover and assumed a form.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 148 a.)
“Before the Aged of the Aged, the Concealed of the Concealed, took the shape of King, the Crown of Crowns [i.e. the first Sephira], there was neither beginning nor end. He carved out shapes and figures within it [i.e. the crown] like this:—He spread a covering before him and created kings [i.e. worlds], defining their boundaries and shapes, but they couldn’t sustain themselves. That’s why it’s written, ‘These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’ (Gen. xxxvi, 31.) This refers to the primordial kings and primordial Israel. All these were imperfect: so he eliminated them and let them fade away, until he finally descended himself to this cover and took on a form.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 148 a.)
This important fact that worlds were created and destroyed prior to the present creation is again and again reiterated in the Sohar.9 These worlds are compared with sparks which fly out from a red hot iron beaten by a hammer, and which are extinguished according to the distance they are removed from the burning mass. “There were old worlds,” the Sohar tells us, “which perished as soon as they came into existence: were formless, and they were called sparks. Thus the smith when hammering the iron, lets the sparks fly in all directions. These sparks are the primordial worlds, which could not continue, because the Sacred Aged had not as yet assumed his form [of opposite sexes—the King and Queen], and the master was not yet at his work.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 292 b.) But since nothing can be annihilated—“Nothing perisheth in this world, not even the breath which issues from the [104]mouth, for this, like everything else, has its place and destination, and the Holy One, blessed be his name! turns it into his service;” (Sohar, ii, 110 b.)—these worlds could not be absolutely destroyed. Hence when the question is asked—‘Why were these primordial worlds destroyed?’ the reply is given—“Because the Man, represented by the ten Sephiroth, was not as yet. The human form contains every thing, and as it did not as yet exist, the worlds were destroyed.” It is added, “Still when it is said that they perished, it is only meant thereby that they lacked the true form, till the human form came into being, in which all things are comprised, and which also contains all those forms. Hence, though the Scripture ascribes death (וימות) to the kings of Edom, it only denotes a sinking down from their dignity, i.e., the worlds up to that time did not answer to the Divine idea, since they had not as yet the perfect form of which they were capable.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 135 b.)
This important fact that worlds were created and destroyed before the current creation is repeatedly mentioned in the Sohar.9 These worlds are likened to sparks that fly out from a red-hot iron being hammered, and they extinguish depending on how far they are from the burning mass. “There were old worlds,” the Sohar tells us, “that vanished as soon as they existed; they were formless and were called sparks. Just like a blacksmith, when hammering the iron, lets the sparks fly in all directions. These sparks are the primordial worlds that couldn’t survive because the Sacred Aged had not yet taken on his form [of opposite sexes—the King and Queen], and the master was not yet at work.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 292 b.) However, since nothing can be completely annihilated—“Nothing perishes in this world, not even the breath that comes from the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]mouth, for this, like everything else, has its place and purpose, and the Holy One, blessed be his name! transforms it for his service;” (Sohar, ii, 110 b.)—these worlds could not be entirely destroyed. So when the question is asked—‘Why were these primordial worlds destroyed?’ the answer is given—“Because the Man, represented by the ten Sephiroth, did not yet exist. The human form encompasses everything, and since it did not yet exist, the worlds were destroyed.” It is added, “Still, when it is said that they perished, it only means that they lacked the true form until the human form came into being, which encompasses all things and contains all those forms. Therefore, although Scripture attributes death (וימות) to the kings of Edom, it only signifies a fall from their dignity, i.e., the worlds up until then did not align with the Divine idea, since they did not yet possess the perfect form they were capable of.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 135 b.)
It was therefore after the destruction of previous worlds, and after the En Soph or the Boundless assumed the Sephiric form, that the present world was created. “The Holy One, blessed be he, created and destroyed several worlds before the present one was made, and when this last work was nigh completion, all the things of this world, all the creatures of the universe, in whatever age they were to exist, before ever they entered into this world, were present before God in their true form. Thus are the words of Ecclesiastes to be understood ‘What was, shall be, and what has been done, shall be done.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 61 b.) “The lower world is made after the pattern of the upper world; every thing which exists in the upper world is to be found as it were in a copy upon earth; still the whole is one.” (Ibid., ii, 20 a.)
It was after the destruction of previous worlds, and after the En Soph or the Boundless took on the Sephiric form, that the current world was created. “The Holy One, blessed be he, created and destroyed several worlds before this one was made, and when this last creation was nearly complete, all the things of this world, all the creatures of the universe, in whatever age they were to exist, were present before God in their true form before they entered this world. This is how the words of Ecclesiastes are understood: ‘What was, shall be, and what has been done, shall be done.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 61 b.) “The lower world is made after the pattern of the upper world; everything that exists in the upper world is found as a sort of copy on earth; still, the whole is one.” (Ibid. ii, 20 a.)
This world, however, is not a creation ex nihilo, but is simply an immanent offspring and the image of the King and Queen, or, in other words, a farther expansion or evolution of [105]the Sephiroth which are the emanations of the En Soph. This is expressed in the Sohar in the following passage—“The indivisible point [the Absolute], who has no limit, and who cannot be comprehended because of his purity and brightness, expanded from without, and formed a brightness which served as a covering to the indivisible point, yet it too could not be viewed in consequence of its immeasurable light. It too expanded from without, and this expansion was its garment. Thus everything originated through a constant upheaving agitation, and thus finally the world originated.” (Sohar, i, 20 a.) The universe therefore is an immanent emanation from the Sephiroth, and reveals and makes visible the Boundless and the Concealed of the Concealed. And though it exhibits the Deity in less splendour than its parents the Sephiroth, because it is further removed from the primordial source of light, yet, as it is God manifested, all the multifarious forms in the world point out the unity which they represent; and nothing in it can be destroyed, but everything must return to the source whence it emanated. Hence it is said that “all things of which this world consists, spirit as well as body, will return to their principal, and the root from which they proceeded.” (Sohar, ii, 218 b.) “He is the beginning and end of all the degrees in the creation. All these degrees are stamped with his seal, and he cannot be otherwise described than by the unity. He is one, notwithstanding the innumerable forms which are in him.” (Ibid., i, 21 a.)
This world, however, is not a creation ex nihilo, but is simply an inherent offspring and image of the King and Queen, or, in other words, a further expansion or evolution of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the Sephiroth, which are the emanations of the En Soph. This is stated in the Sohar in the following passage—“The indivisible point [the Absolute], who has no limit, and who cannot be comprehended because of his purity and brightness, expanded from without and formed a brightness that served as a covering for the indivisible point, yet it too could not be viewed due to its immeasurable light. It also expanded from without, and this expansion was its garment. Thus everything originated through a continuous upheaval, and finally, the world came into existence.” (Sohar, i, 20 a.) The universe, therefore, is an inherent emanation from the Sephiroth and reveals and makes visible the Boundless and the Concealed of the Concealed. And though it showcases the Deity in less splendor than its origins in the Sephiroth, because it is further removed from the primal source of light, it is still a manifestation of God, and all the diverse forms in the world highlight the unity they represent; nothing in it can be destroyed, and everything must return to the source from which it came. Hence it is said that “all things of which this world consists, spirit as well as body, will return to their principal and the root from which they proceeded.” (Sohar, ii, 218 b.) “He is the beginning and end of all the levels in creation. All these levels bear his mark, and he can only be described by the unity. He is one, despite the countless forms that exist within him.” (Ibid., i, 21 a.)
Now these Sephiroth, or the World of Emanation (עולם אצילות), or the Atzilatic World, gave birth to three worlds in the following order:—From the conjunction of the King and Queen (i.e., the ten Sephiroth) proceeded—I. The World of Creation, or the Briatic World (עולם הבריאה), also called The Throne (כורסיא), which is the abode of pure spirits, and which, like its parents, consists of ten Sephiroth, or Emanations. The Briatic World, again, gave rise to, [106]II. The World of Formation, or the Jetziratic World (עולﬦ היצירה), which is the habitation of the angels, and also consists of ten Sephiroth; whilst the Jetziratic World, again, sent forth, III. The World of Action, or the Assiatic World (עולﬦ העשיה), also called the World of Keliphoth (עולﬦ הקליפות), which contains the Spheres (גלגלים) and matter, and is the residence of the Prince of Darkness and his legions. Or, as the Sohar describes it—“After the Sephiroth, and for their use, God made the Throne (i.e., the World of Creation), with four legs and six steps, thus making ten (i.e., the decade of Sephiroth which each world has).… For this Throne and its service he formed the ten Angelic hosts (i.e., the World of Formation), Malachim, Arelim, Chajoth, Ophanim, Chashmalim, Elim, Elohim, Benei Elohim, Ishim, and Seraphim (מלאכיﬦ אראליﬦ חיות אופניﬦ חשמליﬦ אליﬦ אלהיﬦ בני אלהים אישים שרפים), and for their service, again, he made Samaël and his legions (i.e., the World of Action), who are, as it were, the clouds upon which the angels ride in their descent on the earth, and serve, as it were, for their horses. Hence it is written—‘Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt.’ ” ( Isa. xix, 1 .) (Sohar ii, 43 a.) There are, therefore, four worlds, each of which has a separate Sephiric system, consisting of a decade of emanations. I. The Atzilatic World, called alternately the World of Emanations (עולם אצילות), the Image (דיוקנא = εἰκών with ד prefixed), and the Heavenly Man (אדם עלאה), which, by virtue of its being a direct emanation from God and most intimately allied with the Deity, is perfect and immutable. II. The Briatic World, called the World of Creation (עולם הבריאה) and the Throne (כורסיא), which is the immediate emanation of the former, and whose ten Sephiroth, being further removed from the En Soph, are of a more limited and circumscribed potency, though the substances they comprise are of the purest nature and without [107]any admixture of matter. III. The Jetziratic World, called the World of Formation (עולם היצירה) and the World of Angels (מלאכיא), which proceeded from the former world, and whose ten Sephiroth, though of a still less refined substance than the former, because further removed from the primordial source, are still without matter. It is in this angelic world where those intelligent and uncorporeal beings reside, who are wrapped in a luminous garment, and who assume a sensuous form when they appear to man. And IV. The Assiatic World, called the World of Action (עולם העשיה) and the World of Matter (עולם הקליפות) which emanated from the preceding world, the ten Sephiroth of which are made up of the grosser elements of all the former three worlds, and which has sunk down in consequence of its materiality and heaviness. Its substances consist of matter limited by space and perceptible to the senses in a multiplicity of forms. It is subject to constant changes, generations, and corruptions, and is the abode of the Evil Spirit.
Now these Sephiroth, or the World of Emanation (עולם האצילות), or the Atzilatic World, gave rise to three worlds in the following order:—From the union of the King and Queen (i.e., the ten Sephiroth) came—I. The World of Creation, or the Briatic World (World of creation), also known as The Throne (Sofa), which is the home of pure spirits, and which, like its origins, consists of ten Sephiroth, or Emanations. The Briatic World then gave rise to, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]II. The World of Formation, or the Jetziratic World (עולם היצירה), which is the dwelling of angels and also has ten Sephiroth; while the Jetziratic World produced, III. The World of Action, or the Assiatic World (עולם העשייה), also known as the World of Keliphoth (עולם הקליפות), which contains the Spheres (Wheels) and matter, and is the domain of the Prince of Darkness and his followers. Or, as the Sohar describes it—“After the Sephiroth, and for their use, God created the Throne (i.e., the World of Creation), with four legs and six steps, thus making ten (i.e., the decade of Sephiroth which each world has).… For this Throne and its purpose, he formed ten Angelic hosts (i.e., the World of Formation), Malachim, Arelim, Chajoth, Ophanim, Chashmalim, Elim, Elohim, Benei Elohim, Ishim, and Seraphim (מלאכים, אראלים, חיות, אופניים חשמליים, אלים, בני אלים, אנשים, שרפים.), and for their service, he made Samaël and his legions (i.e., the World of Action), who are, in a sense, the clouds that the angels ride upon when they descend to earth, serving as their horses. Hence it is written—‘Behold the Lord rides upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt.’ ” (Isa. xix, 1.) (Sohar ii, 43 a.) There are, therefore, four worlds, each with its own unique Sephiric system, consisting of a decade of emanations. I. The Atzilatic World, also referred to as the World of Emanations (עולם האצילות), the Image (Portrait = εἰκών with ד prefixed), and the Heavenly Man (אדם עלאה), which, being a direct emanation from God and closely linked to the Deity, is perfect and unchanging. II. The Briatic World, called the World of Creation (The world of creation) and the Throne (ספה), is the immediate emanation of the former, and its ten Sephiroth, though further removed from the En Soph, are of a more limited and specific power, although the substances they contain are of the purest nature and without [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]any mix of matter. III. The Jetziratic World, called the World of Formation (Creative World) and the World of Angels (מלאכיא), which comes from the former world, and its ten Sephiroth, although made of a substance less refined than the previous, because they are further from the original source, are still without matter. This is the angelic world where intelligent and non-physical beings exist, who are wrapped in a luminous garment and take on a physical form when they appear to humans. And IV. The Assiatic World, known as the World of Action (World of work) and the World of Matter (עולם הקליפות) which came from the preceding world, whose ten Sephiroth are composed of the coarser elements of all the previous three worlds, and has descended due to its materiality and heaviness. Its substances are made of matter confined by space and perceivable by the senses in various forms. It is subject to constant changes, births, and decay, and is the home of the Evil Spirit.
Before leaving this doctrine about the creation and the relationship of the Supreme Being to the universe, we must reiterate two things. I. Though the trinity of the Sephiroth gave birth to the universe, or, in other words, is an evolution of the emanations, and is thus a further expansion of the Deity itself, it must not be supposed that the Kabbalists believe in a Trinity in our sense of the word. Their view on this subject will best be understood from the following remark in the Sohar—“Whoso wishes to have an insight into the sacred unity, let him consider a flame rising from a burning coal or a burning lamp. He will see first a twofold light, a bright white and a black or blue light; the white light is above, and ascends in a direct light, whilst the blue or dark light is below, and seems as the chair of the former, yet both are so intimately connected together that they constitute only one flame. The seat, however, formed by the [108]blue or dark light, is again connected with the burning matter which is under it again. The white light never changes its colour, it always remains white; but various shades are observed in the lower light, whilst the lowest light, moreover, takes two directions—above it is connected with the white light, and below with the burning matter. Now this is constantly consuming itself, and perpetually ascends to the upper light, and thus everything merges into a single unity (וכולא אתקשר ביחודא חד Sohar, i, 51 a).10 And II. The creation, or the universe, is simply the garment of God woven from the Deity’s own substance; or, as Spinoza expresses it, God is the immanent basis of the universe. For although, to reveal himself to us, the Concealed of all the Concealed sent forth the ten emanations called the Form of God, Form of the Heavenly Man, yet since even this luminous form was too dazzling for our vision, it had to assume another form, or had to put on another garment which consists of the universe. The universe, therefore, or the visible world, is a further expansion of the Divine Substance, and is called in the Kabbalah “the Garment of God.” Thus we are told, “when the Concealed of all the Concealed wanted to reveal himself, he first made a point [i.e. the first Sephira], shaped it into a sacred form [i.e. the totality of the Sephiroth], and covered it with a rich and splendid garment that is the world.” (Sohar, i, 2 a).
Before leaving this doctrine about the creation and the relationship of the Supreme Being to the universe, we need to emphasize two things. I. Even though the trinity of the Sephiroth created the universe, or in other words, is an evolution of the emanations, and is thus a further expansion of the Deity itself, it shouldn’t be assumed that the Kabbalists believe in a Trinity in the way we understand it. Their perspective on this topic is best captured by the following remark in the Sohar—“Whoever wants to gain insight into the sacred unity should consider a flame rising from a burning coal or a lamp. They will first see two types of light: a bright white light and a black or blue light; the white light is above, ascending in a direct manner, while the blue or dark light is below, appearing as the support for the former. Yet both are so closely connected that they form just one flame. The seat created by the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]blue or dark light is also linked to the burning matter beneath it. The white light never changes color; it always stays white. However, different shades can be seen in the lower light, and the lowest light also takes two directions—above, it is connected with the white light, and below, it is linked to the burning matter. This lower matter is constantly consuming itself and continually ascends to the upper light, leading everything to merge into a single unity (ולא אתקשר במיוחד Sohar, i, 51 a).10 And II. The creation, or the universe, is simply the garment of God woven from the Deity’s own substance; or, as Spinoza puts it, God is the immanent basis of the universe. For although, to reveal Himself to us, the Concealed of all the Concealed sent forth the ten emanations called the Form of God, Form of the Heavenly Man, even this brilliant form was too blinding for our sight, so it had to take on a different form or wear another garment made up of the universe. Therefore, the universe, or the visible world, is a further expansion of the Divine Substance and is referred to in Kabbalah as “the Garment of God.” Thus, we are told, “when the Concealed of all the Concealed wanted to reveal Himself, He first made a point [i.e. the first Sephira], shaped it into a sacred form [i.e. the totality of the Sephiroth], and covered it with a rich and splendid garment that is the world.” (Sohar, i, 2 a).
III. The Creation of Angels and Men.
III. The Creation of Angels and Humans.
The different worlds which successively emanated from the En Soph and from each other, and which sustain the relationship to the Deity of first, second, third, and fourth generations, are, with the exception of the first (i.e., the World of Emanations), inhabited by spiritual beings of various grades. [109]“God animated every part of the firmament with a separate spirit, and forthwith all the heavenly hosts were before him. This is meant by the Psalmist, when he says ( Ps. xxxiii, 6 ) ‘By the breath of his mouth were made all their hosts.’ (Sohar, iii, 68 a.) These angels consist of two kinds—good and bad; they have their respective princes, and occupy the three habitable worlds in the following order. As has already been remarked, the first world, or the Archetypal Man, in whose image everything is formed, is occupied by no one else. The angel Metatron (מטטרון) occupies the second or the Briatic World ( עולם בריאה), which is the first habitable world; he alone constitutes the world of pure spirits. He is the garment of שדי i.e., the visible manifestation of the Deity; his name is numerically equivalent to that of the Lord. (Sohar, iii, 231 a.) He governs the visible world, preserves the unity, harmony, and the revolutions of all the spheres, planets and heavenly bodies, and is the Captain of the myriads of the angelic hosts11 who people the second habitable or the Jetziratic [110]World (עולם היצירה), and who are divided into ten ranks, answering to the ten Sephiroth. Each of these angels is set over a different part of the universe. One has the control of one sphere, another of another heavenly body; one angel has charge of the sun, another of the moon, another of the earth, another of the sea, another of the fire, another of the wind, another of the light, another of the seasons, &c. &c.; and these angels derive their names from the heavenly bodies they respectively guard. Hence one is called Venus (נגה), one Mars (מאדמים), one the substance of Heaven (עצם השמים), one the angel of light (אוריאל), and another the angel of fire (נוריאל.) (Comp. Sohar i, 42, &c.) The demons, constituting the second class of angels, which are the grossest and most deficient of all forms, and are the shells (קליפות) of being, inhabit the third habitable or Assiatic World (עולם עשיה). They, too, form ten degrees, answering to the decade of Sephiroth, in which darkness and impurity increase with the descent of each degree. Thus the two first degrees are nothing more than the absence of all visible form and organisation, which the Mosaic cosmology describes in the words תהו ובהו before the hexahemeron, and which the Septuagint renders by ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. The third degree is the abode of the darkness which the book of Genesis describes as having in the beginning covered the face of the earth. Whereupon follow seven infernal halls (שבע היכלות) = Hells, occupied by the demons, which are the incarnation of all human vices, and which torture those poor deluded beings who suffered themselves to be led astray in this world. These seven infernal halls are subdivided into endless compartments, so as to [111]afford a separate chamber of torture for every species of sin. The prince of this region of darkness, who is called Satan in the Bible, is denominated by the Kabbalah, Samaël (סמאל) = angel of poison or of death. He is the same evil spirit, Satan, the serpent, who seduced Eve.12 He has a wife, called the Harlot or the Woman of Whoredom (אשת זנוניﬦ), but they are both generally represented as united in the one name of the Beast (חיוא. Comp. Sohar, ii, 255–259, with i, 35 b.)
The different worlds that came from the En Soph and from each other, which maintain the relationship to the Deity of first, second, third, and fourth generations, are inhabited by spiritual beings of various levels, with the exception of the first (i.e., the World of Emanations). [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]“God gave every part of the sky a separate spirit, and immediately all the heavenly hosts were before him. This is what the Psalmist means when he says (Ps. xxxiii, 6) ‘By the breath of his mouth were made all their hosts.’ (Sohar, iii, 68 a.) These angels come in two types—good and bad; they each have their own leaders, and occupy the three livable worlds in this order. As mentioned before, the first world, or the Archetypal Man, in whose image everything is created, is uninhabited by anyone else. The angel Metatron (Metatron) resides in the second or Briatic World (Creation World), which is the first livable world; he solely makes up the world of pure spirits. He is the manifestation of שדי i.e., the visible form of the Deity; his name has the same numerical value as that of the Lord. (Sohar, iii, 231 a.) He governs the visible world, maintains the unity, harmony, and movements of all spheres, planets, and celestial bodies, and is the leader of the countless angelic hosts11 who populate the second livable or Jetziratic [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]World (The creative world), divided into ten ranks that correspond to the ten Sephiroth. Each of these angels oversees a different part of the universe. One controls one sphere, another manages another celestial body; one angel is in charge of the sun, another of the moon, another of the earth, another of the sea, another of fire, another of the wind, another of light, another of seasons, etc.; and these angels take their names from the heavenly bodies they guard. So one is named Venus (נוגה), another Mars (מאדמים), one the substance of Heaven (Heaven's essence), one the angel of light (אוריאל), and another the angel of fire (נוריאל.) (See Sohar i, 42, etc.) The demons, making up the second group of angels, which are the coarsest and most deficient forms, are the shells (Peels) of existence, occupying the third livable or Assiatic World (World of Action). They also have ten degrees, corresponding to the ten Sephiroth, with darkness and impurity growing stronger with each descending level. Thus, the first two degrees are merely the absence of all visible shape and organization, which the Mosaic cosmology describes with the words תהו ובהו before the hexahemeron, and which the Septuagint translates as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. The third degree is the home of the darkness described in the book of Genesis as having covered the face of the earth in the beginning. Following this are seven infernal halls (Seven Heavens) = Hells, inhabited by the demons, which embody all human vices, and torment those unfortunate souls who allowed themselves to be misled in this world. These seven infernal halls are divided into endless compartments, providing a separate torture chamber for every type of sin. The ruler of this dark realm, referred to as Satan in the Bible, is called by the Kabbalah, Samaël (סמאל) = angel of poison or of death. He is the same evil spirit, Satan, the serpent, who tempted Eve.12 He has a wife known as the Harlot or the Woman of Whoredom (אישה זונה), but they are usually depicted under the single name of the Beast (חיוא). See Sohar, ii, 255–259, with i, 35 b.
The whole universe, however, was incomplete, and did not receive its finishing stroke till man was formed, who is the acme of the creation, and the microcosm uniting in himself the totality of beings. “The Heavenly Adam (i.e., the ten Sephiroth), who emanated from the highest primordial obscurity (i.e., the En Soph), created the Earthly Adam.” (Sohar, ii, 70 b.) “Man is both the import and the highest degree of creation, for which reason he was formed on the sixth day. As soon as man was created, everything was complete, including the upper and nether worlds, for everything is comprised in man. He unites in himself all forms.” (Sohar, iii, 48 a.)13 Man was created with faculties and features far transcending those of the angels. The bodies of the protoplasts were not of that gross matter which constitutes our bodies. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were wrapped in that luminous ethereal substance in which the celestial spirits are clad, and which is neither subject to want nor to sensual desires. They were envied by the angels of the highest rank. The fall, however, changed it all, as we are told in the following passage—“When Adam [112]dwelled in the garden of Eden, he was dressed in the celestial garment, which is a garment of heavenly light. But when he was expelled from the garden of Eden, and became subject to the wants of this world, what is written? ‘The Lord God made coats of skins unto Adam and to his wife, and clothed them’ ( Gen. iii, 21 ); for prior to this they had garments of light—light of that light which was used in the garden of Eden.” (Sohar, ii, 229 b.) The garments of skin, therefore, mean our present body, which was given to our first parents in order to adapt them to the changes which the fall introduced.
The entire universe, however, was incomplete and didn’t reach its full potential until man was created, who stands as the pinnacle of creation and embodies the whole of existence within himself. “The Heavenly Adam (i.e., the ten Sephiroth), who emerged from the deepest primordial darkness (i.e., the En Soph), created the Earthly Adam.” (Sohar, ii, 70 b.) “Man represents both the essence and the highest point of creation, which is why he was made on the sixth day. Once man was created, everything became complete, including the heavens and the earth, because everything is found within man. He encompasses all forms.” (Sohar, iii, 48 a.) 13 Man was created with abilities and characteristics far surpassing those of the angels. The bodies of the original humans were not made of the coarse matter that makes up our bodies. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were enveloped in a luminous ethereal substance that is the attire of celestial beings, which is not subject to need or physical desires. They were envied by the highest-ranking angels. However, the fall changed everything, as indicated in the following passage—“When Adam [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] lived in the garden of Eden, he was clothed in a divine garment, a garment of heavenly light. But when he was cast out of the garden of Eden and became subject to the needs of this world, what does it say? ‘The Lord God made coats of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them’ ( Gen. iii, 21 ); because before this they had garments of light—the light from that light which was present in the garden of Eden.” (Sohar, ii, 229 b.) The coats of skin, therefore, signify our current bodies, which were given to our first parents to help them adapt to the changes brought by the fall.
But even in the present form, the righteous are above the angels,14 and every man is still the microcosm, and every member of his body corresponds to a constituent part of the visible universe. “What is man? Is he simply skin, flesh, bones, and veins? No! That which constitutes the real man is the soul, and those things which are called the skin, the flesh, the bones, and the veins, all these are merely a garment, they are simply the clothes of the man, but not the man himself. When man departs, he puts off these garments wherewith the son of man is clothed. Yet are all these bones and sinews formed in the secret of the highest wisdom, after the heavenly image. The skin represents the firmament, which extends everywhere, and covers everything like a garment—as it is written, ‘Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.’ ( Ps. clv, 2 ) … The flesh represents the deteriorated part of the world;… the bones and the veins represent the heavenly chariot, the inner powers, the servants of God.… But these are the [113]outer garments, for in the inward part is the deep mystery of the heavenly man. Everything here below, as above, is mysterious. Therefore it is written—‘God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him’ ( Gen. i, 27 ); repeating the word God twice, one for the man and the other for the woman. The mystery of the earthly man is after the mystery of the Heavenly Man. And just as we see in the firmament above, covering all things, different signs which are formed of the stars and planets, and which contain secret things and profound mysteries, studied by those who are wise and expert in these signs; so there are in the skin, which is the cover of the body of the son of man, and which is like the sky that covers all things, signs and features which are the stars and planets of the skin, indicating secret things and profound mysteries, whereby the wise are attracted, who understand to read the mysteries in the human face.” (Sohar, ii, 76 a.) He is still the presence of God upon earth (שכינתא תתאה), and the very form of the body depicts the Tetragrammaton, the most sacred name Jehovah (יהוה). Thus the head is the form of the י, the arms and the shoulders are like the ה, the breast represents the form of the ו, whilst the two legs with the back represent the form of the second ה. (Sohar, ii, 42 a.)15
But even in this current state, the righteous are above the angels, 14 and every person is still a microcosm, with every part of their body corresponding to a part of the visible universe. “What is a person? Are they just skin, flesh, bones, and veins? No! What truly makes a person is the soul, and those things referred to as skin, flesh, bones, and veins are merely a garment; they are simply the clothes of a person, but not the person themselves. When a person departs, they shed these garments that clothe humanity. Yet all these bones and sinews are formed in the secret of the highest wisdom, reflecting a heavenly image. The skin represents the firmament, extending everywhere and covering everything like a garment—as it is written, ‘Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.’ (Ps. clv, 2)… The flesh represents the degraded part of the world;… the bones and veins represent the heavenly chariot, the inner powers, the servants of God.… But these are the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] outer garments, for within lies the deep mystery of the heavenly person. Everything here below, as above, is mysterious. Therefore, it is written—‘God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him’ (Gen. i, 27); repeating the word God twice, once for man and once for woman. The mystery of the earthly person is linked to the mystery of the Heavenly Person. Just as we see in the firmament above, covering all things, different signs formed by stars and planets, which contain secrets and profound mysteries studied by those wise in these signs; so too are there in the skin—the covering of the body of humanity—which is like the sky that covers everything, signs and features that are the stars and planets of the skin, indicating hidden things and deep mysteries, drawing the wise who understand how to read the mysteries in the human face.” (Sohar, ii, 76 a.) He is still the presence of God on earth (שכינה תחתונה), and the very form of the body depicts the Tetragrammaton, the most sacred name Jehovah (יהוה). Thus, the head is the form of the י, the arms and shoulders are like the ה, the chest represents the form of the ו, while the two legs and the back represent the form of the second ה. (Sohar, ii, 42 a.) 15
The souls of all these epitomes of the universe are pre-existent in the World of Emanations,16 and are without exception [114]destined to inhabit human bodies, and pursue their course upon earth for a certain number of years. Hence we are told that, “When the Holy One, blessed be his name, wished to create the world, the universe was before him in idea. He then formed all the souls which are destined for the whole human race. All were minutely before him in the same form which they were to assume in the human body. He looked at each one of them; and there were some among them which would corrupt their way upon the earth.” (Sohar, i, 96 b). Like the Sephiroth from which it emanates, every soul has ten potencies, which are subdivided into a trinity of triads, and are respectively represented by (I) The Spirit, (נשמה), which is the highest degree of being, and which both corresponds to and is operated upon by The Crown (כתר), representing the highest triad in the Sephiroth, called the Intellectual World; (II) The Soul (רוח), which is the seat of good and evil, as well as the moral qualities, and which both corresponds to and is operated upon by Beauty (תפארת), representing the second triad in the Sephiroth, called the Moral World; and (III) The Cruder Spirit (נפש), which is immediately connected with the body, is the direct cause of its lower functions, instincts, and animal life, and which both corresponds to and is operated upon by Foundation (יסוד), representing the third triad in the Sephiroth, called the Material World.
The souls of these representations of the universe exist beforehand in the World of Emanations, 16 and are all intended to inhabit human bodies, spending a set number of years on earth. We learn that, “When the Holy One, blessed be his name, wanted to create the world, the universe was already conceived in his mind. He then shaped all the souls destined for humanity. All were meticulously before him in the same form they would take in human bodies. He observed each one; some among them would lead their lives astray on earth.” (Sohar, i, 96 b). Like the Sephiroth from which it originates, every soul has ten abilities, divided into three sets of three, represented respectively by (I) The Spirit, (Soul), which is the highest state of existence, corresponding to and influenced by The Crown (Crown), representing the top triad in the Sephiroth, known as the Intellectual World; (II) The Soul (Spirit), which encompasses the qualities of good and evil, and which corresponds to and is influenced by Beauty (Glory), representing the second triad in the Sephiroth, referred to as the Moral World; and (III) The Cruder Spirit (Soul), which is closely tied to the body, directly responsible for its lower functions, instincts, and animal life, and which corresponds to and is influenced by Foundation (Foundation), representing the third triad in the Sephiroth, known as the Material World.
In its original state each soul is androgynous, and is separated into male and female when it descends on earth to be borne in a human body. We have seen that the souls of [115]the righteous, in the world of spirits, are superior in dignity to the heavenly powers and the ministering angels. It might, therefore, be asked why do these souls leave such an abode of bliss, and come into this vale of tears to dwell in tabernacles of clay? The only reply to be given is that these happy souls have no choice in the matter. Indeed we are told that the soul, before assuming a human body, addresses God—“Lord of the Universe! I am happy in this world, and do not wish to go into another world, where I shall be a bond-maid, and be exposed to all kinds of pollutions.” (Sohar, ii, 96.)17 And can you wonder at this pitiful ejaculation? Should your philanthropic feelings and your convictions that our heavenly Father ordains all things for the good of his children, impel you to ask that an explanation of this mystery might graciously be vouchsafed to you in order to temper your compassion and calm your faith, then take this parable. “A son was born to a King; he sends him to the country, there to be nursed and brought up till he is grown up, and instructed in the ceremonies and usages of the royal palace. When the King hears that the education of his son is finished, what does his fatherly love impel him to do? For his son’s sake he sends for the Queen his mother, conducts him into the palace and makes merry with him all day. Thus the Holy One, blessed be he, has a son with the Queen: this is the heavenly and sacred soul. He sends him into the country, that is into this world, therein to grow up and to learn the customs of the court. When the King hears that this his son has grown up in the country, and that it is time to bring him into the palace, what does his love for his son impel him to do? He sends, for his sake, [116]for the Queen and conducts him to the palace.” (Sohar, i, 245 b.)
In its original form, each soul is androgynous and is divided into male and female when it comes to earth to be born in a human body. We have seen that the souls of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the righteous, in the spirit world, hold a higher status than the heavenly powers and ministering angels. One might wonder why these souls leave such a blissful existence and enter this world of suffering to dwell in fragile bodies. The only answer is that these joyful souls have no choice in the matter. Indeed, we are told that before the soul takes on a human body, it speaks to God—“Lord of the Universe! I am happy in this world and do not want to go into another world, where I will be a servant and face all kinds of impurities.” (Sohar, ii, 96.)17 And can you blame this sorrowful plea? If your compassionate nature and your belief that our heavenly Father arranges everything for the good of His children lead you to seek an explanation of this mystery to ease your sympathy and strengthen your faith, then consider this parable. “A prince is born to a king; he sends him to the countryside to be raised and educated until he’s grown and familiar with the customs and protocols of the royal palace. When the king learns that his son’s education is complete, what does his fatherly love drive him to do? For his son’s sake, he summons the queen, his mother, brings him into the palace, and celebrates with him all day. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, has a son with the queen: this is the heavenly and sacred soul. He sends him to the countryside, meaning this world, to grow up and learn the ways of the court. When the king finds out that his son has matured in the countryside and it’s time to bring him back to the palace, what does his love for his son inspire him to do? He sends for the queen for his son’s sake and leads him into the palace.” (Sohar, i, 245 b.)
As has already been remarked, the human soul, before it descends into the world, is androgynous, or in other words, consists of two component parts, each of which comprises all the elements of our spiritual nature. Thus the Sohar tells us—“Each soul and spirit, prior to its entering into this world, consists of a male and female united into one being. When it descends on this earth the two parts separate and animate two different bodies. At the time of marriage, the Holy One, blessed be he, who knows all souls and spirits, unites them again as they were before, and they again constitute one body and one soul, forming as it were the right and left of one individual; therefore ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’ (Eccl. i, 9 .)… This union, however, is influenced by the deeds of the man and by the ways in which he walks. If the man is pure and his conduct is pleasing in the sight of God, he is united with that female part of his soul which was his component part prior to his birth.” (Sohar, i, 91 b.)18 The soul carries her knowledge with her to the earth, so that “every thing which she learns here below she knew already, before she entered into this world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)
As previously mentioned, the human soul, before entering the world, is androgynous, meaning it has two parts that encompass all aspects of our spiritual nature. As the Sohar states—“Each soul and spirit, before entering this world, consists of a male and female united as one being. When it comes down to earth, the two parts separate and inhabit two different bodies. At marriage, the Holy One, blessed be he, who knows all souls and spirits, reunites them as they were before, and they again form one body and one soul, resembling the right and left sides of a single person; thus ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’ (Ecclesiastes i, 9 .)… This union, however, is affected by the man's actions and the paths he chooses. If the man is pure and his behavior is pleasing to God, he is united with that female part of his soul which was his before birth.” (Sohar, i, 91 b.)18 The soul brings her knowledge with her to earth, so that “everything she learns here was known to her before she entered this world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)
Since the form of the body as well as the soul, is made after the image of the Heavenly Man, a figure of the forthcoming body which is to clothe the newly descending soul, is sent down from the celestial regions, to hover over the couch of the husband and wife when they copulate, in order that the conception may be formed according to this model. “At [117]connubial intercourse on earth, the Holy One, blessed be he, sends a human form which bears the impress of the divine stamp. This form is present at intercourse, and if we were permitted to see it we should perceive over our heads an image resembling a human face; and it is in this image that we are formed. As long as this image is not sent by God and does not descend and hover over our heads, there can be no conception, for it is written—‘And God created man in his own image.’ ( Gen. i, 27 .) This image receives us when we enter the world, it develops itself with us when we grow, and accompanies us when we depart this life; as it is written—‘Surely, man walked in an image’ ( Ps. xxxvii, 5 ): and this image is from heaven. When the souls are to leave their heavenly abode, each soul separately appears before the Holy King, dressed in a sublime form, with the features in which it is to appear in this world. It is from this sublime form that the image proceeds. It is the third after the soul, and precedes it on the earth; it is present at the conception, and there is no conception in the world where this image is not present.” (Sohar, iii, 104 a b.)19
Since the body and soul are created in the likeness of the Heavenly Man, a form of the future body that will clothe the newly descending soul is sent down from the heavenly realms to linger over the bed of the husband and wife during intercourse, so that conception can occur according to this model. “During [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]sexual relations on earth, the Holy One, blessed be He, sends a human form that carries the mark of the divine. This form is present during intercourse, and if we could see it, we would notice an image resembling a human face hovering above us; it is in this image that we are formed. As long as this image is not sent by God and does not come down to linger over us, there can be no conception, for it is written—‘And God created man in his own image.’ (Gen. i, 27.) This image receives us when we enter the world, it grows with us as we grow, and stays with us when we leave this life; as it is written—‘Surely, man walked in an image’ (Ps. xxxvii, 5): and this image is from heaven. When souls are about to leave their heavenly home, each soul appears separately before the Holy King, dressed in a magnificent form, showcasing the features it will have in this world. The image arises from this exalted form. It is the third after the soul and precedes it on earth; it is present at conception, and there is no conception in the world where this image is not present.” (Sohar, iii, 104 a b.)19
All human countenances are divisible into the four primordial types of faces, which appeared at the mysterious chariot throne in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel, viz., the face of man, of the lion, the ox and the eagle. Our faces resemble these more or less according to the rank which our souls occupy in the intellectual or moral dominion. “And physiognomy does not consist in the external lineaments, but in the features which are mysteriously drawn in us. The features [118]in the face change according to the form which is peculiar to the inward face of the spirit. It is the spirit which produces all those physiognomical peculiarities known to the wise; and it is only through the spirit that the features have any meaning. All those spirits and souls which proceed from Eden (i.e., the highest wisdom) have a peculiar form, which is reflected in the face.” (Sohar, ii, 73 b.) The face thus lighted up by the peculiar spirit inhabiting the body, is the mirror of the soul; and the formation of the head indicates the character and temper of the man. An arched forehead is a sign of a cheerful and profound spirit, as well as of a distinguished intellect; a broad but flat forehead indicates foolishness and silliness; whilst a forehead which is flat, compressed on the sides and spiral, betokens narrowness of mind and vanity. (Comp. Sohar, ii, 71 b, 75 a.)
All human faces can be classified into four basic types, which appeared at the mysterious chariot throne in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel: the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Our faces resemble these to varying degrees based on the level our souls hold in the intellectual or moral realm. “Physiognomy doesn’t rely on outward appearance but rather on the features that are mysteriously imprinted within us. The features [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] on our faces change based on the unique characteristics of our inner spirit. It is the spirit that creates all those distinctive facial traits recognized by the wise; only through the spirit do these features carry meaning. All the spirits and souls that come from Eden (i.e., the highest wisdom) have a unique form, which is reflected in the face.” (Sohar, ii, 73 b.) Therefore, the face, illuminated by the unique spirit residing in the body, serves as a reflection of the soul; the structure of the head reveals a person's character and temperament. An arched forehead signifies a cheerful and profound spirit, as well as a remarkable intellect; a broad but flat forehead suggests foolishness and silliness; while a forehead that is flat, compressed on the sides, and spiral indicates narrow-mindedness and vanity. (Comp. Sohar, ii, 71 b, 75 a.)
As a necessary condition of free existence and of moral being, the souls are endowed by the Deity, from the very beginning, with the power of adhering in close proximity to the primordial source of infinite light from which they emanated, and of alienating themselves from that source and pursuing an independent and opposite course. Hence, Simon ben Jochai said, “If the Holy One, blessed be he, had not put within us both the good and the evil desire, which are denominated light and darkness, the created man would have neither virtue nor vice. For this reason it is written—‘Behold, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.’ ( Deut. xxx, 15 .) To this the disciples replied, Wherefore is all this? Would it not be better if reward and punishment had not existed at all, since in that case man would have been incapable of sinning and of doing evil. He rejoined, It was meet and right that he should be created as he was created, because the Law was created for him, wherein are written punishments for the [119]wicked and rewards for the righteous; and there would not have been any reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked but for created man.” (Sohar, i, 23 a.) So complete is their independence, that souls, even in their pre-existent state, can and do choose which way they intend to pursue. “All souls which are not guiltless in this world, have already alienated themselves in heaven from the Holy One, blessed be he; they have thrown themselves into an abyss at their very existence, and have anticipated the time when they are to descend on earth.… Thus were the souls before they came into this world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)
As a necessary part of living freely and morally, souls are given by God, from the very start, the ability to stay close to the original source of infinite light from which they came, or to distance themselves from that source and follow their own path. Therefore, Simon ben Jochai said, “If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not placed both good and evil desires within us, known as light and darkness, humans would have neither virtue nor vice. This is why it is written—‘Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil.’ (Deut. xxx, 15.) The disciples responded, Why is this necessary? Wouldn’t it be better if there were no reward and punishment at all, since then people wouldn’t be able to sin or do evil? He answered, It was essential and right for humans to be created as they are, because the Law was created for them, which includes punishments for the wicked and rewards for the righteous; without created humans, there would be no reward for the righteous and no punishment for the wicked.” (Sohar, i, 23 a.) So complete is their independence that souls, even before their existence, can choose which direction they want to take. “All souls that are not innocent in this world have already distanced themselves in heaven from the Holy One, blessed be He; they have thrown themselves into an abyss at their very existence and have anticipated the time when they will descend to earth.… Thus were the souls before they came into this world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)
IV. The Destiny of Man and the Universe.
IV. The Destiny of Man and the Universe.
As the En Soph constituted man the microcosm, and as the Deity is reflected in this epitome of the universe more than in any component part of the creation, all things visible and invisible are designed to aid him in passing through his probationary state here below, in gathering that experience for which his soul has been sent down, and in returning in a pure state to that source of light from which his soul emanated. This destiny of man—i.e., the reunion with the Deity from which he emanated—is the constant desire both of God and man, and is an essential principle of the soul, underlying its very essence. Discarding that blind power from our nature, which governs our animal life, which never quits this earth, and which therefore plays no part in our spiritual being, the soul possesses two kinds of powers and two sorts of feelings. It has the faculty for that extraordinary prophetical knowledge, which was vouchsafed to Moses in an exceptional manner, called the Luminous Mirror (אספקלריא נהרא = specularia), and the ordinary knowledge termed the Non-Luminous Mirror (אספקלריא דלא נהרא), respectively represented in the earthly Paradise by the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and it possesses [120]the higher feeling of love and the lower feeling of fear.20 Now the full fruition of that higher knowledge and of that loftier feeling of love can only be reaped when the soul returns to the Infinite Source of Light, and is wrapped in that luminous garment which the protoplasts forfeited through the fall. Thus we are told, “Come and see when the soul reaches that place which is called the Treasury of Life (צרורא דחיי), she enjoys a bright and luminous mirror (אספקלריאה דנהרא), which receives its light from the highest heaven. The soul could not bear this light but for the luminous mantle which she puts on. For just as the soul, when sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment to preserve herself here, so she receives above a shining garment, in order to be able to look without injury into the mirror whose light proceeds from the Lord of Light. Moses too could not approach to look into that higher light which he saw, without putting on such an ethereal garment; as it is written—‘And Moses went into the midst of the cloud’ ( Exod. xxiv, 18 ), which is to be translated by means of the cloud wherewith he wrapped himself as if dressed in a garment. At that time Moses almost discarded the whole of his earthly nature; as it is written,—‘And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights’ (ibid.); and he thus approached that dark cloud where God is enthroned. In this wise the departed spirits of the righteous dress themselves in the upper regions in luminous garments, to be able to endure that light which streams from the Lord of Light.” (Sohar, i, 65 b, 66 a.)
As the En Soph formed humans as a microcosm, and since the Divine is reflected in this embodiment of the universe more than in any part of creation, everything visible and invisible is meant to help him navigate his time here, gather the experiences for which his soul came down, and return in a pure state to the source of light from which his soul originated. This purpose of humanity—i.e., reuniting with the Divine from which it came—is a constant desire for both God and man, and is a fundamental principle of the soul, underlying its very essence. By setting aside the blind force within us that controls our animal existence, which remains tied to this earth and thus doesn't play a role in our spiritual life, the soul has two kinds of abilities and two types of feelings. It has the capacity for the extraordinary prophetic knowledge, which was uniquely granted to Moses, called the Luminous Mirror (אספקלריא נהרא = specularia), and the regular knowledge known as the Non-Luminous Mirror (תכונה לא נראית), which are represented in the earthly Paradise by the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and it possesses [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the higher feeling of love and the lower feeling of fear.20 The full realization of that higher knowledge and that greater feeling of love can only be attained when the soul returns to the Infinite Source of Light and is wrapped in that luminous garment that the first humans lost due to the fall. We are told, “Come and see when the soul reaches that place known as the Treasury of Life (Life's struggles), she enjoys a bright and luminous mirror (אספקלריאה דנהרה), which receives its light from the highest heaven. The soul could not endure this light without the luminous mantle she wears. Just as the soul, when sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment to protect herself here, she receives a shining garment above, so she can safely look into the mirror whose light comes from the Lord of Light. Moses too couldn't approach to gaze into that higher light without putting on such an ethereal garment; as it is written—‘And Moses went into the midst of the cloud’ (Exod. xxiv, 18), which translates to by means of the cloud he wrapped himself in as if dressed in a garment. At that time, Moses almost shed all of his earthly nature; as it is written,—‘And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights’ (ibid.); thus, he approached that dark cloud where God is seated. In this way, the souls of the righteous dress themselves in the upper realms in luminous garments, to endure the light that flows from the Lord of Light.” (Sohar, i, 65 b, 66 a.)
The two feelings of love and fear are designed to aid the soul in achieving her high destiny, when she shall no more [121]look through the dark glass, but see face to face in the presence of the Luminous Mirror, by permeating all acts of obedience and divine worship. And though perfect love, which is serving God purely out of love, like that higher knowledge, is to be man’s destiny in heaven, yet the soul may attain some of it on earth, and endeavour to serve God out of love and not from fear, as thereby she will have an antepast on earth of its union with the Deity, which is to be so rapturous and indissoluble in heaven. “Yet is the service which arises from fear not to be depreciated, for fear leads to love. It is true that he who obeys God out of love has attained to the highest degree, and already belongs to the saints of the world to come, but it must not be supposed that to worship God out of fear is no worship. Such a service has also its merit, though in this case the union of the soul with the Deity is slight. There is only one degree which is higher than fear: it is love. In love is the mystery of the divine unity. It is love which unites the higher and lower degrees together; it elevates everything to that position where everything must be one. This is also the mystery of the words, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’ ” (Sohar, ii, 216 a.)
The two feelings of love and fear are meant to help the soul reach her true purpose, when she will no longer look through a dark glass but will see face to face in the presence of the Luminous Mirror, by filling all acts of obedience and divine worship. Although perfect love—serving God purely out of love—like that higher understanding, is meant to be man's destiny in heaven, the soul can experience some of it on earth and strive to serve God out of love rather than fear. By doing so, she will have a taste of her union with the Deity on earth, which will be so joyous and unbreakable in heaven. “However, the service that comes from fear shouldn’t be underestimated, because fear can lead to love. It is true that he who obeys God out of love has reached the highest level and already belongs to the saints of the world to come, but it shouldn't be thought that worshiping God out of fear is worthless. That service has its value too, even though it brings a weaker connection between the soul and the Deity. There is only one level higher than fear: it is love. In love lies the mystery of divine unity. Love connects the higher and lower levels together; it raises everything to a point where everything must be one. This is also the mystery behind the words, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’ ” (Sohar, ii, 216 a.)
Hence it is that these two principles play so important a part in the devotions and contemplations of the Kabbalists; Love is made to correspond to Mercy, the fourth Sephira, whilst Fear is made to answer to Rigour, the fifth Sephira; and it is asserted that when these two principles are thoroughly combined by the righteous in their divine worship and acts of obedience, the name Jehovah, which comprises these two principles, and which is now rent in twain by the preponderance of sin and disobedience, will be re-united. Then, and then only, will all the souls return to the bosom of the Father of our spirits; then will the restitution of all things take place, and the earth shall be covered with the knowledge of God even as the waters cover the sea. This is the reason why the [122]Kabbalists utter the following prayer prior to the performance of any of the commandments: “For the re-union of the Holy One, blessed be his name, and his Shechinah, I do this in love and fear, in fear and love, for the union of the name יה with וה into a perfect harmony! I pronounce this in the name of all Israel!”21 In order to represent this union to the senses the words Fear יראה and Love אהבה, are divided, and so placed above each other that they may be read either across or down, as follows:—
Hence, these two principles play such an important role in the devotions and contemplations of the Kabbalists; Love corresponds to Compassion, the fourth Sephira, while Fear corresponds to Rigor, the fifth Sephira; and it is claimed that when these two principles are fully combined by the righteous in their divine worship and acts of obedience, the name Jehovah, which encompasses these two principles and is currently split apart by the dominance of sin and disobedience, will be reunited. Then, and only then, will all souls return to the embrace of the Father of our spirits; then the restoration of all things will occur, and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God just as the waters cover the sea. This is why the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Kabbalists recite the following prayer before performing any of the commandments: "For the reunion of the Holy One, blessed be His name, and His Shechinah, I do this in love and fear, in fear and love, for the union of the name יה with וה into a perfect harmony! I declare this in the name of all Israel!" 21 To visually represent this union, the words Fear יראה and Love Love are separated and positioned above each other so they can be read either horizontally or vertically, as follows:—
יר | אה |
אה | בה |
When thus fulfilling the commandments the pious not only enjoy a prelibation of that sublime light which shines in heaven, and which will serve them as a garment when they enter into the other world and appear before the Holy One (Sohar, ii, 299 b), but become on earth already the habitation of the Sephiroth, and each saint has that Sephira incarnate in him which corresponds to the virtue he most cultivates, or to the feature most predominant in his character. Among the patriarchs, therefore, who were the most exalted in piety, we find that Love, the fourth Sephira, was incarnate in Abraham; Rigour, the fifth Sephira, in Isaac; Mildness, the sixth Sephira, in Jacob; Firmness, the seventh Sephira, in Moses; Splendour, the eighth Sephira, in Aaron; Foundation, the ninth Sephira, in Joseph; and Kingdom, the tenth Sephira, was incarnate in David. Hence all the righteous who constitute the emanations, of the ten Sephiroth are divided into three classes corresponding to the three principles or Pillars exhibited in the Kabbalistic Tree, viz.:—I. The Pillar of Mercy (חסד), represented by the [123]Patriarch Abraham (comp. חסד לאברהם Micah, vii, 20 ;) II. The Pillar of Justice (פחד), represented by Isaac (comp. פחד יצחק Gen. xxxi, 42 ); and III. The Middle Pillar, represented by Jacob (comp. אמת ליעקב Micah vii, 20 ), which is the connecting or uniting principle. (Sohar, i, 146 a; 148 b.) It is for this reason that the patriarchs are denominated the Chariot-throne of the Lord.
When they follow the commandments, the faithful not only get a taste of the divine light that shines in heaven, which will serve as their garment when they enter the afterlife and stand before the Holy One (Sohar, ii, 299 b), but they also become the dwelling place of the Sephiroth here on earth. Each saint embodies the Sephira that aligns with the virtue they focus on the most or the trait that is most prominent in their character. Among the patriarchs, who were the highest in piety, we see that Love, the fourth Sephira, was embodied in Abraham; Rigor, the fifth Sephira, in Isaac; Gentleness, the sixth Sephira, in Jacob; Stability, the seventh Sephira, in Moses; Splendor, the eighth Sephira, in Aaron; Foundation, the ninth Sephira, in Joseph; and Kingdom, the tenth Sephira, was embodied in David. Therefore, all the righteous who make up the emanations of the ten Sephiroth are classified into three groups that correspond to the three principles or Pillars shown in the Kabbalistic Tree: I. The Mercy Pillar (Kindness), represented by the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Patriarch Abraham (see Kindness to Abraham Micah, vii, 20 ); II. The Justice Pillar (Fear), represented by Isaac (see Fear of Isaac Gen. xxxi, 42 ); and III. The Middle Pillar, represented by Jacob (see Truth to Jacob Micah vii, 20 ), which acts as the connecting or unifying principle. (Sohar, i, 146 a; 148 b.) This is why the patriarchs are called the Chariot-throne of the Lord.
Following the paths of righteousness, the saints on earth enjoy the protection of heaven in an especial manner, by virtue of the divine wisdom inherent in them, for they are able to decipher the signs which God has put in the firmament to shield them from accidents. “In heaven above, that surrounds the universe, are signs in which the deepest mysteries are concealed. These signs are constellations and stars, which are studied and deciphered by the wise.” (Sohar, ii, 76 a.) Hence the admonition—“He who has to start on a journey very early, should rise at daybreak, look carefully towards the east, and he will perceive certain signs resembling letters which pierce through the sky and appear above the horizon. These shining forms are those of the letters wherewith God created heaven and earth. Now, if man knows the secret meaning of the sacred name, consisting of forty-two letters, and meditates on it with becoming devotion and enthusiasm, he will perceive six Jods (יוד״ין) in the pure sky, three to the right and three to the left, as well as three Vavs (וו״ין), which hover about in the heavenly arch. These are the letters of the priestly benediction (ברכת כהנים).… In the bright morning he will perceive a pillar towards the west, hanging perpendicularly over the earthly paradise, and another pillar hanging over the centre of paradise. This luminous pillar has the three colours of a purple web: three birds stand on it, singing in the following manner. The first sings, ‘Hallelujah! Praise, O ye servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord’ ( Ps. cxiii, 1 ); the second, ‘Blessed be the name [124]of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore’ (ibid., v. 2 ); and the third, ‘From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, the Lord’s name is to be praised’ (ibid., v. 3 ). This is the time when the pious traveller is to offer up his morning prayer, in order that he may secure heaven’s blessings and the sublime and divine mercy as his sure guide.” (Sohar, ii, 130 b.)
Following the paths of righteousness, the saints on earth receive special protection from heaven due to the divine wisdom within them, enabling them to understand the signs that God has placed in the sky to safeguard them from harm. “In the heavens that surround the universe, there are signs concealing deep mysteries. These signs are constellations and stars, which the wise study and interpret.” (Sohar, ii, 76 a.) Therefore, it is advised—“Anyone starting a journey early should rise at dawn, look carefully to the east, and they will see certain signs resembling letters lighting up the sky above the horizon. These glowing shapes represent the letters with which God created heaven and earth. If a person understands the secret meaning of the sacred name, composed of forty-two letters, and reflects on it with appropriate devotion and enthusiasm, they will notice six Jods (יודעים) in the clear sky, three to the right and three to the left, along with three Vavs (וו״ין), which hover in the heavenly arch. These are the letters used in the priestly blessing (Priestly Blessing).… In the bright morning, they will see a pillar toward the west, hanging vertically over the earthly paradise, and another pillar suspended over the center of paradise. This glowing pillar displays three colors of purple: three birds sit on it, singing as follows. The first sings, ‘Hallelujah! Praise, O you servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord’ ( Ps. cxiii, 1 ); the second, ‘Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and forever’ (ibid., v. 2 ); and the third, ‘From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Lord’s name is to be praised’ (ibid., v. 3 ). This is the moment when the devout traveler should offer their morning prayer, so that they may receive heaven’s blessings and the sublime divine mercy as their steadfast guide.” (Sohar, ii, 130 b.)
Now since it is an absolute condition of the soul to return to the Infinite Source from which it emanated, after developing all those perfections, the germs of which are eternally implanted in it; and since some souls do not at once develope these fruits of righteousness, which precludes their immediate reunion with their Primordial Source, another term of life is vouchsafed to them, so that they may be able to cultivate those virtues which they stifled in their former bodily life, and without which it is impossible for them to return to their heavenly home. Hence, if the soul, in its first assuming a human body and sojourn on earth, fails to acquire that experience for which it descends from heaven, and becomes contaminated by that which is polluting, it must re-inhabit a body again and again till it is able to ascend in a purified state through repeated trials. Thus we are told that22 “All souls are subject to transmigration (עאין בגלגולא), and men do not know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be he; they do not know that they are brought before the tribunal, both before they enter into this world and after they quit it, they are ignorant of the many transmigrations and secret probations which they have to undergo, and of the number of souls and spirits which enter into this world, and do not return to the palace of the Heavenly King. Men do not know how the [125]souls revolve like a stone which is thrown from a sling; as it is written—‘And the souls of thine enemies them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling.’ ( 1 Sam., xxv, 29 .) But the time is at hand when these mysteries will be disclosed.” (Sohar, ii, 99 b.)
Now, since it’s an absolute requirement for the soul to return to the Infinite Source from which it originated, after developing all the qualities that are eternally embedded within it; and since some souls don’t immediately develop these qualities of righteousness, which prevents their instant reunion with their Original Source, another chance at life is granted to them, so they can nurture those virtues they neglected in their previous life, and without which they cannot return to their heavenly home. Therefore, if the soul, upon first taking a human body and living on earth, fails to gain the experiences for which it descends from heaven, and gets tainted by that which is corrupting, it must inhabit another body repeatedly until it can ascend in a purified state through repeated trials. Thus, it is said that22 “All souls are subject to reincarnation (עאין בגלגולא), and people do not understand the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He; they are unaware that they are brought before the judgment, both before they come into this world and after they leave it, they are ignorant of the many reincarnations and hidden trials they must face, and of the many souls and spirits that enter this world but do not return to the palace of the Heavenly King. People do not realize how the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] souls revolve like a stone thrown from a sling; as it is written—‘And the souls of your enemies He will hurl away, like a stone from the middle of a sling.’ (1 Sam., xxv, 29.) But the time is coming when these mysteries will be revealed.” (Sohar, ii, 99 b.)
The transmigration of the soul into another body, however, is restricted to three times; and if two souls in their third residence in human bodies are still too weak to resist all earthly trammels and to acquire the necessary experience, they are both united and sent into one body, so that they may be able conjointly to learn that which they were too feeble to do separately. It sometimes, however, happens that it is the singleness and isolation of the soul which is the source of her weakness, and she requires help to pass through her probation. In that case she chooses for a companion a soul which has more strength and better fortune. The stronger of the two then becomes as it were the mother; she carries the sickly one in her bosom, and nurses her from her own substance, just as a woman nurses her child. Such an association is therefore called pregnancy (עיבור), because the stronger soul gives as it were life and substance to the weaker companion.23 [126]
The soul’s journey into another body is limited to three times. If two souls in their third life as humans are still too weak to break free from worldly constraints and gain the needed experience, they are joined together and sent into one body so they can learn together what they couldn't manage alone. Sometimes, though, it's the solitude and separation of the soul that makes her weak, and she needs support to get through her challenges. In that case, she picks a companion who is stronger and more fortunate. The stronger one essentially becomes like a mother; she carries the weaker one within her and nurtures her from her own essence, just like a woman cares for her child. This kind of partnership is called pregnancy (עיבור) because the stronger soul provides life and sustenance to the weaker one.23 [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
As the world, like all other living beings, is a further expansion of the Deity’s own substance, it too must ultimately share that blessedness which it enjoyed in its first evolution. This is indicated in the letter ב with which the history of the creation begins (i.e. ב״ראשית), and which is also the first letter in the word blessing (ב״רכה).24 Even the archangel of wickedness, or the venomous beast (חוייא בישא), or Samäel (סמאל), as he is called, will be restored to his angelic nature and name, inasmuch as he too, like all other beings, proceeded from the same infinite source of all things. The first part of his name (סﬦ), which signifies venom, will then be dropped, and he will retain the second part (אל), which is the common name of all the angels. This, however, will only take place at the advent of Messiah. But his coming is retarded by the very few new souls which enter into the world; as many of the old souls which have already inhabited bodies have to reenter those bodies which are now born, in consequence of having polluted themselves in their previous bodily existence, and the soul of the Messiah, which, like other souls, has its pre-existence in the world of the Sephiroth, cannot be born till all human souls have passed through their period of probation on this earth, because it is to be the last born one at the end of days. Then the great Jubilee year will commence, when the whole pleroma of souls (אוצר הנשמות), cleaned and purified shall return into the bosom of the Infinite Source; and they shall be in “the Palace which is situate in the secret and most elevated part of heaven, and which is called the Palace of Love (היכל אהבה). There the profoundest mysteries are; there dwells the Heavenly King, blessed be he, with the holy souls, and is united with them by a loving kiss. [127](Sohar, ii, 97 a.) “This kiss is the union of the soul with the substance from which it emanated.” (Ibid., i, 168 a.) Then hell shall disappear; there shall be no more punishment, nor temptation, nor sin: life will be an everlasting feast, a Sabbath without end. Then all souls will be united with the Highest Soul, and supplement each other in the Holy of Holies of the Seven Halls (שבע היכלות). Everything will then return to unity and perfection—everything will be united into one idea, which shall be over, and fill the whole universe. The basis of this idea, however (i.e., the light which is concealed in it), will never be fathomed or comprehended; only the idea itself which emanates from it shall be comprehended. In that state the creature will not be distinguished from the Creator, the same idea will illuminate both. Then the soul will rule the universe like God, and what she shall command he will execute. (Sohar, i, 45 a and b.)
As the world, like all living beings, is an extension of the Deity's own substance, it must ultimately share in the blessedness it experienced in its early stages. This is signified by the letter ב with which the account of creation begins (i.e. In the beginning), and which is also the first letter in the word blessing (בברכה).24 Even the archangel of evil, or the venomous beast (חוייא בישא), or Samäel (Left), as he is referred to, will be restored to his angelic nature and name, since he too, like all other beings, originated from the same infinite source of all things. The first part of his name (סﬦ), which means venom, will then be left behind, and he will keep the second part (אל), which is the common name for all angels. This, however, will only happen when the Messiah arrives. But his arrival is delayed by the small number of new souls entering the world; many of the old souls that previously inhabited bodies have to re-enter those bodies which are now being born, due to having polluted themselves in their previous existence. The soul of the Messiah, like other souls, exists in the world of the Sephiroth and cannot be born until all human souls have completed their time on earth, because he will be the last one born at the end of days. Then the great Jubilee year will begin, when the entire pleroma of souls (Soul treasure), cleansed and purified, will return to the bosom of the Infinite Source; and they will dwell in “the Palace situated in the secret and highest part of heaven, known as the Palace of Love (Hall of Love). There are the deepest mysteries; there resides the Heavenly King, blessed be he, with the holy souls, and he is united with them by a loving kiss. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__](Sohar, ii, 97 a.) “This kiss is the union of the soul with the substance from which it originated.” (Ibid., i, 168 a.) Then hell will vanish; there will be no more punishment, temptation, or sin: life will be an everlasting feast, a Sabbath without end. Then all souls will unite with the Highest Soul and enrich each other in the Holy of Holies of the Seven Halls (Seven palaces). Everything will then return to unity and perfection—everything will be combined into one idea, which will encompass and fill the entire universe. However, the essence of this idea (i.e., the light concealed within it) will never be fully understood or grasped; only the idea itself that emanates from it will be comprehended. In that state, the creature will not be distinguished from the Creator; the same idea will illuminate both. Then the soul will govern the universe like God, and whatever she commands will be executed. (Sohar, i, 45 a and b.)
V. The Kabbalistic view of the Old Testament, and its relation to Christianity.
V. The Kabbalistic perspective on the Old Testament and its connection to Christianity.
We have already seen that the Kabbalah claims a pre-Adamite existence, and asserts that its mysteries are covertly conveyed in the first four books of the Pentateuch. Those of us who read the Books of Moses, and cannot discover in them any of the above-mentioned doctrines, will naturally ask for the principles of exegesis whereby these secrets are deduced from or rather introduced into the text. These principles are laid down in the following declaration:—“If the Law simply consisted of ordinary expressions and narratives, e. gr., the words of Esau, Hagar, Laban, the ass of Balaam, or of Balaam himself, why should it be called the Law of truth, the perfect Law, the true witness of God? Each word contains a sublime source, each narrative points not only to the single instance in question, but also to generals.” (Sohar, iii, 149 b.) “Woe be to the son of man who says that the Tora (Pentateuch) contains common sayings [128]and ordinary narratives.25 For, if this were the case, we might in the present day compose a code of doctrines from profane writings which should excite greater respect. If the Law contains ordinary matter, then there are nobler sentiments in profane codes. Let us go and make a selection from them, and we shall be able to compile a far superior code.26 But [129]every word of the Law has a sublime sense and a heavenly mystery.… Now the spiritual angels had to put on an earthly garment when they descended to this earth; and if they had not put on such a garment, they could neither have remained nor be understood on the earth. And just as it was with the angels so it is with the Law. When it descended on earth, the Law had to put on an earthly garment to be understood by us, and the narratives are its garment. There are some who think that this garment is the real Law, and not the spirit which it clothed, but these have no portion in the world to come; and it is for this reason that David prayed, ‘Open thou mine eyes that I may behold the wondrous things out of the Law.’ ( Ps. cxix, 18 .) What is under the garment of the Law? There is the garment which every one can see; and there are foolish people who, when they see a well-dressed man, think of nothing more worthy than this beautiful garment, and take it for the body, whilst the worth of the body itself consists in the soul. The Law too has a body: this is the commandments, which are called the body of the Law. This body is clothed in garments, which are the ordinary narratives. The fools of this world look at nothing else but this garment, which consists of the narratives in the Law; they do not know any more, and do not understand what is beneath this garment. But those who have more understanding do not look at the garment but at the body beneath it (i.e., the moral); whilst the wisest, the servants of the Heavenly King, those who dwell at Mount Sinai, look at nothing else but the soul (i.e., the secret doctrine), which is the root of all the real Law, and these are destined in the world to come to behold the Soul of this Soul (i.e., the Deity), which breathes in the Law.” (Sohar, iii, 152 a.) [130]
We have already seen that the Kabbalah claims a pre-Adamite existence and asserts that its mysteries are subtly conveyed in the first four books of the Pentateuch. Those of us who read the Books of Moses and cannot find any of the aforementioned doctrines will naturally ask what principles of interpretation allow these secrets to be derived from—or rather inserted into—the text. These principles are stated in the following declaration:—“If the Law simply consisted of ordinary expressions and narratives, for example, the words of Esau, Hagar, Laban, the donkey of Balaam, or Balaam himself, why should it be called the Law of truth, the perfect Law, the true witness of God? Each word contains a profound source, each narrative points not only to the specific case at hand but also to broader concepts.” (Sohar, iii, 149 b.) “Woe to the person who says that the Tora (Pentateuch) contains common sayings and ordinary narratives. For if this were the case, we could today create a set of doctrines from secular writings that would command greater respect. If the Law contains ordinary material, then there are nobler sentiments in secular texts. Let’s go and select from them, and we could compile a far superior code. But every word of the Law has a profound meaning and a heavenly mystery.… Now the spiritual angels had to take on a physical form when they came to this earth; and if they hadn’t taken on such a form, they wouldn’t have been able to stay or be understood on earth. Just like the angels, the Law also had to take on an earthly form to be comprehensible to us, and the narratives serve as that form. Some believe that this form is the real Law, not the spirit it embodies, but those people have no share in the world to come; and that’s why David prayed, ‘Open my eyes so that I may see the wondrous things from the Law.’ (Ps. cxix, 18.) What lies beneath the form of the Law? There is the form that everyone can see; and there are foolish people who, when they see a well-dressed person, think of nothing worthier than the beautiful outfit and mistake it for the body, while the true worth of the body lies in the soul. The Law too has a body: this is the commandments, which are called the body of the Law. This body is clothed in forms, which are the ordinary narratives. The fools of this world see nothing beyond this form, which consists of the narratives in the Law; they don’t know anything deeper and don’t understand what’s beneath this form. But those who have more understanding do not look at the form but at the body beneath it (i.e., the moral); while the wisest, the servants of the Heavenly King, those who dwell at Mount Sinai, see nothing except the soul (i.e., the secret doctrine), which is the root of all true Law, and they are destined in the world to come to behold the Soul of this Soul (i.e., the Deity), which breathes in the Law.” (Sohar, iii, 152 a.)
The opinion that the mysteries of the Kabbalah are to be found in the garment of the Pentateuch is still more systematically propounded in the following parable. “Like a beautiful woman, concealed in the interior of her palace, who when her friend and beloved passes by, opens for a moment a secret window and is seen by him alone, and then withdraws herself immediately and disappears for a long time, so the doctrine only shows herself to the chosen (i.e., to him who is devoted to her with body and soul); and even to him not always in the same manner. At first she simply beckons at the passer-by with her hand, and it generally depends upon his understanding this gentle hint. This is the interpretation known by the name רמז. Afterwards she approaches him a little closer, lisps him a few words, but her form is still covered with a thick veil, which his looks cannot penetrate. This is the so called דרוש. She then converses with him with her face covered by a thin veil; this is the enigmatic language of the הגדה. After having thus become accustomed to her society, she at last shows herself face to face and entrusts him with the innermost secrets of her heart. This is the secret of the Law, סוד.27 He who is thus far initiated in the mysteries [131]of the Tora will understand that all those profound secrets are based upon the simply literal sense, and are in harmony with it; and from this literal sense not a single iota is to be taken and nothing to be added to it.” (Sohar, ii, 99.)
The idea that the mysteries of the Kabbalah can be found in the teachings of the Pentateuch is more structuredly illustrated in the following parable. “Imagine a beautiful woman, hidden in the depths of her palace. When her dear friend passes by, she briefly opens a secret window, allowing only him to see her, and then quickly closes it, disappearing for a long while. Similarly, the doctrine reveals herself only to the chosen ones (i.e., to those who are fully devoted to her); and even then, not always in the same way. At first, she merely gestures to the passerby with her hand, which relies on his ability to grasp this gentle invitation. This interpretation is called Hint. Then she approaches him a little closer, whispers a few words, but her form is still hidden behind a thick veil, through which his gaze cannot penetrate. This is known as Wanted. Next, she engages him while her face is covered by a thin veil; this represents the mysterious language of the Haggadah. Once he becomes accustomed to her presence, she finally shows herself fully and confides in him the deepest secrets of her heart. This is the secret of the Law, Secret. He who is initiated into the mysteries [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of the Tora will understand that all these profound secrets are based on the plain literal meaning and are aligned with it; and nothing should be taken away from or added to this literal sense.” (Sohar, ii, 99.)
This fourfold sense is gradually disclosed to the initiated in the mysteries of the Kabbalah by the application of definite hermeneutical rules, which chiefly affect the letters composing the words. The most prominent of these canons are—
This fourfold sense is gradually revealed to those initiated in the mysteries of the Kabbalah through the use of specific interpretive rules, which mainly focus on the letters that make up the words. The most important of these rules are—
I. Every letter of a word is reduced to its numerical value, and the word is explained by another of the same quantity. Thus from the words “Lo! three men stood by him” ( Gen. xviii, 2 ), it is deduced that these three angels were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, because והנה שלשה and lo! three men, and אלו מיכאל גבריאל ורפאל these are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, are of the same numerical value, as will be seen from the following reduction to their numerical value of both these phrases.
I. Each letter of a word is assigned its numerical value, and the word is interpreted using another word with the same total value. For example, from the phrase “Lo! three men stood by him” (Gen. xviii, 2), it’s inferred that these three angels were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, because Here are three. and lo! three men and These are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. these are Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael have the same numerical value, as shown in the following breakdown of the numerical values of both phrases.
ה | ש | ל | ש | ה | נ | ה | ו | |||||||||
5 | + | 300 | + | 30 | Below is a short piece of text (5 words or fewer). Modernize it into contemporary English if there's enough context, but do not add or omit any information. If context is insufficient, return it unchanged. Do not add commentary, and do not modify any placeholders. If you see placeholders of the form __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_x__, you must keep them exactly as-is so they can be replaced with links. | 300 | + | 5 | + | 50 | + | 5 | + | 6 | = 701 | |
ל | א | כ | י | מ | ו | ל | א | |||||||||
+ | 30 | + | 1 | + | 20 | + | 10 | + | 40 | + | 6 | + | 30 | + | 1 | |
ל | א | י | ר | ב | ג | |||||||||||
+ | 30 | + | 1 | + | 10 | + | 200 | + | 2 | + | 3 | |||||
ל | א | פ | ר | ו | ||||||||||||
30 | + | 1 | + | 80 | + | 200 | + | 6 | = 701 |
This rule in called גמטריא = גרמטיא which is a metathesis of the Greek word γράμμα, γραμμεία, or γραμματεία in the sense of numbers as represented by letters.
This rule is called Gematria = Grammar, which is a rearrangement of the Greek word γράμμα, γραμμές, or γραμματεία, referring to numbers represented by letters.
2. Every letter of a word is taken as an initial or abbreviation of a word. Thus every letter of the word בראשית, the first word in Genesis, is made the initial of a word, and we obtain בראשית ראה אלהים שיקבלו ישראל תורה in the beginning God saw that Israel would accept the Law. This rule is [132]denominated נוטריקון = notaricun, from notarius, a shorthand writer, one who among the Romans belonged to that class of writers who abbreviated and used single letters to signify whole words.
2. Each letter of a word is considered an initial or abbreviation for another word. For example, every letter in the word In the beginning, the first word in Genesis, serves as the initial for a word, giving us בְּרֵאשִׁית רָאָה אֱלֹהִים שִׁקַּבֵּל יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹרָה in the beginning God saw that Israel would accept the Law. This practice is referred to as [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] נוטריקוןUnderstood. Please provide the text for modernization. = notaricun, from notarius, a shorthand writer, someone from Roman times who belonged to the group of writers that used abbreviations and single letters to represent entire words.
3. The initial and final letters of several words are respectively formed into separate words. Thus from the beginnings and ends of the words מי יעלה לנו השמימה who shall go up for us to heaven? ( Deut. xxx, 12 ) are obtained מילה circumcision and יהוה Jehovah, and inferred that God ordained circumcision as the way to heaven.
3. The first and last letters of several words are combined to create new words. For example, from the beginnings and ends of the words מי יעלה לשמים בשבילנו who shall go up for us to heaven? ( Deut. xxx, 12 ) we get Word circumcision and יהוה Jehovah, which suggests that God established circumcision as the path to heaven.
4. Two words occurring in the same verse are joined together and made into one. Thus מי who and אלה these are made into אלהיﬦ God by transposing the י and מ. Vide supra, p. 94.28
4. Two words that appear in the same verse are combined into one. So, מי who and לאחר מכן these are merged into אלוהים God by switching the י and מ. Vide supra, p. 94.28
5. The words of those verses which are regarded as containing a peculiar recondite meaning are ranged in squares in such a manner as to be read either vertically or boustrophedonally, beginning at the right or left hand. Again the words of several verses are placed over each other, and the letters which stand under each other are formed into new words. This is especially seen in the treatment of three verses in Exod. xiv , (viz., 19–21 ), which are believed to [133]contain the three Pillars of the Sephiroth, and the Divine Name of seventy-two words. The following tables will illustrate this principle of interpretation. The first of these three verses ויסע מלאך האלהים ההלך לפני מחנה ישראל וילך מאחריהם ויסע עמוד הענן מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם, and the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them ( Exod. xiv, 19 ), is read boustrophedonally, as follows:—
5. The words of those verses that are seen as having a unique hidden meaning are arranged in squares so that they can be read either vertically or in a back-and-forth manner, starting from either the right or left side. Additionally, the words of several verses are stacked on top of one another, and the letters that align vertically are formed into new words. This is especially evident in the analysis of three verses in Exod. xiv (specifically, 19–21), which are thought to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]contain the three Pillars of the Sephiroth and the Divine Name of seventy-two words. The following tables will illustrate this method of interpretation. The first of these three verses And the angel of God who was going before the camp of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from in front of them and stood behind them., and the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them (Exod. xiv, 19), is read in a back-and-forth manner as follows:—
I.
ו | א | ל | ש | א | ע | מ | מ |
י | ל | פ | ר | ח | ע | פ | ד |
ס | ח | נ | א | ר | מ | נ | מ |
ע | י | י | ל | י | ו | י | א |
م | ם | מ | י | ח | ד | ח | ח |
ל | ח | ח | י | ם | ח | ם | ר |
א | ח | נ | ל | ו | ע | ו | י |
ך | ל | ח | ך | י | נ | ח | |
ה | ך | י | מ | ס | י | ע | ם |
The second of these three verses ויבא בין מחנה מצרים נבין מהנה ישראל ויהי העגן והחשך ויאר את הלילה ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה, and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but gave light by night to these, so that the one came not near the other all the night ( Exod. xiv, 20 ), is in the first place divided, and read from right to left, beginning at the top, as exhibited in the following diagram. [134]
The second of these three verses And he came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel, and there was a cloud and darkness, and it illuminated the night, and they did not come near each other all night., and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but gave light by night to these, so that the one came not near the other all the night ( Exod. xiv, 20 ), is first divided and read from right to left, starting at the top, as shown in the following diagram. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
II.
ו | י | ב | א | ב | י | ן | מ | ח |
נ | ה | מ | צ | ר | י | ם | ו | ב* |
י | ן | מ | ח | נ | ה | י | ש | ר |
א | ל | ו | י | ה | י | ה | ע | נ |
ן | ו | ה | ח | ש | ך | ו | י | א |
ר | א | ת | ה | ל | י | ל | ה | ו |
ל | א | ק | ר | ב | ז | ה | א | ל |
ז | ה | כ | ל | ה | ל | י | ל | ה |
It is then divided in the following manner, and read from left to right, beginning at the bottom.
It is then divided like this and read from left to right, starting at the bottom.
III.
ה | ל | י | ל | ה | ל | כ | ה |
ז | ל* | א | ה | ז | ב | ר | ק |
א | ל | ו | ה | ל | י | ל | ה |
ת | א | ר | א | י | ו | ך | ש |
ח | ה | ו | ן | נ | ע | ה | י |
ה | י | ו | ל | א | ר | ש | י |
ה | נ | ח | מ | ן | י | ב | ו |
ם | י | ר | צ | מ | ה | נ | ח |
מ | ן | י | ב | א | ב | י | ו |
[135]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
Whilst the third of these three verses ויט משה את ידו על הים ויולך יהוה את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה וישם את הים לחרבה ויבקעו המים, and Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided ( Exod. xiv. 21 ), is divided as follows, and read from the right, beginning at the bottom.
Whilst the third of these three verses And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided., and Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided ( Exod. xiv. 21 ), is divided as follows, and read from the right, beginning at the bottom.
IV.
י | ב | ק | ע | ו | ה | מ | י | ם |
ה | י | ם | ל | ח | ר | ב | ה | ו |
י | ל | ה | ו | י | ש | ם | א | ת |
י | ם | ע | ז | ה | כ | ל | ה | ל |
ה | י | ם | ב | ר | ו | ח | ק | ד |
ו | ל | ך | י | ה | ו | ה | א | ת |
ד | ו | ע | ל | ה | י | ם | ו | י |
ו | י | ט | מ | ש | ה | א | ת | י |
The three verses which have thus yielded the three Pillars of the Sephiroth, are then joined together in groups of three letters in the order in which they are read in diagrams ii, iii, and iv, and they then yield the seventy-two divine names which the Kabbalah assigns to the Deity,29 as follows:— [136]
The three verses that have produced the three Pillars of the Sephiroth are combined into groups of three letters in the order shown in diagrams ii, iii, and iv, resulting in the seventy-two divine names attributed to the Deity by the Kabbalah, 29 as follows:— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
כהת Adorandus. |
אכא Longanimis. |
ללה Annunciatus. |
מהש Quæsitus. |
Young man Salus. |
סיט Spes. |
ילי Auxiliator. |
והו Exaltator. |
Wake up Advocatus. |
הרי Ens. |
מבה Sublevator. |
יזל Decantatus. |
ההע Opportunus. |
לאו Exultabundus. |
אלד |
Hey Recordabilis. |
חהו Expetendus. |
מילה Custos. |
ייי Dexter. |
Let's go Fortis. |
פהל Ervens. |
לווּי Exauditor. |
Tool Justitin. |
לאו Dominator. |
ושר Rector. |
לכב Solus. |
אום Adolescentia. |
ריי Sanator. |
שאה Festinus. |
ירת Salvator. |
האא Invocandus. |
נתה Mirabilis. |
ייז Propulsator. |
רהע Adivtor. |
חעם Refugium. |
אני Facies. |
מנד Gloria. |
כוק Deprecatio. |
להח Expectatio. |
יחו Cogitabundus. |
מיה Revelator. |
עשל Magnificus. |
Cities Operator. |
סאל Compatiens. |
ילה Doctor. |
וול Matutinus. |
Miche Custos. |
ההה Liberator. |
Pew! Erector. |
מבחן Aeternum. |
נית Regnator. |
ננא Verus. |
עמם Altissimus. |
החש Lætabundus. |
דני Clemens. |
והו Maximus. |
מחי Mercator. |
ענה Laudabilis. |
יהה Amabilis. |
ומב Benedictus. |
מצר Justus. |
הרחבה Oriens. |
ייל Animus. |
נמם Protector. |
Flaw Requies. |
life Multus. |
Yavam Deus. |
ראה Præmium. |
חבו Bonus. |
איע Dator. |
מנק Assisteus. |
דמב Deprecabilis. |
6. The letters of words are changed by way of anagram and new words are obtained. This canon is called תמורה or חילוף אותיות, permutation, and the commutation is effected according to fixed rules. Thus the alphabet is bent exactly [137]in the middle, and one half is put over the other, and by changing alternately the first letter or the first two letters at the beginning of the second line, twenty-two commutations are produced ex. gr.:—
6. The letters of words are rearranged using anagrams to create new words. This technique is known as compensation or Letter substitution, permutation, and the changes are made according to specific rules. So, the alphabet is folded in half, with one side placed over the other, and by alternately changing the first letter or the first two letters at the start of the second line, twenty-two variations are generated for example:—
11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
[ | כ | י | ט | ח | ז | ו | ה | ד | ג | ב | א | ] | |
מ | נ | ס | ע | פ | צ | ק | ר | ש | ת | ל | |||
[ | ל | כ | י | ט | ח | ז | ו | ה | ד | ג | א | ] | or |
מ | נ | ס | ע | פ | צ | ק | ר | ש | ת | ב |
These anagramic alphabets obtain their respective names from the first two specimen pairs of letter which indicate the interchange. Thus, for instance, the first is called Albath אל״בת from the first words, the second Abgath אב״גת, and so on. The following table exhibits the established rules of the alphabetical permutations.
These anagram alphabets get their names from the first two pairs of letters that show the swap. For example, the first one is called Albath אלביט from the first words, the second is Abgath אב״גת, and so on. The table below shows the established rules of the alphabetical changes.
כם | ינ | טס | חע | זפ | וצ | הק | דר | גש | בת | אל | 1. | Albath. |
לם | כנ | יס | טע | חפ | זצ | וק | הר | דש | גת | אבא | 2. | Abgath. |
במ | לנ | כס | יע | טפ | חצ | זק | ור | הש | Religion | אג | 3. | Agdath. |
נמ | לס | כע | יפ | טצ | חק | זר | וש | הת | בג | אד | 4. | Adbag. |
גנ | מס | לע | כפ | יצ | טק | חר | זש | ות | בד | אה | 5. | Awful. |
נס | מע | לפ | כצ | יק | טר | חש | זת | גד | בה | או | 6. | Avba. |
דס | נַעַר | מפ | לצ | כק | יר | טש | חת | גה | בו | אז | 7. | Azbav. |
Go | נפ | מצ | לק | כר | יש | טת | דה | גו | בז | Bro | 8. | Achbaz. |
הע | ספ | נצ | מק | לר | כש | ית | דו | Gas | בח | אט | 9. | Atbach. |
עפ | Scene | נק | מר | לש | כת | הי | דז | גח | בט | אי | 10. | Aibat. |
ופ | עצ | סק | Candle | מש | לת | הז | דח | Get | בי | אכ | 11. | Achbi. |
פצ | עק | Sar | נש | Dead | וז | הח | דט | גי | בכ | אל | 12. | Albach. |
וצ | פק | ער | סש | נת | וח | הט | די | גכ | בל | אמ | 13. | Ambulance. |
צק | פר | עש | סת | זח | וט | Hi | דכ | גל | במ | אנ | 14. | Anbam. |
חק | צר | פש | עת | זט | וי | הכ | דל | גם | בנ | אס | 15. | Asban. |
Cold | צש | Open | חט | זי | וכ | הל | דמ | גנ | בס | אע | 16. | Aabas. |
טר | קש | טת | Alive | זכ | ול | המ | דנ | גס | בע | אפ | 17. | Afba. |
רש | קת | טי | חכ | זל | ומ | הנ | דס | גע | בפ | אצ | 18. | Azbaf. |
יש | רת | טכ | חל | זמן | ונ | הס | Know | גפ | בצ | אק | 19. | Akbaz. |
שת | יכ | טל | חמ | זנ | וס | הע | דף | גצ | בק | אר | 20. | Arbak. |
כת | יל | טמ | חנ | זס | וע | הפ | דצ | גכ | בר | Fire | 21. | Ashbar. |
All | ימ | טנ | חס | זע | ופ | הצ | Thin | גר | בש | את | 22. | Athbash. |
To this list is to be added— | ||||||||||||
שת | Cold | פצ | Drive | מנ | כל | טי | זח | היי | גד | אב | 23. | Abgad. |
כת | יש | טר | חק | זצ | ופ | הע | דס | גנ | בם | אל | 24. | Albam. |
[138]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
Besides these canons the Kabbalah also sees a recondite sense in the form of the letters, as well as in the ornaments which adorn them.
Besides these canons, the Kabbalah also perceives a hidden meaning in the shapes of the letters, as well as in the designs that embellish them.
As to the relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity, it is maintained that this theosophy propounds the doctrine of the trinity and the sufferings of Messiah. How far this is true may be ascertained from the following passages.30 “We have already remarked in several places that the daily liturgical declaration about the divine unity is that which is indicated in the Bible ( Deut. vi, 43 ), where Jehovah occurs first, then Elohenu, and then again Jehovah, which three together constitute a unity, and for this reason he [i.e., Jehovah] is in the said place called one (אחד), But there are three names, and how can they be one? And although we read one (אחד), are they really one? Now this is revealed by the vision of the Holy Ghost, and when the eyes are closed we get to know that the three are only one. This is also the mystery of the voice. The voice is only one, find yet it consists of three elements, fire [i.e., warmth], air [i.e., breath], and water [i.e., humidity], yet are all these one in the mystery of the voice, and can only be one. Thus also Jehovah, Elohenu, and Jehovah constitute one—three forms which are one. And this is indicated by the voice which man raises [i.e., at prayer], thereby to comprehend spiritually the most perfect unity of the En Soph for the finite, since all the three [i.e., Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah] are rend with the same loud voice, which comprises in itself a trinity. And this is the daily confession of the divine unity which, as a mystery, is revealed by the Holy Ghost. This unity has been explained [139]in different ways, yet he who understands it in this way is right, and he who understands it in another way is also right. The idea of unity, however formed by us here below, from the mystery of the audible voice which is one, explains the thing.” (Sohar, ii, 43 b.)
As for the connection between Kabbalah and Christianity, it’s suggested that this theosophy presents the idea of the Trinity and the sufferings of the Messiah. The accuracy of this can be evaluated through the following passages.30 “We've mentioned in several places that the daily liturgical declaration about divine unity is described in the Bible (Deut. vi, 43), where Jehovah appears first, followed by Elohenu, and then again Jehovah. These three together form a unity, and that's why he [i.e., Jehovah] is referred to as one (One). But there are three names; how can they be one? Even though we read one (One), are they actually one? This is revealed through the vision of the Holy Ghost, and when our eyes are closed, we understand that the three are really one. This also relates to the mystery of the voice. The voice is singular, yet it consists of three components: fire [i.e., warmth], air [i.e., breath], and water [i.e., humidity]. All these elements together form one, within the mystery of the voice. Likewise, Jehovah, Elohenu, and Jehovah are also one—three forms that are unified. This is expressed by the voice that a person raises [i.e., in prayer], aiming to grasp spiritually the complete unity of the En Soph for the finite, since all three [i.e., Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah] resonate with the same loud voice, which encompasses a trinity. This is the daily affirmation of divine unity that is revealed as a mystery by the Holy Ghost. This unity has been interpreted [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] in various ways, yet anyone who understands it in this manner is correct, and those who understand it differently are also correct. The concept of unity, however, formed by us here below from the mystery of the audible voice that is one, clarifies the matter.” (Sohar, ii, 43 b.)
On another occasion we are informed that R. Eleazar, whilst sitting with his father R. Simeon, was anxious to know how the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, can be interchanged, seeing that the one denotes mercy and the other judgment. Before giving the discussion between the father and the son, it is necessary to remark that whenever the two divine names, Adonai (אדוני) and Jehovah (יהוה), immediately follow each other, Jehovah is pointed and read (יְהֹוִה) Elohim. The reason of this, as it is generally supposed, is to avoid the repetition of Adonai, Adonai, since the Tetragrammaton is otherwise always pointed and read (יְהֹוָה). The Kabbalah, however, as we shall see, discovers in it a recondite meaning,31 “R. Eleazar, when sitting before his father R. Simeon, said to him, we have been taught that whenever Elohim (אלהיﬦ) occurs, it denotes Justice. Now how can Elohim sometimes be put for Jehovah, as is the case in those passages wherein Adonai (אדוני) and Jehovah (יהוה) stand together (Comp. Gen. xv, 8 ; Ezek. ii, 4 , &c.), seeing that the latter denotes mercy in all the passages in which it occurs? To which he replied, Thus it is said in the Scripture, ‘Know therefore this day and consider it in thine heart, that Jehovah is Elohim’ ( Deut. iv, 19 ); and again it is written ‘Jehovah is Elohim.’ (Ibid., ver. 35 .) Whereupon he [i.e., the son] said, I know this forsooth, that justice is sometimes tempered with [140]mercy and mercy with justice. Quoth he [i.e., the father], Come and see that it is so; Jehovah indeed does signify mercy whenever it occurs, but when through sin mercy is changed into justice, then it is written Jehovah (יהוה), but read Elohim (אלהיﬦ). Now come and see the mystery of the word [i.e., Jehovah]. There are three degrees, and each degree exists by itself [i.e., in the Deity], although the three together constitute one, they are closely united into one and are inseparable from each other.” (Sohar, iii, 65 a.)
On another occasion, we learn that R. Eleazar, while sitting with his father R. Simeon, was eager to understand how the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, can be used interchangeably, since one represents mercy and the other judgment. Before sharing the discussion between father and son, it’s important to note that whenever the two divine names, Adonai (Sir) and Jehovah (יהוה), follow each other closely, Jehovah is pointed and read as (יְהֹוִה) Elohim. The general belief is that this avoids the repetition of Adonai, Adonai, as the Tetragrammaton is otherwise always pointed and read as (יְהֹוָה). However, as we will see, the Kabbalah reveals a deeper meaning. R. Eleazar, sitting before his father R. Simeon, said, “We have been taught that whenever Elohim (אלהיﬦ) appears, it signifies Justice. So how can Elohim sometimes replace Jehovah, as seen in passages where Adonai (Sir) and Jehovah (יהוה) are together (see Gen. xv, 8; Ezek. ii, 4, etc.), considering that the latter signifies mercy in every passage where it appears?” To this, he replied, “As Scripture says, ‘Know therefore this day and consider it in your heart, that Jehovah is Elohim’ (Deut. iv, 19); and again, it is written, ‘Jehovah is Elohim’ (Ibid., ver. 35).” The son then said, “I understand that justice is sometimes mixed with [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]mercy, and mercy with justice.” The father responded, “Come and see that this is true; Jehovah indeed signifies mercy when it appears, but when sin transforms mercy into justice, then it is written Jehovah (יהוה), but read Elohim (אלהיﬦ). Now come and see the mystery of the word [Jehovah]. There are three degrees, and each degree stands alone [i.e., in the Deity], yet together they form one, closely united and inseparable from each other.” (Sohar, iii, 65 a.)
We shall only give one more passage bearing on the subject of the Trinity.32 “He who reads the word (אחד) One [i.e., in the declaration of the divine unity שמע] must pronounce the Aleph (א) quickly, shorten its sound a little, and not pause at all by this letter, and he who obeys this, his life will be lengthened. Whereupon they [i.e., the disciples] said to him [i.e., to R. Ilai], he [i.e., R. Simeon] has said, There are two, and one is connected with them, and they are three; but in being three they are one. He said to them, those two names, Jehovah Jehovah, are in the declaration ‘Hear O Israel’ ( Deut. vi, 4 ), and Elohenu (אלהנו), between them, is united with them as the third, and this is the conclusion which is sealed with the impression of Truth (אמת). But when these three are combined into a unity, they are one in a single unity.” (Sohar, iii, 262 a.) Indeed one Codex of the Sohar had the following remark on the words “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” ( Isa. iv, 3 ); קדוש זה אב קדוש זה בן קדוש זה רוח הקדש, the first holy refers to the Holy Father; the second to the Holy Son; and the third to the Holy [141]Ghost.33 This passage, however, is omitted from the present recensions of the Sohar. Some Jewish writers have felt these passages to be so favourable to the doctrine of the Trinity, that they insist upon their being interpolations into the Sohar, whilst others have tried to explain them as referring to the Sephiroth.34
We will share one more excerpt related to the Trinity.32 “Anyone who reads the word (One) One [i.e., in declaring divine unity Listen] should pronounce the Aleph (א) quickly, shorten its sound a little, and not pause at all on this letter, and whoever does this, their life will be extended. Then they [i.e., the disciples] said to him [i.e., to R. Ilai], he [i.e., R. Simeon] has stated that there are two, and one is connected to them, making three; but though they are three, they are one. He said to them, those two names, Jehovah Jehovah, are in the declaration ‘Hear O Israel’ ( Deut. vi, 4 ), and Elohenu (These are our gods.), unites them as the third, and this conclusion is sealed with the impression of Truth (Truth). But when these three are brought together as one, they are a single unity.” (Sohar, iii, 262 a.) In fact, one version of the Sohar includes the following remark on the words “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” ( Isa. iv, 3 ); Holy is the Father, holy is the Son, holy is the Holy Spirit הקדש, the first holy refers to the Holy Father; the second to the Holy Son; and the third to the Holy [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Ghost.33 However, this passage is absent from the current versions of the Sohar. Some Jewish writers believe these passages strongly support the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming they are interpolations in the Sohar, while others have attempted to interpret them as references to the Sephiroth. 34
As to the atonement of the Messiah for the sins of the people, this is not only propounded in the Sohar, but is given as the explanation of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah.35 “When the righteous are visited with sufferings and afflictions to atone for the sins of the world, it is that they might atone for all the sins of this generation. How is this proved? By all the members of the body. When all members suffer, one member is afflicted in order that all may recover. And which of them? The arm. The arm is beaten, the blood is taken from it, and then the recovery of all the members of the body is secured. So it is with the children of the world: they are members one of another. When the Holy One; blessed be he, wishes the recovery of the world, he afflicts one righteous from their midst, and for his sake all are healed. How is this shown? It is written—‘He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, … and with his stripes we are healed.’ ( Isa. liii, 5 .) ‘With his stripes,’ i.e., healed, as by the wound of bleeding an arm, and with this wound we are healed, i.e., it was a healing to [142]each one of us as members of the body.” (Sohar, iii, 218 a.) To the same effect is the following passage.36 “Those souls which tarry in the nether garden of Eden hover about the world, and when they see suffering or patient martyrs and those who suffer for the unity of God, they return and mention it to the Messiah. When they tell the Messiah of the afflictions of Israel in exile, and that the sinners among them do not reflect in order to know their Lord, he raises his voice and weeps because of those sinners, as it is written, ‘he is wounded for our transgressions.’ ( Isa. liii, 5 .) Whereupon those souls return and take their place. In the garden of Eden there is one palace which is called the palace of the sick. The Messiah goes into this palace and invokes all the sufferings, pain, and afflictions of Israel to come upon him, and they all come upon him. Now if he did not remove them thus and take them upon himself, no man could endure the sufferings of Israel, due as punishment for transgressing the Law; as it is written—‘Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,’ &c. ( Isa. liii, 4 , with Rom. xii, 3, 4 .) When the children of Israel were in the Holy Land they removed all those sufferings and afflictions from the world by their prayers and sacrifices, but now the Messiah removes them from the world.” (Sohar, ii, 212 b.)
As for the Messiah's atonement for the people's sins, this idea is not only presented in the Sohar, but also serves as the explanation for the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. “When the righteous endure suffering and hardship to atone for the world’s sins, it is so they can atone for all the sins of this generation. How is this demonstrated? By all the members of the body. When all members suffer, one member is afflicted so that all may recover. And which member is it? The arm. The arm is struck, blood is drawn from it, and then the recovery of all the members of the body is assured. The same applies to the children of the world: they are all connected. When the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to restore the world, He causes one righteous person among them to suffer, and for their sake, everyone is healed. How is this evidenced? It is written—‘He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, … and with his stripes, we are healed.’ (Isa. liii, 5.) ‘With his stripes,’ meaning healed, as with the wound of a bleeding arm, and with this wound, we are healed, meaning it was a healing for [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] each of us as parts of the body.” (Sohar, iii, 218 a.) The following passage conveys a similar message. “The souls that linger in the lower Garden of Eden roam the world, and when they witness suffering or the patience of martyrs and those who endure for the unity of God, they return and report it to the Messiah. When they inform the Messiah about the afflictions of Israel in exile, and how the sinners among them fail to reflect in order to know their Lord, he raises his voice and weeps for those sinners, as it is written, ‘he is wounded for our transgressions.’ (Isa. liii, 5.) After this, those souls return and take their place. In the Garden of Eden, there is a palace known as the palace of the sick. The Messiah enters this palace and takes upon himself all the sufferings, pain, and afflictions of Israel, and they all come upon him. Without him bearing these burdens and taking them upon himself, no one could endure the sufferings of Israel, which are deserved as punishment for breaking the Law; as it is written—‘Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,’ (Isa. liii, 4, along with Rom. xii, 3, 4.) When the children of Israel were in the Holy Land, they relieved all these sufferings and afflictions from the world through their prayers and sacrifices, but now it is the Messiah who removes them from the world.” (Sohar, ii, 212 b.)
That these opinions favour, to a certain extent, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement, though not in the orthodox sense, is not only admitted by many of the Jewish literati who are adverse to the Kabbalah, but by some of its [143]friends. Indeed, the very fact that so large a number of Kabbalists have from time to time embraced the Christian faith would of itself show that there must be some sort of affinity between the tenets of the respective systems. Some of these converts occupied the highest position in the Synagogue, both as pious Jews and literary men. We need only specify Paul Ricci, physician to the Emperor Maximilian I; Julius Conrad Otto, author of The Unveiled Secrets (גלא רזיא), consisting of extracts from the Talmud and the Sohar, to prove the validity of the Christian doctrine (Nürenberg, 1805); John Stephen Rittengal, grandson of the celebrated Don Isaac Abravanel, and translator of The Book Jetzira, or of Creation (ספר יצירה), into Latin (Amsterdam, 1642); and Jacob Frank, the great apostle of the Kabbalah in the eighteenth century, whose example in professing Christianity was followed by several thousands of his disciples.37 The testimony of these distinguished Kabbalists, which they give in their elaborate works, about the affinity of some of the doctrines of this theosophy with those of Christianity, is by no means to be slighted; and this is fully corroborated by the celebrated Leo di Modena, who, as an orthodox Jew, went so far as to question whether God will ever forgive those who printed the Kabbalistic works.38
That these views support, to some degree, the beliefs of the Trinity and the Atonement, although not in a traditional way, is acknowledged by many Jewish scholars who reject the Kabbalah, as well as by some of its [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] supporters. In fact, the sheer number of Kabbalists who have converted to Christianity over time suggests there must be some connection between the core beliefs of each system. Some of these converts held prominent roles in the Synagogue, both as devout Jews and intellectuals. Notable figures include Paul Ricci, physician to Emperor Maximilian I; Julius Conrad Otto, author of The Unveiled Secrets (גלא רזיא), which includes excerpts from the Talmud and the Sohar to validate Christian doctrine (Nürenberg, 1805); John Stephen Rittengal, grandson of the renowned Don Isaac Abravanel, who translated The Book Jetzira, or of Creation (Sefer Yetzirah), into Latin (Amsterdam, 1642); and Jacob Frank, the prominent promoter of the Kabbalah in the eighteenth century, whose conversion to Christianity inspired thousands of his followers.[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The insights of these notable Kabbalists, shared in their thorough works regarding the similarities between some of the doctrines of this theosophy and those of Christianity, should not be dismissed; this is strongly supported by the well-known Leo di Modena, who, as an orthodox Jew, even questioned whether God would ever forgive those who published Kabbalistic writings.[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
The use made by some well-meaning Christians of the above-named Kabbalistic canons of interpretation, in controversies with Jews, to prove that the doctrines of Christianity are concealed under the letter of the Old Testament, will now be deprecated by every one who has any regard for the laws of language. As a literary curiosity, however, we shall give one or two specimens. No less a person than the celebrated [144]Reuchlin would have it that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. He submits, if the Hebrew word ברא, which is translated created, be examined, and if each of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a separate word, we obtain the expressions בן רוח אב Son, Spirit, Father, according to Rule 2 (p. 131). Upon the same principle this erudite scholar deduces the first two persons in the Trinity from the words—“the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner” ( Ps. cxviii, 22 ), by dividing the three letters composing the word אבן stone, into אב בן Father, Son (Comp. De Verbo Mirifico, Basel, 1494). In more recent times we find it maintained that the ‘righteousness’ spoken of in Daniel ix, 24 , means the Anointed of Jehovah, because the original phrase, צדק עלמים is by Gematria, = numerical value, (which is Rule 1, given above, p. 131), the same as משיח יהוה. So pleased is the author with this discovery, that he takes great care to remark—“It is a proof which I believe has hitherto escaped the notice of interpreters.” Such proofs, however, of the Messiaship of Christ bring no honour to our religion; and in the present day argue badly both against him who adduces them and against him who is convinced by them. [145]
The way some well-meaning Christians use the Kabbalistic interpretation methods mentioned above in debates with Jews to show that Christianity's doctrines are hidden in the Old Testament will now be frowned upon by anyone who cares about language rules. However, as a literary curiosity, we'll present a couple of examples. A notable figure, the famous [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Reuchlin, claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the first verse of Genesis. He argues that if we examine the Hebrew word Create, which means created, and take each of the three letters of this word as the initial of a different word, we can derive the terms בן רוח אב Son, Spirit, Father, according to Rule 2 (p. 131). Using the same approach, this learned scholar infers the first two persons of the Trinity from the phrase—“the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner” (Ps. cxviii, 22), by splitting the three letters in the word Stone stone, into Father and son Father, Son (See De Verbo Amazing, Basel, 1494). More recently, it's been argued that the ‘righteousness’ referred to in Daniel ix, 24 means the Anointed of Jehovah, because the original phrase, צדק נצחי, by Gematria, which is a numerical value (as per Rule 1, given above, p. 131), has the same value as יְשׁוּעַת יְהוָה. The author is so pleased with this finding that he makes sure to note—“It is a proof which I believe has hitherto escaped the notice of interpreters.” However, such proofs of Christ's Messiahship do not honor our religion, and in this day and age, they reflect poorly on both the person who presents them and the one who is persuaded by them. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
1 דע כי אין סוף לא יכנס בהרהור וכל שכן בדבור אף על פי שיש לו רמז בכל דבר שאין חוץ ממנו ולכך אין אות ואין שם ואין דבר אשר יגבלנו, Commentary of the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 4 a. This doctrine, however, that everything is in the Deity is not peculiar to the Kabbalah, it has been propounded by the Jews from time immemorial, before the Kabbalah came into existence, as may be seen from the following passage in the Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be he, is the space of the universe, but the universe is not his space (הקב״ה מקומו של עולם ואין העולם מקומו). R. Isaac submitted: from the passage מעונה אלהי קדם ( Deut. xxxiii, 27 ), we do not know whether the Holy One, blessed be he, is the habitation of the universe or the universe his habitation; but from the remark אדני מעון אתה Lord thou art the dwelling place ( Ps. xc, 1 ), it is evident that the Holy One, blessed be he, is the dwelling place of the universe, and not the universe his dwelling place.” (Bereshith Rabba, § lxviii.) To the same effect is the remark of Philo, “God himself is the space of the universe, for it is he who contains all things.” (De Somniis, i.) It is for this reason that God is called מקום or המקום = ὁ τόπος, locus, and that the Septuagint renders ויראו את אלהי ישראל וגו׳ ( Exod. xxiv, 10 ), by καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον, οὗ εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς, which has occasioned so much difficulty to interpreters. ↑
1 Understand that the Infinite can’t be fully grasped through thought or spoken words, even though everything that exists offers clues about it. As a result, there isn’t any letter, name, or object that can define it., Commentary of the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 4 a. This idea, however, that everything is within the Deity is not unique to Kabbalah; it has been expressed by Jews for ages, long before Kabbalah existed, as demonstrated by the following passage from the Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be He, is the space of the universe, but the universe is not His space (הקב"ה הוא המקום של העולם, ולא העולם הוא המקום של הקב"ה.). R. Isaac noted: from the passage From the godly abode (Deut. xxxiii, 27), we cannot determine if the Holy One, blessed be He, is the habitation of the universe or if the universe is His habitation; however, from the statement אדון מעון אתה Lord, you are the dwelling place (Ps. xc, 1), it is clear that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the dwelling place of the universe, and not the other way around.” (Bereshith Rabba, § lxviii.) Philo makes a similar remark, “God Himself is the space of the universe, for He contains all things.” (De Somniis, i.) This is why God is referred to as Location or The place = ὁ τόπος, locus, and the Septuagint translates ויראו את אלוהי ישראל וגו׳ (Exod. xxiv, 10) as and I saw the place where God stood, which has caused much confusion for interpreters. ↑
2 לא ידע ולא אתידע מה דהוי בראישא דא דלא׳ אתדבק בחכמתא ולא כסוכלתנו ובגן כן אקרי אין (Sohar iii, 283 b.) To the same effect is the ancient expository work on the doctrine of the Emanations which we quoted in the preceding note, comp. מה שאינו מוגבל קרוי אין סוף והוא ההשואה גמורה באחדות השלמח שאין בה שנוי ואם הוא מבלי גבול אין חוץ ממנו, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 2 a. ↑
2 I don't know what originally existed that didn't align with wisdom, unlike our foolishness, and that's why it’s referred to as nothing. (Sohar iii, 283 b.) The same idea is found in the ancient commentary on the concept of the Emanations that we cited in the previous note, comp. What is limitless is called infinity, symbolizing the complete unity of the divine essence that doesn't change, and if it has no boundaries, there is nothing outside of it., Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 2 a. ↑
4 אם האמר כי הוא בלבד כיון בבריאח עולמו יש להשיב על זה כי הכונה מורה על הסרון המכון, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, p. 2 b. Again, says the same authority, ואם תאמר שהגבול הגמצא ממנו תחלה היה העולם הזה שהוא (העולם) חסר מהשלמותו חסרת חכוח שהוא ממנו .… ואם תאמר שלא כיון בבריאחו אם כן היתה הבריאה במקרה, וכל דבר הבא במקרה אין לו סדר, ואנו רואים כי הנבראים יש לחם סדר, ועל סדר הם מתקימים, ועל סדר הם מתכטלים, ועל סדר הם מתחדשים, ibid., p. 2. ↑
4 If someone claims that He alone had the intention in creating His world, it must be pointed out that this intention reflects an imperfection in intention., Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, p. 2 b. Again, says the same authority, If you claim that the boundary initially found in Him was this world, which is imperfect and lacks the wisdom that comes from Him… And if you say that He didn't have a purpose in His creation, then the creation would be random, and anything that happens randomly has no structure. We observe that created beings have structure; they exist in an organized manner, are maintained in an orderly way, and are renewed in a systematic fashion., ibid., p. 2. ↑
5 Both the etymology and the exact meaning of the word ספירה (plural ספירות) are matters of dispute. R. Azariel, the first Kabbalist, derives it from ספר to number, whilst the later Kabbalists derive it alternately from ספיר Saphir, from השמים מספרים כבוד אל ( Ps. xix, 1 ), and from the Greek σφαῖραι, and are not at all certain whether to regard the Sephiroth as principles (ἀρχαὶ), or as substances (ὑποστάσεις), or as potencies, powers (δυνάμεις), or as intelligent worlds (κόσμοι νοητικοί), or as attributes, or as entities (עצמות), or as organs of the Deity (כלים). ↑
5 The origin and exact meaning of the word Counting (plural Sefirot) are topics of debate. Rabbi Azariel, the first Kabbalist, traces it back to Book to number, while later Kabbalists suggest it comes from ספיר Saphir, from The heavens declare God's glory (Ps. xix, 1), and from the Greek σφαῖραι. They are uncertain whether to view the Sephiroth as principles (ἀρχαὶ), or as substances (ὑποστάσεις), or as potencies, powers (δυνάμεις), or as intelligent worlds (intellectual worlds), or as attributes, or as entities (Bones), or as organs of the Deity (Tools). ↑
9 The notion, however, that worlds were created and destroyed prior to the present creation, was propounded in the Midrash long before the existence of the Kabbalah. Thus on the verse, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” ( Gen. i, 31 ), R. Abahu submits א״ר אבהו מכאן שהקב״ה היה בורא עולמות ומחריבן ובורא עולמות ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו אמר דין הניין לי יתהון לא הניין לי from this we see that the Holy One, blessed be he, had successively created and destroyed sundry worlds before he created the present world, and when he created the present world he said, this pleases me, the previous ones did not please me. (Bereshith Rabba, section or Parsha ix.) ↑
9 The idea that worlds were created and destroyed before the current creation was discussed in the Midrash long before the Kabbalah existed. Regarding the verse, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen. i, 31), R. Abahu states Rabbi Abahu said that from here we learn that the Holy One, blessed be He, was creating worlds and destroying them, creating worlds and destroying them, until He created these, saying, "These are pleasing to Me, those are not pleasing to Me." from this we see that the Holy One, blessed be he, had created and destroyed various worlds repeatedly before creating the present world, and when he created the present world, he said, this pleases me; the previous ones did not please me. (Bereshith Rabba, section or Parsha ix.) ↑
11 The Kabbalistic description of Metatron is taken from the Jewish angelology of a much older date than this theosophy. Thus Ben Asai and Ben Soma already regard the divine voice, the λόγος (קול אלהים) as Metatron. (Beresh. Rab., Parsha v.) He is called the Great Teacher, the Teacher of Teachers (ספרא רבא), and it is for this reason that Enoch, who walked in close communion with God, and taught mankind by his holy example, is said by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan b. Uzziel, to ‘have received the name Metatron, the Great Teacher’ after he was transplanted. ( Gen. v, 24 .) Metatron, moreover, is the Presence Angel (שר הפנים), the Angel of the Lord that was sent to go before Israel ( Exod. xxiii, 21 ); he is the visible manifestation of the Deity, for in him is the name of the Lord, i.e., his name and that of the Deity are identical, inasmuch as they are of the same numerical value (viz.:—שדי and מטטרון are the same according to the exegetical rule called Gematria, י 10 + ד 4 + ש 300 = 314; ן 50 + ו 6 + ר 200 + ט 9 + ט 9 + מ 40 = 314. See Rashi on Exod. xxiii, 21 , רבותינו אמרו זה מטטרון ששמו כשם רבו מטטרון בגמטריא שדי and Sanhedrim 38 b). So exalted is Metatron’s position in the ancient Jewish angelology, that we are told that when Elisha b. Abaja, also called Acher, saw this angel who occupies the first position after the Deity, he exclaimed, ‘Peradventure, but far be it, there are two Supreme Powers’ (שמא חס ושלום שתי רשויות הן Talmud, Chagiga, 15 a). The etymology of מטטרון is greatly disputed; but there is no doubt that it is to be derived from Metator, messenger, outrider, way maker, as has been shown by Elias Levita, and is maintained by Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxvii, s.v.; Juden, p. 40, note 84). Sachs (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, vol. i, Berlin 1852, p. 108) rightly remarks that this etymology is fixed by the passage from Siphra, quoted in Kaphter-Va-Pherach, c. x, p. 34 b אצבעו של הקב״ה נעשה מטטרון למשה והראהו כל ארץ ישראל the finger of God was the messenger or guide to Moses, and showed him all the land of Israel. [110]The termination ון has been appended to מטטר to obtain the same numerical value, as שדי. The derivation of it from μετὰ θρόνος, because this angel is immediately under the divine throne (כורסייא), which is maintained by Frank (Kabbala, p. 43), Graetz (Gnosticismus, p. 44) and others, has been shown by Frankel (Zeitschrift, 1846. vol. iii, p. 113), and Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. section ii, vol. xxvii, p. 41), to be both contrary to the form of the word and to the description of Metatron. ↑
11 The Kabbalistic description of Metatron comes from the Jewish angelology that predates this theosophy. Ben Asai and Ben Soma already see the divine voice, the λόγος (Voice of God) as Metatron. (Beresh. Rab., Parsha v.) He is referred to as the Great Teacher, the Teacher of Teachers (ספרא רבא), and that's why Enoch, who lived in close connection with God and taught humanity by his holy example, is said by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan b. Uzziel to have ‘received the name Metatron, the Great Teacher’ after he was taken up. (Gen. v, 24.) Metatron is also known as the Presence Angel (Minister of the Interior), the Angel of the Lord sent to guide Israel (Exod. xxiii, 21); he is the visible embodiment of the Deity, as his name is the same as that of the Lord, meaning their names share the same numerical value (i.e., שדי and Metatron are equal according to the exegetical rule called Gematria, י 10 + ד 4 + ש 300 = 314; ן 50 + ו 6 + ר 200 + ט 9 + ט 9 + מ 40 = 314. See Rashi on Exod. xxiii, 21, Our sages said this is Metatron, whose name is the same as his master. Metatron in gematria equals Shaddai. and Sanhedrim 38 b). Metatron holds such a high position in ancient Jewish angelology that we learn that when Elisha b. Abaja, also known as Acher, saw this angel, who ranks just below the Deity, he exclaimed, ‘Perhaps, but God forbid, there are two Supreme Powers’ (Maybe, God forbid, there are two authorities. Talmud, Chagiga, 15 a). The origin of Metatron is highly debated; however, it is clearly derived from Metator, messenger, outrider, or way maker, as demonstrated by Elias Levita and supported by Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxvii, s.v.; Jews, p. 40, note 84). Sachs (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, vol. i, Berlin 1852, p. 108) rightly observes that this etymology is confirmed by a passage from Siphra, cited in Kaphter-Va-Pherach, c. x, p. 34 b The finger of God made Metatron for Moses and showed him all of the land of Israel. the finger of God was the messenger or guide to Moses, and showed him all the land of Israel. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The suffix ון has been added to מטטר to achieve the same numerical value as שדי. The suggestion that it comes from μετά θρόνος, since this angel is positioned directly under the divine throne (כיסא נדנדה), as argued by Frank (Kabbala, p. 43), Graetz (Gnosticismus, p. 44), and others, has been shown by Frankel (Zeitschrift, 1846. vol. iii, p. 113), and Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. section ii, vol. xxvii, p. 41), to contradict both the word's form and the description of Metatron. ↑
12 The view that the serpent which seduced the protoplasts is identical with Satan is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. It is stated in the Talmud in almost the same words הוא יצר הרע הוא השטן הוא מלאך המות כמתניחא תנא יורד ומטע עולה ומשטין יורד וממים the evil spirit, Satan, and the angel of death, are the same. It is propounded in the Boraitha that he descends and seduces; he then ascends and accuses, and then comes down again and kills. Baba Bathra, 16 a. ↑
12 The idea that the serpent who tempted the first humans is the same as Satan is not unique to Kabbalah. It's mentioned in the Talmud in nearly the same words היצר הרע הוא השטן, הוא מלאך המוות. כמו שמסבירים בתנ"ך, זהו כוח שמוריד אותנו מהדרך הנכונה ומקל עלינו ליפול למקומות שלא מתאימים לנו. the evil spirit, Satan, and the angel of death, are the same. It is stated in the Boraitha that he comes down and tempts; then he goes up to accuse, and then comes down again to kill. Baba Bathra, 16 a. ↑
14 That the righteous are greater than the angels is already propounded in the Talmud (גדולים צדיקים יותר ממלאכי השרת Sanhedrim 93 a); and it is asserted that no one angel can do two things (אין מלאך אחד עושה שתי שליחות Bereshith Rabba, section 1), for which reason three angels had to be sent, one to announce to Sarai the birth of Isaac, the other to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and the third to save Lot and his family; whilst a man can perform several duties. The superiority of man over angels is also asserted in the New Testament. ( 1 Cor. vi, 3 .) ↑
14 The idea that righteous people are greater than angels is already discussed in the Talmud (Great ones are more righteous than angels. Sanhedrim 93 a); and it's stated that no single angel can carry out two tasks (No angel carries out two missions. Bereshith Rabba, section 1), which is why three angels were sent—one to tell Sarai about Isaac's birth, another to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and the third to rescue Lot and his family; whereas a person can handle multiple responsibilities. The superiority of humans over angels is also stated in the New Testament. ( 1 Cor. vi, 3 .) ↑
15 The Karmarthi, who interpreted the precepts of Islamism allegorically, also maintained that the human body represents the letters in the name of God. When standing the human body represents an Elif, when kneeling a Lâm, and when prostrated on the ground a Hê, so that the body is like a book in which may be read the name Allah. De Sacy, Introduction à l’Exposé de la Religion des Druzes, pp. 86, 87. Comp. Frank, Die Kabbala, p. 32. ↑
15 The Karmarthi, who interpreted the teachings of Islam in a metaphorical way, also believed that the human body represents the letters in the name of God. When standing, the human body symbolizes an Elif; when kneeling, it represents a Lâm; and when prostrated on the ground, it signifies a Hê, making the body like a book where one can read the name God. De Sacy, Introduction à l’Exposé de la Religion des Druzes, pp. 86, 87. Comp. Frank, Die Kabbala, p. 32. ↑
16 The pre-existence of the human souls in the celestial regions was believed by the Jews before the Kabbalah came into vogue. We find this doctrine in the Book of Wisdom (viii, 20); in Josephus, where we are told that the Essenes believed ‘that souls were immortal, and that they descended from the pure air, συμπλέκεσθαι ὥσπερ εἰρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασι, to be chained to bodies’ (de Bell. Jud. ii, 12); by Philo, who says ‘the air was full of them, and that those which were nearest the earth κατίασιν ἐκδεθησομέναι σώμασι θνητοῖς, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, return back to bodies, being [114]desirous to live in them.’ (De Gignat. p. 222, C.; De Somniis, p. 455, D. Comp. Arnald on the Book of Wisdom, viii, 20 , and Whitby on John ix, 2 ., where these quotations and others are given); and in the Talmud where it is declared that the human souls which are to be born (רוחות ונשמות שעתידין להבראות), have their abode in the seventh heaven (Chagiga, 12 b); that they leave gradually the storehouse of souls to people this earth (עד שיכלו כל הנשמוה שבגוף Jebamoth, 62; Aboda Sara, 5; Nidda, 13); and that the Holy One, blessed be he, took counsel with them when he was about to create the world כנפשתן של צריקין נמלך הקב״ה וברא את העולם (Bereshith Rabba, section viii). ↑
16 Before the Kabbalah became popular, the Jews believed in the pre-existence of human souls in the heavenly realms. We see this idea in the Book of Wisdom (viii, 20); in Josephus, who states that the Essenes believed "that souls were immortal, and that they came down from the pure air, συμπλέκεσθαι ὥσπερ εἰρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασι, to be attached to bodies" (de Bell. Jud. ii, 12); in Philo, who mentions "the air was full of them, and those closest to the earth κατίασιν ἐκδεθησομέναι σώμασι θνητοῖς, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, returning back to bodies, being [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] eager to live in them." (De Gignat. p. 222, C.; De Somniis, p. 455, D. See also Arnald on the Book of Wisdom, viii, 20, and Whitby on John ix, 2, where these quotes and others are provided); and in the Talmud, which states that the human souls that are to be born (Ravens and souls to be revealed) reside in the seventh heaven (Chagiga, 12 b); that they gradually leave the storehouse of souls to inhabit this earth (Until all the souls in the body Jebamoth, 62; Aboda Sara, 5; Nidda, 13); and that the Holy One, blessed be He, consulted with them when he was about to create the world כנפשתן של צריקין, God consulted and created the world. (Bereshith Rabba, section viii). ↑
17 The notion about the reluctance of the soul to enter into this world is also not peculiar to the Kabbalah. The most ancient tract of the Mishna thus speaks of the soul: “Against thy will thou becomest an embryo, and against thy will thou art born” (על כרחך אתה נוצר ועל כרחך אתה נולד Aboth, iv. 29); on which Bartenora, in his commentary, remarks: “The soul does not wish to quit the pure abode of the curtain which encloses the Holy of Holies.” ↑
17 The idea that the soul is hesitant to enter this world isn’t unique to the Kabbalah. The oldest section of the Mishna says about the soul: “Against your will you become an embryo, and against your will you are born” (You were created against your will, and you were born against your will. Aboth, iv. 29); to which Bartenora, in his commentary, adds: “The soul does not want to leave the pure space behind the curtain that separates the Holy of Holies.” ↑
18 כל אינון רוחין ונשמתין כלהו כלילן דכר ונוקבא דמתחברן כחדא ואתמסרן בידא דההוא ממנא שליהא דאתפקר על עדואיהן [עיבוריהן] דבני נשא ולילה שמיה ובשעהא דנחתין ואתמסרן בידוי מתפדשין ילזמנין דא אקרים מן דא ואחית להו בבני נשא וכד מטא [מחא] עידן דזווגא דלהון קב״ה דידע אינון רוהין ונשמהין מחבר לון כדבקדמיתא ומכרזא עלייהו וכד אתחברן אתעגידו חד גופא חד נשמתא ימינא ישמאלא כדקא חזי ובגין כך אין כל חדש תחת השמש. ואי תימא הא תנינן לית זווגא אלא לפום עוגדוי ואורהוי דבר נש הכי הוא ודאי. דאי זכי ועובדוי אתכשרן זכי לההוא דיליה לאתחברא ביד כמה דנפיק. זוהר חלק א דף צא ב ↑
18 All these spirits and souls, both male and female, come together as one and are entrusted to a specific being known for their insights about people's virtues and their roles, especially in relationships and connections when they descend. They are handed over, as it's said, in a sacred manner that distinguishes them from those who don’t fit the mold, and when the time comes for their unions, the Holy One recognizes those spirits and souls and brings them together as they were meant to be. When united, they embody one essence, one spirit, as seen in the process of creation, and for this reason, nothing is new under the sun. If you think otherwise, we understand that unions occur only based on their connections and the enlightenment of an individual, and that is undoubtedly true. If they are deserving and act with integrity, they are suited to bond with their counterpart in multiple ways. Zohar Volume 1, Page 91b ↑
19 בספרא דשלמה מלכא אשכחנא דבשעתא דזווגא אשתכח לתתא שדר קב״ה חד דיוקנא בפרצופא ד״נ רשימה חקיקה בצולמא וקיימא על ההוא זווגא ואלמלי אתיהיב רשו לעינא למחמי חמי ב״נ על רישיה חד צולמא רשימא כפרצופא דבר נש ובההוא צילמא אתברי ב״נ ועד דלא קיימא [ס״א ועד לא קיימא] ההוא צולמא דשדר ליה מאריה על רישיה וישתכח תמן לא אתברי ב״נ הה״ד ויברא אלקים את האדם בצלמו. ההוא צלם אזדמן לקבליה עד דנפיק לעלמא כד נפק בההוא צלם אתרבי בההוא צלם אזיל הה״ד אך בצלם יתהלך איש להאי צלם הוא מלעילא בשעתא דאינון רוחין נפקין מאתרייהו כל רוחא ורוחא אתתקן קמי מלכא קדישא בתקוני יקר בפרצופא דקאי׳ בהאי עלמא. ומההוא דיוקנא תקונא יקר נפיק האי צלם. ודא תליתאה לרוחא ואקדימת בהאי עלמא בשעתא דזווגא אשתכח ולית לך זווגא בעלמא דלא עלם בגווייהו. זוהר חלק ג דף קד א ,ב ↑
19 I found in the Book of Solomon that when it comes to pairing, God sends a measure, taking the form of a human being. This form, when it unites, remains connected to that pairing. If it were revealed to those who see it, they would perceive one form, resembling a person, and within that form, a person is created. It wouldn't exist without the form sent from above. It is not found as being created, as it is said, "And God created man in His image." That form was then prepared to become physical until it entered the world, and as it emerged in that form, it would grow within that form. However, a person should live according to that image, which is from above. When spirits emerge from their places, each spirit stands before the Holy King in the respected formations of appearance in this world. From that form, a respected arrangement arises for this image. This is the third for the spirit, and it is established in this world at the time of pairing. There is no pairing in this world that does not exist within them. Zohar Part 3, Page 104a ↑
20 The two kinds of faculties, as well as the two sorts of feelings, are also mentioned in the Talmud. Thus it is said—“All the prophets looked into the Non-Luminous Mirror, whilst our teacher, Moses, looked into the Luminous Mirror.” (כל הנביאים נסהכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאידה Jebamoth, 49 b). And again—“Also the divine service which is engendered by fear and not by love, has its merit.” (Jerusalem Berachoth, 44; Babylon Sota, 22 a.) ↑
20 The two types of faculties, along with the two kinds of feelings, are also mentioned in the Talmud. It is said, “All the prophets looked into the Non-lit Mirror, while our teacher, Moses, looked into the Bright Mirror.” (All the prophets looked through a dim lens, while Moses our teacher looked through a clear lens. Jebamoth, 49 b). And again, “The divine service that comes from fear rather than love also has its value.” (Jerusalem Berachoth, 44; Babylon Sota, 22 a.) ↑
22 כל נשמתין עאלין בגלגולא ולא ידעין בני נשא אורחוי דקודשא בריך הוא והיך קיימא טיקלא והיך אתדנו בני נשא בכל יומא ובכל עידן והיך נשמתין עאלין בדינא עד לא ייתון להאי עלמא והיך עאלין בדינא לבתר דנפקי מהאי עלמא. כמה גלגולין וכמה עובדין סתימין עבידן קודשא בריך הוא בהדי כמה נשמתין ערטילאין וכמה רוחין ערטילאין אזלין בההוא עלמא דלא עאלין לפרגודא דמלכא. [125]וכמה עלמין אתהפך בהו ועלמא דאתהפך בכמה פליאן סתימין ובני נשא לא ידעין ולא משגיחין וחיך מתגלגלן נשמתין כאבנא בקוספתא כמה דאת אמר ואת נפש אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע השתא אית לגלאה דהא כל. זוהר חלק ב׳ דף צט ב׳ ↑
22 Every soul goes through reincarnation, but people don’t grasp the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. How do they keep their confidence day after day and over the years? How do souls ascend in judgment until they reach this world? How do they ascend in judgment after leaving this world? How many reincarnations and hidden acts does the Holy One, blessed be He, perform along with countless immaterial souls and spirits that don’t ascend into the king's palace? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] And how many worlds change within them, and the world that transforms itself has many hidden wonders, but people don’t notice or pay attention. The souls tumble like stones in a sling as it is said, “And you shall cast down the souls of your enemies into the sling's pocket.” Now, this is revealed for all to see. Zohar Part 2, Page 96 ↑
23 According to Josephus, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls into other bodies (μετεμψύχωσις), was also held by the Pharisees (comp. Antiq. xviii, 1, 3: de Bell. Jud. ii, 8, 14), restricting, however, the metempsychosis to the righteous. And though the Midrashim and the Talmud are silent about it, yet from Saadia’s vituperations against it (אבל אומר שמצאתי אנשים ממי שנקראים יהודים אומרים בהשנות וקוראים אותו ההעתקח Emunoth ve-Deoth, vi, 7; viii, 3) there is no doubt that this doctrine was held among some Jews in the ninth century of the present era. At all events it is perfectly certain that the Karaite Jews firmly believed in it ever since the seventh century. (Comp. Frankel, Monatschrift, x, 177, &c.) St. Jerome assures us that it was also propounded among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional doctrine which was entrusted to the select few, (abscondite quasi in foveis viperarum versari et quasi haereditario malo serpere in paucis. Comp. epist. ad Demedriadem); and Origen was convinced that it was only by means of this doctrine that certain Scriptural narratives, such as the struggle of Jacob with Esau before their birth, the reference about Jeremiah when still in his mother’s womb, and many others, can possibly be explained. (περὶ ἀρχῶν i, 1, cap. vii; Adver. Celsum, i, 3.) ↑
23 According to Josephus, the belief in the transmigration of souls into other bodies (μετεμψύχωσις) was also held by the Pharisees (comp. Antiq. xviii, 1, 3: de Bell. Jud. ii, 8, 14), although they limited this concept to the righteous. While the Midrashim and the Talmud don’t mention it, Saadia’s criticisms of it (But I say that I have found people who are called Jews saying in discussions and referring to it as the copy. Emunoth ve-Deoth, vi, 7; viii, 3) indicate that this belief existed among some Jews in the ninth century. It is clear that the Karaite Jews strongly believed in it since the seventh century. (Comp. Frankel, Monatschrift, x, 177, &c.) St. Jerome confirms that it was also discussed among early Christians as a hidden doctrine passed down to a select few, (abscondite quasi in foveis viperarum versari et quasi haereditario malo serpere in paucis. Comp. epist. ad Demedriadem); and Origen believed that this doctrine was the only way to explain certain Biblical stories, like the struggle between Jacob and Esau before they were born, the mention of Jeremiah while still in his mother’s womb, and many others. (περὶ ἀρχῶν i, 1, cap. vii; Adver. Celsum, i, 3.I'm ready for the text. Please provide it. ↑
24 The notion that the creation is a blessing, and that this is indicated in the first letter, is already propounded in the Midrash, as may be seen from the following remark. The reason why the Law begins with Beth, the second letter of the Alphabet, and not with Aleph, the first letter, is that the former is the first letter in the word blessing, while the latter is the first letter in the word accursed, למה בבית מפני שהוא לשון ברכה ולא בא״לף שהוא לשון ארירה (Midrash Rabba, sec. i). ↑
24 The idea that creation is a blessing, as highlighted in the first letter, is already mentioned in the Midrash, as shown by the following comment. The reason the Law starts with Beth, the second letter of the alphabet, instead of Aleph, the first letter, is that Beth is the first letter in the word blessing, while Aleph is the first letter in the word cursed, למה בבית? כי זה מבטא ברכה ולא באלף, שהוא מבטא קללה. (Midrash Rabba, sec. i). ↑
25 This view that the mere literal narrative is unworthy of inspiration, and that it must contain a spiritual meaning concealed under the garment of the letter, is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. Both the Synagogue and the Church have maintained the same from time immemorial. Thus the Talmud already describes the impious Manasseh, King of Israel, as making himself merry over the narratives of the Pentateuch and ironically asking (מנשוה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש בהגדות של דופי אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא אחות לוטן תמנע והמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה), whether Moses could not find anything better to relate than that “Loton’s sister was Timna” ( Gen. xxxvi, 22 ); “Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz” (ibid., v. 12 ); that “Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field” (ibid., xxx, 14 ), &c, &c. And it is replied that these narratives contain another sense besides the literal one. (Sanhedrim, 99 b.) Hence the rule (כל מה שאירע לאבות סימן לבנים), what happened to the fathers is typical of the children. ↑
25 This idea that the simple literal story isn't worthy of inspiration, and that it should have a deeper spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface, isn't unique to Kabbalah. Both the Synagogue and the Church have held this belief for ages. For example, the Talmud describes the reckless Manasseh, King of Israel, as mocking the stories in the Pentateuch and sarcastically asking (Menasha, son of Hezekiah, who was sitting and teaching the flawed interpretations, said, "Did Moses really only have to write about Lotan's sister, Timnah? And Timnah was a concubine to Eliphaz. And Reuben went during the wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field."), if Moses couldn’t come up with anything better to tell than that “Loton’s sister was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi, 22); “Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz” (ibid., v. 12); that “Reuben went during the wheat harvest and found mandrakes in the field” (ibid., xxx, 14), etc. And it's noted that these stories have meanings beyond their literal interpretation. (Sanhedrim, 99 b.) Therefore, the principle is (Everything that happened to the ancestors is a sign for the descendants.), what happened to the ancestors serves as a sign for the descendants. ↑
26 Origen’s words are almost literally the same—“Si adsideamus litterae et secundum hoc vel quod Judaeis, vel quod vulgo videtur, accipiamus quæ in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere et confiteri quia tales leges dederit Deus: videbuntur enim magis elegantes et rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia vel Romanorum vel Atheniensium, vel Lacedaemoniorum.” Homil. vii, in Levit. Again, the same erudite father says, “What person in his senses will imagine that the first, second, and third day, in connection with which morning and evening are mentioned, were without sun, moon and stars, nay that there was no sky on the first day? Who is there so foolish and without common sense as to believe that God planted trees in the garden eastward of Eden like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that everybody must regard these as figures, under which a recondite sense is concealed.” Lib. iv, cap. ii, περὶ ἀρχῶν. Huet, Origeniana, p. 167. Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 99, &c. It must, however, not be supposed that this sort of interpretation, which defies all rules of sound exegesis and common sense, is confined to the ancient Jewish Rabbins or the Christian fathers. The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, may fairly compete in this respect with any production of bygone days. Will it be believed that Dr. Wordsworth actually sees it “suggested by the Holy Spirit Himself,” that Noah drunk, exposing his nakedness, and mocked by his own child, Ham, is typical of Christ who drank the cup of God’s wrath, stripped Himself of His heavenly glory, and was mocked by his own children the Jews? But we must give the Canon’s own words. “Noah drank the wine of his vineyard; Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath, which was the fruit of the sin of the cultivators of the vineyard, which he had planted in the world. Noah was made naked to his shame; Christ consented for our sake to strip Himself of His heavenly glory, and took on him the form of a servant. ( Phil. ii, 7 .) He laid aside his garments, and washed his disciples’ feet ( John, xiii, 4 .) He hid not his face from shame and spitting. ( Isa. 1, 6 .) When he was on the Cross, they that passed by reviled Him. ( Matt. xxvii, 39 .) He was mocked by His [129]own children, the Jews. He deigned to be exposed to insult for our sakes, in shame and nakedness on the Cross ( Heb. xii, 2 ), in order that we might receive eternal glory from His shame, and be clothed through His weakness with garments of heavenly beauty.” (Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, London, 1864, p. 52.) ↑
26 Origen’s words are almost literally the same—“If we look at the writings and consider what seems to be the case for the Jews or the general public regarding what is written in the law, I am embarrassed to say and admit that such laws were given by God: for the laws of men, such as those of the Romans, Athenians, or Spartans, appear to be more sophisticated and reasonable.The text is empty. Please provide a phrase to modernize. Homil. vii, in Levit. Again, the same learned father says, “What sensible person would think that the first, second, and third days, when morning and evening are mentioned, existed without the sun, moon, and stars? Or that there was no sky on the first day? Who would be so foolish and lacking in common sense as to believe that God planted trees in the garden east of Eden like a farmer, planting there the tree of life, visible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to those who ate from it; and another tree that gave knowledge of good and evil? I believe everyone must see these as symbols hiding a deeper meaning.” Lib. iv, cap. ii, περὶ ἀρχῶν. Huet, Origeniana, p. 167. See also Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 99, &c. However, it shouldn't be assumed that this type of interpretation, which disregards sound exegesis and common sense, is limited to the ancient Jewish Rabbis or the Church Fathers. The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, can confidently compete in this regard with any past work. Can it be believed that Dr. Wordsworth actually suggests that Noah getting drunk, exposing his nakedness, and being mocked by his own son, Ham, symbolizes Christ who drank the cup of God’s wrath, stripped Himself of His heavenly glory, and was mocked by His children, the Jews? We should hear the Canon’s own words: “Noah drank the wine of his vineyard; Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath, which was the result of the sin of the farmers of that vineyard, which He had planted in the world. Noah was made naked to his shame; Christ willingly stripped Himself of His heavenly glory for our sake and took on the form of a servant. (Phil. ii, 7.) He laid aside His garments and washed His disciples’ feet (John, xiii, 4.) He did not hide His face from shame and spitting (Isa. 1, 6). When He was on the Cross, those who passed by mocked Him (Matt. xxvii, 39). He was ridiculed by His [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] own children, the Jews. He chose to endure insults for our sake, in shame and nakedness on the Cross (Heb. xii, 2), so that we might receive eternal glory from His shame and be clothed through His weakness with garments of heavenly beauty.” (Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, London, 1864, p. 52.) ↑
27 The notion that the Bible is to be explained in this fourfold manner was also propounded by the Jewish doctors generally, long before the existence of the Kabbalah (Comp. Ginsburg, Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30), and has been adopted by some of the fathers and schoolmen. Origen, although only advocating a threefold sense, viz.:—σωματικὸς, ψυχικὸς, πνευματικὸς, to correspond to the Platonic notion of the component parts of man, viz.:—σῶμα, ψυχὴ, πνεῦμα, almost uses the same words as the Kabbalah. “The sentiments of Holy Scriptures must be imprinted upon each one’s soul in a threefold manner, that the more simple may be built up by the flesh (or body) of Scripture, so to speak, by which we mean the obvious explanation; that he who has advanced to a higher state may be edified by the soul of Scripture as it were; but he that is perfect, and like to the individuals spoken of by the Apostle ( 1 Cor. ii, 6 , 7), must be edified by the spiritual law, having a shadow of good things to come. περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. iv, cap. ii. Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 97. Whilst Nicholas de Lyra, the celebrated commentator and forerunner of the Reformation (born about 1270, died October 23, 1340), distinctly espouses the Jewish four modes of interpretation, which he describes in the following couplet—
27 The idea that the Bible should be interpreted in this fourfold way was also proposed by Jewish scholars long before Kabbalah existed (see Ginsburg, Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30) and has been accepted by some early church fathers and theologians. Origen, although he only supported a threefold interpretation—σωματικος, ψυχικος, πνευματικος—which aligns with the Platonic view of the parts of man, namely:σώμα, ψυχή, πνεύμα, almost uses the same terms as Kabbalah. “The messages of Holy Scriptures should be internalized in each person's soul in three ways: the simplest can be guided by the flesh (or body) of Scripture, meaning the straightforward interpretation; those who have progressed further can be uplifted by the soul of Scripture, so to speak; but the perfected individuals, like those referred to by the Apostle (1 Cor. ii, 6, 7), must be uplifted by the spiritual law, which holds a promise of good things to come. περὶ ἀρχών, lib. iv, cap. ii. See also Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 97. Meanwhile, Nicholas de Lyra, the renowned commentator and a precursor of the Reformation (born around 1270, died October 23, 1340), clearly supports the Jewish four methods of interpretation, which he outlines in the following couplet—
“Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria,
“Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria,
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.”
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
28 The above-mentioned exegetical canons, however, are not peculiar to the Kabbalah. They have been in vogue among the Jews from time immemorial. Thus the difficult passage in Isa. xxi, 8 , ויקרא אריה which is rendered in the Authorised Version, and he cried, A lion! or ‘as a lion,’ as the margin has it, is explained by the ancient Jewish tradition as a prophecy respecting Habakkuk, who, as Isaiah foresaw, would in coming days use the very words here predicted. (Comp. Isa. xxi, 8, 9 , with Hab. ii, 1 ); and this interpretation is obtained by rule i; inasmuch as אריה lion and חבקוק Habakkuk are numerically the same, viz.:—
28 The exegetical canons mentioned above aren't unique to the Kabbalah. They've been commonly used among Jews for ages. For example, the challenging passage in Isa. xxi, 8, Call the lion, which is translated in the Authorized Version as and he cried, A lion! or as a lion in the margin, is interpreted by ancient Jewish tradition as a prophecy about Habakkuk, who, as Isaiah saw, would use the exact words predicted here in the future. (See Isa. xxi, 8, 9, with Hab. ii, 1); and this interpretation follows rule i because Lion lion and חבקוק Habakkuk have the same numerical value, which is:—
ה | י | ר | א | and | ק | ו | ק | ב | ח | |||||||||
5 | + | 10 | + | 200 | + | 1 | = 216 | and | 100 | + | 6 | + | 100 | + | 2 | + | 8 | = 216 |
(See the Commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimchi on Isa. xxi, 8 .) Again, in the fact that Jacob made Joseph ‘a coat of many colours’ ( Gen. xxxvii, 3 ), as the Authorised Version has it, or ‘pieces,’ as it is in the margin, the Midrash or the ancient Jewish exposition, sees the sufferings of Joseph indicated; inasmuch as פסים according to rule ii, is composed of the initials of פוטיפר Potiphar, who imprisoned Joseph; סוחרים merchants ישמעאלים Ishmaelites and מדינים Midianites, who bought him and sold him again as a slave. ( Gen. xxxvii, 25–28 ; xxxix, 1; comp. Rashi on Gen. xxxvii, 3 .) For more extensive information on this subject, we must refer to Ginsburg’s Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30, &c. ↑
(See the Commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimchi on Isa. xxi, 8.) Again, the fact that Jacob made Joseph ‘a coat of many colors’ (Gen. xxxvii, 3), as the Authorized Version calls it, or ‘pieces,’ as it’s noted in the margin, reflects Joseph's suffering; since Stripes according to rule ii, consists of the initials of Potiphar Potiphar, who imprisoned Joseph; Traders merchants ישמעאלים Ishmaelites and مدينين Midianites, who bought him and sold him again as a slave. (Gen. xxxvii, 25–28; xxxix, 1; see Rashi on Gen. xxxvii, 3.) For more detailed information on this topic, we should refer to Ginsburg’s Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30, &c. ↑
29 The limits of this Essay preclude the possibility of entering into a disquisition on the seventy-two Divine names. Those who wish to examine the subject more extensively we must refer to the Commentaries on the Sohar ( Exod. xiv. 19–31 ), mentioned in the third part of this Essay; and to Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, Pars iv, p. 230 seq., where ample information is given on this and kindred subjects. ↑
29 The limits of this essay prevent us from discussing the seventy-two Divine names in detail. For those who want to explore the topic more thoroughly, we recommend checking out the commentaries on the Sohar (Exod. xiv. 19–31) mentioned in the third part of this essay, as well as Bartolocci's Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, Part iv, p. 230 seq., which provides extensive information on this and related topics. ↑
30 יחודא רכל יוכמא איחו יחודא למנרע ולשואח רעותא. יחודא דא חא אמרן בכמח דוכתי יחודא דכל יומא איחו יחיד דקרא ידו״ד קימאה אלחינו ידו״ד חא כלחו חד וע״ד קרי אחד. חא תלת שמחן חיך אינון חד ואף על גנ דקרינן אחד חיך אינון חד אלא בחויונא דרוח קרשא אתידע ואינון בחיזו דעינא סתימא למנדע דתלתא אלין אחד. ודא איחו רזא דקול, דאשתמע קול איחו וזר ואייחו תלתא גוונין, אשא ורוחא ומיא וכלחו חז ברזא רקול ולאו אינון אלא חד. אוף הכא י״י אכהינו י״י אונון חד, תלתא גוונין ואינון חד. ורא איהו קיל דעביד בר נש ביחודא ולשואח רעותיה ביהודא דכלא מאין טות עד סופא. דכלא באאי קול דקא עביד בחני תלתא דאינון חד, ודא [139]איהו יחודא דכל יומא דאתגלי ברזא דרוח קדשא. וכמה גוונין דיחודא אתערו וכלהו קשוט מאן דעביד האי עביד ומאן דעביד האי עביד, אבל האי יחודא דקא אנן מתערי מתתא ברזא דקול דאיהו הד, דא הוא ברירא דמלה. זוהר הלצ ב׳ דף מ״ג ב׳ ↑
30 The unique oneness is what connects and brings everyone together. This oneness has been discussed in many places, where each day, one singular being is called out to. There isn't just one, and as it is said, the one that is called is unique. There are three things that resemble one, and even though we refer to them as one, they are unified by the essence of the spirit that brings them together, sharing a vision of hidden knowledge that recognizes these three as one. This is the secret of the voice, which combines one voice into three distinct elements: fire, spirit, and water, all coming together as one. Similarly, here, YHWH and our God are one; three elements yet still one. It's important to understand that whatever a person does in oneness and connection to the world, they are all represented until the end. All respond to this voice made from three that are one, and this is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__], the uniqueness revealed each day in the secret of the holy spirit. Many aspects of oneness emerge, and all arrangements are for those who act in this way, and those who behave in this manner, but this uniqueness we create below is the secret of the voice that is clear and distinct. Zohar, Volume 2, Page 43b ↑
31 רבי אלעזר הוה יתיב קמיה דר״ש אבוי אמר ליה הא תנינן אלהים בכל אתר דינא הוא, יו״ד ה״א וא״ו ה״א אית אתר דאקרי אלהים כגון אדני יהוה, אמאי אקרי אלהים והא אתוון רחמי אינון בכל אתר אמר ליה הכי הוא כתיב בקרא, דכתיב וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך כי י״י הוא האלהים, וכתיב י״י הוא האלהים. אמר ליה מלה דא ידענא דבאתר דאית דינא אית רחמי, ולזמנא באתר דאית [140]רחמי אית דינא אמר ִיה תא חזי דהכי הוא ידו״ד בכל אתר רחמי ובשעתא דמהפכי חייביא רחמי לדינא כדין כתיב יהוה וכרינן ליה אלהים, אבל תא חזי רזא דמלה ג׳ דרגין אינון וכל דרגא ודרגא בלחודוי ואענ׳ דכלא חד ומתכשרי בחד ולא מתפרשי דא מן דא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף ס׳ה א׳ ↑
31 Rabbi Eleazar was sitting in front of Rabbi Shimon and said to him, "Did we not learn that God is the judge everywhere?" He replied, "In the case of Yod Heh Vav Heh, there are places referred to as God, like Adonai YHWH. Why is He called God? Aren't those terms expressions of mercy? In every situation, he responded, 'It is as it is written in the text: 'And you shall know today and reflect in your heart that YHWH is God,' and it is written 'YHWH is God.' He said to him, 'Where there is judgment, there is mercy, and in a time and place where there is mercy, there is judgment.' He explained, 'Look, this is how it is: YHWH is mercy everywhere, and at the moment that changes the guilty into mercy, according to judgment, it is written YHWH, and we call Him God. But consider the secret of the matter: there are three levels, and each level is distinct, and every single one is united and purified as one, and it is not clear that this comes from that.' [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Zohar Part 3, Page 65a ↑
32 מאן דאמר אחד אצטריך לחיפא אל״ף ולקצרא קריאה דילה ולא יעכב בהאי אות כלל. ומאן דעביד דא יתארכון חייו אמרו ליה תו אמר תרינאינון וחדא אשתתף בהו ואינון תלתא וכד הוו תלתא אינון חד. אמר לון אלין תרין שמהן דשמע ישראל דאינון יהוה יהוה אלהינו אשתתף בהו ואיהו חותמא דגושפנכא אמת, וכד מתחברן כחדא אינון חד ביחודא חדא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף קס״ב א׳ ↑
32 Anyone who claims that one should concentrate on the first aspect and that the reading shouldn’t be postponed at all is correct. Those who do this are said to have blessed lives. They told him, "So we say there are two, and one can be part of both, making them three, and when there are three, they become one." They mentioned these two names from "Hear O Israel," indicating that the Lord our God shares in them, and he is the seal of truth. When they are united as one, they cannot be separated: Zohar Part 3, Page 162a. ↑
33 Comp. Galatinus, De Arcanis Cathol. lib. ii, c. 3, p. 31; who says that some Codices of the Chaldee paraphrase in Isa. vi, 3 , had also קדיש אבא קדיש בריא קדיש רוחא קדישא the Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Ghost; see also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebreca i, 1136; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden vii, 249. ↑
33 Comp. Galatinus, De Arcanis Cathol. lib. ii, c. 3, p. 31; who mentions that some copies of the Chaldee paraphrase in Isa. vi, 3, also had קדיש אבא קדיש בריא קדיש Holy Spirit the Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Ghost; see also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebreca i, 1136; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden vii, 249. ↑
35 בשעתא דיתפסין צדיקייא במרעין או במכתשין בגין לכפרא על עלמא היו, כדין יתכפרון כל חובי דרא. מנלן מכל שייפי גופא. בשעתא דכל שייפין בעקאו ומרע סגי שרייא עלייהו שייפא חדא אצטריך לאלקאה בגין דיתסון כלהו. ומנו דרועה. דרועא אלקי ואפיקו מניה דמא כדין הא אסוותא לכל שייפי גופא. אוף הכי בני עלמא אינון שייפין דא עם דא. בשעתא דבעי קב.״ה למיהב אסוותא לעלמא אלקי לחד צדיקא בינייהו במרעין ובמכתשין ובגיניה יהיב אסוותא לכלא מנלן דכתיב והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעוונותיינו וגו׳ ובחברתי נרפא לנו ובחברתו אקזותא דדמא מכאן דאקיז דרועא, ובההוא חבורה נרפא לנו אסוותא הוא לנו לכל שייפין דגופא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי״ח א׳ ↑
35 When righteous people face troubles or hardships to make amends for the world, all the debts of that generation will be forgiven. How do we know this? From the essence of the body. When all challenges arise and difficulties are everywhere, one must turn to God for everything to be resolved. And who is the powerful one? The strong in spirit who brings forth healing from within, as it is said: "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities..." and "by His wounds, we are healed." In this connection, healing comes to us as a remedy for all the troubles of the body: Zohar part 3, page 218. ↑
36 אנון נשמתין דבגנתא דעדן לתתא .… משטטי ומסתכלן באינון מאריהון דכאבין ובני מרעין ואנון דסבלין על יחודא דמאריהון ותאבין ואמרין ליה למשיהא בשעתא דאמרין ליה למשיחא צערא דישראל בגלותהון ואינון חייביא די בהון דלא מסתכלי למנדע למאריהון׳ ארים קלא ובכי על אינון חייבין דבהו הה״ד והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעונותינו. תייבין אינון נשמתין וקיימין באתרייהו. בגנתא דעדן אית היכלא חדא דאקרי היכלא דבני מרעין׳ כדין משיח עאל בההו היכלא וקארי לכל מרעין וכל כאבין כל יסוריהון דישראל דייתון עליה וכלהו אתיין עליה ואלמלא דאיהו אקיל מעלייהו דישראל ונטיל עליה׳ לא הוי בר נש דיכיל למסבל יסוריהון דישראל על עונשי דאוריתא. הה״ד אכן חליינו הוא נשא וגו׳ … כד הוו ישראל בארעא קדישא באינון פולחנין וקרבנין דהוו עבדי הוו מסלקין כל אינין מרעין ויסורין מעלמא. השתא משיח מסלק לון מבני עלמא: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף ריב א׳ ↑
36 The souls of the righteous in the Garden of Eden look around and see those who are in pain and suffering, enduring the hardships caused by their masters. They mention that the Messiah is present when discussing the suffering of Israel during their exile, and they speak out against those who ignore their masters. They raise their voices and cry for those who are guilty of being indifferent to their pain, as it is written: "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities." May those souls be saved and stand strong in their place. In the Garden of Eden, there’s a place called the Hall of the Righteous. The Messiah enters this hall and calls out to everyone who is suffering and all the pain of Israel that weighs upon them. Without His help to ease their burdens, no one could withstand the suffering of Israel due to the divine punishments. As it is written: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows..." Just as the Israelites in the Holy Land offered sacrifices and performed their service, they removed all forms of evil and suffering from the world. Now, the Messiah is removing them from the children of the world: Zohar Part 2, Page 214. ↑
II.
We now proceed to trace the date and origin of the Kabbalah. Taking the ex parte statement for what it is worth, viz., that this secret doctrine is of a pre-Adamite date, and that God himself propounded it to the angels in Paradise, we shall have to examine the age of the oldest documents which embody its tenets, and compare these doctrines with other systems, in order to ascertain the real date and origin of this theosophy. But before this is done, it will be necessary to summarize, as briefly as possible, those doctrines which are peculiar to the Kabbalah, or which it expounds and elaborates in an especial manner, and which constitute it a separate system within the precincts of Judaism. The doctrines are as follow:—
We will now trace the date and origin of the Kabbalah. Taking the ex parte statement at face value, meaning that this secret doctrine dates back to before Adam and that God himself shared it with the angels in Paradise, we need to examine the age of the oldest documents that contain its principles and compare these doctrines with other systems to determine the true date and origin of this theosophy. But before we do that, it's necessary to briefly summarize the doctrines unique to the Kabbalah, or that it explains and develops in a special way, which makes it a distinct system within Judaism. The doctrines are as follows:—
1. God is boundless in his nature. He has neither will, intention, desire, thought, language, nor action. He cannot be grasped and depicted; and, for this reason, is called En Soph, and as such he is in a certain sense not existent.
1. God is limitless in his nature. He has no will, intention, desire, thought, language, or actions. He cannot be understood or represented; and for this reason, he is called En Soph, and in a way, he does not exist.
2. He is not the direct creator of the universe, since he could not will the creation; and since a creation proceeding directly from him would have to be as boundless and as perfect as he is himself.
2. He isn't the direct creator of the universe, since he couldn't will the creation; and any creation that came directly from him would have to be as limitless and as perfect as he is himself.
3. He at first sent forth ten emanations, or Sephiroth, which are begotten, not made, and which are both infinite and finite.
3. He initially released ten emanations, or Sephiroth, which are generated, not created, and are both infinite and finite.
4. From these Sephiroth, which are the Archetypal Man, the different worlds gradually and successively evolved. These evolutionary worlds are the brightness and the express image of their progenitors, the Sephiroth, which uphold all things. [146]
4. From these Sephiroth, which represent the Archetypal Man, the various worlds gradually and successively came into being. These evolving worlds reflect the light and true likeness of their origins, the Sephiroth, which support everything. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
5. These emanations, or Sephiroth, gave rise to or created in their own image all human souls. These souls are pre-existent, they occupy a special hall in the upper world of spirits, and there already decide whether they will pursue a good or bad course in their temporary sojourn in the human body, which is also fashioned according to the Archetypal image.
5. These emanations, or Sephiroth, created all human souls in their own likeness. These souls exist before birth, residing in a special realm in the higher world of spirits, where they already decide whether they will follow a good or bad path during their temporary time in the human body, which is also shaped according to the Archetypal image.
6. No one has seen the En Soph at any time. It is the Sephiroth, in whom the En Soph is incarnate, who have revealed themselves to us, and to whom the anthropomorphisms of Scripture and the Hagada refer. Thus when it is said, “God spake, descended upon earth, ascended into heaven, smelled the sweet smell of sacrifices, repented in his heart, was angry,” &c, &c, or when the Hagadic works describe the body and the mansions of the Deity, &c., all this does not refer to the En Soph, but to these intermediate beings.
6. No one has seen the En Soph at any time. It is the Sephiroth, in whom the En Soph is embodied, that has revealed themselves to us, and to whom the human-like descriptions in Scripture and the Hagada refer. So when it says, “God spoke, came down to earth, went up to heaven, smelled the sweet aroma of sacrifices, changed His mind, got angry,” etc., or when the Hagadic texts describe the body and the divine abodes, etc., none of this refers to the En Soph, but to these intermediary beings.
7. It is an absolute condition of the soul to return to the Infinite Source whence it emanated, after developing all those perfections the germs of which are indelibly inherent in it. If it fails to develope these germs, it must migrate into another body, and in case it is still too weak to acquire the virtues for which it is sent to this earth, it is united to another and a stronger soul, which, occupying the same human body with it, aids its weaker companion in obtaining the object for which it came down from the world of spirits.
7. It's essential for the soul to return to the Infinite Source from which it originated after developing all the inherent qualities that are deeply embedded within it. If it fails to cultivate these qualities, it must enter another body, and if it is still too weak to gain the virtues it was meant to acquire on this earth, it connects with another, stronger soul that shares the same human body, helping its weaker counterpart achieve the purpose for which it descended from the spirit world.
8. When all the pre-existent souls shall have passed their probationary period here below, the restitution of all things will take place; Satan will be restored to an angel of light, hell will disappear, and all souls will return into the bosom of the Deity whence they emanated. The creature shall not then be distinguished from the Creator. Like God, the soul will rule the universe: she shall command, and God obey.
8. When all the souls that existed before have completed their trial period here on Earth, everything will be restored to its original state; Satan will be transformed back into an angel of light, hell will vanish, and all souls will return to the heart of God from which they came. Creatures will no longer be separate from the Creator. Just like God, the soul will govern the universe: she will command, and God will obey.
With these cardinal doctrines before us we shall now be [147]able to examine the validity of the Kabbalists’ claims to the books which, according to them, propound their doctrines and determine the origin of this theosophy. Their works are I. The Book of Creation; II. The Sohar; and III. The Commentary of the Ten Sephiroth. As the Book of Creation is acknowledged by all parties to be the Oldest, we shall examine it first.
With these fundamental beliefs in mind, we can now [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]assess the Kabbalists' claims to the texts that, according to them, outline their teachings and clarify the origins of this theosophy. Their works include I. The Book of Creation; II. The Sohar; and III. The Commentary of the Ten Sephiroth. Since the Book of Creation is recognized by everyone as the oldest, we'll start with it.
I. The Book of Creation or Jetzira.
I. The Book of Creation or Jetzira.
This marvellous and famous document pretends to be a monologue of the patriarch Abraham, and premises that the contemplations it contains are those which led the father of the Hebrews to abandon the worship of the stars and to embrace the faith of the true God. Hence the remark of the celebrated philosopher, R. Jehudah Ha-Levi (born about 1086)—“The Book of the Creation, which belongs to our father Abraham, … demonstrates the existence of the Deity and the Divine Unity, by things which are on the one hand manifold and multifarious, whilst on the other hand they converge and harmonize; and this harmony can only proceed from One who originated it.”1 (Khozari, iv. 25.) The whole Treatise consists of six Perakim (פרקיﬦ) or chapters, subdivided into thirty-three very brief Mishnas (משנות) or sections, as follows. The first chapter has twelve sections, the second has five, the third five, the fourth four, the fifth three, and the sixth four sections. The doctrines which it propounds are delivered in the style of aphorisms or theorems, and, pretending to be the dicta of Abraham, are laid down very dogmatically, in a manner becoming the authority of this patriarch.
This amazing and well-known document is presented as a monologue by the patriarch Abraham, claiming that the reflections it contains led the father of the Hebrews to stop worshipping the stars and instead embrace the faith of the true God. Hence the statement by the famous philosopher, R. Jehudah Ha-Levi (born around 1086)—“The Book of Creation, which belongs to our father Abraham, … proves the existence of God and Divine Unity, through elements that are both diverse and multifaceted, yet also come together and harmonize; and this harmony can only come from One who created it.”1 (Khozari, iv. 25.) The entire Treatise consists of six Perakim (פרקים) or chapters, which are divided into thirty-three very brief Mishnas (משנות) or sections, as follows. The first chapter has twelve sections, the second has five, the third five, the fourth four, the fifth three, and the sixth four sections. The doctrines it presents are expressed in an aphoristic or theorem-style format, and, while claiming to be the teachings of Abraham, they are stated very authoritatively, reflecting the stature of this patriarch.
As has already been intimated, the design of this treatise is to exhibit a system whereby the universe may be viewed methodically in connection with the truths given in the Bible, [148]thus shewing, from the gradual and systematic development of the creation, and from the harmony which prevails in all its multitudinous component parts, that One God produced it all, and that He is over all. The order in which God gave rise to this creation out of nothing (יצר ממש מתוהו), and the harmony which pervades all the constituent parts of the universe are shown by the analogy which subsists between the visible things and the signs of thought, or the means whereby wisdom is expressed and perpetuated among men. Since the letters have no absolute value, nor can they be used as mere forms, but serve as the medium between essence and form, and like words, assume the relation of form to the real essence, and of essence to the embryo and unexpressed thought, great value is attached to these letters, and to the combinations and analogies of which they are capable. The patriarch Abraham, therefore, employs the double value of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet;2 he uses them, both in their phonetic nature and in their sacred character, as expressing the divine truths of the Scriptures. But, since the Hebrew alphabet is also used as numerals, which are represented by the fundamental number ten, and since the vowels of the language are also ten in number, this decade is added to the twenty-two letters, and these two kinds of signs—i.e., the twenty-two letters of the alphabet and the ten fundamental numbers—are designated the thirty-two ways of secret wisdom; and the treatise opens with the declaration3—“By thirty-two paths of secret wisdom, the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the living God, the King of the Universe, the Merciful and Gracious, the High and Exalted God, He who inhabiteth eternity, Glorious and Holy is His [149]name, hath created the world by means of (ספר) numbers, (ספור) phonetic language, and writing (ספר).” (Sepher Jetzira, chapter i; Mishna i.)
As previously mentioned, the purpose of this work is to present a system for viewing the universe in a structured way, connecting it with the truths found in the Bible, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]demonstrating that the gradual and systematic unfolding of creation, along with the harmony present in its countless components, indicates that there is One God who created it all and is above all. The order in which God brought this creation from nothing (יצר ממש מאפס) and the harmony that exists among all parts of the universe are illustrated by the relationship between visible things and the signs of thought, or the methods through which wisdom is expressed and sustained among people. Since the letters do not have absolute value on their own and cannot be recognized just as forms, but rather serve as the medium linking essence and form, and like words, relate to the real essence as well as to embryonic and unexpressed thoughts, these letters are highly valued, as are the combinations and analogies they can create. Therefore, the patriarch Abraham utilizes the double significance of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet;2 he employs them in both their phonetic nature and their sacred meaning to convey the divine truths of the Scriptures. However, since the Hebrew alphabet also functions as numerals represented by the base number ten, and since the vowels in the language also number ten, this decade is added to the twenty-two letters, and these two types of signs—i.e., the twenty-two letters of the alphabet and the ten fundamental numbers—are referred to as the thirty-two ways of secret wisdom; and the treatise begins with the statement3—"Through thirty-two paths of secret wisdom, the Eternal, the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the living God, the King of the Universe, the Merciful and Gracious, the High and Exalted God, He who dwells in eternity, Glorious and Holy is His [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]name, created the world through (Book) numbers, (סיפור) phonetic language, and writing (Book)." (Sepher Jetzira, chapter i; Mishna i.)
First of all comes the fundamental number ten. This decade is divided into a tetrade and hexade, and thereby is shown the gradual development of the world out of nothing. At first there existed nothing except the Divine Substance, with the creative idea and the articulate creative word as the Spirit or the Holy Spirit, which is one with the Divine Substance and indivisible. Hence, the Spirit of the living God (רוח אלהים חיים) stands at the head of all things and is represented by the number one. “One is the spirit of the living God, blessed be His name, who liveth for ever! voice, spirit, and word, this is the Holy Ghost.”4 (Chapter i, Mishna ix). From this Spirit the whole universe proceeded in gradual and successive emanations, in the following order. The creative air, represented by number two, emanated from the Spirit (רוח מרוח). “In it He engraved the twenty-two letters.” The water again, represented by the number three, proceeded from the air (מים מרוח). “In it He engraved darkness and emptiness, slime and dung.” Whilst the ether or fire, represented by the number four, emanated from the water (אש ממים). “In it He engraved the throne of His glory, the Ophanim, the Seraphim, the sacred animals, and the ministering angels, and from these three he formed His habitation; as it is written—‘He maketh the wind his messengers, flaming fire his servants’ ”5 (Cap. i. Mish. ix, x.) These intermediate members between the Creator and the created world sustain a passive and created relationship to God, and [150]an acting and creating relationship to the world; so that God is neither in immediate connection with the created and material universe, nor is His creative fiat hindered by matter.
First of all comes the basic number ten. This decade is split into a group of four and a group of six, showing how the world gradually developed from nothing. In the beginning, there was only the Divine Substance, accompanied by the creative idea and the spoken creative word as the Spirit or the Holy Spirit, which is one with the Divine Substance and cannot be separated. Thus, the Spirit of the living God (Spirit of the Living God) leads everything and is represented by the number one. “One is the spirit of the living God, blessed be His name, who lives forever! voice, spirit, and word, this is the Holy Ghost.”4 (Chapter i, Mishna ix). From this Spirit, the entire universe emerged in gradual and successive stages, in the following order. The creative air, represented by the number two, came from the Spirit (Drifting wind). “In it, He engraved the twenty-two letters.” The water, represented by the number three, came from the air (Watered-down). “In it, He engraved darkness and emptiness, slime and dung.” Meanwhile, the ether or fire, represented by the number four, came from the water (Fire of waters). “In it, He engraved the throne of His glory, the Ophanim, the Seraphim, the sacred animals, and the ministering angels, and from these three, He formed His dwelling; as it is written—‘He makes the wind His messengers, flaming fire His servants’ ”5 (Cap. i. Mish. ix, x.) These intermediate beings between the Creator and the created world maintain a passive and created relationship to God, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]an acting and creating relationship to the world; so that God is neither in direct connection with the created and material universe, nor is His creative command obstructed by matter.
Then comes the hexade, each unit of which represents space in the six directions (שש קצוות), or the four corners of the world, east, west, north, and south, as well as height and depth which emanated from the ether, and in the centre of which is the Holy Temple supporting the whole (והיכל הקודש מכוון באמצע). The position of the decade is therefore as follows—
Then comes the hexade, with each unit representing space in six directions (Six edges), or the four corners of the world: east, west, north, and south, along with height and depth that came from the ether. At the center is the Holy Temple, which supports everything (והיכל הקודש באמצע). Therefore, the position of the decade is as follows—

[151]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
These constitute the primordial ten, from which the whole universe proceeded.
These are the fundamental ten, from which the entire universe originated.
And lastly follow “the twenty-two letters, by means of which God, having drawn, hewn, and weighed them, and having variously changed and put them together, formed the souls of everything that has been made, and that shall be made.”6 (Chapter ii, Mishna ii.) These twenty-two letters of the alphabet are then divided into three groups, consisting respectively of, 1, the three mothers, or fundamental letters (שלש אמות), 2, seven double (שבע כפולות) and 3, twelve simple consonants (שניﬦ עשר פשוטות), to deduce therefrom a triad of elements, a heptade of opposites, and a duodecimo of simple things, in the following manner.
And finally, follow “the twenty-two letters, by which God, having drawn, shaped, and weighed them, and having changed and combined them in various ways, created the souls of everything that exists and everything that will exist.”6 (Chapter ii, Mishna ii.) These twenty-two letters of the alphabet are divided into three groups: 1, the three mothers or fundamental letters (Three amot), 2, seven double (Seven multiples), and 3, twelve simple consonants (שניים עשר פשוטים), which lead to a triad of elements, a heptad of opposites, and a duodecimo of simple things, as follows.
1. Three Mothers, Aleph, Mem, Shin. שלש אמות אמ״ש
1. Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin. שלוש אמות אמ"ש
The above-named three primordial elements, viz., ether, water and air, which were as yet partially ideal and ethereal, became more concrete and palpable in the course of emanation. Thus the fire developed itself into the visible heaven, the elementary water thickened into the earth, embracing sea and land, whilst the elementary air became the atmospheric air. These constitute the three fundamental types of the universe (שלש אמות בעולם). The three primordial elements also thickened still more in another direction, and gave birth to a new order of creatures, which constitute the course of the year and the temperatures. From the ether developed itself heat, from the water emanated cold, and from the air proceeded the mild temperature which shows itself in the rain or wet. These constitute the fundamental points of the year (שלש אמות בשנה). Whereupon the three primordial elements developed themselves in another direction again, and gave rise to the human organism. The ether sent forth the human head, which is the seat of intelligence; the water gave [152]rise to the body, or the abdominal system; whilst the air, which is the central element, developed itself into the genital organ. These three domains, viz., the macrocosm, the revolution of time, and the microcosm, which proceeded from the three primordial elements, are exhibited by the three letters Aleph (א), Mem (מ) and Shin (ש.) Hence it is said that by means of these three letters—which, both in their phonetic and sacred character, represent the elements, inasmuch as א, as a gentle aspirate, and as the initial of אויר air, symbolises THE AIR; מ, as a labial or mute, and as the initial of מיﬦ water, represents THE WATER; whilst ש, as a sibilant, and as the last letter of אש fire, typifies THE FIRE (Chapter iii, Mishna iii)—God created
The three original elements mentioned above—ether, water, and air—were still somewhat abstract and spiritual, but they became more concrete and tangible over time. As a result, fire transformed into the visible sky, the elemental water became the earth, including both sea and land, while the elemental air turned into atmospheric air. These elements form the three fundamental types of the universe (שלוש אמות בעולם). Additionally, the three primordial elements further coalesced in another way and gave rise to a new order of beings that represent the seasons and temperatures. Heat emerged from ether, cold arose from water, and mild temperature came from air, which is evident in rain or moisture. These represent the fundamental aspects of the year (שלוש פעמיים בשנה). Then, the three primordial elements further evolved and produced the human body. Ether manifested as the human head, which is the center of intelligence; water contributed to the body or the abdominal system; and air, being the central element, became the reproductive organ. These three domains—the macrocosm, the cycle of time, and the microcosm—originated from the three primordial elements and are represented by the three letters Aleph (א), Mem (מ), and Shin (ש). Thus, it is said that through these three letters—which embody not only their phonetic sounds but also their sacred meanings, since א, as a soft aspirate and the initial of Air air, symbolizes THE ATMOSPHERE; מ, as a labial sound and the initial of מיﬦ water, represents The water; while ש, as a sibilant sound and the last letter of Fire fire, typifies THE FIRE (Chapter iii, Mishna iii)—God created.
- In the World—The Fire, Water, Air.
- In Man—The Head, Body, Breast.
- In the Year—Heat, Cold, Wet.
2. Seven double consonants—Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Caph, Pe, Resh, Tav שבע כפולות בגדכפרת
2. Seven double consonants—Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Caph, Pe, Resh, Tav. שבע כפולות בגדכפרת
The three dominions proceeding from the triad of the primordial elements which emanated from the unity continued to develope themselves still further. In the macrocosm were developed the seven planets, in time the seven days, and in the microcosm the seven sensuous faculties. These are represented by the seven double consonants of the alphabet. Hence it is said that by means of these seven letters, which are called double because they have a double pronunciation, being sometimes aspirated and sometimes not, according to their being with or without the Dagesh, God created—
The three realms that came from the trio of fundamental elements, which emerged from the oneness, continued to evolve further. In the macrocosm, the seven planets were formed, which eventually led to the seven days, and in the microcosm, the seven sensory faculties developed. These are represented by the seven double consonants of the alphabet. Thus, it is said that through these seven letters, referred to as double because they can be pronounced in two ways—sometimes aspirated and sometimes not, depending on the presence or absence of the Dagesh—God created—
- In the World—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon.
- In Man—Wisdom, Riches, Dominion, Life, Favour, Progeny, Peace.
- In the Year—Sabbath, Thursday, Tuesday, Sunday, Friday, Wednesday, Monday.
[153]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
Owing to the opposite = double pronunciation of these seven letters, being hard and soft, they are also the symbols of the seven opposites (תמורות) in which human life moves, viz., wisdom and ignorance, riches and poverty, fruitfulness and barrenness, life and death, liberty and bondage, peace and war, beauty and deformity. Moreover, they correspond to the seven ends (שבע קצוות), above and below, east and west, north and south, and the Holy Place in the centre, which supports them; and with them God formed the seven heavens, the seven earths or countries, the seven weeks from the feast of Passover to Pentecost. (Chapter iii, Mishna, i–v; cap. iv, Mishna, i–iii.)
Because of the contrasting pronunciations of these seven letters, which can be hard or soft, they symbolize the seven opposites (Changes) that define human life: wisdom and ignorance, wealth and poverty, fertility and barrenness, life and death, freedom and slavery, peace and conflict, beauty and ugliness. Additionally, they correspond to the seven directions (Seven edges), which are above and below, east and west, north and south, with the Holy Place at the center, where they all connect; through them, God created the seven heavens, the seven lands or regions, and the seven weeks from the Passover to Pentecost. (Chapter iii, Mishna, i–v; cap. iv, Mishna, i–iii.)
3. Twelve simple consonants שתיﬦ עשר פשוטות.
Twelve basic consonants
The three dominions then respectively developed themselves into twelve parts, the macrocosm into the twelve signs of the Zodiac, time into twelve months, and the microcosm into twelve active organs. This is shown by the twelve simple consonants of the alphabet. Thus it is declared, that by means of the twelve letters, which are הוז חטי לן סעצק, God created the twelve signs of the Zodiac, viz.:—
The three realms then each split into twelve parts: the macrocosm formed the twelve signs of the Zodiac, time divided into twelve months, and the microcosm became twelve active organs. This is illustrated by the twelve simple consonants of the alphabet. It is stated that through these twelve letters, which are הוז חטי לן סעשק, God created the twelve signs of the Zodiac, namely:—
- In the World—Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces.
- In Man—The organs of Sight, Hearing, Smelling, Talking, Taste, Copulating, Dealing, Walking, Thinking, Anger, Laughter, Sleeping.
- In the Year—The twelve months, viz., Nisan, Jiar, Sivan, Tamus, Ab, Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tebet, Shebat, Adar. (Comp. chapter v, Mishna i.)
The three dominions continued gradually to develope into that infinite variety of objects which is perceptible in each. This infinite variety, proceeding from the combination of a few, is propounded by means of the great diversity of combinations and permutations of which the whole alphabet is capable. [154]These letters, small in number, being only twenty-two, by their power of combination and transposition, yield an endless number of words and figures, and thus become the types of all the varied phenomena in the creation.7 “Just as the twenty-two letters yield two hundred and thirty-one types by combining Aleph (א) with all the letters, and all the letters with Aleph; Beth (ב), with all the letters, and all the letters with Beth, so all the formations and all that is spoken proceed from one name.” (Chapter ii, Mishna, iv.). The table on the opposite page will shew how the two hundred and thirty-one types are obtained by the combination of the twenty-two letters.
The three domains continued to gradually develop into the endless variety of objects we see in each. This infinite variety, arising from the combination of just a few elements, is presented through the great diversity of combinations and permutations that the entire alphabet can create. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]These letters, few in number—only twenty-two—through their capacity for combination and transposition, produce an infinite number of words and symbols, thus representing all the varied phenomena in creation. 7 “Just as the twenty-two letters create two hundred and thirty-one types by combining Aleph (א) with all the letters, and all the letters with Aleph; Beth (ב), with all the letters, and all the letters with Beth, so all formations and everything that is spoken comes from one name.” (Chapter ii, Mishna, iv.). The table on the opposite page will show how the two hundred and thirty-one types are formed by the combination of the twenty-two letters.
The infinite variety in creation is still more strikingly exhibited by permutations, of which the Hebrew alphabet is capable, and through which an infinite variety of types is obtained. Hence the remark8—“Two letters form two houses, three letters build six houses, four build twenty-four, five build a hundred and twenty houses, six build seven hundred and twenty houses; and from thenceforward go out and think what the mouth cannot utter and the ear cannot hear.” (Chapter iv, Mishna iv.) The following table will show how the letters, by permutation, will yield an infinite variety.
The endless variety in creation is even more clearly shown through the different arrangements that can be made with the Hebrew alphabet, leading to countless types. That's why it's said — “Two letters create two combinations, three letters create six combinations, four create twenty-four, five create one hundred and twenty combinations, and six create seven hundred and twenty combinations; and from there, go out and consider what words can't express and what ears can't hear.” (Chapter iv, Mishna iv.) The table below illustrates how the letters can produce limitless combinations through permutation.
TABLE OF PERMUTATION.
a. Two letters | b. Three letters | c. Four letters | |||||||||
אב | 1. | אבג | 1. | דאב"ג | 19. | גאבד | 13. | באגד | 7. | אבגד | 1. |
בא | 2. | By the way | 2. | דאגב | 20. | גאדב | 14. | באדג | 8. | אבדג | 2. |
bug | 3. | Debug | 21. | גבאד | 15. | בגאד | 9. | אגבד | 3. | ||
בגא | 4. | דבגא | 22. | גבדא | 16. | Baghdad | 10. | אגדב | 4. | ||
גאב | 5. | דגאב | 23. | גדאב | 17. | Worried | 11. | אדבג | 5. | ||
גבא | 6. | דגבא | 24. | גדבא | 18. | בדגא | 12. | אדגב | 6. | ||
form two. | build six. | build twenty-four. |
[155]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
TABLE OF COMBINATION.
שת | רש | Cold | צק | פצ | עפ | Go | נס | מנ | למ | כל | יכ | טי | חט | זח | וז | הו | דה | גד | בג | אב | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | רת | קש | צר | פק | עצ | ספ | נע | מס | לנ | כמ | יל | טכ | Living | זט | וח | הז | דו | גות | בד | אג | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | קת | צש | Return | עק | סצ | נפ | מע | לס | כנ | ימ | טל | חכם | זי | וט | הח | דז | Go | בה | אד | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | צת | פש | ער | סק | נצ | מפ | לע | כס | ינ | טמ | חל | זכ | וי | הט | דח | Gas | בו | אה | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | פת | עש | סר | נק | מצ | לפ | כע | יס | טנ | חמ | זל | וכ | Hey | דט | גח | בז | או | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | עת | סש | Candle | מק | לצ | כפ | יע | Flying | חנ | זמן | ול | הכ | די | Get | בח | So then | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | סת | נש | מר | לק | כצ | יפ | טע | חס | זנ | ומ | הל | דכ | גי | בט | אח | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | נת | מש | לר | כק | יצ | טפ | חע | זס | ונ | המ | דל | גכ | בי | אט | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | Dead | לש | כר | יק | טצ | חפ | זע | וס | הנ | דמ | גל | בכ | אי | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | לת | כש | יר | טק | חצ | זפ | וע | הס | דנ | גמ | בל | אכ | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | כת | יש | טר | חק | זצ | ופ | הע | דס | גנ | במ | אל | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | ית | טש | חר | זק | וצ | הפ | Know | grosse | בנ | אמ | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | טת | חש | זר | וק | הצ | דפ | גע | בס | אנ | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | חת | זש | ור | הק | דצ | גפן | בע | אס | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | זת | וש | הר | Thin | גצ | בפ | אע | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | ות | הש | דר | גק | בצ | אפ | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | הת | דש | גר | בק | אצ | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | Religion | גש | בר | אק | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | גת | בש | אר | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | בת | Fire | |||||||||||||||||||||
. . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | . . | את | |||||||||||||||||||||
— | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
1 | + | 2 | + | 3 | + | 4 | + | 5 | + | 6 | + | 7 | + | 8 | + | 9 | + | 10 | + | 11 | + | 12 | + | 13 | + | 14 | + | 15 | + | 16 | + | 17 | + | 18 | + | 19 | + | 20 | + | 21 | = 231 |
[156]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
In order to ascertain how often a certain number of letters can be transposed, the product of the preceding number must be multiplied with it. Thus—
In order to find out how many times a specific number of letters can be rearranged, you need to multiply that number by the one before it. So—
Letter | 2 | × | 1 | = | 2 | |
3 | × | 2 | = | 6 | ||
4 | × | 6 | = | 24 | ||
5 | × | 24 | = | 120 | ||
6 | × | 120 | = | 720 | ||
7 | × | 720 | = | 5040 | and so on. |
Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the form of all existing beings. Apart from the three dominions, the macrocosm, time, and microcosm, it is only the Infinite who can be perceived, and of whom this triad testifies; for which reason it is denominated “the three true witnesses.”9 Each of this triad, notwithstanding its multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and dominion.10 Just as God is the centre of the universe, the heavenly dragon is the centre of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is the revolution of the Zodiac; whilst the centre of the microcosm is the heart.11 The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like a king living among his subjects, and the third is like a king in war. The reason why the heart of man is like a monarch in the midst of war is, that the twelve principal organs of the human body12 “are arrayed against each other in battle array; three serve love, three hatred, three engender life, and three death. The three engendering love are the heart, the ears and the mouth; the three for enmity are the [157]liver, the gall and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules over all the three systems. One [i.e., God] is over the three, the three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve, and all are internally connected with each other.” (Chapter vi, Mishna iii.) Thus the whole creation is one connected whole; it is like a pyramid pointed at the top, which was its beginning, and exceedingly broad in its basis, which is its fullest development in all its multitudinous component parts. Throughout the whole are perceptible two opposites, with a reconciling medium. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire is above, the water below, and the air is between these hostile elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi, Mishna i.) The same is the case in the heaven, earth and the atmosphere, as well as in the microcosm. But all the opposites in the cosmic, telluric and organic spheres, as well as in the moral world, are designed to balance each other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to oppose evil, good proceeding from good, and evil from evil; good purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good, and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi, Mishna ii.)
Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the essence of all existing beings. Aside from the three realms—the macrocosm, time, and microcosm—only the Infinite can be perceived, and this triad speaks to that; that's why it's called “the three true witnesses.”9 Each part of this triad, despite its diversity, forms a system with its own center and domain.10 Just as God is the center of the universe, the heavenly dragon is the center of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is the cycle of the Zodiac; and the center of the microcosm is the heart.11 The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like a king among his subjects, and the third is like a king in battle. The reason the human heart is likened to a monarch in the midst of war is that the twelve main organs of the human body12 “are arrayed against each other in battle formation; three support love, three support hatred, three generate life, and three bring death. The three that promote love are the heart, the ears, and the mouth; the three that promote enmity are the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]liver, the gallbladder, and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules over all three systems. One [i.e., God] is above the three, the three are above the seven, the seven are above the twelve, and all are interconnected.” (Chapter vi, Mishna iii.) Thus, the entire creation is one interconnected whole; it resembles a pyramid that peaks at the top, which represents its origin, while its broad base signifies its fullest development in all its many parts. Throughout this whole are evident two opposites, along with a reconciling element. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire is above, the water below, and the air exists between these opposing elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi, Mishna i.) The same applies to heaven, earth, and the atmosphere, as well as in the microcosm. However, all the opposites in the cosmic, earthly, and organic realms, along with those in the moral world, are meant to balance each other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to counter evil, good coming from good, and evil coming from evil; good purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good, and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi, Mishna ii.)
From this analysis of its contents it will be seen that the Book Jetzira, which the Kabbalists claim as their oldest document, has really nothing in common with the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah. There is not a single word in it bearing on the En Soph, the Archetypal Man, the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, and the Sephiroth, which constitute the essence of the Kabbalah. Even its treatment of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two ways of wisdom whereby God created the universe, which has undoubtedly suggested to the authors of the Kabbalah the idea of the ten Sephiroth, is quite different from the mode in which the Kabbalistic Sephiroth are depicted, as may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the respective diagrams which we have given to illustrate the plans of the two systems. [158]
From this analysis of its contents, it will be clear that the Book Jetzira, which Kabbalists claim as their oldest text, really has nothing to do with the core teachings of Kabbalah. There isn't a single word in it related to the En Soph, the Archetypal Man, or the discussions about the existence and nature of the Deity, and the Sephiroth, which form the essence of Kabbalah. Even its discussion of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two paths of wisdom through which God created the universe, which has likely inspired the authors of Kabbalah regarding the idea of the ten Sephiroth, is quite different from how the Kabbalistic Sephiroth are presented, as can be seen from a quick comparison of the diagrams we've provided to illustrate the two systems. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
Besides the language of the Book Jetzira and the train of ideas therein enunciated, as the erudite Zunz rightly remarks, shew that this treatise belongs to the Geonim period, i.e., about the ninth century of the Christian era, when it first became known.13 The fabrication of this pseudograph was evidently suggested by the fact that the Talmud mentions some treatises on the Creation, denominated הלכות יצריה and ספר יצירה (Sanhedrim 65 b; 67 b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja studied every Friday, whereby they produced a calf three years old and ate it;”14 and whereby R. Joshua ben Chananja declared he could take fruit and instantly produce the trees which belong to them. (Jerusalem Sanhedrim, cap. vii. ad finem.15) Indeed Dr. Chwolson of Petersburg has shown in his treatise “on the Remnants of the ancient Babylonian Literature in Arabic translations,” that the ancient Babylonians laid it down as a maxim that if a man were minutely and carefully to observe the process of nature, he would be able to imitate nature and produce sundry creatures. He would not only be able to create plants and metals, but even living beings. These artificial productions the Babylonians call תולידאת productions or אבונאת formations. Gutami, the author of the Agricultura Nabat, who lived about 1400 B.C., devoted a long chapter to the doctrine of artificial productions. The ancient sorcerer Ankebuta declares, in his work on artificial productions, that he created a man, and shows how he did it; but he confesses that the human being was without language and reason, that he could not eat, but simply opened and closed his eyes. This and many other fragments adds R—, from whose communication we quote, show that there were many works in Babylon which [159]treated on the artificial productions of plants, metals, and living beings, and that the Book Jetzira, mentioned in the Talmud, was most probably such a Babylonian document.16
Besides the language of the Book Jetzira and the ideas expressed in it, as the knowledgeable Zunz rightly points out, show that this work belongs to the Geonim period, around the ninth century of the Christian era, when it first became known.13 The creation of this pseudograph was clearly inspired by the fact that the Talmud mentions certain treatises on Creation, called Laws of Creation and Sefer Yetzirah (Sanhedrim 65 b; 67 b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja studied every Friday, which allowed them to produce a three-year-old calf and eat it;”14 and that R. Joshua ben Chananja claimed he could take fruit and instantly create the trees that produced them. (Jerusalem Sanhedrim, cap. vii. ad finem.15) Indeed, Dr. Chwolson from Petersburg has shown in his work “on the Remnants of the Ancient Babylonian Literature in Arabic Translations,” that the ancient Babylonians believed that if a person carefully observed the processes of nature, they could imitate nature and create various creatures. They believed they could create not only plants and metals but even living beings. These artificial creations were known to the Babylonians as תולדות productions or אבונאת formations. Gutami, the author of the Agricultura Nabat, who lived around 1400 B.C., dedicated a long chapter to the concept of artificial productions. The ancient sorcerer Ankebuta claims in his work on artificial productions that he created a man, detailing how he did it; however, he admits that the human was without language and reason, that he could not eat, and could only open and close his eyes. This and many other fragments, as noted by R—, from whose communication we quote, indicate that there were numerous works in Babylon that [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] addressed the artificial production of plants, metals, and living beings, and that the Book Jetzira, mentioned in the Talmud, was likely such a Babylonian document.16
As the document on creation, mentioned in the Talmud, was lost in the course of time, the author of the Treatise which we have analysed tried to supply the loss, and hence not only called his production by the ancient name ספר יצירה the Book of Creation, but ascribed it to the patriarch Abraham. The perusal, however, of a single page of this book will convince any impartial reader that it has as little in common with the magic work mentioned in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian works which treat of human creations, as with the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, the En Soph and the Sephiroth, which are the essence of the Kabbalah.17
As the document on creation mentioned in the Talmud was lost over time, the author of the Treatise we’ve examined tried to fill that gap. They named their work Sefer Yetzirah the Book of Creation and attributed it to the patriarch Abraham. However, just reading a single page of this book will show any fair reader that it has little in common with the magical work referenced in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian texts that discuss human creations, as well as with the theories about the existence and nature of the Deity, the En Soph and the Sephiroth, which are central to the Kabbalah.17
Having shown that the Book Jetzira, claimed by the Kabbalists as their first and oldest code of doctrines, has no affinity with the real tenets of the Kabbalah, we have now to examine:— [160]
Having demonstrated that the Book Jetzira, which the Kabbalists regard as their earliest and oldest set of teachings, has no connection to the true principles of Kabbalah, we now need to explore:— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
II. The Book Sohar.
II. The Book of Sohar.
Before we enter into an examination concerning the date and authorship of this renowned code of the Kabbalistic doctrines, it will be necessary to describe the component parts of the Sohar. It seems that the proper Sohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses, according to the division into Sabbatic sections, was originally called מדרש יהי אור the Midrash or Exposition, Let there be Light, from the words in Gen. i, 4 ; because the real Midrash begins with the exposition of this verse. The name Sohar (זוהר), i.e. Light, Splendour, was given to it afterwards, either because this document begins with the theme light, or because the word Sohar frequently occurs on the first page. It is referred to by the name of the Book Sohar (ספר הזוהר) in the component parts of the treatise itself. (Comp. The Faithful Shepherd, Sohar, iii, 153 b.) The Sohar is also called Midrash of R. Simon b. Jochai (מדרש של ר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי), because this Rabbi is its reputed author.18 Interspersed throughout the Sohar, either as parts of the text with special titles, or in separate columns with distinct superscriptions, are the following dissertations, which we detail according to the order of the pages on which they respectively commence.
Before we dive into a discussion about the date and authorship of this famous Kabbalistic text, we need to outline the parts of the Sohar. The original Sohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses divided into Sabbath sections, was initially named Midrash Let There Be Light the Midrash or Exposition, Let there be Light, based on the words from Gen. i, 4; since the actual Midrash starts with the explanation of this verse. The title Sohar (זוהר), meaning Light or Splendor, was assigned later, possibly because this text begins with the theme of light, or because the word Sohar appears frequently on the first page. It is referred to as the Book Sohar (Zohar Book) in the sections of the treatise itself. (See The Faithful Shepherd, Sohar, iii, 153 b.) The Sohar is also known as the Midrash of R. Simon b. Jochai (Midrash of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai), since this Rabbi is credited as its author.18 Throughout the Sohar, there are various essays included either as part of the text under specific titles or in separate columns with distinct headings, which we will list according to the pages where they begin.
1. Tosephta and Mathanithan (מתניתן and תוספתא), or Small Additional Pieces which are given in vol. i, 31 b; 32 b; 37 a; 54 b; 59 a; 60 b; 62; 98 b; 121 a; 122; 128 b; 147; 151 a; 152 a; 232; 233 b; 234 a; vol. ii, 4, 27 b; [161]28 a; 68 b; 135 b; vol. iii, 29 b; 30 a; 54 b; 55. They briefly discuss, by way of supplement, the various topics of the Kabbalah, such as the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c., and address themselves in apostrophes to the initiated in these mysteries, calling their attention to some doctrine or explanation.
1. Tosephta and Mathanithan (מתוניתן and תוספתא), or Small Additional Pieces which are included in vol. i, 31 b; 32 b; 37 a; 54 b; 59 a; 60 b; 62; 98 b; 121 a; 122; 128 b; 147; 151 a; 152 a; 232; 233 b; 234 a; vol. ii, 4, 27 b; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]28 a; 68 b; 135 b; vol. iii, 29 b; 30 a; 54 b; 55. They briefly discuss, as a supplement, various topics of the Kabbalah, such as the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, etc., and they address the initiated in these mysteries, drawing their attention to certain doctrines or explanations.
2. Hechaloth (היכלות) or The Mansions and Abodes forming part of the text, vol. i, 38 a–45 b; vol. ii, 245 a–269 a. This portion of the Sohar describes the topographical structure of Paradise and Hell. The mansions or palaces, which are seven in number, were at first the habitation of the earthly Adam, but, after the fall of the protoplasts, were rearranged to be the abode of the beatified saints, who for this reason have the enjoyment both of this world and the world to come. The seven words in Gen. i, 2 are explained to describe these seven mansions. Sohar, i, 45 a, describes the seven Hells. In some Codices, however, this description of the Infernal Regions is given vol. ii, 202 b.
2. Hechaloth (Palaces) or The Mansions and Abodes is part of the text, vol. i, 38 a–45 b; vol. ii, 245 a–269 a. This section of the Sohar describes the layout of Paradise and Hell. The mansions or palaces, which number seven, were originally the dwelling place of the earthly Adam. However, after the fall of the first humans, they were reorganized to serve as the home for the blessed saints, allowing them to enjoy both this world and the afterlife. The seven words in Gen. i, 2 are interpreted to refer to these seven mansions. Sohar, i, 45 a, details the seven Hells. In some manuscripts, this description of the Infernal Regions appears as vol. ii, 202 b.
3. Sithre Tora (סתרי תורה), or The Mysteries of the Pentateuch, given in separate columns, and at the bottom of pages as follows. Vol. i, 74 b; 75 a; 76 b–77 a; 78 a–81 b; 97 a–102 a; 107 b–111 a; 146 b–149 b; 151 a; 152 b; 154 b–157 b; 161 b–162 b; 165; vol. ii, 146 a. It discusses the divers topics of the Kabbalah, such as the evolution of the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c.
3. Sithre Tora (Secrets of the Torah), or The Mysteries of the Pentateuch, presented in separate columns, and at the bottom of pages as follows. Vol. i, 74 b; 75 a; 76 b–77 a; 78 a–81 b; 97 a–102 a; 107 b–111 a; 146 b–149 b; 151 a; 152 b; 154 b–157 b; 161 b–162 b; 165; vol. ii, 146 a. It covers various topics of the Kabbalah, such as the development of the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, etc., etc.
4. Midrash Ha-Neelam (מדרש הנעלם), or The Hidden Midrash, occupies parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97 a–140 a, and endeavours more to explain passages of Scripture mystically, by way of Remasim (רמזים) and Gematrias (גמטריאות), and allegorically, than to propound the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Thus Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is explained as an intercession by the congregated souls of the saints in behalf of the sinners about to be [162]punished. (Sohar, i, 104 b.) Lot’s two daughters are the two proclivities in man, good and evil. (Ibid. 110.) Besides this mystical interpretation wherein the Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are largely applied, the distinguishing feature of this portion of the Sohar is its discussion on the properties and destiny of the soul, which constitute an essential doctrine of the Kabbalah.
4. Midrash Ha-Neelam (Midrash HaNe'lam), or The Hidden Midrash, features parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97 a–140 a, and aims to explain Scripture passages in a mystical way, using Remasim (Hints) and Gematrias (Gematria), and an allegorical approach, instead of presenting the doctrines of the Kabbalah. For example, Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is interpreted as an intercession by the gathered souls of the saints on behalf of the sinners who are about to be [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]punished. (Sohar, i, 104 b.) Lot’s two daughters symbolize the two inclinations in humans, good and evil. (Ibid. 110.) Besides this mystical interpretation, where Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are heavily utilized, the key aspect of this section of the Sohar is its exploration of the nature and purpose of the soul, which is a fundamental principle of the Kabbalah.
5. Raja Mehemna (רעיא מהמנא), or the Faithful Shepherd. This portion of the Sohar is given in the second and third volumes, in parallel columns with the text; and when it is too disproportioned for columns, is given at the bottom or in separate pages, as follows. Vol. ii, 25, 40, 59 b; 91 b–93 a; 134 b, 157 b–159 a; 187 b–188 a; vol. iii, 3 a–4 b; 20 a, 24 b, 27, 28 a–29 a; 33 a–34 a; 42 a, 44 a; 63; 67 b–68 a; 81 b–83 b; 85 b–86 a; 88 b–90 a; 92 b–93 a; 97 a–101 a; 103 b–104 a; 108 b–111 b; 121 b–126 a; 145 a–146 b; 152 b–153 b; 174 a–175 a; 178 b–179 b; 180 a, 215 a–239 a; 242 a–258 a; 263 a–264 a; 270 b–283 a. It derives its name from the fact that it records the discussions which Moses the Faithful Shepherd held in conference with the prophet Elias, and with R. Simon b. Jochai, the celebrated master of the Kabbalistic school, who is called the Sacred Light (בוצינא קדישא). The chief object of this portion is to show the profound and allegorical import of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the Rabbinic injunctions and religious practices which obtained in the course of time. At the dialogue which Moses the lawgiver holds with R. Simon b. Jochai the Kabbalistic lawgiver, not only is the prophet Elias present, but Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon, and God himself make their appearance; the disciples of R. Simon are frequently in ecstacies when they hold converse with these illustrious patriarchs and kings of bygone days.
5. Raja Mehemna (רעיא מהמנא), or the Faithful Shepherd. This section of the Sohar is presented in the second and third volumes, in parallel columns with the text; when it doesn't fit well in columns, it appears at the bottom or on separate pages, as follows. Vol. ii, 25, 40, 59 b; 91 b–93 a; 134 b, 157 b–159 a; 187 b–188 a; vol. iii, 3 a–4 b; 20 a, 24 b, 27, 28 a–29 a; 33 a–34 a; 42 a, 44 a; 63; 67 b–68 a; 81 b–83 b; 85 b–86 a; 88 b–90 a; 92 b–93 a; 97 a–101 a; 103 b–104 a; 108 b–111 b; 121 b–126 a; 145 a–146 b; 152 b–153 b; 174 a–175 a; 178 b–179 b; 180 a, 215 a–239 a; 242 a–258 a; 263 a–264 a; 270 b–283 a. Its name comes from the fact that it records the discussions between Moses the Faithful Shepherd and the prophet Elijah, along with R. Simon b. Jochai, the renowned leader of the Kabbalistic school, who is referred to as the Sacred Light (Holy Candle). The main goal of this section is to illustrate the deep and symbolic meaning of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as the Rabbinic regulations and religious practices that evolved over time. In the dialogue between Moses the lawgiver and R. Simon b. Jochai the Kabbalistic teacher, not only is the prophet Elijah present, but also Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon, and God himself appear; R. Simon’s disciples are often overwhelmed with joy as they converse with these distinguished patriarchs and kings from the past.
6. Raze Derazin (רזי דרזין), or the Secret of Secrets, [163]Original Secrets, is given in vol. ii, 70 a–75 a, and is especially devoted to the physiognomy of the Kabbalah, and the connection of the soul with the body, based upon the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses (ואתה תחזה) and thou shalt look into the face. ( Exod. xviii, 21 .)
6. Raze Derazin (רזי דרזין), or The Secret of Secrets, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Original Secrets, is found in vol. ii, pages 70 a–75 a, and focuses on the physiognomy of Kabbalah and the relationship between the soul and body, based on Jethro's advice to his son-in-law Moses (And you will see) and you shall look into the face. (Exod. xviii, 21.)
7. Saba Demishpatim (סבא דמשפטים), or the Discourse of the Aged in Mishpatim, given in vol. ii, 94 a–114 a. The Aged is the prophet Elias, who holds converse with R. Simon b. Jochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis, and the discussion is attached to the Sabbatic section called משפטים, i.e., Exod. xxi, 1 – xxiv, 18 , because the Kabbalah takes this word to signify punishments of souls (דינין), and finds its psychology in this section. So enraptured were the disciples when their master, the Sacred Light, discoursed with Moses on this subject, that they knew not whether it was day or night, or whether they were in the body or out of the body. (Sohar, ii, 105 b.)
7. Saba Demishpatim (Professor of Law), or The Discourse of the Aged in Mishpatim, found in vol. ii, 94 a–114 a. The Aged refers to the prophet Elias, who talks with R. Simon b. Jochai about the idea of metempsychosis, and this discussion is linked to the Sabbatic section called Sentences, which means Exod. xxi, 1 – xxiv, 18, because the Kabbalah interprets this word to mean punishments of souls (דינין) and finds its psychological insights in this section. The disciples were so captivated when their master, the Sacred Light, discussed this topic with Moses that they couldn't tell whether it was day or night or if they were in their bodies or out of them. (Sohar, ii, 105 b.)
8. Siphra Detzniutha (ספרא דצניעותא), or the Book of Secrets or Mysteries, given in vol. ii, 176 b–178 b. It is divided into five sections (פרקים), and is chiefly occupied with discussing the questions involved in the creation, e. gr. the transition from the infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to multifariousness, from pure intelligence to matter, the double principle of masculine and feminine (אבא ואמא), expressed in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous protoplast, the Demonology concealed in the letters of Scripture, as seen in Gen. vi, 2 ; Josh. ii, 1 ; 1 Kings, viii, 3 , 16 ; the mysteries contained in Isa. i, 4 , and the doctrine of the Sephiroth concealed in Gen. i ; &c., as well as with showing the import of the letters יהו״ה composing the Tetragrammaton which were the principal agents in the creation. This portion of the Sohar has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684. [164]
8. Siphra Detzniutha (Sifra deTzeniuta), also known as the Book of Secrets or Mysteries, appears in vol. ii, pages 176 b–178 b. It is divided into five sections (Chapters) and mainly focuses on questions related to creation, such as the shift from the infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to diversity, from pure intellect to matter, and the dual principle of masculine and feminine (Mom and Dad), represented in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous first being, the demonology hidden in the letters of Scripture, as seen in Gen. vi, 2; Josh. ii, 1; 1 Kings, viii, 3, 16; the mysteries found in Isa. i, 4; and the doctrine of the Sephiroth concealed in Gen. i; etc. It also explains the significance of the letters יהו״ה that make up the Tetragrammaton, which were the key agents in the creation. This section of the Sohar has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata, Frankfurt-on-the-Maine, 1684. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
9. Idra Rabba (אדרא רבא), or the Great Assembly is given in vol. iii, 127 b–145 a, and derives its name from the fact that it purports to give the discourses which R. Simon b. Jochai delivered to his disciples who congregated around him in large numbers. Upon the summons of the Sacred Light, his disciples assembled to listen to the secrets and enigmas contained in the Book of Mysteries. Hence it is chiefly occupied with a description of the form and various members of the Deity, a disquisition on the relation of the Deity, in his two aspects of the Aged (עתיק) and the Young (זעיר), to the creation and the universe, as well as on the diverse gigantic members of the Deity, such as the head, the beard, the eyes, the nose, &c., &c.; a dissertation on pneumatology, demonology, &c., &c. It concludes with telling us that three of the disciples died during these discussions. This portion too is given in a Latin translation in the second volume of Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata.
9. Idra Rabba (אדרא רבא), or The Great Assembly, is found in vol. iii, 127 b–145 a, and gets its name from its content, which claims to present the teachings that R. Simon b. Jochai shared with his disciples who gathered around him in large groups. Responding to the call of the Sacred Light, his disciples came together to hear the secrets and mysteries in the Book of Mysteries. As a result, it mainly focuses on describing the nature and various aspects of the Deity, discussing the Deity’s two representations: the Aged (Ancient) and the Young (Tiny), in relation to creation and the universe, as well as exploring the different large aspects of the Deity like the head, beard, eyes, nose, etc. It also includes a discussion on pneumatology, demonology, and more. The text concludes by noting that three of the disciples died during these discussions. This section is also provided in a Latin translation in the second volume of Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata.
10. Januka (ינוקא), or the Discourse of the Young Man, is given in vol. iii, 186 a–192 a, and forms part of the text of the Sohar on the Sabbatic section called Balak, i.e. Numb. xxii, 2 – xxv, 9 . It derives its name from the fact that the discourses therein recorded were delivered by a young man, under the following circumstances:—R. Isaac and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, when on a journey, and passing through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna Saba resided, visited this venerable woman. She asked her son, the young hero of this discourse, who had just returned from school, to go to these two Rabbins to receive their benediction; but the youth would not approach them because he recognised, from the smell of their garments, that they had omitted reciting on that day the prescribed declaration about the unity of the Deity (שמע). When at meals this wonderful Januka gave them sundry discourses on the mysterious import of the washing of hands, based on [165]Exod. xxx, 20 , on the grace recited at meals, on the Shechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob ( Gen. xlviii, 16 ), &c., &c., which elicited the declaration from the Rabbins that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (האי ינוקא לאו ב״נ הוא); and when hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai coincided in the opinion, that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”
10. Januka (Child), or The Discourse of the Young Man, is found in vol. iii, 186 a–192 a, and is part of the text of the Sohar on the Sabbatic section called Balak, i.e. Numb. xxii, 2 – xxv, 9. It gets its name from the fact that the discourses recorded were delivered by a young man under the following circumstances: R. Isaac and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, were traveling and passed through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna Saba lived. They visited this esteemed woman, who asked her son, the young hero of this discourse, who had just come back from school, to go to these two Rabbis to receive their blessing. However, the youth refused to approach them because he noticed, from the smell of their garments, that they had failed to recite the prescribed declaration about the unity of God (Listen) that day. During a meal, this remarkable Januka shared various discourses on the mysterious significance of washing hands, based on [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Exod. xxx, 20, on the grace said at meals, on the Shechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob (Gen. xlviii, 16), and so on, which led the Rabbins to declare that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (האי ינוקא לאו בן הוא); and upon hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai agreed with the belief that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”
11. Idra Suta (אדרא זוטא) or the Small Assembly, is given in vol. iii, 287 b–296 b, and derives its name from the fact that many of the disciples of R. Simon b. Jochai had died during the course of these Kabbalistic revelations, and that this portion of the Sohar contains the discourses which the Sacred Light delivered before his death to the small assembly of six pupils, who still survived and congregated to listen to the profound mysteries. It is to a great extent a recapitulation of the Idra Rabba, occupying itself with speculations about the Sephiroth, the Deity in his three aspects (שלת רישין), or principles which successively developed themselves from each other, viz.—the En Soph (אין סוף), or the Boundless in his absolute nature, the Macroprosopon (אריך אנפין), or the Boundless as manifested in the first emanation, and the Microprosopon (זעיר אנפין), the other nine emanations; the abortive creations, &c., and concludes with recording the death of Simon b. Jochai, the Sacred Light and the medium through whom God revealed the contents of the Sohar. The Idra Suta has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata.
11. Idra Suta (אדרא זוטא) or the Small Assembly, is found in vol. iii, 287 b–296 b, and gets its name from the fact that many of R. Simon b. Jochai's disciples had died during these Kabbalistic revelations. This part of the Sohar includes the teachings that the Sacred Light delivered before his death to the small group of six students who were still alive and came together to hear the deep mysteries. It largely summarizes the Idra Rabba, focusing on discussions about the Sephiroth and the Deity in his three forms (לילית), which developed from one another, namely—the En Soph (אין סוף), or the Boundless in its absolute state, the Macroprosopon (אריך אנפין), or the Boundless as shown in the first emanation, and the Microprosopon (Zahir Anpin), along with the other nine emanations; the failed creations, etc., and concludes with the account of Simon b. Jochai's death, the Sacred Light and the channel through which God revealed the teachings of the Sohar. The Idra Suta has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata.
From this brief analysis of its component parts and contents, it will be seen that the Sohar does not propound a regular Kabbalistic system, but promiscuously and reiteratedly dilates upon the diverse doctrines of this theosophy, as indicated in the forms and ornaments of the Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names and the letters of which they are composed, in the narratives of the [166]Bible, and in the traditional and national stories. Hence the Sohar is more a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic subjects than treatises on the Kabbalah. It is for this very reason that it became the treasury of the Kabbalah to the followers of this theosophy. Its diversity became its charm. The long conversations between its reputed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and true shepherd, which it records; the short and pathetic prayers inserted therein; the religious anecdotes; the attractive spiritual explanations of scripture passages, appealing to the hearts and wants of men; the description of the Deity and of the Sephiroth under tender forms of human relationships, comprehensible to the finite, mind, such as father, mother, primeval man, matron, bride, white head, the great and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher earth, &c, which it gives on every page, made the Sohar a welcome text-book for the students of the Kabbalah, who, by its vivid descriptions of divine love, could lose themselves in rapturous embraces with the Deity.
From this brief analysis of its components and contents, it’s clear that the Sohar doesn’t present a formal Kabbalistic system, but rather freely and repetitively discusses the various doctrines of this theosophy, as seen in the shapes and features of the Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names and the letters that make them up, in the stories of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Bible, and in traditional and national tales. Therefore, the Sohar is more of a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic topics than formal writings on the Kabbalah. This is precisely why it became the go-to source for the Kabbalah among followers of this theosophy. Its variety became its appeal. The long dialogues between its supposed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and true leader, which it records; the brief and heartfelt prayers included; the religious anecdotes; the engaging spiritual interpretations of scripture passages that resonate with the hearts and needs of people; the depiction of the Deity and the Sephiroth in relatable terms of human relationships that can be understood by the finite mind, such as father, mother, primordial man, matron, bride, white head, the great and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher earth, etc., present on every page, made the Sohar a favored textbook for Kabbalah students, who, through its vivid depictions of divine love, could immerse themselves in ecstatic connections with the Deity.
Now, the Sohar pretends to be a revelation from God, communicated through R. Simon b. Jochai, who flourished about A.D. 70–110, to his select disciples. We are told that “when they assembled to compose the Sohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elias, to all the members of the celestial college, to all angels, spirits, and superior souls, to assist them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e., Sephiroth] were charged to disclose to them their profound mysteries, which were reserved for the days of the Messiah.” On the approach of death, R. Simon b. Jochai assembled the small number of his disciples and friends, amongst whom was his son, R. Eleazar, to communicate to them his last doctrines,19 “when [167]he ordered as follows—R. Aba shall write, R. Eleazar, my son, propound, and let my other associates quietly think about it.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 287 b.) It is upon the strength of these declarations, as well as upon the repeated representation of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching throughout this production, that the Sohar is ascribed to this Rabbi on its very title-page, and that not only Jews, for centuries, but such distinguished Christian scholars as Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci, Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, &c., have maintained this opinion. A careful examination, however, of the following internal and external evidence will show that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is the production of the thirteenth century.
Now, the Sohar claims to be a revelation from God, delivered through R. Simon b. Jochai, who lived around CE 70–110, to his chosen disciples. It is said that “when they gathered to write the Sohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elijah, all the members of the celestial academy, all angels, spirits, and higher souls, to help them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e., Sephiroth] were instructed to reveal to them their deep mysteries, which were saved for the days of the Messiah.” As R. Simon b. Jochai faced death, he gathered a small group of his disciples and friends, including his son, R. Eleazar, to share his final teachings, “when [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] he instructed as follows—R. Aba shall write, R. Eleazar, my son, present, and let my other companions reflect on it.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 287 b.) It is based on these statements, as well as the recurring mention of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching throughout this work, that the Sohar is attributed to this Rabbi on its title page, and that not only Jews for centuries, but also prominent Christian scholars like Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci, Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, etc., have held this view. A thorough examination of the following internal and external evidence will reveal that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is actually a product of the thirteenth century.
1. The Sohar most fulsomely praises its own author, calls him the Sacred Light (בוצניא קדישא), and exalts him above Moses, “the true Shepherd.”20 “I testify by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,” declares R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no son of man has seen since Moses ascended the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my face shining as brilliantly as the light of the sun when it descends as a healing for the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with a healing in his wings.’ (Malachi, [ iii, 20 ] iv, 2 .) Yea, more, I know that my face is shining, but Moses did not know it nor understand it; for it is written ( Exod. xxxiv, 29 ), ‘Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 132 b; 144 a.) The disciples deify R. Simon in the Sohar, declaring that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” ( Exod. xxiii, 17 ), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai, [168]who is the Lord, and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38 a.)21
1. The Sohar highly praises its author, referring to him as the Sacred Light (בוצניא קדישא), and elevates him above Moses, “the true Shepherd.”20 “I swear by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,” says R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no human being has seen since Moses went up the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my face shining as brilliantly as the sun when it brings healing to the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings.’ (Malachi, [ iii, 20 ] iv, 2 .) Indeed, I know that my face is shining, but Moses didn’t know or understand this; for it is written ( Exod. xxxiv, 29 ), ‘Moses did not realize that the skin of his face shone.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 132 b; 144 a.) The disciples idolize R. Simon in the Sohar, claiming that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” ( Exod. xxiii, 17 ), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]who is the Lord, and before whom all people must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38 a.)21
2. The Sohar quotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points (i, 16 b; 24 b; ii, 116 a; iii, 65 a), which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of Palestine, A.D. 570, to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures for his students.22
2. The Sohar discusses and explains the Hebrew vowel points in a mystical way (i, 16 b; 24 b; ii, 116 a; iii, 65 a), which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of Palestine, CE 570, to help his students read the Scriptures more easily.22
3. The Sohar (רעיא מהימנה Faithful Shepherd, on section קדושים iii, 82 b), has literally borrowed two verses from the celebrated Hymn of Ibn Gebirol, who was born about A.D. 1021 and died in 1070. This Hymn which is entitled כתר מלכות the Royal Diadem, is a beautiful and pathetic composition, embodying the cosmic views of Aristotle, and forms part of the Jewish service for the evening preceding the Great Day of Atonement to the present day. The quotation in the Sohar from this Hymn is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as will be seen from the following comparison—
3. The Sohar (Faithful Shepherd Faithful Shepherd, on section Holy ones iii, 82 b), has directly taken two verses from the famous Hymn of Ibn Gebirol, who was born around Anno Domini 1021 and passed away in 1070. This Hymn, titled Royal crown the Royal Diadem, is a moving and beautiful piece that reflects Aristotle's cosmic views, and it is still part of the Jewish service for the evening before the Great Day of Atonement today. The quote in the Sohar from this Hymn is indisputable, as will be shown in the following comparison—
Sohar. | Ibn Gebirol. |
ואשתארו [סיהרא ושמשא] כגוף בלי נשמה | But there is a master over them. |
If the master darkens their light | מחשיך מהאור שלהם |
It must be borne in mind that, though the Sohar is written in Aramaic, yet this quotation is in Hebrew, and in the rhyme of Ibn Gebirol.23
It should be noted that, although the Sohar is written in Aramaic, this quotation is in Hebrew and follows the rhyme of Ibn Gebirol.23
4. The Sohar (i, 18 b; 23 a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of the Mezuza,24 of the words [169](יהוה אלהינו יהוה) Jehovah our God is Jehovah for (כוזו במוכסז כוזו) Kuzu Bemuchzaz Kuzu, by substituting for each letter its immediate predecessor in the alphabet, which was transplanted from France into Spain in the thirteenth century.25
4. The Sohar (i, 18 b; 23 a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of the Mezuza, 24 of the words [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] (יהוה אלהינו יהוה) Jehovah our God is Jehovah for (כוזו במוכסן כוזו) Kuzu Bemuchzaz Kuzu, by replacing each letter with the one right before it in the alphabet, which was brought from France to Spain in the thirteenth century. 25
5. The Sohar (iii, 232 b) uses the expression Esnoga, which is a Portuguese corruption of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic manner as a compound of two Hebrew words, i.e., Es = אש and Noga = נוגה brilliant light.26
5. The Sohar (iii, 232 b) uses the term Esnoga, which is a Portuguese version of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic way as a combination of two Hebrew words, i.e., Es = אש and Noga = Venus brilliant light.26
6. The Sohar (ii, 32 a) mentions the Crusades, the momentary taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and the retaking of it by the Saracens.27 “Woe to the time,” it says, “wherein Ishmael saw the world, and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One, blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael, i.e., the Mahommedans, from the congregation in heaven, but gave them a portion on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant which they possess. The Mahommedans are, therefore, destined to rule for a time over the Holy Land; and they will prevent the Israelites from returning to it, till the merit of the Mahommedans is accomplished. At that time the descendants of Ishmael will be the occasion of terrible wars in the world, and the children of Edom, i.e., the Christians, will gather together against them and do battle with them, some at sea and some on land, and some in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the victory will now [170]be on the one side and then on the other, but the Holy Land will not remain in the hands of the Christians.”
6. The Sohar (ii, 32 a) talks about the Crusades, the brief capture of Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and its recapture by the Saracens. 27 “Woe to the time,” it says, “when Ishmael saw the world and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One, blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael, i.e., the Muslims, from the congregation in heaven but gave them a place on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant they hold. The Muslims are, therefore, destined to rule over the Holy Land for a time; and they will stop the Israelites from returning to it until the merit of the Muslims is fulfilled. At that time, the descendants of Ishmael will cause terrible wars in the world, and the children of Edom, i.e., the Christians, will gather against them and fight them, some at sea and some on land, and some around Jerusalem, and the victory will shift back and forth, but the Holy Land will not stay in the hands of the Christians.”
7. The Sohar records events which transpired A.D. 1264. Thus on Numb. xxiv, 17 , which the Sohar explains as referring to the time preceding the advent of Messiah, it remarks,28 “the Holy One, blessed be he, is prepared to rebuild Jerusalem. Previous to the rebuilding thereof he will cause to appear, a wonderful and splendid star, which will shine seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On the day preceding [its disappearance, i.e. October 2nd] when it will still be seen in the city of Rome, on that self-same day three high walls of that city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the pontiff ruler of the city will die.” (Sohar iii, 212 b.) Now the comet here spoken of appeared in Rome, July 25th, 1264, and was visible till October 2nd, which are literally the seventy days mentioned in the Sohar. Moreover, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, actually happened on a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the sovereign pontiff of Rome, Urban IV, died at Perugia, when it was believed that the appearance of the comet was the omen of his death, and the great and strong palace (היכלא רברבא) Vincimento, fell on the self-same day, October 2nd, into the hands of the insurrectionists.29
7. The Sohar records events that took place in CE 1264. It comments on Numb. xxiv, 17, interpreting it as referring to the time before the arrival of the Messiah: “the Holy One, blessed be He, is ready to rebuild Jerusalem. Before the rebuilding, He will cause a amazing and bright star to appear, which will shine for seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and will disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On the day before its disappearance [i.e., October 2nd], when it is still visible in the city of Rome, on that very day three high walls of the city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the pope ruling the city will die.” (Sohar iii, 212 b.) The comet referred to appeared in Rome on July 25th, 1264, and was visible until October 2nd, which are precisely the seventy days mentioned in the Sohar. Furthermore, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, was indeed a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the pope of Rome, Urban IV, died in Perugia, when it was believed that the appearance of the comet signified his death, and the great and strong palace (היכל גדול) Vincimento fell into the hands of the rebels on the same day, October 2nd.
8. The Sohar, in assigning a reason why its contents were not revealed before, says that the “time in which R. Simon ben Jochai lived was peculiarly worthy and glorious, and that it is near the advent of the Messiah,” for which cause this [171]revelation was reserved till the days of R. Simon, to be communicated through him. Yet, speaking elsewhere of the advent of the Messiah, the Sohar, instead of placing it in the second century when this Rabbi lived, forgets itself and says30—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year shall have passed over the threshold of the sixth millenium [A.M. 5060–66 = A.D. 1300–1306] the Messiah will appear” (Sohar i, 116 a, 117 b, Comp. also iii, 252 a); thus showing that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the Christian era. In perfect harmony with this is the fact that:—
8. The Sohar explains why its content wasn't revealed earlier by saying that the “time when R. Simon ben Jochai lived was particularly significant and glorious, and it is close to the coming of the Messiah.” This is why this[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]revelation was saved for R. Simon to share. However, when discussing the coming of the Messiah, the Sohar mistakenly states—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year has passed into the sixth millennium [AM 5060–66 = CE 1300–1306], the Messiah will appear” (Sohar i, 116 a, 117 b, Comp. also iii, 252 a); indicating that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the Christian era. This aligns perfectly with the fact that:—
9. The doctrine of the En Soph, and the Sephiroth, as well as the metempsychosisian retribution were not known before the thirteenth century.
9. The concept of the En Soph and the Sephiroth, along with the idea of retribution through metempsychosis, were not known before the thirteenth century.
10. The very existence of the Sohar, according to the confession of the staunch Kabbalist, Jehudah Chajoth (flourished 1500), was unknown to such distinguished Kabbalists as Nachmanides (1195–1270) and Ben-Adereth (1235–1310); the first who mentions it is Todros Abulafia (1234–1306).
10. The very existence of the Sohar, according to the testimony of the dedicated Kabbalist, Jehudah Chajoth (active around 1500), was unknown to well-respected Kabbalists like Nachmanides (1195–1270) and Ben-Adereth (1235–1310); the first person to mention it is Todros Abulafia (1234–1306).
11. Isaac of Akko (flourished 1290) fully confirms all that we have hitherto adduced from the import of this book, by his testimony that “the Sohar was put into the world from the head of a Spaniard.” To the same effect is the testimony of Joseph Ibn Wakkar, who in speaking of later books which may be relied upon, recommends only those of Moses Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “but,” he adds, “the Sohar is full of errors, and one must take care not to be misled by them.” Upon which, the erudite Steinschneider rightly remarks,31 “this is an impartial and indirect testimony that the Sohar was recognised scarcely fifty years after its [172]appearing as one of the later works, and was not attributed to Simon ben Jochai.”
11. Isaac of Akko (active around 1290) fully confirms everything we have previously discussed from the significance of this book, by stating that “the Sohar came into the world from the mind of a Spaniard.” Joseph Ibn Wakkar offers similar testimony, noting that when talking about later books that can be trusted, he only recommends those by Moses Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “however,” he adds, “the Sohar is full of mistakes, and one should be careful not to be misled by them.” In response, the knowledgeable Steinschneider aptly comments, 31 “this serves as an unbiased and indirect indication that the Sohar was recognized less than fifty years after its [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] release as one of the later works, and was not credited to Simon ben Jochai.”
12. That Moses de Leon, who first published and sold the Sohar, as the production of R. Simon b. Jochai, was himself the author of it, was admitted by his own wife and daughter, as will be seen from the following account in the Book Juchassin, (p.p. 88, 89, 95, ed. Filipowski, London, 1857), which we give in an abridged form.32 When Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the capture of this city (A.D. 1291), came to Spain and there saw the Sohar, he was anxious to ascertain whether it was genuine, since it pretended to be a Palestine production, and he, though born and brought up in the Holy Land, in constant intercourse with the disciples of the celebrated Kabbalist, Nachmanides, had never heard a syllable about this marvellous work. Now, Moses de Leon, whom he met in Valladolid, declared to him on a most solemn oath that he had at Avila an ancient exemplar, which was the very autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai, and offered to submit it to him to be tested. In the meantime, however, Moses de Leon was taken ill on his journey home, and died at Arevolo, A.D. 1305. But two [173]distinguished men of Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, who were determined to sift the matter, ascertained the falsehood of this story from the widow and daughter of Moses de Leon. Being a rich man and knowing that Moses de Leon left his family without means, Joseph de Avila promised, that if she would give him the original MS. of the Sohar from which her husband made the copies, his son should marry her daughter, and that he would give them a handsome dowry. Whereupon the widow and daughter declared, that they did not possess any such MS., that Moses de Leon never had it, but that he composed the Sohar from his own head, and wrote it with his own hand. Moreover, the widow candidly confessed that she had frequently asked her husband why he published the production of his own intellect under another man’s name, and that he told her that if he were to publish it under his own name nobody would buy it, whereas under the name of R. Simon b. Jochai it yielded him a large revenue. This account is confirmed in a most remarkable manner by the fact that— [174]
12. Moses de Leon, who first published and sold the Sohar as if it were created by R. Simon b. Jochai, was actually its author, a fact acknowledged by his wife and daughter, as shown in the following account from the Book Juchassin, (pp. 88, 89, 95, ed. Filipowski, London, 1857), which we present in a shortened form.32 When Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the conquest of this city (CE 1291), arrived in Spain and saw the Sohar, he wanted to determine its authenticity since it claimed to be a work from Palestine. Despite being born and raised in the Holy Land and having frequent interactions with the followers of the renowned Kabbalist, Nachmanides, he had never heard anything about this extraordinary book. When he met Moses de Leon in Valladolid, Moses swore an oath that he had an ancient copy in Avila that was the actual autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai and offered to show it to him for verification. However, on his way back home, Moses fell ill and died in Arevolo, CE 1305. Yet, two prominent men from Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, determined to investigate the situation, learned from Moses de Leon's widow and daughter that this story was false. Knowing Moses de Leon was wealthy and left his family in financial distress, Joseph de Avila promised that if she would give him the original manuscript of the Sohar from which her husband made the copies, his son would marry her daughter and he would provide them with a generous dowry. The widow and daughter then stated that they did not have such a manuscript, that Moses de Leon never owned it, and that he created the Sohar entirely from his own imagination and wrote it himself. Additionally, the widow openly admitted that she had often asked her husband why he published the work of his own intellect under someone else's name, and he explained that if he published it under his own name, nobody would buy it; however, using R. Simon b. Jochai's name brought him significant profit. This account is remarkably supported by the fact that— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
13. The Sohar contains whole passages which Moses de Leon translated into Aramaic, from his other works, as the learned Jellinek has demonstratively proved. To transfer these passages here would occupy too much of our space. We must, therefore, refer the reader to the monograph itself,33 and shall only give one example, which the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz,34 has pointed out. In his Sephar Ha-Rimon (ספר הרימון), which he composed A.D. 1827, and which is a Kabbalistic explanation of the Mosaic precepts, Moses de Leon endeavours to account for the non-occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in the history of the hexahemeron, whilst it does occur immediately afterwards, by submitting that as the earthly world is finite and perishable, this divine name, which denotes eternity, could not be used at the creation thereof; for if it had been created under its influence, the world would have been as imperishable as this name. In corroboration of this, Moses de Leon quotes the passage (לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות בארץ) Come, behold the works of Elohim, what perishableness he made in the earth ( Ps. xlvi, 8 ), showing that שמות destruction, perishableness, is consonant with the name אלהים. In looking at the original, it will be seen that the text has יהוה and not אלהים, and that Moses de Leon, by a slip of memory, confounded this passage with לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים Come and see the works of Elohim ( Ps. xlvi, 5 ). Now, the whole explanation and the same blunder are transferred into the Sohar. The commentators on this treasury of the Kabbalah, not knowing the cause of this blunder, express their great surprise that the Sohar should explain a mis-quotation. We subjoin the two passages in parallel columns. [175]
13. The Sohar includes entire sections that Moses de Leon translated into Aramaic from his other works, as the knowledgeable Jellinek has clearly demonstrated. Including these passages here would take up too much space, so we’ll direct the reader to the monograph itself, 33, and will provide just one example pointed out by the learned historian, Dr. Graetz, 34. In his Sephar Ha-Rimon (The Pomegranate Book), which he wrote in CE 1827 and serves as a Kabbalistic interpretation of the Mosaic teachings, Moses de Leon attempts to explain the absence of the Tetragrammaton in the account of the hexahemeron, while it appears immediately after, by suggesting that since the earthly world is finite and temporary, this divine name, which signifies eternity, could not be used during its creation; if it had been created under its influence, the world would be as eternal as this name. To support this, Moses de Leon cites the passage (Go and see the works of God, which He has done on Earth.) Come, behold the works of Elohim, what perishableness he made in the earth (Ps. xlvi, 8), indicating that Names destruction, perishableness, aligns with the name God. When looking at the original, it becomes clear that the text has יהוה and not God, and that Moses de Leon, due to a slip of memory, mixed up this passage with Go and see God's works. Come and see the works of Elohim (Ps. xlvi, 5). Now, this entire explanation and the same mistake are replicated in the Sohar. The commentators on this Kabbalistic treasure, unaware of the reason behind this mistake, express their astonishment that the Sohar explains a misquotation. We present the two passages in parallel columns. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
Sohar, i, 58 a. | Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25. |
רבי יהודה began, "Come and see the works of God, which He has placed names, etc." This verse we interpret, and it states the names. Certainly, the mention of the works refers to those who are excluded (like in the case of Samson), for if they were the works. YHWH, YHWH, YHWH is the name of existence on earth, but because of the works mentioned, the name of God is there in the land.” Rabbi Chiya said to him, etc. | Although there is another interpretation regarding the special name being mentioned as linked to existence, the sages said, "Come, see the works," etc., because these are the works of God. If it were not for the actions of the Lord, the existence in the world would not be sustained. The idea here is that all the creations in this lowly world are perishable because all the beings are under this special name. If they were not associated with this special name, they would all exist in their own right, etc. |
It is for these and many other reasons that the Sohar is now regarded by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, &c., as a pseudograph of the thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon should have palmed the Sohar upon Simon b. Jochai was nothing remarkable, since this Rabbi is regarded by tradition as the embodiment of mysticism. No better hero could be selected for the Sohar than R. Simon, of whom the Talmud gives us the following account: “Once upon a time, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simon sat together, and R. Jehudah b. Gerim sat by them. R. Jehudah then began and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e., the Romans)! they have erected market-places, they have erected bridges, and they have erected baths! R. Jose was quiet, but R. Simon b. Jochai answered and said: what they have built they have built for no one except for their own use, they made markets to allure prostitutes, they made baths to gratify themselves therein, and bridges to get tolls by them. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s government got to hear it, who passed the following decree: Jehudah, who exalted, is to be exalted; Jose, who was silent, is to be banished to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke evil, is to be killed. He (i.e., R. Simon) at once concealed himself with his son, in the place of study, whither his wife daily brought them a loaf and a flask of water; but as the rigour of the decree increased, he said to his son: women are weak-minded—if she is tortured she may betray us. Hence, they left, and betook themselves into a deep cavern, where by a miracle [176]a crab-tree and a well were created for their subsistence. He and his son sat in the sand up to their necks all the day studying the Law. They spent twelve long years in this cavern; when Elias the prophet came and stood at the entrance of the cavern, and called out—Who will inform the son of Jochai that the emperor is dead, and that the decree is commuted? They came out and saw the people tilling and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33 a. Comp. also, Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1; Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix; Midrash Koheleth, x, 8; Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is the secret why the story that R. Simon b. Jochai composed the Sohar during his twelve years’ residence in the cavern obtained credence among the followers of the Kabbalah.
It’s for these and many other reasons that the Sohar is now seen by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, and others as a pseudograph from the thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon pretended the Sohar was written by Simon b. Jochai isn’t surprising, since this Rabbi is traditionally viewed as the essence of mysticism. No better figure could be chosen for the Sohar than R. Simon, who is described in the Talmud as follows: “Once, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simon were sitting together, with R. Jehudah b. Gerim beside them. R. Jehudah then started and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e., the Romans)! They have built marketplaces, bridges, and baths! R. Jose remained silent, but R. Simon b. Jochai replied: What they have built, they built only for themselves; they made markets to attract prostitutes, baths to indulge themselves, and bridges to charge tolls. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s government heard it and issued the following decree: Jehudah, who praised, is to be praised; Jose, who was silent, is to be exiled to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke ill, is to be killed. R. Simon immediately hid himself with his son in the study place, where his wife would bring them daily a loaf of bread and a flask of water; but as the severity of the decree grew, he said to his son: Women are weak-minded—if she’s tortured, she might betray us. So, they left and went into a deep cave, where, through a miracle, a carob tree and a well appeared for their survival. He and his son sat in the sand up to their necks all day studying the Law. They spent twelve long years in this cave until the prophet Elijah came and stood at the entrance, calling out—Who will tell the son of Jochai that the emperor is dead and that the decree has been lifted? They came out to see people farming and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33 a. Also see Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1; Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix; Midrash Koheleth, x, 8; Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is why the story that R. Simon b. Jochai wrote the Sohar during his twelve years in the cave gained traction among the followers of the Kabbalah.
III. The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.
III. The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.
It is this commentary to which we must look, as the most ancient document embodying the doctrines of the Kabbalah. The author of this commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid, about 1160. He distinguished himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and commentator, as his works indicate; he was a pupil of Isaac the Blind, who is regarded as the originator of the Kabbalah, and master of the celebrated R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a distinguished pillar of Kabbalism. R. Azariel died A.D. 1238, at the advanced age of seventy-eight years. “The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth” is in questions and answers,35 and the following is the lucid analysis of it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of Ethics. [177]
It is this commentary that we need to refer to, as it is the oldest document containing the teachings of the Kabbalah. The author of this commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid around 1160. He made a name for himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and commentator, as shown in his works; he was a student of Isaac the Blind, who is seen as the founder of Kabbalah, and he was the teacher of the renowned R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a significant figure in Kabbalism. R. Azariel passed away in 1238 at the age of seventy-eight. “The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth” is structured as a question-and-answer format, and the following is a clear analysis of it provided by the knowledgeable Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s ethical framework. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
1. Definition.—By the Being who is the cause and governor of all things, I understand the En Soph, i.e., a Being infinite, boundless, absolutely identical with itself, united in itself, without attributes, will, intention, desire, thought, word or deed. (Answers 2 and 4.)
1. Definition.—By the Being who is the cause and governor of all things, I mean the En Soph, i.e., a Being that is infinite, limitless, completely identical with itself, unified in itself, without attributes, will, intention, desire, thought, word, or action. (Answers 2 and 4.)
2. Definition.—By Sephiroth I understand the potencies which emanated from the absolute En Soph, all entities limited by quantity, which like the will, without changing its nature, wills diverse objects that are the possibilities of multifarious things. (Answers 3 and 9.)
2. Definition.—By Sephiroth, I mean the powers that came from the absolute En Soph, all entities defined by quantity, which, like the will, desires various things without altering its essence, choosing from the many possibilities of diverse items. (Answers 3 and 9.)
i. Proposition.—The primary cause and governor of the world is the En Soph, who is both immanent and transcendent. (Answer 1.)
i. Proposal.—The main cause and ruler of the world is the En Soph, who exists both within and beyond. (Answer 1.)
(a) Proof.—Each effect has a cause, and every thing which has order and design has a governor. (Answer 1.)
(a) Proof.—Every effect has a cause, and anything that has order and design has a governing force. (Answer 1.)
(b) Proof.—Every thing visible has a limit, what is limited is finite, what is finite is not absolutely identical; the primary cause of the world is invisible, therefore unlimited, infinite, absolutely identical, i.e., he is the En Soph. (Answer 2.)
(b) Proof.—Everything we can see has a limit; what is limited is finite, and what is finite isn't absolutely identical. The primary cause of the world is invisible, so it is unlimited, infinite, and absolutely identical, i.e., it is the En Soph. (Answer 2.)
(c) Proof.—As the primary cause of the world is infinite, nothing can exist without (EXTRA) him; hence he is immanent. (Ibid.)
(c) Proof.—Since the main cause of the universe is infinite, nothing can exist without (EXTRA) him; therefore, he is present within it. (Ibid.)
Scholion.—As the En Soph is invisible and exalted, it is the root of both faith and unbelief. (Ibid.)
Scholion.—Since the En Soph is unseen and higher than everything, it serves as the foundation for both belief and doubt. (Ibid.)
ii. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are the medium between the absolute En Soph and the real world.
ii. Proposal.—The Sephiroth are the link between the infinite En Soph and the physical world.
Proof.—As the real world is limited and not perfect, it cannot directly proceed from the En Soph, still the En Soph must exercise his influence over it, or his perfection would cease. Hence the Sephiroth, which, in their intimate connection with the En Soph, are perfect, and in their severance are imperfect, must be the medium. (Answer 3.)
Proof.—Since the real world is finite and flawed, it can’t directly emerge from the En Soph, yet the En Soph must exert its influence over it, or its perfection would come to an end. Therefore, the Sephiroth, which are perfect in their close relationship with the En Soph but become imperfect when separated, must serve as the medium. (Answer 3.)
Scholion.—Since all existing things originated by means of [178]the Sephiroth, there are a higher, a middle, and a lower degree of the real world. (Vide infra, Proposition 6.)
Scholion.—Since everything that exists came into being through the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the Sephiroth, there are higher, middle, and lower levels of the real world. (See below, Proposition 6.)
iii. Proposition.—There are ten intermediate Sephiroth.
iii. Proposition.—There are ten intermediate Sephiroth.
Proof.—All bodies have three dimensions, each of which repeats the other (3 × 3); and by adding thereunto space generally, we obtain the number ten. As the Sephiroth are the potencies of all that is limited they must be ten. (Answer 4).
Proof.—All objects have three dimensions, and each dimension mirrors the others (3 × 3); by also considering the overall space, we arrive at the number ten. Since the Sephiroth represent the qualities of everything that is finite, they must total ten. (Answer 4).
(a) Scholion.—The number ten does not contradict the absolute unity of the En Soph, as one is the basis of all numbers, plurality proceeds from unity, the germs contain the development, just as fire, flame, sparks and colour have one basis, though they differ from one another. (Answer 6.)
(a) Scholion.—The number ten does not contradict the absolute oneness of the En Soph, since one is the foundation of all numbers. All plurality comes from unity; the seeds hold the potential for growth, just like fire, flame, sparks, and color all have one source, even though they are distinct from each other. (Answer 6.)
(b) Scholion.—Just as cogitation or thought, and even the mind as a cogitated object, is limited, becomes concrete and has a measure, although pure thought proceeds from the En Soph; so limit, measure, and concretion are the attributes of the Sephiroth. (Answer 7.)
(b) Scholion.—Just as thought and even the mind as a thought object are limited, become tangible, and have a measure, even though pure thought comes from the En Soph; so limitation, measurement, and tangibility are the qualities of the Sephiroth. (Answer 7.)
4. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are emanations and not creations.
4. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are emanations, not creations.
1. Proof.—As the absolute En Soph is perfect, the Sephiroth proceeding therefrom must also be perfect; hence they are not created. (Answer 5.)
1. Proof.—Since the absolute En Soph is perfect, the Sephiroth that come from it must also be perfect; therefore, they are not created. (Answer 5.)
2. Proof.—All created objects diminish by abstraction; the Sephiroth do not lessen, as their activity never ceases; hence they cannot be created. (Ibid.)
2. Proof.—All created objects lose significance through abstraction; the Sephiroth do not decrease, as their activity is constant; therefore, they cannot be created. (Ibid.)
Scholion.—The first Sephira was in the En Soph as a power before it became a reality; then the second Sephira emanated as a potency for the intellectual world, and afterwards the other Sephiroth emanated for the sensuous and material world. This, however, does not imply a prius and posterius or a gradation in the En Soph, but just as a light whose kindled lights which shine sooner and later and variously, so it embraces all in a unity. (Answer 8.) [179]
Scholion.—The first Sephira existed in the En Soph as a potential before it became actual; then the second Sephira emerged as a potential for the intellectual realm, followed by the other Sephiroth that emerged for the sensory and physical world. However, this does not imply a prius and posterius or a hierarchy in the En Soph, but rather, like light that is kindled at different times and in various ways, it encompasses everything in unity. (Answer 8.) [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
5. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are both active and passive (מקביל ומתקבל).
5. Proposal.—The Sephiroth are both active and passive (Simultaneous and received).
Proof.—As the Sephiroth do not set aside the unity of the En Soph, each one of them must receive from its predecessor, and impart to its successor—i.e., be receptive and imparting. (Answer 9.)
Proof.—Since the Sephiroth maintain the unity of the En Soph, each one must receive from the one before it and pass on to the one after it—i.e., be both receptive and giving. (Answer 9.)
6. Proposition.—The first Sephira is called Inscrutable Height (רום מעלה); the second, Wisdom (חכמה); the third, Intelligence (בינה); the fourth, Love (חסד); the fifth, Justice (פחד); the sixth, Beauty (תפארת); the seventh, Firmness (נצח); the eighth, Splendour (הוד); the ninth, the Righteous is the Foundation of the World (צדיק יסוד עולם); and the tenth, Righteousness (צדק).
6. Proposal.—The first Sephira is called Inscrutable Height (Rising up); the second, Wisdom (Wisdom); the third, Intelligence (Intelligence); the fourth, Love (Kindness); the fifth, Justice (Fear); the sixth, Beauty (Glory); the seventh, Firmness (Eternity); the eighth, Splendor (הוד); the ninth, The Righteous is the Foundation of the World (Righteous one of the world); and the tenth, Righteousness (Justice).
(a) Scholion.—The first three Sephiroth form the world of thought; the second three the world of soul; and the four last the world of body—thus corresponding to the intellectual, moral, and material worlds. (Answer 10.)
(a) Scholion.—The first three Sephiroth represent the world of thought; the next three represent the world of soul; and the last four represent the world of body—thereby aligning with the intellectual, moral, and material realms. (Answer 10.)
(b) Scholion.—The first Sephira stands in relation to the soul, inasmuch as it is called a unity (יחידה); the second, inasmuch as it is denominated living (חיה); the third, inasmuch as it is termed spirit (רוח); the fourth, inasmuch as it is called vital principle (גפש); the fifth, inasmuch as it is denominated soul (נשמה); the sixth operates on the blood, the seventh on the bones, the eighth on the veins, the ninth on the flesh, and the tenth on the skin. (Ibid.)
(b) Scholion.—The first Sephira relates to the soul because it is called a unity (Unit); the second is referred to as living (חיה); the third is known as spirit (Spirit); the fourth is identified as vital principle (גפש); the fifth is called soul (Soul); the sixth affects the blood, the seventh influences the bones, the eighth pertains to the veins, the ninth relates to the flesh, and the tenth concerns the skin. (Ibid.)
(c) Scholion.—The first Sephira is like the concealed light, the second like sky-blue, the third like yellow, the fourth like white, the fifth like red, the sixth like white-red, the seventh like whitish-red, the eighth like reddish-white, the ninth like white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like the light reflecting all colours.36 [180]
(c) Scholion.—The first Sephira is like hidden light, the second is like sky blue, the third is like yellow, the fourth is like white, the fifth is like red, the sixth is like white-red, the seventh is like whitish-red, the eighth is like reddish-white, the ninth is like white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like light that reflects all colors.36 [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
The gradation of the Sephiroth is as follows—
The levels of the Sephiroth are as follows—

For this date of the Kabbalah (i.e., 1150–1190) we have the testimony of some of the earliest and most intelligent Kabbalists themselves. Thus R. Joseph b. Abraham Gikatilla (born about 1247, and died 1307) most distinctly tells us that R. Isaac the Blind, of Posquiers (flour. circa 1190–1210), the teacher of R. Azariel, was the first who taught the doctrines of this theosophy.37 R. Bechja b. Asher, another Kabbalist who lived soon after this system was made known, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, which he composed A.D. 1291, styles R. Isaac the Blind, as the Father of the Kabbalah.38 Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon (born 1283), another ancient Kabbalist, in attempting to trace a Kabbalistic explanation of a passage in the Bible to its fountain head, goes back to R. Isaac as the primary source, and connects him immediately with the prophet Elias, who is said to have revealed the [181]mysteries of this theosophy to this corypheus of the Kabbalah.39 Whilst the author of the Kabbalistic work entitled מערכת אלהות the contemporary of R. Solomon b. Abraham b. Adereth (flour. A.D. 1260), frankly declares that “the doctrine of the En Soph and the ten Sephiroth is neither to be found in the Law, Prophets, or Hagiographa, nor in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, but rests solely upon signs which are scarcely perceptible.”40
For the period of Kabbalah (i.e., 1150–1190), we have accounts from some of the earliest and most insightful Kabbalists themselves. R. Joseph b. Abraham Gikatilla (born around 1247, died 1307) clearly states that R. Isaac the Blind from Posquiers (active circa 1190–1210), the mentor of R. Azariel, was the first to teach the doctrines of this theosophy. R. Bechja b. Asher, another Kabbalist who lived shortly after this system became known, refers to R. Isaac the Blind as "the Father of the Kabbalah" in his commentary on the Pentateuch, which he wrote in A.D. 1291. Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon (born 1283), another early Kabbalist, when trying to trace a Kabbalistic interpretation of a biblical passage back to its source, identifies R. Isaac as the main source and directly connects him with the prophet Elijah, who is said to have revealed the mysteries of this theosophy to this leading figure of the Kabbalah. Meanwhile, the author of the Kabbalistic work titled מערכת אלהות, a contemporary of R. Solomon b. Abraham b. Adereth (active A.D. 1260), openly states that “the doctrine of the En Soph and the ten Sephiroth is neither found in the Law, Prophets, or Hagiographa, nor in the writings of the blessed Rabbis, but rests solely on signs that are barely noticeable.”
It has indeed been supposed that covert allusions to the Sephiroth are to be found in the Talmud. If this could be proved, the date of the Kabbalah would have to be altered from the twelfth to the second or third century after Christ. An examination, however, of the passage in question, upon which this opinion is based, will show how thoroughly fanciful it is. The passage is as follows—“The Rabbins propound, at first the name of twelve letters was communicated to every one, but when the profane multiplied, it was only communicated to the most pious of the priests, and these pre-eminently pious priests absorbed it from their fellow priests in the chant. It is recorded that R. Tarphon said, I once went up the orchestra in the Temple after my maternal uncle, and, bending forward my ear to a priest, I heard how he absorbed it from his fellow priests in the chant. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rab, the divine name of forty-two letters is only communicated to such as are pious, not easily provoked, not given to drinking, and are not self opinionated. He who [182]knows this name and preserves it in purity, is beloved above, cherished below, respected by every creature, and is heir of both worlds—the world that now is, and the world to come.” (Babylon Kiddushin, 71 a.) Upon this the celebrated Maimonides (born 1135, died 1204) remarks—“Now everyone who has any intelligence knows that the forty-two letters cannot possibly make one word, and that they must therefore have composed several words. There is no doubt that these words conveyed certain ideas, which were designed to bring man nearer to the true conception of the Divine essence, through the process we have already described. These words, composed of numerous letters, have been designated as a single name, because like all accidental proper names they indicate one single object; and to make the object more intelligible several words are employed, as many words are sometimes used to express one single thing. This must be well understood, that they taught the ideas indicated by these names, and not the simple pronunciation of the meaningless letters. Neither the divine name composed of twelve letters, nor the one of forty-two letters, ever obtained the title of Shem Ha-Mephorash—this being the designation of the particular name, or the Tetragrammaton, as we have already propounded. As to the two former names, they assuredly convey a certain metaphysical lesson, and there is proof that one of them contained a lesson of this kind; for the Rabbins say in the Talmud with regard to it: ‘The name of forty-two letters is very holy, and is only communicated to such as are pious, &c., &c., &c.’ Thus far the Talmud. But how remote from the meaning of their author is the sense attached to these words! Forsooth most people believe that it is simply by the pronunciation of the mere letters, without any idea being attached to them, that the sublime things are to be obtained, and that it is for them that those moral qualifications and that great preparation are requisite. But it is evident that [183]the design of all this is to convey certain metaphysical ideas which constitute the mysteries of the divine Law as we have already explained. It is shewn in the metaphysical Treatises that it is impossible to forget science—I speak of the perception of the active intellect—and this is the meaning of the remark in the Talmud, ‘he [to whom the divine name of forty-two letters is communicated] retains what he learns.’ ”41
It has been suggested that there are hidden references to the Sephiroth in the Talmud. If this were proven, it would mean the Kabbalah's origins would need to be pushed back from the twelfth century to the second or third century after Christ. However, an examination of the specific passage that supports this view will reveal how unfounded it is. The passage states: “The Rabbis explain, at first, the name of twelve letters was shared with everyone, but as the unworthy multiplied, it was only shared with the most devout of the priests, and they absorbed it from their fellow priests in the chant. It is noted that R. Tarphon said, I once went up to the platform in the Temple after my uncle, and, leaning in to listen to a priest, I heard him absorb it from his fellow priests in the chant. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rab, the divine name of forty-two letters is shared only with those who are pious, not easily angered, not prone to drinking, and not arrogant. Whoever [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]knows this name and keeps it pure is loved above, cherished below, respected by all creatures, and inherits both worlds—the current one and the one to come.” (Babylon Kiddushin, 71 a.) In response, the famous Maimonides (born 1135, died 1204) comments: “Anyone with any understanding knows that the forty-two letters cannot possibly form a single word, and must therefore represent several words. There is no doubt these words convey specific ideas meant to bring a person closer to the true understanding of the Divine essence, as we have already outlined. These words, made up of multiple letters, have been referred to as a single name because, like all accidental proper names, they identify one single object; and to clarify the object, several words are used, as multiple words can sometimes express a single concept. It must be understood that they taught the ideas represented by these names, not just the simple pronunciation of meaningless letters. Neither the divine name of twelve letters nor the one of forty-two letters has ever been referred to as Shem Ha-Mephorash—this title belongs to the particular name, or the Tetragrammaton, as we've discussed. As for the two earlier names, they definitely hold a certain metaphysical teaching, and there’s evidence that one of them contained such a lesson; for the Rabbis state in the Talmud regarding it: 'The name of forty-two letters is very sacred, and is only shared with those who are pious, etc., etc., etc.' Thus far the Talmud. But how far the meaning attributed to these words is from the author's intention! Many people believe that simply pronouncing the letters, without any concept attached to them, leads to high spiritual experiences, and that these moral qualities and preparations are necessary for that. But it’s clear that [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the purpose of all this is to convey certain metaphysical ideas that are the mysteries of the divine Law, as we have already explained. It has been shown in metaphysical Treatises that it's impossible to forget knowledge—I’m referring to the perception of the active intellect—and this is what the Talmud means when it says, ‘he [to whom the divine name of forty-two letters is communicated] retains what he learns.’” 41
It is this passage, as well as Maimonides’ comment upon it, which led the erudite Franck to the conclusion that the mysteries of the Kabbalah were known to the doctors of the Talmud, and that the forty-two letters composing the divine name are the ten Sephiroth, which, by supplying the Vav conjunctive before the last Sephira, consist exactly of forty-two letters, as follows:—
It is this passage, along with Maimonides’ comment on it, that led the knowledgeable Franck to conclude that the mysteries of the Kabbalah were known to the scholars of the Talmud, and that the forty-two letters that make up the divine name are the ten Sephiroth, which, by adding the Vav conjunction before the last Sephira, total exactly forty-two letters, as follows:—
5 | + | 5 | + | 3 | + | 3 | + | 5 | + | 5 | + | 5 | + | 4 | + | 4 | + | 3 | = 42 |
Foundation | Kingdom | הוד | Eternity | Splendor | Courage | נדולה | Intelligence | Wisdom | Crown |
But Franck, like many other writers, confounds mysticism with Kabbalah. That the Jews had an extensive mysticism, embracing theosophy with its collateral angelology and uranology, as well as christology and magic, long before the development of the Kabbalah, and that there were a certain class of people who specially devoted themselves to the study of this mysticism, and who styled themselves “Men of Faith” (בעלי אמונות), is evident from a most cursory glance at the Jewish literature. Based upon the remark—“The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,” ( Ps. xxv, 14 ,) some of the most distinguished Jewish doctors in the days of Christ, and afterwards, claimed an attainment of superhuman knowledge, communicated to them either by a voice from heaven (בת קול) or by Elias the prophet (Baba Mezia, 59 b; Sabbath, 77 b; Chagiga, 3 b, 10 a; Sanhedrin, 48 b; Nidda, 20 b; Joma, 9 b). [184]The sages had also secret doctrines about the hexahemeron (מעשה בראשית) and the Vision of Ezekiel = Theosophy (מעשה מרכבה), “which were only communicated to presidents of courts of justice and those who were of a careful heart” (Chagiga, 12 a–16 a). Coeven with this are the mysteries connected with the different letters of the several divine names (Kiddushin, 71 a). Those who were deemed worthy to be admitted into these secrets could at any moment call into existence new creations either in the animal or vegetable kingdom (Sanhedrin, 65 b, 67 b; Jerusalem Sanhedrin, vii); they could fly in the air, heal the sick, drive out evil spirits, and suspend the laws of nature, by sundry mystical transpositions and commutations of the letters composing the divine names, which they wrote down on slips of vellum or pieces of paper and called “amulets” (קמיעות). This mysticism and the literature embodying it began to develop themselves more fully and to spread more extensively from the end of the eighth and the commencement of the ninth centuries. Towards the close of the eighth century came into existence
But Franck, like many other writers, mixes up mysticism with Kabbalah. It's clear from even a quick look at Jewish literature that the Jews had a rich mysticism that included theosophy, alongside angelology and uranology, as well as Christology and magic, well before Kabbalah was developed. There were people who dedicated themselves specifically to studying this mysticism and referred to themselves as “Men of Faith” (Believers). Based on the saying, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,” (Ps. xxv, 14), some of the most prominent Jewish scholars during and after the time of Christ claimed to have gained superhuman knowledge, which they believed was revealed to them either by a voice from heaven (בת קול) or by the prophet Elijah (Baba Mezia, 59 b; Sabbath, 77 b; Chagiga, 3 b, 10 a; Sanhedrin, 48 b; Nidda, 20 b; Yoma, 9 b). [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The sages also had secret teachings about the hexahemeron (The Creation story) and the Vision of Ezekiel, known as Theosophy (Mystical chariot), which were only shared with heads of courts and those with serious intent (Chagiga, 12 a–16 a). Alongside this were mysteries linked to the different letters of various divine names (Kiddushin, 71 a). Those who were considered worthy to learn these secrets could create new beings in either the animal or plant kingdoms at any time (Sanhedrin, 65 b, 67 b; Jerusalem Sanhedrin, vii). They could fly, heal the sick, exorcise demons, and defy natural laws through various mystical manipulations of the letters that made up divine names, which they would write on slips of parchment or paper and call “amulets” (Amulets). This mysticism and the related literature began to develop more fully and spread more widely from the late eighth century into the early ninth century. Toward the end of the eighth century, there emerged
1. The celebrated mystical work entitled the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which alternately treats each letter of the Hebrew Alphabet as representing an idea as an abbreviation for a word (נוטריקון), and as the symbol of some sentiment, according to its peculiar form, in order to attach to those letters moral, theoanthropic, angelogical and mystical notions. This work has recently been reprinted in two recensions in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, p. 12–64, Leipzig, 1855.
1. The famous mystical work called the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba looks at each letter of the Hebrew Alphabet as representing an idea, as an abbreviation for a word (Acronym), and as the symbol of some feeling based on its unique shape. The purpose is to connect those letters to moral, theoanthropic, angelological, and mystical concepts. This work has recently been reprinted in two versions in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, p. 12–64, Leipzig, 1855.
2. The Book of Enoch which describes the glorification of Enoch and his transformation into the angel Metatron, regarding him as ידו״ד הקטון the Minor Deity, in contradistinction to ידו״ד הגדול the Great God and which was originally a constituent part of the Alphabet of R. Akiba. It is reprinted in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. ii, pp. 114–117. Leipzig, 1853. [185]
2. The Book of Enoch describes how Enoch is glorified and transformed into the angel Metatron, referring to him as ידו״ד הקטון the Minor Deity, in contrast to God's hand the Great God, and it was originally part of the Alphabet of R. Akiba. It is reprinted in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. ii, pp. 114–117. Leipzig, 1853. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
3. Shiur Koma (שיעור קומה), or the Dimensions of the Deity, which claims to be a revelation from the angel Metatron to R. Ishmael, and describes the size of the body and the sundry members of the Deity. It is given in the Book Raziel (ספר רזיאל) of Eleazer b. Jehudah of Worms, printed at Amsterdam, 1701, and at Warsaw, 1812.
3. Shiur Koma (Floor lesson), or The Dimensions of the Deity, claims to be a revelation from the angel Metatron to R. Ishmael, detailing the size of the body and various parts of the Deity. It appears in the Book Raziel (ספר רזיאל) by Eleazer b. Jehudah of Worms, published in Amsterdam, 1701, and in Warsaw, 1812.
4. The Palaces (היכלות). This mystical document opens with an exaltation of those who are worthy to see the chariot throne (צפיית המרכבה), declaring that they know whatever happens and whatever is about to happen in the world; that he who offends them will be severely punished; and that they are so highly distinguished as not to be required to rise before any one except a king, a high priest, and the Sanhedrim. It then celebrates the praises of Almighty God and his chariot throne; describes the dangers connected with seeing this chariot throne (מרכבה); gives an episode from the history of the martyrs and the Roman emperor Lupinus, a description of the angels, and of the sundry formulæ wherewith they are adjured. Whereupon follows a description of the seven heavenly palaces, each of which is guarded by eight angels, and into which the student of the mysterious chariot throne may transpose himself in order to learn all mysteries, a description of the formulæ by virtue of which these angelic guards are obliged to grant admission into the celestial palaces, and of the peculiar qualifications of those who desire to enter into them. The document then concludes with detailing some hymns of praise, a conversation between God, Israel, and the angels about those mysteries, a knowledge of which makes man suddenly learned without any trouble, and with a description of this mystery, which consists in certain prayers and charms. This mystical production has also been reprinted in Jellinek’s valuable Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, pp. 83–108.
4. The Palaces (היכלות). This mystical text begins by celebrating those who are worthy to see the chariot throne (מרכבה צפייה), claiming they understand everything that happens and everything that is about to happen in the world; that anyone who offends them will face severe punishment; and that they are so esteemed they only need to rise for a king, a high priest, and the Sanhedrin. It continues by praising Almighty God and his chariot throne; describing the dangers of witnessing this chariot throne (Chariot); recounting a story involving the martyrs and the Roman emperor Lupinus, as well as a description of the angels and various incantations used to summon them. Following this is a portrayal of the seven heavenly palaces, each guarded by eight angels, into which a student of the mysterious chariot throne can enter to learn all secrets, along with the incantations that compel these angelic guards to grant access to the heavenly palaces and the specific qualifications needed by those wishing to enter. The text concludes with hymns of praise, a conversation between God, Israel, and the angels about those secrets that allow someone to become suddenly knowledgeable with ease, and a description of this mystery, which consists of specific prayers and charms. This mystical work has also been reprinted in Jellinek’s valuable Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, pp. 83–108.
These mystical treatises constitute the centre around which [186]cluster all the productions of this school, which gradually came into existence in the course of time. So numerous became the disciples of mysticism in the twelfth century, and so general became the belief in their power of performing miraculous cures, driving out evil spirits, &c., &c., by virtue of charms consisting of the letters composing the divers divine names transposed and commuted in mystical forms, that the celebrated Maimonides found it necessary to denounce the system. “We have one divine name only,” says he, “which is not derived from His attributes, viz., the Tetragrammaton, for which reason it is called Shem Ha-Mephorash (שם המפורש). Believe nothing else, and give no credence to the nonsense of the writers of charms and amulets (כותבי הקמיעות), to what they tell you or to what you find in their foolish writings about the divine names, which they invent without any sense, calling them appellations of the Deity (שמות), and affirming that they require holiness and purity and perform miracles. All these things are fables: a sensible man will not listen to them, much less believe in them.” (More Nebuchim, i, 61.)
These mystical writings are at the heart of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__], surrounding all the works of this school, which gradually developed over time. The number of mysticism followers grew so large in the twelfth century, and the belief in their ability to perform miraculous healings, banish evil spirits, and so on, through charms made up of the letters of various divine names rearranged in mystical ways, became so widespread, that the renowned Maimonides felt compelled to denounce the practice. “We have only one divine name,” he states, “that is not derived from His attributes, namely the Tetragrammaton, which is why it is called Shem Ha-Mephorash (The explicit name). Don’t believe anything else, and don’t trust the nonsense of those who write charms and amulets (Amulets writers), or what they say or what you find in their foolish writings about divine names, which they create without any logic, calling them titles of the Deity (Names), and claiming they require holiness and purity to perform miracles. All of this is nonsense: a sensible person won’t listen to it, let alone believe it.” (More Nebuchim, i, 61.)
But this mysticism, with its thaumaturgy, though espoused by later Kabbalists and incorporated into their writings, is perfectly distinct from the Kabbalah in its first and pure form, and is to be distinguished by the fact that it has no system, knows nothing of the speculations of the En Soph, the ten Sephiroth, the doctrine of emanations, and the four worlds, which are the essential and peculiar elements of the Kabbalah. As to Franck’s ingenious hypothesis, based upon the same number of letters constituting a divine name, mentioned in the Talmud, and the ten Sephiroth, we can only say that the Kabbalists themselves never claimed this far-fetched identity, and that Ignatz Stern has shown (Ben Chananja, iii, p. 261), that the Sohar itself takes the ten divine names mentioned in the Bible, which it enumerated in vol. iii, 11 a, and which [187]it makes to correspond to the ten Sephiroth, to be the sacred name composed of forty-two letters, viz.:—
But this mysticism, with its miraculous powers, although adopted by later Kabbalists and included in their writings, is completely different from the Kabbalah in its original and pure form. It's characterized by the fact that it has no system, doesn't engage with the speculations about the En Soph, the ten Sephiroth, the doctrine of emanations, or the four worlds, which are the essential and unique elements of Kabbalah. Regarding Franck’s clever hypothesis, based on the same number of letters that make up a divine name mentioned in the Talmud, and the ten Sephiroth, we can only point out that the Kabbalists themselves never claimed this far-fetched similarity. Ignatz Stern has demonstrated (Ben Chananja, iii, p. 261) that the Sohar itself takes the ten divine names listed in the Bible, which it cites in vol. iii, 11 a, and which [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]it aligns with the ten Sephiroth, as the sacred name made up of forty-two letters, namely:—
4 | + | 2 | + | 2 | + | 5 | + | 4 | + | 5 | + | 2 | + | 5 | + | 2 | + | 4 | + | 3 | + | 4 | = 42 |
אדוני | Alive | אל | Armies | ידוד | אלדים | אל | ידויד | יה | I'll be | אשר | I will be |
Having ascertained its date, we now come to the origin of the Kabbalah. Nothing can be more evident than that the cardinal and distinctive tenets of the Kabbalah in its original form, as stated at the beginning of the second part of this Essay, are derived from Neo-Platonism. Any doubt upon this subject must be relinquished when the two systems are compared. The very expression En Soph (אין סוף) which the Kabbalah uses to designate the Incomprehensible One, is foreign, and is evidently an imitation of the Greek ἄπειρος. The speculations about the En Soph, that he is superior to actual being, thinking and knowing, are thoroughly Neo-Platonic (ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας, ἐνεργίας, νοῦ καὶ νοήσεως); and R. Azariel, whose work, as we have seen, is the first Kabbalistic production, candidly tells us that in viewing the Deity as purely negative, and divesting him of all attributes, he followed the opinion of the philosophers.42 When R. Azariel moreover tells us that “the En Soph can neither be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in words; for there is no letter or word which can grasp him,” we have here almost the very words of Proclus, who tells us that, “although he is generally called the unity (τὸ ἕν) or the first, it would be better if no name were given him; for there is no word which can depict his nature—he is (ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος), the inexpressible, the unknown.” (Theol. Plat. ii, 6.)
Having determined its date, we now turn to the origin of the Kabbalah. It's clear that the essential and unique principles of the Kabbalah in its original form, as mentioned at the start of the second part of this Essay, stem from Neo-Platonism. Any uncertainty about this topic must be set aside when comparing the two systems. The term En Soph (Infinite) that the Kabbalah uses to refer to the Incomprehensible One is not native and is evidently derived from the Greek άπειρος. The ideas about the En Soph being beyond actual existence, thought, and knowledge are distinctly Neo-Platonic (Beyond essence, action, mind, and thought); and Rabbi Azariel, whose work is the first Kabbalistic text we have seen, openly states that when considering the Deity as purely negative, stripping him of all attributes, he followed the viewpoint of the philosophers. When Rabbi Azariel also tells us that “the En Soph can neither be understood by the intellect nor described in words; for there is no letter or word that can encompass him,” we find almost the exact words of Proclus, who says that, “although he is commonly referred to as unity (τὸ ἕν) or the first, it would be better if no name were assigned to him; for there is no word that can convey his nature—he is (ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος), the inexpressible, the unknowable.” (Theol. Plat. ii, 6.)
The Kabbalah propounds that the En Soph, not being an object of cognition, made his existence known in the creation of the world by the Sephiroth, or Emanations, or Intelligences. [188]So Neo-Platonism. The Sephiroth are divided in the Kabbalah into a trinity of triads respectively denominated עולם השכל the Intellectual World, עולם הנפש the Sensuous World, and עולם הטבע the Material World, which exactly corresponds to the three triads of Neo-Platonism νοῦς, ψύχη, and φύσις. The Kabbalah teaches that these Sephiroth are both infinite and perfect, and finite and imperfect, in so far as the source from which they emanate imparts or withholds his fulness from them. Neo-Platonism also teaches that “every emanation, though less perfect than that from which it emanates, has yet a similarity with it, and, so far as this similarity goes, remains in it, departing from it so far as it is unlike, but as far as possible being one with it and remaining in it.”43 Even the comparison between the emanation of the Sephiroth from the En Soph, and the rays proceeding from light to describe the immanency and perfect unity of the two, is the same as the Neo-Platonic figure employed to illustrate the emanations from one principium (οἷον ἐκ φωτὸς τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ περίλαμψιν). [189]
The Kabbalah suggests that the En Soph, which cannot be fully understood, revealed his existence through the creation of the world using the Sephiroth, or Emanations, or Intelligences. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] This aligns with Neo-Platonism. The Sephiroth in Kabbalah are categorized into three groups called World of intellect the Intellectual World, World of the soul the Sensuous World, and טבע the Material World, which parallels the three groups in Neo-Platonism νοῦς, ψύχη, and φύσις. The Kabbalah teaches that these Sephiroth are both infinite and perfect, and finite and imperfect, because the source from which they come either shares or withholds his fullness from them. Neo-Platonism also states that “every emanation, although it is less perfect than that from which it comes, still shares some similarity with it, and to the extent of that similarity, it remains within it, only departing to the extent that it differs, while striving to be as unified as possible with it.” 43 The analogy of the Sephiroth emanating from the En Soph to rays coming from light illustrates the inherent and perfect unity of the two, similar to the Neo-Platonic analogy used to explain emanations from one principle (like from light the brilliance that comes from itSure, please provide the text you'd like me to modernize.. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
3 בשלשים ושתים פליאות חכמח חקק יה יהוה צבאות אלהי ישראל אלהים חיים ומלך עולם אל רחום וחנון רם ונשא שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו בשלשה ספרים בספר וספר וסיפור: ספר יצירה פרקי א׳ משנה א׳ ↑
3 In thirty-two wonders, the wise Creator, the Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, the living God and King of the universe, compassionate and gracious, exalted and high, who lives in the highest and whose name is holy, is mentioned in three books: in the Book, in the Scroll, and in the Narrative: Book of Creation, Chapter 1, Mishna 1. ↑
5 שתים רוח מרוח חקק וחצב בה עשרים רשתים אותיות יסוד שלש אמות ושבעה כפולות ושנים עשר פשוטות ורוח אחת מהן: שלש מים מרוח חקק וחצב בהן תהו ובהו רפש וטיט חקקן כמין ערוגה חציבן כמין חומה סככן כמין מעזיבה: ארבע אש ממים חקק וחצב בה כסא הכבוד ואופנים ושרפים וחיות הקדש ומלאכי השרת ומשלשתן יסד מעונו שנאמר עשה מלאכיו רוחות משרתיו אש לוהט: פרק א׳ משנה ט׳ וי׳ ↑
5 Two spirits formed and shaped twenty networks of basic letters: three mothers, seven doubles, and twelve simples, along with one spirit among them: three waters shaped chaos and emptiness, mud and clay formed like a garden, constructed like a wall, enclosed like a pasture: four fires from water shaped the throne of glory, along with wheels, seraphim, holy beings, and angels, and from these three he created his dwelling, as it's said, he makes his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming fire: Chapter 1, Mishna 9 and 10. ↑
12 שנים עשר עומדים במלחמה שלשה אוהבים שלשה שנאים שלשה מחיים שלשה ממיתים שלשה אוהבים הלב והאזנים והפה שלשה שונאים הכבד המרה והלשון ואל מלך נאמן מושל בכולן אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים עשר וכולן אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳ ↑
12 Twelve stand in battle: three are friends, three are enemies, three give life, and three bring death. The heart, ears, and mouth are the three friends; the liver, gallbladder, and tongue are the three enemies. A faithful King oversees all of them—one above three, three above seven, seven above twelve, and all are connected. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ ↑
17 For those who should wish to prosecute the study of the metaphysical Book Jetzira, we must mention that this Treatise was first published in a Latin translation by Postellus, Paris, 1552. It was then published in the original with five commentaries, viz., the spurious one of Saadia Gaon, one by Moses Nachmanides, one by Eleazer Worms, one by Abraham b. David, and one by Moses Botarel. Mantua, 1565. Another Latin version is given in Jo. Pistorii artis cabalisticae scriptorum, 1587, Tom. l, p. 869 seq. which is ascribed to Reuchlin and Paul Ricci; and a third Latin translation, with notes and the Hebrew text, was published by Rittangel, Amsterdam, 1662. The Book is also published with a German translation and notes, by John Friedrich v. Meyer, Leipzig, 1830. As useful helps to the understanding of this difficult Book we may mention The Kusari of R. Jehudah Ha-Levi, with Cassel’s German version and learned annotations, Part iv. chap 25, p. 344. &c., Leipzig, 1853; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin, 1832), p. 165, &c.; Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoshin, 1846), p. 102, &c.; Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Part i (Leipzig, 1852). p. 3, &c. Comp. also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol i., p. 23, &c., vol. ii., p. 1196, vol. iii, p. 17, vol. iv. p. 753, &c.; Philosophie der Geschichte, vol. i, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1857), p. 63. &c.; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature (London, 1857), pp. 107, 302, &c.; and by the same author, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, col. 552. ↑
17 For those interested in studying the metaphysical Book Jetzira, it's important to note that this treatise was first published in a Latin translation by Postellus in Paris in 1552. It was later published in its original form with five commentaries, including one from the spurious Saadia Gaon, one by Moses Nachmanides, one by Eleazer Worms, one by Abraham b. David, and one by Moses Botarel, in Mantua, 1565. Another Latin version appears in Jo. Pistorii artis cabalistic writings, 1587, Tom. l, p. 869 seq., attributed to Reuchlin and Paul Ricci; and a third Latin translation, with notes and the Hebrew text, was published by Rittangel in Amsterdam in 1662. The book is also available with a German translation and notes by John Friedrich v. Meyer, Leipzig, 1830. Useful resources for understanding this challenging work include The Kusari by R. Jehudah Ha-Levi, with Cassel’s German version and scholarly annotations, Part iv. chap 25, p. 344, Leipzig, 1853; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin, 1832), p. 165; Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoshin, 1846), p. 102; Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Part i (Leipzig, 1852), p. 3; and also consult Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. i., p. 23, vol. ii., p. 1196, vol. iii, p. 17, vol. iv. p. 753, and Philosophie der Geschichte, vol. i, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1857), p. 63; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature (London, 1857), pp. 107, 302; and by the same author, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, col. 552. ↑
18 The Sohar was first published by Da Padova and Jacob b. Naphtali, 3 vols. 4to, Mantua, 1558–1560, with an Introduction by Is. de Lattes; then again in Cremona, 1560, fol.; Lublin, 1623, fol.; then again edited by Rosenroth, with the variations from the works Derech Emeth, and with the explanation of the difficult words by Issachar Bär, an Index of all the passages of Scripture explained in the Sohar, and with an Introduction by Moses b. Uri Sheraga Bloch, Sulzbach, 1684, fol.; with an additional Index of matters, Amsterdam, 1714, 3 vols. 8vo; ibid. 1728; 1772, and 1805. The references in this Essay are to the last mentioned edition. It must, however, be remarked that most of the editions have the same paging. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col., 537–545; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii, 329–385. ↑
18 The Sohar was first published by Da Padova and Jacob b. Naphtali in three volumes, quarto size, in Mantua from 1558 to 1560, with an introduction by Is. de Lattes. It was published again in Cremona in 1560, folio size; in Lublin in 1623, folio size; then edited by Rosenroth, including variations from the works Derech Emeth, along with explanations of difficult words by Issachar Bär, an index of all the Scripture passages explained in the Sohar, and with an introduction by Moses b. Uri Sheraga Bloch in Sulzbach, 1684, folio size; and an additional index of topics was published in Amsterdam in 1714 across three volumes, octavo size; ibid. 1728; 1772, and 1805. The references in this essay are to the last mentioned edition. It should be noted that most of the editions have the same page numbers. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col., 537–545; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii, 329–385. ↑
20 אסהדנה עלי שמייא עלאין דעלאין וארעה קדישה עלאה דעלאה דאנא חמי השתא מה דלא חמא בר נש מיומה דסליק משה זמנה תניינא לטורא דסיני דאנא חמינא אנפאי נהירין כנהורא דשמשא תקיפא דזמין למיפק באסוותא לעלמא דכתיב וזרחה לכם יראי שמי שמש צדקה ומרפה בכנפיה: ועוד דאנא ידענא דאנפאי נהירין ומשה לא ידע ולא אסתכל הה״ד ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו: זוהר חלק ג״ דף קל׳ב ב׳: ↑
20 I bear witness about the highest heavens and the sacred land above because I’ve seen what nobody has seen since Moses went up Mount Sinai. I saw faces shining like the brightness of the sun, which was meant to shine out to the world, as it's written, "The sun of righteousness shall rise for you, who fear my name, with healing in its wings." Additionally, I know their faces were radiant, but Moses didn’t realize it, as it says, "Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone." Zohar Part 3, Page 132b: ↑
24 For a description of the Mezuza, which consists of a piece of parchment, whereon is written Deut. vi, 4–9; xi, 13–21, put into a reed or hollow cylinder, and affixed to the right hand door-post of every door in the houses of the Jews, see Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mezuza. ↑
24 For a description of the Mezuza, which is a piece of parchment containing the text of Deut. vi, 4–9; xi, 13–21, placed inside a reed or hollow cylinder, and attached to the right side doorpost of every Jewish home, see Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mezuzah. ↑
27 ווי על ההוא זמנא דאתיליד ישמעאל בעלמא ואתגזר. מה עבר קב״ה ארחיק להו לבני ישמעאל מדבקותא דלעילא ויהב להו חולקא לתתא בארעא קדישא בגין ההוא גזירו דבהון וזמינין בן ישמעאל למישלט בארעא קדישא כד איהי ריקניא מכלא זמנ׳ סגי כמה דגזירו דלהון בריקניא בלא שלימו: ואינון יעכבון להון לבנ׳י לאתבא לדוכתייהו עד דישתלים ההוא זכותא דבני ישמעאל: וזמינין בני ישמעאל לאתערה קרבין תקיפין בעלמא ולאתכנשא בני אדום עלייהו ויתערון קרבא בהו חד על ימא וחד על יבשא וחד סמוך לירושלים וישלטון אלין באלין וארעא קדישא לא יתמסר לבני אדום: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לב א׳ ↑
27 Once upon a time, when Ishmael was born and a decree was issued, the Almighty separated Ishmael's descendants from the divine connection above and assigned them a portion of the holy land because of that decree. Ishmael's descendants are meant to govern the holy land when it's empty forever due to the decree regarding its emptiness without fulfillment. They will prevent their children from returning to their places until the merit of Ishmael's children is established. The children of Ishmael will become stirred up, rising in power, and the children of Edom will gather against them, resulting in conflict—both at sea and on land, and near Jerusalem. They will govern these territories, but the holy land will not be given to the children of Edom: Zohar, Part 2, Page 32a. ↑
28 תנן זמין קב״ה למבני ירושלים ולאחזאה חד ככבא קביעא מנצצא בע׳ רהטין ובע׳ זקין נהרין מניה באמצעות רקיעא וישתאבון ביה ע׳ ככבין אחרנין ויהא נהיר ולהיט ע׳ יומין וביומא שתיתאה יתחזי בכ״ה יומין לירחא שתיתאה [שביעאה] ויתכניש ביומה שביעאה לסוף ע׳ יומין יומא קדמאה יתחזי בקרתא דרומי וההוא יומא ינפלון ג׳ שורין עלאין מההיא קרתא דרומי והיכלא רברבא ינפול ושליטא דההוא קרתא ימות: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי׳ב ב׳: ↑
28 The evidence suggests that the Holy One, blessed be He, made the buildings in Jerusalem radiate with a strong, bright light, like a star shining high in the sky during the day, and this light will illuminate other stars, appearing clear and brilliant for days. On the seventh day, it will be visible throughout the entire month of the seventh (the seventh month), and on the seventh day after twenty days, the first day will be seen in the southern region. On that day, three tall towers from that southern area will fall, the grand palace will crumble, and the ruler of that region will perish: Zohar, Part 3, Page 282. ↑
30 וכד ייתי אלף שתיתאה דאיהו רזא דוא״ו כדין וא״ו יוקים לה״א, בזמנא שית זמנין עשר שיתין נפש כדין שלימו וא״ו עשר זמנין וא״ו שית זמנין עשר. (דוא״ו) וא״ו סלקא (בעשר) בי׳ וא״ ונחתא בה״א אשתלים וא״ו גו עשר שית זמנין כדין הוו שיתין לאקמא מעפרא: זוהר הלק א׳ דף קי׳ו ב׳ קי׳ז ב׳ ↑
30 When someone experiences the special quality of ten, they connect with the essence of the divine. As they count, ten souls align with the ten aspects of the divine, each adding to the whole. When a person moves through ten, they are uplifted. They then return to the lowest aspect, gathering everything together. These connections to ten foster a deep unity with the spiritual realm: Zohar, Part 1, Page 116b, Page 117b. ↑
32 בחדש אדר כתב ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו כי עכו נחרבה בשנת חמשים לפרט ושנהרגו חסידי ישראל שם בד׳ מיתות ב״ד׳ ובשנת ס״ה היה זה ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו בנבארה באיטאליה וניצל מעכו ובשנת ס״ה עצמה בא לטוליטולה, ומצאתי בספר דברי הימים שלו ר״ל מר׳ יצחק דמן עכו הוא שעשה ספר קבלה בשנת חמלאך ונחרבה בזמנו עכו ונשבו כולם בזמן בן בנו של הרמב״ן ובזמן בן ר׳ דוד בן אברהם בן הרמב״ם ז״לי והוא הלך לספרד לחקור כיצד נמצא בזמנו ספר הזוהר אשר עשה ר׳ שומעון ור׳ אלעזר בנו במערה אשרי הזוכים לאמתתו׳ באורו יראו אור: ואמרי לאמתתו, מפני שזייף מקצת אשר זייף. ואמר שקבל כי מה שנמצא בלשון ירושלמי האמין כי הם דברי ר׳ שמעון. ואם תראה בלשון קדש האמן כי אינם דבריו רק דברי המזייף מפני שהספר האמתי הוא בלשון ירושילמי כלו וז״ל: ומפני שראיתי כי דבריו מופלאים ישאבו ממקור העליון המעיין המשפיע בלתי מקבלת בשכמל״ו, רדפתי אחריו ואשאלה את התלכמידים הנמצאים בידם דברים גדולים ממנו מאין בא להם סודות מופלאים מקובלים מפה אל פה אשר לא נתנו ליכתב ונמצאו שם מבוארים לכל קורא ספר. ולא מצאתי תשובותיהם על שאלתי זאת מכוונות׳ זה אומר בכה וזה אומר בכה: שמעתי אומרים לי על שאלתי כי הרב הנאמן הרמב״ן ז״ל שלח אותו מארץ ישראל לקטלוניא לבנו והביאו הרוח לארץ ארגון וי״א לאלקנטי ונפל ביד החכם ר׳ משה די ליאון הוא שאומרים עליו ר׳ משה דיודאל חגארה. וי״א שמעולם לא חבר רשב״י ספר זה, אבל ר׳ משה זה היה יודע שם הכותב ובכחו יכתוב ר׳ משה זה דברים נפלאים אלה, ולמען יקח בהם מחיר גדול כסף וזהב רב תולה דבריו באשלי רברבי ואמר מתוך הספר אשר חבר רשב״י ור׳ אלעזר בנו וחבריו אני מעתיק להם דברים אלו. ואני בבואי ספרדה ואבא אל עיר ואלדוליד אשר המלך (שם) ואמיצא שם לר׳ משה זה ואמצא חן בעיניו וידבר עמי וידר לי וישבע לאמר: כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם לא הספר הקדמון אשר חבר רשב״י אשר הוא היום בביתי במדינת ישבילי היא אוילה בבואך אלי שם אראך. ויהי אחר הדברים האלה נפרד ממני וילך ר׳ משה זח אל עיר [173]ארבלא לשוב אל ביתו לאוילא ויחלה בארבלא וימת שם, וכשמעי הבשורה היטב חרה לי עד מות ואצא ואשים לדרך פעמי ואבא אל אוילא ומצאתי שם חכם גדול וזקן ושמו ר׳ דוד דאפן קורפו ואמצאה חן בעיניו ואשביעהו לאמר: הנתבררו לו סודות ספר הזוהר שבני אדם נחלקים זה אומר בכה וזה אומר בכה ור׳ משה עצמו נדר לי (לתת) אלי ולא הספיק עד שמת ואיני יודע על מי אסמוך ולדברי מי אאמין. ויאמר דע באמת כי נתברר לי בלא ספק שמעולם לא בא לידו של ר׳ משה זה, ואין בעולם ספר זוהר זה רק היה ר׳ משה בעל שם הכותב ובכחו כתב כל מה שכתב בספר הזה. ועתה שמע נא באיזה דרך נתברר לי: דע כי ר׳ משה זה היה מפזר גדול ומוציא בעין יפה ממונו עד שהיום הזה ביתו מלא כסף וזהב שנתנו לו העשירים המבינים בסודות גדולים אלא (אלו) אשר יתן להם כתובים בשם הכותב ומחר נתרוקן כלו עד שעזב אשתו ובתו הנה ערומות שרויות ברעב ובצמא ובחוסר כל. וכששמענו שמת בעיר ארבולו ואקום ואלך אל העשיר הגדול אשר בעיר הזאת הנקרא ר׳ יוסף די אוילה ואומר לו: עתה הגיע העת אשר תזכה לספר הזוהר אשר לא יערכנו זהב וזכוכית אם תעשה את אשר איעצך. ועצתי היא זאת: שיקרא ר׳ יוסף זה לאשתו ויאמר לה קחי נא מנחה נאה ביד שפחתך ושלחי אותה לאשת ר׳ משה ותעש כן: ויהי ממחרת ויאמר עוד לה לכי נא ביתה אשת ר׳ משה ואמרי לה דעי כי רצוני הוא להשיא את בתך לבני ואליך לא יחסר לחם לאכל ובגד ללבוש כל ימיך ואין אני מבקשת ממך דבד בעולם רק ספר הזוהר אשר היה אישך מעתיק ממנו ונותן לבני אדם דברים אלה תאמרי לה לבד ולבתה לבד ותשמיעי את דבריהם אשר יענוכה ונראה היהיו מכוונים אם לא. ותלך ותעש כן. ותען אשת ר׳ משה ותשבע לאשת ר׳ יוסף לאמר כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם מעולם ספר זה היה עם אישי אבל מראשו ולבו מדעתו ושכלו כתב כל מה שכתב. ואומרה לו בראותי אותו כותב מבלעדי דבר לפניו: מדוע תאמר שאתה מעתיק מספר ואתה אין לך ספר רק מראשך אתה כותב הלא נאה לך לאמר כי משכלך אתה כותב ויותר יהיה כבוד לך, ויען אלי ויאמר: אלו אודיע להם סודי זה שמשכלי אני כותב לא ישגיחו בדברי ולא יתנו בעבורם פרוטה כי יאמרו כי מלבו הוא בודה אותם, אבל עתה כאשר ישמעו שמתוך ספר הזוהר אשר חבר רשב״י ברוח הקדש אני מעתיקם יקנו אותם בדמים יקרים כאשר עיניך רואות: ↑
32 In the month of Adar, Rabbi Yitzhak from Acco wrote that Acco was destroyed in the year fifty of the era, and that the righteous of Israel were executed there by the four types of capital punishment. In the year sixty, Rabbi Yitzhak from Acco was in Navara, Italy, and survived the destruction of Acco. In the same year, he went to Tolitola, and I found in his records that he, Rabbi Yitzhak from Acco, wrote a book on Kabbalah in the year Hamalach, and during his time, Acco was destroyed and everyone was taken captive. This occurred during the era of the grandson of the Ramban and during the time of Rabbi David ben Abraham, the son of the Rambam, blessed be his memory. He traveled to Spain to investigate how, during his time, the book of the Zohar, authored by Rabbi Shimon and his son Rabbi Eleazar in a cave, was discovered. Blessed are those who are worthy of its truth; in its light, they will see light. It is said regarding its authenticity that some parts were altered. He claimed he received information that what was found in the Jerusalem dialect was believed to be the words of Rabbi Shimon. However, if you read it in Hebrew, he believed it was not his words but those of the forger, since the original book is entirely in the Jerusalem dialect. Because I saw that his words were extraordinary, drawing from a higher source, the fountain that bestows generously, I sought him out and asked the students who possessed great knowledge where they gathered such wondrous secrets that were passed down verbally and not intended to be written down, and were clear to any reader of the book. I found their answers to be inconsistent; one said this and another said that: I heard them say in response to my question that the reliable Rabbi the Ramban, blessed be his memory, sent him from the land of Israel to Catalonia for his son, and that the spirit guided him to the land of Aragon and then to Alcante. He fell into the hands of the wise Rabbi Moshe de Leon, known as Rabbi Moshe Deyoudal Hagarah. Some say that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai never wrote this book, but Rabbi Moshe knew the name of the true author and, through his influence, Rabbi Moshe wrote these remarkable things. And to charge a high price, lots of gold and silver, he attributed his writings to the great Rabbi and said, “From the book authored by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, his son Rabbi Eleazar, and his friends, I copy these things.” When I arrived in Spain and came to the city of Valladolid, where the king was, I found Rabbi Moshe and was favored in his sight. He spoke to me and swore, saying: “May God do so to me and add so much more, if not for the ancient book authored by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai that is now in my house in the land of Iblia—when you come to me, I will show it to you.” After these words, Rabbi Moshe separated from me and went to the city [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of Arballa to return to his home in Iblia, and he fell ill in Arballa and died there. When I heard the news, it distressed me deeply, and I set out for Iblia, where I met a great wise elder named Rabbi David Dafen Corfu. I found favor in his eyes and swore to him, asking: “Has it been made clear to him the secrets of the book of the Zohar that people are divided on, one saying this and another that? Rabbi Moshe himself promised me to give it to me and did not fulfill it before he died? I do not know whom to trust and whose words to believe.” He said: “Know that it has been clearly established beyond doubt that Rabbi Moshe never had this book come to him, and there is no book of the Zohar in the world; only Rabbi Moshe is known as the author and through his influence, he wrote everything that is documented in this book. And now, let me explain how it has been clarified to me: Rabbi Moshe was a great spender, lavishly using his wealth, so that even now his house is filled with money and gold that wealthy individuals, who understand great secrets, gave him, except for those who would provide him with writings in the name of the actual author, and tomorrow it will all be depleted, leaving his wife and daughter impoverished, suffering from hunger and thirst, lacking everything. When we heard that he died in the city of Arballo, I went to the prominent wealthy man in this city named Rabbi Yosef de Iblia and said to him: “Now is the time for you to be worthy of the book of the Zohar, which is not worth gold or glass, if you do what I suggest.” My suggestion is this: Let Rabbi Yosef call his wife and say to her, ‘Please take a nice gift in the hands of your maidservant and send it to the wife of Rabbi Moshe,’ and do this: The next day, he said again to her, ‘Go now to the house of Rabbi Moshe and tell her, “Understand that my desire is to marry your daughter to my son, and you will not lack for bread to eat and clothes to wear all your days, and I am not asking anything from you in the world except for the book of the Zohar that your husband would copy from and give to people.”’ You will only say this to her and her daughter and listen to what they say, and we will see if their words match or not. And she went and did so. Rabbi Moshe’s wife answered Rabbi Yosef’s wife, swearing: “May God do so to me and add so much more, if this book was ever with my husband, but everything he wrote was from his head and heart, through his own knowledge and understanding.” She added: “When I see him writing without a book before him, why do you say he is copying from a book when he has no text and is writing only from his own mind? It would be more fitting for you to say that he writes from his intellect; it would bring him more honor.” He replied to me, saying: “If I told them this secret that I write from my intellect, they would pay no attention to my words and wouldn’t give even a small coin because they would say he is making them up from his heart. But now, when they hear that I am copying them from the book of the Zohar, which was authored by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai in holy inspiration, they will buy them for a high price, as your eyes see.” ↑
35 פירוש עשר ספירות על דרך שאלח ותשובח Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, by way of Questions and Answers. This commentary was first known through the Kabbalistic works of Meier Ibn Gabbai, entitled דרך אמונה, The Path of Faith, printed in Padua, 1563, and עבדת הקדש, The Service of Holiness, also called מראות אלהים, The Vision of the Lord, first printed in Mantua, 1545; then Venice, 1567, and Cracow, 1578. It was then published in Gabriel Warschawer’s volume entitled A Collection of Kabbalistic Treatises (ספר לקוטים בקבלה), Warsaw, 1798; and has recently been published in Berlin, 1850. It is to this Berlin edition that the references in this Essay are made. ↑
35 Meaning of the Ten Sefirot according to the way of questions and answers. Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, through Questions and Answers. This commentary was first recognized in the Kabbalistic writings of Meier Ibn Gabbai, titled Way of Faith, The Path of Faith, published in Padua in 1563, and Waqf work, The Service of Holiness, also known as מראות אלוהים, The Vision of the Lord, first published in Mantua in 1545, then in Venice in 1567, and Cracow in 1578. It was later included in Gabriel Warschawer’s book titled A Collection of Kabbalistic Treatises (Kabbalah teachings book), Warsaw, 1798; and has recently been published in Berlin, 1850. The references in this Essay are to the Berlin edition. ↑
37 וקבלה שבידינו על היות אלו החכמים משלשלת קבלה מעשה מרכבה מסיני עד עמוד הימיני החסיד ר יצחק סגי נהור בן הקדוש ר׳ אברהם שבבקרש [שבפושקירש] This passage from Gikatilla’s פירוש ההגדה which is contained in Moses de Leon’s ספר הנפש החכמה is quoted by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 444. ↑
37 According to our tradition, these scholars have passed down a teaching about the mystical chariot from Sinai all the way to the righteous Rabbi Isaac Sagi Nahor, the son of the holy Rabbi Abraham from the town of Poshkirish. This passage from Gikatilla’s Interpretation of the Haggadah which is included in Moses de Leon’s Book of Wise Soul is referenced by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 444. ↑
39 In his Super-Commentary on Nachmanides’ Treatise on Secrets, (סודות הר״מבן) entitled כתר שם טוב or ספר שם טוב Shem Tob Ibn Gaon on Pericope וישלח remarks as follows כי פירוש פסוק זה הוא איש מפי איש עד ר׳ יצחק בן הרב [ראב״ד] עד אליהו הנביא In another Kabbalistic work, entitled בדי הארון ומגדל חננאל which he completed at Tafet in 1355, he says—ורבי עזרא ורבי עזריאל מגירונה חברו פירוש ההגדות על פי קבלה והוסיף עזרא לחבר פירוש התפילות.… כמו שקבלו מרבי יצחק סגי נהור These two works are still in MS, and the quotations are given in Cormoly’s Itinéraris, p. 276, and in Graetz’s Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 445. ↑
39 In his Super-Commentary on Nachmanides’ Treatise on Secrets, (Secrets of the Ramban) titled Keter Shem Tov or Good Name Book, Shem Tob Ibn Gaon discusses Pericope And he sent and notes, The meaning of this verse is from person to person, all the way from Rabbi Yitzhak ben the Rabbi [Rav Ad] to the prophet Elijah. In another Kabbalistic work, titled Bedi the Closet and Hananel Tower, which he completed in Tafet in 1355, he states—ורבי עזרא ורבי עזריאל מגירונה שיתפו פעולה בכתיבת פירוש ההגדות לפי הקבלה, ועזרא גם הוסיף פירוש לתפילות... כפי שלמדו מרבי יצחק סגי נהור. These two works are still in manuscript form, and the quotes can be found in Cormoly’s Itinéraris, p. 276, and in Graetz’s Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 445. ↑
III.
It now remains for us to describe the development of the Kabbalah, to point out the different schools into which its followers are divided, and to detail the literature which this theosophy called into existence in the course of time. The limits of this Essay demand that this should be done as briefly as possible.
It now remains for us to outline the development of the Kabbalah, highlight the different schools its followers belong to, and detail the literature that this theosophy has produced over time. The constraints of this Essay require that this be done as briefly as possible.
The great land mark in the development of the Kabbalah is the birth of the Sohar, which divides the history of this theosophy into two periods, viz., the pre-Sohar period and the post-Sohar period. During these two periods different schools developed themselves, which are classified by the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz, as follows:—1
The significant milestone in the evolution of Kabbalah is the emergence of the Zohar, which splits the history of this mystical tradition into two phases: the pre-Zohar phase and the post-Zohar phase. Throughout these two phases, various schools of thought emerged, categorized by the knowledgeable historian, Dr. Graetz, as follows:—1
I.—THE SCHOOL OF GERONA, so called from the fact that the founders of it were born in this place and established the school in it. To this school, which is the cradle of the Kabbalah, belong
I.—THE SCHOOL OF GERONA, named because its founders were born here and established the school in this location. This school, which is the origin of the Kabbalah, belongs
1. Isaac the Blind (flour. 1190–1210), denominated the Father of the Kabbalah. His productions have become a prey to time, and only a few fragments have survived as quotations in other theosophic works. From these we learn that he espoused the despised doctrine of metempsychosis as an article of creed, and that from looking into a man’s face, he could tell whether the individual possessed a new soul from the celestial world of spirits, or whether he had an old soul which has been migrating from body to body and has still to accomplish its purity before its return to rest in its heavenly home. [190]
1. Isaac the Blind (fl. 1190–1210), known as the Father of the Kabbalah. His works have largely been lost to time, with only a few fragments remaining as quotes in other theosophical texts. From these, we learn that he held the generally rejected belief in metempsychosis as part of his creed, and that by looking at a person’s face, he could determine whether that person had a new soul from the celestial realm of spirits, or whether they possessed an old soul that has been moving from body to body and still needs to achieve purity before returning to rest in its heavenly home. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
2. Azariel and Ezra, disciples of Isaac the Blind. The former of these is the author of the celebrated Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, which is the first Kabbalistic production, and of which we have given an analysis in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 176). Of Ezra next to nothing is known beyond the fact that his great intimacy with Azariel led some writers to identify the two names.
2. Azariel and Ezra, students of Isaac the Blind. Azariel is the author of the famous Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, which is the first Kabbalistic work, and we have provided an analysis of it in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 176). There is almost no information about Ezra other than that his close relationship with Azariel caused some writers to confuse the two names.
3. Jehudah b. Jakar, a contemporary of the foregoing Kabbalists. No works of his have survived, and he is only known as the teacher of the celebrated Nachmanides and from being quoted as a Kabbalistic authority.
3. Jehudah b. Jakar, a contemporary of the earlier Kabbalists. No works of his have survived, and he is only recognized as the teacher of the famous Nachmanides and for being cited as a Kabbalistic authority.
4. Moses Nachmanides, born in Gerona about 1195, the pupil of Azariel, Ezra, and Jehudah Ibn Jakar. It was the conversion of this remarkable and famous Talmudist to this newly-born Kabbalah which gave to it an extraordinary importance and rapid spread amongst the numerous followers of Nachmanides. It is related that, notwithstanding all the efforts of his teachers, Nachmanides at first was decidedly adverse to this system; and that one day the Kabbalist who most exerted himself to convert him was caught in a house of ill fame and condemned to death. He requested Nachmanides to visit him on the Sabbath, being the day fixed for his execution; and when Nachmanides reproved him for his sins, the Kabbalist declared that he was innocent, and that he would appear at his house on this very day, after the execution, and partake with him the Sabbath meal. He proved true to his promise, as by means of the Kabbalistic mysteries he effected that, and an ass was executed in his stead, and he himself was suddenly transposed into Nachmanides’ house. From that time Nachmanides avowed himself a disciple of the Kabbalah, and was initiated into its mysteries.2 His numerous writings, an account of which will be found in Alexander’s edition of [191]Kitto’s Cyclopædia, under Nachmanides, are pervaded with the tenets of this system. In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch he remarks—“We possess a faithful tradition that the whole Pentateuch consists of names of the Holy One, blessed be he; for the words may be divided into sacred names in another sense, so that it is to be taken as an allegory. Thus the words—בראשית ברא אלהים in Gen. i, 1 , may be redivided into other words, ex. gr. בראש יתברא אלהים. In like manner is the whole Pentateuch, which consists of nothing but transpositions and numerals of divine names.”3
4. Moses Nachmanides, born in Gerona around 1195, was a student of Azariel, Ezra, and Jehudah Ibn Jakar. His conversion from a remarkable and well-known Talmudist to this newly emerging Kabbalah gave it incredible significance and led to its rapid spread among Nachmanides’ many followers. It’s said that, despite his teachers’ efforts, Nachmanides was initially very opposed to this system; and one day, the Kabbalist who tried hardest to convert him was caught in a house of ill repute and sentenced to death. He asked Nachmanides to visit him on the Sabbath, the day set for his execution; and when Nachmanides scolded him for his sins, the Kabbalist insisted he was innocent and promised he would appear at Nachmanides’ house that very day after the execution and join him for the Sabbath meal. He kept his promise, as through Kabbalistic mysteries he made it happen, and instead, a donkey was executed in his place while he was suddenly transported to Nachmanides’ home. From that point on, Nachmanides declared himself a disciple of the Kabbalah and was initiated into its mysteries.2 His numerous writings, which are listed in Alexander’s edition of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Kitto’s Cyclopædia, under Nachmanides, are filled with the principles of this system. In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch, he notes, “We have a reliable tradition that the entire Pentateuch consists of names of the Holy One, blessed be He; for the words can be divided into sacred names in a different sense, so it can be interpreted as an allegory. For example, the words—In the beginning, God created in Gen. i, 1, can be rearranged into other words, ex. gr. In the beginning, God created.. In the same way, the entire Pentateuch consists solely of rearrangements and numbers of divine names.”3
5. The Treatise on the Emanations (מסכת אצילות), supposed to have been written by R. Isaac Nasir in the first half of the twelfth century. The following is an analysis of this production. Based upon the passage—“Jaresiah and Eliah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham” ( 1 Chron. viii, 27 ), which names the Midrash assigns to the prophet Eliah (Shemoth Rabba, cap. xl), this prophet is introduced as speaking and teaching under the four names of Eliah b. Josep, Jaresiah b. Joseph, Zechariah b. Joseph and Jeroham b. Joseph. Having stated that the secret and profounder views of the Deity are only to be communicated to the God-fearing, and that none but the pre-eminently pious can enter into the temple of this higher gnosis, the prophet Elias propounds the system of this secret doctrine, which consists in the following maxims—“I. God at first created light and darkness, the one for the pious and the other for the wicked, darkness having come to pass by the divine limitation of light. II. God produced and destroyed sundry worlds, which, like ten trees planted upon a narrow space, contend about the sap of the soil, and finally perish altogether. III. God manifested himself in four worlds, [192]viz.—Atzilah, Beriah, Jetzira and Asiah, corresponding to the Tetragrammaton יהוה. In the Atzilatic luminous world is the divine majesty, the Shechinah. In the Briatic world are the souls of the saints, all the blessings, the throne of the Deity, he who sits on it in the form of Achtenal (the crown of God, the first Sephira), and the seven different luminous and splendid regions. In the Jetziratic world are the sacred animals from the vision of Ezekiel, the ten classes of angels with their princes, who are presided over by the fiery Metatron, the spirits of men, and the accessory work of the divine chariot. In the Assiatic world are the Ophanim, the angels who receive the prayers, who are appointed over the will of man, who control the action of mortals, who carry on the struggle against evil, and who are presided over by the angelic prince Synandelphon. IV. The world was founded in wisdom and understanding ( Prov. iii, 19 ), and God in his knowledge originated fifty gates of understanding. V. God created the world by means of the ten Sephiroth, which are both the agencies and qualities of the Deity. The ten Sephiroth are called Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Fear, Beauty, Victory, Majesty and Kingdom: they are ideal and stand above the concrete world.”4
5. The Treatise on the Emanations (מסכת אצילות), is believed to have been written by R. Isaac Nasir in the first half of the twelfth century. Below is an analysis of this work. Based on the passage—“Jaresiah and Eliah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham” (1 Chron. viii, 27), which the Midrash attributes to the prophet Eliah (Shemoth Rabba, cap. xl), this prophet is introduced as speaking and teaching under the four names of Eliah b. Josep, Jaresiah b. Joseph, Zechariah b. Joseph, and Jeroham b. Joseph. The prophet Eliyah states that the deeper and more profound understandings of the Deity should only be revealed to those who fear God, and that only the exceptionally pious can enter the temple of this higher knowledge. He then presents the system of this secret doctrine, which is based on the following principles—“I. God initially created light and darkness, with light meant for the righteous and darkness for the wicked, the latter emerging from the divine limitation of light. II. God created and destroyed various worlds, which, like ten trees planted in a small area, compete for nutrients and ultimately perish entirely. III. God revealed Himself in four worlds, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]namely—Atzilah, Beriah, Jetzira, and Asiah, corresponding to the Tetragrammaton יהוה. In the Atzilatic luminous world resides the divine presence, the Shechinah. In the Briatic world are the souls of the saints, along with all blessings, the throne of God, He who occupies it in the form of Achtenal (the crown of God, the first Sephira), and the seven distinct luminous and magnificent realms. In the Jetziratic world are the sacred creatures from Ezekiel's vision, the ten classes of angels with their leaders, overseen by the fiery Metatron, the spirits of humanity, and the supporting structures of the divine chariot. In the Assyrian world are the Ophanim, the angels responsible for receiving prayers, governing human will, controlling human actions, battling against evil, and who are led by the angelic prince Synandelphon. IV. The world was established through wisdom and understanding (Prov. iii, 19), and through His knowledge, God created fifty gates of understanding. V. God created the world using the ten Sephiroth, which represent both the instruments and attributes of the Deity. The ten Sephiroth are titled Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Fear, Beauty, Victory, Majesty, and Kingdom: they are ideal and exist above the physical world.”4
6. Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona (flour. 1243). He wrote a Kabbalistic Treatise in rhymed prose, entitled שער השמים the Gate of Heaven, after Gen. xxviii, 17 . It was first published by Gabriel Warshawer in his collection of eight Kabbalistic Essays, called ספר לקוטימ בקבלה. Warsaw, 1798. It forms the third Essay in this collection, and is erroneously entitled לקוטי שם טוב the Collection of Shem Tob. It has now been published under its proper title, from a codex by [193]Mordecai Mortera, in the Hebrew Essays and Reviews, entitled Ozar Nechmad (אוצר נחמד) vol. iii, p. 153, &c. Vienna, 1860.
6. Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona (flour. 1243). He wrote a Kabbalistic Treatise in rhymed prose, titled Gate of Heaven the Gate of Heaven, based on Gen. xxviii, 17. It was first published by Gabriel Warshawer in his collection of eight Kabbalistic Essays, called ספר אלקוטים בקבלה. Warsaw, 1798. It is the third Essay in this collection and is mistakenly titled ליקוטי שושנים the Collection of Shem Tob. It has now been published under its correct title, from a manuscript by [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Mordecai Mortera, in the Hebrew Essays and Reviews, titled Ozar Nechmad (Nice treasure) vol. iii, p. 153, &c. Vienna, 1860.
The characteristic feature of this school, which is the creative school, is that it for the first time established and developed the doctrine of the En Soph (אין סוף), the Sephiroth (ספירות) or Emanations, metempsychosis (סוד העבור) with the doctrine of retribution (סוד הגמול) belonging thereto, and a peculiar christology, whilst the Kabbalistic mode of exegesis is still subordinate in it.
The key feature of this creative school is that it established and developed the concept of the En Soph (אין סוף), the Sephiroth (Sefirot), or Emanations, along with the ideas of metempsychosis (The secret of the past) and a doctrine of retribution (The Reward's Secret). It also features a unique christology, while the Kabbalistic method of interpretation remains secondary in this context.
II.—THE SCHOOL OF SEGOVIA, so called because it was founded by Jacob of Segovia, and its disciples were either natives of this place or lived in it. The chief representatives of this school are—
II.—THE SCHOOL OF SEGOVIA, named after Jacob of Segovia who founded it, and its students were either from this area or resided here. The main figures of this school are—
1, Isaac, and 2, Jacob, junior, the two sons of Jacob Segovia, and 3, Moses b. Simon of Burgos, who are only known by sundry fragments preserved in Kabbalistic writings.
1, Isaac, and 2, Jacob, junior, the two sons of Jacob Segovia, and 3, Moses b. Simon of Burgos, who are only known by various fragments preserved in Kabbalistic writings.
4. Todras b. Joseph Ha-Levi Abulafia, born 1234, died circa 1305. This celebrated Kabbalist occupied a distinguished position as physician and financier in the court of Sancho IV, King of Castile, and was a great favourite of Queen Maria de Moline; he formed one of the cortége when this royal pair met Philip IV, the Fair, King of France in Bayonne (1290), and his advocacy of this theosophy secured for the doctrines of the Kabbalah a kindly reception. His works on the Kabbalah are—(a) An Exposition of the Talmudic Hagadoth, entitled אוצר הכבוד, (b) A Commentary on Ps. xix, and (c) A Commentary on the Pentateuch, in which he propounds the tenets of the Kabbalah. These works, however, have not as yet been printed.5
4. Todras b. Joseph Ha-Levi Abulafia, born 1234, died around 1305. This famous Kabbalist held a prominent role as a physician and financier in the court of Sancho IV, King of Castile, and was a favorite of Queen Maria de Moline. He was part of the cortége when this royal couple met Philip IV, the Fair, King of France in Bayonne (1290), and his support of this philosophy helped the Kabbalah's teachings be well received. His works on the Kabbalah are—(a) An Exposition of the Talmudic Hagadoth, titled Treasure chest, (b) A Commentary on Ps. xix, and (c) A Commentary on the Pentateuch, where he explains the beliefs of the Kabbalah. However, these works have not yet been published.5
5. Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, born 1283, died circa 1332, who wrote many Kabbalistic works.
5. Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, born in 1283 and died around 1332, wrote numerous Kabbalistic works.
6. Isaac of Akko (flour. 1290) author of the Kabbalistic [194]Commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled מאירת עינים not yet printed, with the exception of an extract published by Jellinek.6
6. Isaac of Akko (fl. 1290), author of the Kabbalistic [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Commentary on the Pentateuch, titled ׁשובה ראויה, has not been printed, apart from an excerpt published by Jellinek.6
The characteristic of this school is that it is devoted to exegesis, and its disciples endeavoured to interpret the Bible and the Hagada in accordance with the doctrines of the Kabbalah.
The defining feature of this school is its focus on interpretation, and its students worked to explain the Bible and the Hagada in line with the teachings of the Kabbalah.
III.—THE QUASI-PHILOSOPHIC SCHOOL of Isaac b. Abraham Ibn-Latif, or Allatif. He was born about 1270 and died about 1390. Believing that to view Judaism from an exclusively philosophical stand-point does not shew “the right way to the sanctuary,” he endeavoured to combine philosophy with Kabbalah. “He laid greater stress than his predecessors on the close connection and intimate union between the spiritual and material world, between the Creator and the creation—God is in all and everything is in him. The human soul rises to the world-soul in earnest prayer, and unites itself therewith ‘in a kiss,’ operates upon the Deity and brings down a divine blessing upon the nether world. But as every mortal is not able to offer such a spiritual and divinely operative prayer, the prophets, who were the most perfect men, had to pray for the people, for they alone knew the power of prayer. Isaac Allatif illustrated the unfolding and self-revelation of the Deity in the world of spirits by mathematical forms. The mutual relation thereof is the same as that of the point extending and thickening into a line, the line into the flat, the flat into the expanded body. Henceforth the Kabbalists used points and lines in their mystical diagrams as much as they employed the numerals and letters of the alphabet.7
III.—THE QUASI-PHILOSOPHIC SCHOOL of Isaac b. Abraham Ibn-Latif, or Allatif. He was born around 1270 and died around 1390. He believed that viewing Judaism purely from a philosophical perspective didn't reveal “the right way to the sanctuary,” so he tried to combine philosophy with Kabbalah. “He emphasized more than his predecessors the close connection and intimate union between the spiritual and material worlds, between the Creator and creation—God is in everything, and everything is in Him. The human soul rises to the world-soul in genuine prayer and unites with it ‘in a kiss,’ influencing the Deity and bringing a divine blessing down to the earthly realm. But since not everyone is capable of offering such a spiritual and divinely effective prayer, the prophets, who were the most perfect individuals, had to pray for the people, as they alone understood the power of prayer. Isaac Allatif represented the unfolding and self-revelation of the Deity in the spiritual world using mathematical forms. The relationship is similar to that of a point expanding and thickening into a line, the line into a plane, and the plane into a three-dimensional body. From then on, the Kabbalists used points and lines in their mystical diagrams just as much as they used numbers and letters of the alphabet.7
IV. THE SCHOOL OF ABULAFIA, founded by Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia, is represented by— [195]
IV. THE SCHOOL OF ABULAFIA, founded by Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia, is represented by— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
1. Abulafia, the founder of it, who was born at Saragossa in 1240, and died circa 1292. For thirty years he devoted himself to the study of the Bible, the Talmud, philology, philosophy, and medicine, making himself master of the philosophical writings of Saadia, Bachja b. Joseph, Maimonides, and Antoli, as well as of the Kabbalistic works which were then in existence. Finding no comfort in philosophy, he gave himself entirely to the mysteries of the Kabbalah in their most fantastic extremes, as the ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth did not satisfy him. The ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth he simply regarded as a ten unity instead of the Christian three unity. Through divine inspiration, he discovered a higher Kabbalah, by means of which the soul can not only hold the most intimate communion with the world-soul, but obtain the prophetic faculty. The simple intercourse with the world of spirits, which is effected by separating the words of Holy Writ, and especially those of the divine name, into letters, and by regarding each letter as a distinct word (נוטריקון), or by transposing the component parts of words in every possible way to obtain thereby peculiar expressions (צירוף), or by taking the letters of each word as numerals (גמטריא), is not sufficient. To have the prophetic faculty and to see visions ought to be the chief aim, and these are secured by leading an ascetic life, by banishing all worldly feelings, by retiring into a quiet closet, by dressing oneself in white apparel, by putting on the fringed garment and the phylacteries; by sanctifying the soul so as to be fit to hold converse with the Deity; by pronouncing the letters composing the divine name with certain modulations of the voice and divine pauses; by exhibiting the divine names in various diagrams under divers energetic movements, turnings, and bendings of the body, till the voice gets confused and the heart is filled with fervour. When one has gone through these practices and is in such a condition, the fulness of the [196]Godhead is shed abroad in the human soul: the soul then unites itself with the divine soul in a kiss, and prophetic revelations follow as a matter of course.
1. Abulafia, its founder, was born in Saragossa in 1240 and died around 1292. For thirty years, he dedicated himself to studying the Bible, the Talmud, linguistics, philosophy, and medicine, mastering the philosophical works of Saadia, Bachja b. Joseph, Maimonides, and Antoli, along with the Kabbalistic texts available at that time. Not finding solace in philosophy, he fully immersed himself in the mysteries of the Kabbalah, exploring its most extreme aspects, as the standard teachings about the Sephiroth left him unsatisfied. He viewed the usual concept of the Sephiroth simply as a ten unity rather than the Christian three unity. Through divine inspiration, he uncovered a higher Kabbalah that allowed the soul not only to connect deeply with the world-soul but also to gain the ability to prophesy. The basic interaction with the spiritual realm, which involves breaking down the words of sacred texts, especially those of the divine name, into letters and considering each letter as a separate word (Acronym), or rearranging the parts of words in every possible manner to create unique phrases (Combination), or interpreting the letters of each word as numbers (Gematria), is insufficient. Attaining the prophetic ability and having visions should be the main goal, and these can be achieved by living an ascetic life, eliminating all worldly emotions, retreating into a quiet space, wearing white clothing, donning the fringed garment and phylacteries; by sanctifying the soul to be ready for communion with the Divine; by articulating the letters of the divine name with specific voice modulations and pauses; by displaying the divine names in various diagrams while performing energetic movements, bends, and turns of the body until the voice becomes disoriented and the heart swells with passion. Once these practices are completed and one is in such a state, the fullness of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Godhead radiates through the human soul: the soul then merges with the divine soul in a kiss, and prophetic revelations naturally follow.
He went to Italy, published, in Urbino (1279), a prophecy, in which he records his conversations with the Deity, calling himself Raziel and Zechariah, because these names are numerically the same as his own name, Abraham,8 and preached the doctrines of the Kabbalah. In 1281 he had a call from God to convert the Pope, Martin IV, to Judaism, for which he was thrown into prison, and narrowly escaped a martyr’s death by fire. Seeing that his Holiness refused to embrace the Jewish religion, Abulafia went to Sicily, accompanied by several of his disciples. In Messina another revelation from God was vouchsafed to him, announcing to him that he was the Messiah, which he published 1284. This apocalypse also announced that the restoration of Israel would take place in 1296; and so great was the faith which the people reposed in it, that thousands prepared themselves for returning to Palestine. Those, however, who did not believe in the Messiahship and in the Kabbalah of Abulafia, raised such a violent storm of opposition against him, that he had to escape to the island of Comino, near Malta (circa 1288), where he remained for some time, and wrote sundry Kabbalistic works.
He went to Italy and published a prophecy in Urbino (1279), in which he shares his conversations with God, referring to himself as Raziel and Zechariah because these names have the same numerical value as his name, Abraham. He preached the teachings of the Kabbalah. In 1281, he received a divine call to convert Pope Martin IV to Judaism, for which he was imprisoned and narrowly escaped being martyred by fire. When His Holiness refused to accept the Jewish religion, Abulafia went to Sicily with several of his disciples. In Messina, he received another revelation from God, claiming he was the Messiah, which he published in 1284. This prophecy also said that the restoration of Israel would happen in 1296, and so strong was the faith of the people in it that thousands prepared to return to Palestine. However, those who did not believe in Abulafia's Messiahship and Kabbalah created such intense opposition against him that he had to flee to the island of Comino, near Malta (circa 1288), where he stayed for a while and wrote various Kabbalistic works.
His Kabbalistic system may be gathered from the following analysis of his Rejoinder to R. Solomon ben Abraham ben Adereth, who attacked his doctrines and Messianic as well as prophetic pretensions. “There are,” says Abulafia, “four sources of knowledge—I, The five senses, or experimental maxims; II, Abstract numbers or à priori maxims; III, The generally acknowledged maxims, or consensus communis; [197]and IV, Transmitted doctrines or traditional maxims. The Kabbalistic tradition, which goes back to Moses, is divisible into two parts, the first of which is superior to the second in value, but subordinate to it in the order of study. The first part is occupied with the knowledge of the Deity, obtained by means of the doctrine of the Sephiroth, as propounded in the Book Jetzira. The followers of this part are related to those philosophers who strive to know God from his works, and the Deity stands before them objectively as a light beaming into their understanding. These, moreover, give to the Sephiroth sundry names to serve as signs for recognition; and some of this class differ but little from Christians, inasmuch as they substitute a decade for the triad, which they identify with God, and which they learned in the school of Isaac the Blind.
His Kabbalistic system can be understood through the following examination of his response to R. Solomon ben Abraham ben Adereth, who criticized his ideas as well as his claims of being Messianic and prophetic. “There are,” says Abulafia, “four sources of knowledge—I, The five senses, or experimental principles; II, Abstract numbers or a priori principles; III, The generally accepted principles, or consensus communis; and IV, Transmitted doctrines or traditional principles. The Kabbalistic tradition, which dates back to Moses, can be divided into two parts; the first part is considered more valuable than the second, but it is studied after the second. The first part focuses on understanding the Deity, which is achieved through the doctrine of the Sephiroth, as outlined in the Book Jetzira. The followers of this part are similar to those philosophers who seek to know God through His works, and the Deity appears to them as a light illuminating their understanding. Additionally, these followers assign various names to the Sephiroth as recognition signs; some within this group are quite similar to Christians, as they replace a decade for the triad that they associate with God, which they learned in the school of Isaac the Blind.
“The second and more important part strives to know God by means of the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, from which, together with the vowel points and accents, those sundry divine names are combined, which elevate the Kabbalists to the degree of prophecy, drawing out their spirit, and causing it to be united with God and to become one with the Deity. This is gradually effected in the following manner. The ten Sephiroth sublimate gradually to the upper Sephira, called thought, crown, or primordial air, which is the root of all the other Sephiroth, and reposes in the creative En Soph. In the same manner all the numerals are to be traced back to one, and all the trees, together with their roots and branches, are converted into their original earth as soon as they are thrown into the fire. To the ten Sephiroth, consisting of upper, middle and lower, correspond the letters of the alphabet, which are divided into three rows of ten letters each, the final letters inclusive, beginning and ending with Aleph; as well as the human body, with its head, the two arms, loins, testicles, liver, heart, brain, all of which unite into a higher unity and become one in the active νοῦς, which in its [198]turn again unites itself with God, as the unity to which everything must return.
“The second and more significant part aims to understand God through the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, which, along with the vowel points and accents, form various divine names that elevate the Kabbalists to the level of prophecy, drawing out their spirit, and merging it with God to become one with the Deity. This process happens gradually in the following way. The ten Sephiroth ascend to the upper Sephira, known as thought, crown, or primordial air, which is the foundation of all the other Sephiroth, resting in the creative En Soph. In the same way, all numerals trace back to one, and all trees, along with their roots and branches, revert to their original earth when they are cast into the fire. The ten Sephiroth, comprised of upper, middle, and lower, correspond to the letters of the alphabet, divided into three rows of ten letters each, including the final letters, starting and ending with Aleph; as well as the human body, with its head, two arms, loins, testicles, liver, heart, brain, all of which unite into a higher unity and become one in the active νοῦς, which in its [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] in turn reunites with God, as the unity to which everything must return.
“The ten Sephiroth are after a higher conception, to be traced to a higher triad, which correspond to the letters Aleph, Beth, Gimmel, and the three principles combined in man, the vital in the heart, the vegetable in the liver, and the pleasurable in the brain, and also form themselves in a higher unity. It is in this way that the Kabbalist who is initiated into the prophetic Kabbalah may gradually concentrate all his powers direct to one point to God, and unite himself with the Deity, for which purpose the ideas developed in unbroken sequence, from the permutations of numbers and letters, will serve him as steps upon which to ascend to God.”9
“The ten Sephiroth are based on a higher idea, linked to a superior triad, which correspond to the letters Aleph, Beth, Gimmel, and the three principles that exist within a person: the vital aspect in the heart, the vegetative aspect in the liver, and the pleasurable aspect in the brain, which also come together in a higher unity. This is how the Kabbalist, who is initiated into the prophetic Kabbalah, can gradually focus all his energy directly towards one point—God—and connect with the Divine. For this purpose, the concepts developed in a continuous sequence, stemming from the rearrangement of numbers and letters, will act as a series of steps that lead him to God.”9
Abulafia wrote no less than twenty-six grammatical, exegetical, mystical and Kabbalistic works, and twenty-two prophetic treatises. And though these productions are of great importance to the history of the literature and development of the Kabbalah, yet only two of them, viz., the above-named Epistle to R. Solomon and the Epistle to R. Abraham, entitled the Seven Paths of the Law (סוע נתיבות התורה), have as yet been published.
Abulafia wrote at least twenty-six works on grammar, interpretation, mysticism, and Kabbalah, along with twenty-two prophetic treatises. While these writings are very significant to the history of Kabbalistic literature and its development, only two of them, namely the aforementioned Epistle to R. Solomon and the Epistle to R. Abraham, titled the Seven Paths of the Law (Sow the paths of Torah), have been published so far.
2. Joseph Gikatilla b. Abraham (flour. 1260), disciple of Abulafia. He wrote in the interests and defence of this school the following works:—i. A Kabbalistic work entitled the Garden of Nuts (גנת אגוז), consisting of three parts, and treating respectively on the import of the divine names, on the mysteries of the Hebrew letters, and on the vowel points. It was published at Hanau, 1615. ii. The import of the vowel points entitled the Book on Vowels (ספר הניקוד), or the Gate to the Points (שער הניקוד), published in the collection of seven treatises, called the Cedars of Lebanon [199](ארזי לבנון), Venice, 1601, and Cracow, 1648, of which it is the third treatise. iii. The Mystery of the Shining Metal (סוד החשמל), being a Kabbalistic exposition of the first chapter of Ezekiel, also published in the preceding seven treatises, of which it is the fourth. iv. The Gate of Light (שער אורה), being a treatise on the names of the Deity and the ten Sephiroth, first published in Mantua, 1561; then Riva de Trento, 1561; Cracow, 1600. A Latin version of it by Knorr von Rosenroth is given in the first part of the Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677–78. v. The Gates of Righteousness (שערי צדק), on the ten divine names answering to the ten Sephiroth, published at Riva de Trento, 1561. vi. Mysteries (סודות) connected with sundry Pentateuchal ordinances, published by Jechiel Ashkenazi in his Temple of the Lord (היכל יהוה), Venice and Dantzic, 1596–1606.10
2. Joseph Gikatilla b. Abraham (active around 1260), a student of Abulafia. He wrote the following works to support and defend this school:—i. A Kabbalistic work called The Garden of Nuts (נמל אגוז), which consists of three parts, focusing on the meaning of divine names, the mysteries of Hebrew letters, and vowel points. It was published in Hanau in 1615. ii. A work on vowel points titled The Book on Vowels (ניקוד הספר), or The Gate to the Points (Niqud chart), included in a collection of seven treatises known as The Cedars of Lebanon [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__](לבנון cedars), published in Venice in 1601 and Cracow in 1648, where it is the third treatise. iii. The Mystery of the Shining Metal (Secret of electricity), which is a Kabbalistic interpretation of the first chapter of Ezekiel, also published in the same collection as the fourth treatise. iv. The Gate of Light (Shaar Orah), a treatise about the names of God and the ten Sephiroth, first published in Mantua in 1561; then in Riva de Trento in 1561; and Cracow in 1600. A Latin version by Knorr von Rosenroth appeared in the first part of the Kabbalah Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677–78. v. The Gates of Righteousness (Sha'arei Tzedek), which discusses the ten divine names corresponding to the ten Sephiroth, published in Riva de Trento in 1561. vi. Mysteries (Secrets) related to various Pentateuchal laws, published by Jechiel Ashkenazi in his Temple of the Lord (Temple of Yahweh), in Venice and Dantzic, from 1596 to 1606.10
From the above description it will be seen that the characteristic features of this school are the stress which its followers lay on the extensive use of the exegetical rules called Gematria (גמטריא), Notaricon (נוטריקון), and Ziruph (צירוף), in the exposition of the divine names and Holy Writ, as well as in the claim to prophetic gifts. It must, however, be remarked that in this employment of commutations, permutations and reduction of each letter in every word to its numerical value, Abulafia and his followers are not original.
From the above description, it’s clear that the key features of this school are the emphasis its followers place on the extensive use of the exegetical rules known as Gematria (Gematria), Notaricon (נוטריקון), and Ziruph (Combination), in interpreting the divine names and Holy Scriptures, as well as in their claims to prophetic abilities. However, it should be noted that in using combinations, permutations, and reducing each letter in every word to its numerical value, Abulafia and his followers are not original.
V. THE SOHAR SCHOOL, which is a combination and absorption of the different features and doctrines of all the previous schools, without any plan or method.
V. THE SOHAR SCHOOL, which blends and incorporates the various aspects and beliefs of all the earlier schools, without any specific plan or method.
1236–1315. Less than a century after its birth the Kabbalah became known among Christians through the restless efforts of Raymond Lully, the celebrated scholastic metaphysician and experimental chemist. This Doctor illuminatus, as he was styled, in consequence of his great learning and [200]piety, was born about 1236 at Palma, in the island of Majorca. He relinquished the military service and writing erotic poetry when about thirty, and devoted himself to the study of theology. Being inspired with an ardent zeal for the conversion of the Mohammedans and the Jews to Christianity, he acquired a knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew for this purpose. In pursuing his Hebrew studies Lully became acquainted with the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and, instead of converting his Kabbalistic teachers, he embraced the doctrine of “the identity of the Deity and nature;”11 and there is very little doubt that the Kabbalistic method of palming their notions on the text of Scripture, by means of the Gematria, Notaricon and Ziruph, suggested to him the invention of the Great Art (Ars Magna). It is therefore not to be wondered at that he had the loftiest conception of the Kabbalah, that he regarded it as a divine science and as a genuine revelation whose light is revealed to a rational soul.12 It cannot be said that Lully derived as much benefit from the Mohammedans, for after making three perilous journeys to Africa to bring the sons of Ishmael to the truth of Christianity, he was stoned to death by them, June 30, 1315.
1236–1315. Less than a century after it began, Kabbalah became known among Christians through the tireless efforts of Raymond Lully, the renowned scholar and experimental chemist. This Doctor illuminatus, as he was called due to his extensive knowledge and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]devotion, was born around 1236 in Palma, on the island of Majorca. He left the military and stopped writing erotic poetry when he was about thirty to focus on studying theology. Driven by a strong desire to convert Muslims and Jews to Christianity, he learned Arabic and Hebrew for this purpose. As he studied Hebrew, Lully discovered the mysteries of Kabbalah, and rather than converting his Kabbalistic teachers, he adopted the belief in “the identity of the Deity and nature.” There is little doubt that the Kabbalistic method of interpreting Scripture using Gematria, Notaricon, and Ziruph inspired him to invent the Great Art (Great Art). It's no surprise that he held Kabbalah in high esteem, viewing it as a divine science and a true revelation meant for a rational soul. It can't be said that Lully benefited much from the Muslims, as after making three dangerous trips to Africa to lead the sons of Ishmael to the truth of Christianity, he was stoned to death by them on June 30, 1315.
The new era in the development of the Kabbalah, created by the appearance of the Sohar, has continued to the present day, for nearly all those who have since espoused the doctrines of this theosophy have made the Sohar their text-book, and the principal writers have contented themselves more or less with writing commentaries on this gigantic pseudonym.
The new era in the development of the Kabbalah, sparked by the emergence of the Sohar, has continued to this day, as nearly everyone who has adopted the doctrines of this theosophy has made the Sohar their main text, with most key writers focusing on writing commentaries on this monumental pseudonym.
1290–1350. Foremost among these is Menahem di Recanti, who was born in Recanti (Latin Recinetum) about 1290. He wrote, when about forty years of age (1330), a commentary [201]on the Pentateuch, which is little else than a commentary on the Sohar. This commentary—which was first published by Jacob b. Chajim in Bomberg’s celebrated printing establishment, Venice, 1523, then again, ibid., 1545, and in Lublin, 1595—has been translated into Latin by the famous Pico della Mirandola.13
1290–1350. The most notable among these is Menahem di Recanti, who was born in Recanti (Latin Recinetum) around 1290. When he was about forty years old (1330), he wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, which primarily serves as a commentary on the Sohar. This commentary—originally published by Jacob b. Chajim at Bomberg’s renowned printing house in Venice in 1523, then again, ibid., in 1545, and in Lublin in 1595—has been translated into Latin by the well-known Pico della Mirandola.13
1320. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Joseph b. Abraham Ibn Wakkar (flour. 1290–1340) endeavoured to reconcile this theosophy with philosophy, and to this end wrote a Treatise on the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah, which is regarded as one of the best if not the best introductory compendium. This production, which is unpublished, and a MS. of which exists in the Bodleian Library (Codex Land. 119; described by Uri No. 384), consists of four parts or Gates, subdivided into chapters, as follows:—
1320. At the start of the fourteenth century, Joseph b. Abraham Ibn Wakkar (flour. 1290–1340) tried to blend this theosophy with philosophy. To achieve this, he wrote a Treatise on the core beliefs of the Kabbalah, which is considered one of the best, if not the best, introductory guides. This work, which has not been published, and a manuscript of it can be found in the Bodleian Library (Codex Land. 119; described by Uri No. 384), is made up of four parts or Gates, broken down into chapters, as follows:—
Gate I, which is entitled, On the views of the Kabbalists respecting the Primary Cause, blessed be he, and the Sephiroth, as well as their names and order, consists of eight chapters, treating respectively on the fundamental doctrines of the emanations of the Sephiroth from the First Cause, as transmitted from Abraham and indicated in the Bible and the Rabbinic writings in Gematrias (cap. i); on the unity of the Sephiroth (cap. ii); the relation of the Sephiroth to each other, the First Cause itself being a trinity consisting of a threefold light, the number of the Sephiroth being from 10, 20, 30 and so on up to 310, stating that there is a difference of opinion amongst the Kabbalists whether the Primary Cause is within or without the Sephiroth (cap. iii); on the three worlds of the Sephiroth (cap. iv); on the beginninglessness of the first and necessary first Emanation, investigating the question as to how many Sephiroth this property extends (cap. v); on [202]the subordination and order of the Sephiroth and the diagrams, mentioning, in addition to the three known ones, the figure of bridegroom and bride under the nuptial canopy (cap. vi); on the names of the Deity and the angels derived from the Sephiroth (cap. vii); on the unclean (demon) Sephiroth or Hells (קליפות) and their relation to the pure ones (cap. viii).
Gate 1, titled On the views of the Kabbalists regarding the Primary Cause, blessed be he, and the Sephiroth, along with their names and order, consists of eight chapters that discuss the core beliefs about the emanations of the Sephiroth from the First Cause, as passed down from Abraham and reflected in the Bible and Rabbinic texts through Gematrias (cap. i); the unity of the Sephiroth (cap. ii); the relationships among the Sephiroth, where the First Cause itself is a trinity made up of a threefold light, with the number of Sephiroth ranging from 10, 20, 30, and so on up to 310, noting that Kabbalists have differing views on whether the Primary Cause is inside or outside the Sephiroth (cap. iii); the three worlds of the Sephiroth (cap. iv); the never-beginning nature of the first necessary Emanation, exploring how many Sephiroth this property applies to (cap. v); the hierarchy and arrangement of the Sephiroth and the diagrams, including, in addition to the three known diagrams, the representation of bridegroom and bride under the nuptial canopy (cap. vi); the names of the Deity and the angels that come from the Sephiroth (cap. vii); and the unclean (demon) Sephiroth or Hells (Peels) and how they relate to the pure ones (cap. viii).
Gate II, which is entitled, On the influence of the Sephiroth on the government of the world (Providence), consists of six chapters, treating respectively on the relation of the Sephiroth to the fundamental characteristics of Providence, such as mercy, justice, &c. (cap. i); on the corresponding relations of the unclean Sephiroth (cap. ii); on the influence of the Sephiroth on men, especially on the Hebrew race, and their vicissitudes (caps. iii and iv); on the possibility of the Sephiroth withholding this influence (cap. v); and on the relation of the Sephiroth to the days of the week (cap. vi).
Gate 2, titled On the Influence of the Sephiroth on the Government of the World (Providence), contains six chapters that explore the connection between the Sephiroth and the essential traits of Providence, like mercy, justice, etc. (cap. i); the related aspects of the unclean Sephiroth (cap. ii); the impact of the Sephiroth on humanity, particularly the Hebrew people, and their challenges (caps. iii and iv); the possibility of the Sephiroth withholding this influence (cap. v); and the relationship of the Sephiroth to the days of the week (cap. vi).
Gate III, which is entitled, On the names of the Sephiroth among the Kabbalists, and which is the most extensive part of the work, consists of seven chapters, treating respectively on the names of the Deity, giving the sundry explanations of אהיה אשר אהיה current among the Jewish philosophers (cap. i); on the names of the Sephiroth, stating that there is no uniform principle among the Kabbalists; that the appellations are derived from the Bible, the Talmud and later literati; that the greatest difference of opinion prevails among the Kabbalists as to the mode in which these ancient sources are to be interpreted, recommending the following works as reliable guides: the Talmud, Midrash Rabboth, Siphra, Siphri, Bahir, Perakim of R. Eliezer, the opinions of Nachmanides and Todros Ha-Levi Abulafia of honoured memory, but guarding against the Sohar, because “many blunders occur therein” (cap. ii); on the import of the names of the Sephiroth, with examples of interpretation of the Bible and Talmud [203]to serve as aids for the student who is to prosecute the work according to these examples, mentioning three explanations of the word Sephira (cap. iii); on the divine names occurring in the Pentateuch (cap. iv); on the masculine and feminine nature of the Sephiroth (cap. v); this is followed (cap. vi) by an alphabetical dictionary of the names of the Sephiroth, giving under each letter the Biblical and the corresponding Talmudic appellation appropriated by the Kabbalists to the Sephiroth; and (cap. vii) by an index of the names of each Sephira in alphabetical order without any explanation.
Gate 3, titled On the Names of the Sephiroth Among the Kabbalists, and which is the largest section of the work, includes seven chapters that cover the following topics: the names of the Deity, exploring various interpretations of I am who I am among Jewish philosophers (cap. i); the names of the Sephiroth, noting that there isn't a consistent principle among Kabbalists; that the names come from the Bible, the Talmud, and later scholars; that significant disagreements exist among Kabbalists about how to interpret these ancient texts, recommending the following works as trustworthy references: the Talmud, Midrash Rabboth, Siphra, Siphri, Bahir, the Perakim of R. Eliezer, and the views of Nachmanides and Todros Ha-Levi Abulafia of blessed memory, while cautioning against the Sohar, as “many blunders occur therein” (cap. ii); the significance of the names of the Sephiroth, with examples of interpretations from the Bible and Talmud [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to aid students in pursuing the work based on these examples, mentioning three interpretations of the word Sephira (cap. iii); the divine names found in the Pentateuch (cap. iv); the masculine and feminine aspects of the Sephiroth (cap. v); followed by (cap. vi) an alphabetical dictionary of the names of the Sephiroth, listing for each letter the Biblical and corresponding Talmudic names assigned by the Kabbalists to the Sephiroth; and (cap. vii) an index of the names of each Sephira arranged alphabetically without any explanations.
Gate IV, which is entitled On the positive proofs of the existence of the Kabbalah, describes the author’s own views of the Kabbalistic system, and submits that the Kabbalist has a preference over the philosopher and astronomer by virtue of the acknowledged maxim that he has a thorough knowledge of a thing who knows most details about it. Now the Kabbalists build their system upon the distinction of words, letters, &c., &c., in the sacred writings; and they also explain certain formularies among the Rabbins, which have undoubtedly a recondite sense.14
Gate 4, titled On the Positive Proofs of the Existence of the Kabbalah, outlines the author's personal views on the Kabbalistic system. It argues that Kabbalists hold an advantage over philosophers and astronomers because of the well-accepted idea that someone who knows all the details of a subject truly understands it. Kabbalists base their system on the distinctions among words, letters, etc., in the sacred texts, and they also interpret certain teachings from the Rabbis that clearly have a hidden meaning.14
1370–1500. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Kabbalah took deep root in Spain. Its followers, who were chiefly occupied with the study of the Sohar, with editing some older works, and with writing Kabbalistic commentaries on the Bible, became more and more aggressive, denouncing in unmeasured terms their co-religionists who could not see the advantages of this secret doctrine. Thus Abraham b. Isaac of Granada—who wrote (1391–1409) a Kabbalistic work entitled The Covenant of Peace, discussing [204]the mysteries of the names of God and the angels, of permutations, commutations, the vowel points and accents—declares that he who does not acknowledge God in the manner of the Kabbalah sins unwittingly, is not regarded by God, has not his special providence, and, like the abandoned and the wicked, is left to fate.15
1370–1500. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Kabbalah took strong root in Spain. Its followers, who mainly focused on studying The Sohar, editing some older works, and writing Kabbalistic commentaries on the Bible, became increasingly aggressive, harshly criticizing their fellow believers who couldn't see the benefits of this secret doctrine. For instance, Abraham b. Isaac of Granada—who wrote (1391–1409) a Kabbalistic work called The Covenant of Peace, discussing [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] the mysteries of the names of God and the angels, along with permutations, commutations, vowel points, and accents—states that anyone who doesn't acknowledge God in the way of the Kabbalah sins unknowingly, is not recognized by God, lacks His special providence, and, like the abandoned and the wicked, is left to chance.15
Similar in import and tone are the writings of Shem Tob Ibn Shem Tob (died 1430). In his Treatise, entitled the Book of Faithfulness, which is an attack on the Jewish philosophers Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Levi b. Gershon, &c., and a defence of the Kabbalah, Shem Tob denounces the students of philosophy as heretics, and maintains that the salvation of Israel depends upon the Kabbalah. He also wrote Homilies on the Pentateuch, the Feasts and Fasts, &c., in which the Kabbalistic doctrines are fully propounded.16
Similar in significance and tone are the writings of Shem Tob Ibn Shem Tob (died 1430). In his treatise titled the Book of Faithfulness, which critiques the Jewish philosophers Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Levi b. Gershon, etc., and defends the Kabbalah, Shem Tob condemns the students of philosophy as heretics and argues that Israel's salvation relies on the Kabbalah. He also wrote homilies on the Pentateuch, the Feasts and Fasts, etc., in which Kabbalistic doctrines are thoroughly explained.16
Moses Botarel or Botarelo, also a Spaniard, wrote at this time (1409) his commentary on the famous Book Jetzira, an analysis of which is given in the foregoing part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 147, &c.) Unlike Abraham of Granada and Shem Tob, his two contemporary champions of the Kabbalah, he praises philosophy, speaks of Aristotle as of a prophet, and maintains that philosophy and the Kabbalah propound exactly the some doctrines, and that they only differ in language and in technical terms. In this commentary, which he wrote to instruct the Christian scholar Maestro Juan in the Kabbalah, Botarel shows how, by fasting, ablutions, prayer, invocation of divine and angelic names, a man may have such dreams as shall disclose to him the secrets of the future. In confirmation of his opinions he quotes such ancient authorities as Rab Ashi, Saadia Gaon, Hai Gaon, &c., whom the Kabbalah claims as its great [205]pillars.17 It is almost needless to remark that these men lived long before the birth of the Kabbalah, and that this mode of palming comparatively modern opinions upon great men of remote ages, has also been adopted by advocates of other systems who were anxious to invest their views with the halo of antiquity.
Moses Botarel, or Botarelo, who was also from Spain, wrote his commentary on the famous Book Jetzira around 1409, which is analyzed in the earlier part of this essay (vide supra, p. 147, &c.). Unlike his contemporaries, Abraham of Granada and Shem Tob, who were champions of the Kabbalah, he praises philosophy, refers to Aristotle as a prophet, and argues that philosophy and the Kabbalah convey exactly the same principles, differing only in language and technical terminology. In this commentary, intended to educate the Christian scholar Maestro Juan about the Kabbalah, Botarel explains how fasting, purification rituals, prayer, and invoking divine and angelic names can lead to dreams that reveal future secrets. To support his views, he quotes ancient authorities like Rab Ashi, Saadia Gaon, Hai Gaon, etc., whom the Kabbalah regards as its main [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]pillars.17 It's almost unnecessary to point out that these individuals lived long before the Kabbalah was established, and this tactic of attributing relatively modern ideas to ancient figures has also been used by proponents of other systems who wanted to lend their views a sense of historical legitimacy.
As countrymen of the foregoing writers, and as exponents of the opinions of older Kabbalists, are to be mentioned—(i) Jehudah Chajath who was among the large number of Jews expelled from Spain in 1493, and who wrote a commentary on the Kabbalistic work, entitled The Divine Order;18 and (ii) Abraham Ibn Sabba, who was banished with thousands of his brethren from Lisbon, 1499, and who is the author of a very extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled The Bundle of Myrrh, in which he largely avails himself of the Sohar and other earlier Kabbalistic works.19
As countrymen of the earlier writers and representatives of the views of past Kabbalists, we should mention—(i) Jehudah Chajath, who was one of the many Jews expelled from Spain in 1493 and wrote a commentary on the Kabbalistic work called The Divine Order;18 and (ii) Abraham Ibn Sabba, who was exiled along with thousands of his fellow Jews from Lisbon in 1499 and is the author of a detailed commentary on the Pentateuch titled The Bundle of Myrrh, where he heavily references the Sohar and other earlier Kabbalistic writings.19
1463–1494. The Kabbalah, which soon after its birth became partially known to Christians through Raymond Lully, was now accessible to Christian scholars through the exertions and influence of the famous Count John Pico di Mirandola (born in 1463). This celebrated philosopher determined to fathom the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and for this purpose put himself under the tuition of a Jew, R. Jochanan Aleman, who came to Italy from Constantinople. His extraordinary intellectual powers soon enabled Mirandola to overcome the difficulties and to unravel the secrets of this theosophy. His labours were greatly rewarded; for, according to his shewing, [206]he found that20 there is more Christianity in the Kabbalah than Judaism; he discovered in it proof for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, original sin, the expiation thereof by Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory and hell-fire; in fact the same Gospel which we find in St. Paul, Dionysius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. As the result of his Kabbalistic studies Mirandola published, in 1486, when only twenty-four years of age, nine hundred Theses, which were placarded in Rome, and which he undertook to defend in the presence of all European scholars, whom he invited to the eternal city, promising to defray their travelling expenses. Among these Theses was the following, “No science yields greater proof of the divinity of Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.”21 Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was so delighted with it that he greatly exerted himself to have Kabbalistic writings translated into Latin for the use of divinity students.22 Mirandola accordingly translated the following three works: 1, Menahem di Recanti’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, erroneously called R. Levi de Recineto (Wolf, ibid., p. 10); 2, Eliezer of Worms’ חכמת הנפש de Scientia animae; and 3, Shem Tob Falaquera’s ספר המעלות
1463–1494. The Kabbalah, which quickly became known to Christians through Raymond Lully, was now accessible to Christian scholars thanks to the efforts and influence of the famous Count John Pico di Mirandola (born in 1463). This renowned philosopher sought to understand the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and for this, he studied under a Jewish teacher, R. Jochanan Aleman, who had come to Italy from Constantinople. Mirandola's remarkable intellect soon allowed him to navigate the complexities and uncover the secrets of this theosophy. His hard work paid off; according to his findings, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] he discovered that20 there is more Christianity in the Kabbalah than Judaism. He found evidence supporting the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, original sin, Christ’s atonement, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory, and hellfire; in fact, the same Gospel presented by St. Paul, Dionysius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. As a result of his Kabbalistic research, Mirandola published, in 1486, when he was only twenty-four years old, nine hundred Theses, which were posted up in Rome, and he committed to defending them in front of all European scholars, whom he invited to the eternal city, promising to cover their travel expenses. Among these Theses was the statement, “No science yields greater proof of the divinity of Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.”21 Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was so impressed that he worked hard to have Kabbalistic writings translated into Latin for the benefit of theology students.22 Mirandola thus translated the following three works: 1, Menahem di Recanti’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, mistakenly called R. Levi de Recineto (Wolf, ibid., p. 10); 2, Eliezer of Worms’ Wisdom of the soul de Scientia animae; and 3, Shem Tob Falaquera’s Book of Attributes
1455–1522. Not only did Mirandola make the Kabbalah known to the Christians in Italy, but he was the means of introducing it into Germany through John Reuchlin, the [207]father of the German Reformation. This eminent scholar,—who is also called by the Greek name Capnion (καπνίον), or Capnio, which is a translation of his German name Reuchlin, i.e. smoke, in accordance with the fashion of the time; just as Gerard, signifying amiable, assumed the name of Desiderius Erasmus, and Schwartzerth, denoting black earth, took the name of Melanchthon,—was born at Phorzheim December 28, 1455. At the age of seventeen he was called to the court of Baden, and received among the court singers in consequence of his beautiful voice. His brilliant attainments soon attracted notice, and he was sent (1473) with the young Margrave Frederick, eldest son of Charles II, afterwards bishop of Utrecht, to the celebrated high school of Paris. Here he acquired, from Hermonymus of Sparta and other fugitive Greek literati, who went to Paris after the taking of Constantinople (1453), that remarkable knowledge of Greek which enabled him so largely to amass the Attic lore and rendered him so famous through Europe. He went to Basle in 1474, delivered lectures on the Latin language and the classics, and had among his hearers nobles of high rank both from France and Germany. He went to Tübingen in 1481, where his fame secured for him the friendship of Eberhard the Bearded, who made him his private secretary and privy councillor, and as such this prince took Reuchlin with him to Rome in 1482, where he made that splendid Latin oration before the Pope and the cardinals, which elicited from his Holiness the declaration that Reuchlin deserved to be placed among the best orators of France and Italy. From Rome Eberhard took him to Florence, and it was here that Reuchlin became acquainted with the celebrated Mirandola and with the Kabbalah. But as he was appointed licentiate and assessor of the supreme court in Stuttgard, the new residence of Eberhard, on his return in 1484, and as the order of Dominicans elected him as their proctor in the whole of Germany, [208]Reuchlin had not time to enter at once upon the study of Hebrew and Aramaic, which are the key to the Kabbalah, and he had reluctantly to wait till 1492, when he accompanied Eberhard to the imperial court at Ling. Here he became acquainted with R. Jacob b. Jechiel Loanz, a learned Hebrew, and court physician of Frederick III, from whom he learned Hebrew.23 Whereupon Reuchlin at once betook himself to the study of the Kabbalah, and within two years of his beginning to learn the language in which it is written, his first Kabbalistic treatise, entitled De Verbo Mirifico (Basle, 1494), appeared. This treatise is of the greatest rarity, and the following analysis of it is given by Franck. It is in the form of a dialogue between an Epicurean philosopher named Sidonius, a Jew named Baruch, and the author, who is introduced by his Greek name Capnio, and consists of three books, according to the number of speakers.
1455–1522. Not only did Mirandola introduce Kabbalah to Christians in Italy, but he also brought it to Germany through John Reuchlin, the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]father of the German Reformation. This distinguished scholar, also known by the Greek name Capnion (καπνίον), or Capnio, which translates his German name Reuchlin, meaning smoke, as was common at the time; just like Gerard, meaning amiable, who adopted the name Desiderius Erasmus, and Schwartzerth, meaning black earth, who took the name Melanchthon,—was born in Phorzheim on December 28, 1455. At seventeen, he was invited to the court of Baden and joined the court singers because of his beautiful voice. His remarkable skills quickly gained attention, and he was sent (1473) with young Margrave Frederick, the eldest son of Charles II and later bishop of Utrecht, to the renowned high school of Paris. Here, he learned Greek from Hermonymus of Sparta and other fleeing Greek scholars who arrived in Paris after the fall of Constantinople (1453), gaining significant knowledge of Greek that allowed him to accumulate extensive Attic literature and become famous throughout Europe. He moved to Basle in 1474, taught Latin and classical subjects, and had listeners that included nobles from France and Germany. In 1481, he went to Tübingen, where his reputation earned him the friendship of Eberhard the Bearded, who appointed him as his private secretary and privy councillor. Eberhard took Reuchlin to Rome in 1482, where he delivered a magnificent Latin speech before the Pope and the cardinals, resulting in the Pope declaring that Reuchlin deserved to be among the best orators of France and Italy. After Rome, Eberhard took him to Florence, where Reuchlin met the famed Mirandola and became acquainted with Kabbalah. However, upon returning in 1484, he was appointed licentiate and assessor of the supreme court in Stuttgart, Eberhard's new residence, and was elected as the proctor for the Dominicans throughout Germany, leaving Reuchlin with no time to immediately study Hebrew and Aramaic, the keys to Kabbalah, and he had to wait until 1492 when he accompanied Eberhard to the imperial court at Ling. There, he met R. Jacob b. Jechiel Loanz, a knowledgeable Hebrew and court physician to Frederick III, who taught him Hebrew. 23 After that, Reuchlin immediately began studying the Kabbalah, and within two years of starting to learn the language in which it is written, his first Kabbalistic work, titled De Verbo Mirifico (Basle, 1494), was published. This treatise is extremely rare, and Franck provides the following analysis. It takes the form of a dialogue between an Epicurean philosopher named Sidonius, a Jew named Baruch, and the author, introduced by his Greek name Capnio, and is divided into three books, corresponding to the number of speakers.
Book I, the exponent of which is Baruch the Jewish Kabbalist, is occupied with a refutation of the Epicurean doctrines; and simply reproduces the arguments generally urged against this system, for which reason we omit any further description of it.
Book I, presented by Baruch the Jewish Kabbalist, focuses on refuting Epicurean doctrines and basically repeats the arguments usually made against this philosophy. For this reason, we will not provide any more details about it.
Book II endeavours to shew that all wisdom and true philosophy are derived from the Hebrews, that Plato, Pythagoras and Zoroaster borrowed their ideas from the Bible, and that traces of the Hebrew language are to be found in the liturgies and sacred books of all nations. Then follows an explanation of the four divine names, which are shown to have been transplanted into the systems of Greek philosophy. The first and most distinguished of them אהיה אשר אהיה ego sum qui sum ( Exod. iii, 12 ), is translated in the Platonic philosophy by τὸ ὄντως ὢν. The second divine name, which we translate by הוא He, i.e., the sign of unchangeableness and [209]of the eternal idea of the Deity, is also to be found among the Greek philosophers in the term ταυτὸν, which is opposed to θατερὸν. The third name of God used in Holy Writ is אש Fire. In this form God appeared in the burning bush when he first manifested himself to Moses. The prophets describe him as a burning fire, and John the Baptist depicts him as such when he says, “I baptize you with water, but he who cometh after me shall baptize you with fire.” ( Matt. iii, 11 .) The fire of the Hebrew prophets is the same as the ether (αἰθὴρ) mentioned in the hymns of Orpheus. But these three names are in reality only one, showing to us the divine nature in three different aspects. Thus God calls himself the Being, because every existence emanates from him; he calls himself Fire, because it is he who illuminates and animates all things and he is always He, because he always remains like himself amidst the infinite variety of his works. Now just as there are names which express the nature of the Deity, so there are names which refer to his attributes, and these are the ten Sephiroth. If we look away from every attribute and every definite point of view in which the divine subsistence may be contemplated, if we endeavour to depict the absolute Being as concentrating himself within himself, and not affording us any explicable relation to our intellect, he is then described by a name which it is forbidden to pronounce, by the thrice holy Tetragrammaton, the name Jehovah (יהוה) the Shem Ha-Mephorash (שם המפורש).
Book II aims to show that all wisdom and true philosophy come from the Hebrews, that Plato, Pythagoras, and Zoroaster borrowed their ideas from the Bible, and that traces of the Hebrew language can be found in the liturgies and sacred texts of all nations. It then explains the four divine names, which are shown to have influenced Greek philosophy. The first and most distinguished of them I am who I am ego sum qui sum (Exod. iii, 12), is translated in Platonic philosophy as τὸ ὄντως ὢν. The second divine name, translated as הוא He, means the sign of unchangeability and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of the eternal idea of God, which can also be found among Greek philosophers in the term ταυτὸν, in contrast to θατερὸν. The third name of God in the Scriptures is Fire Fire. God appeared in this form in the burning bush when he first revealed himself to Moses. The prophets describe him as a burning fire, and John the Baptist refers to this when he says, “I baptize you with water, but he who comes after me will baptize you with fire.” (Matt. iii, 11.) The fire of the Hebrew prophets is the same as the ether (αὐθὴρ) mentioned in Orpheus's hymns. However, these three names are really just one, showing the divine nature in three different aspects. Thus, God calls himself the Being because all existence comes from him; he calls himself Fire because he enlightens and gives life to all things, and he is always He because he remains unchanged amidst the infinite variety of his works. Just as there are names that express the nature of the Deity, there are also names that refer to his attributes, known as the ten Sephiroth. If we set aside every attribute and every specific perspective in which we can comprehend the divine essence and attempt to depict the absolute Being as concentrating within himself, giving us no understandable relation to our intellect, he is then described by a name that is forbidden to pronounce, by the thrice holy Tetragrammaton, the name Jehovah (יהוה) the Shem Ha-Mephorash (The explicit name).
There is no doubt that the tetrad (τετρακτύς) of Pythagoras is an imitation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and that the worship of the decade has simply been invented in honour of the ten Sephiroth. The four letters composing this name represent the four fundamental constituents of the body (i.e., heat, cold, dryness and humidity), the four geometrical principal points (i.e., the point, the line, flat and body), the four notes of the musical scale, the four rivers in the earthly [210]paradise, the four symbolical figures in the vision of Ezekiel, &c., &c., &c. Moreover if we look at these four letters separately we shall find that each of them has equally a recondite meaning. The first letter י, which also stands for the number ten, and which by its form reminds us of the mathematical point, teaches us that God is the beginning and end of all things. The number five, expressed by ה the second letter, shows us the union of God with nature—of God inasmuch as he is depicted by the number three, i.e., the Trinity; and of visible nature, inasmuch as it is represented by Plato and Pythagoras under the dual. The number six, expressed by ו, the third letter, which is likewise revered in the Pythagorean school, is formed by the combination of one, two, and three, the symbol of all perfection. Moreover the number six is the symbol of the cube, the bodies (solida), or the world. Hence it is evident that the world has in it the imprint of divine perfection. The fourth and last letter of this divine name (ה) is like the second, represents the number five, and here symbolizes the human and rational soul, which is the medium between heaven and earth, just as five is the centre of the decade, the symbolic expression of the totality of things.
There’s no doubt that the tetrad (τετρακτύς) of Pythagoras is modeled after the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and that the concept of the decade was created in honor of the ten Sephiroth. The four letters of this name represent the four basic elements of the body (i.e., heat, cold, dryness, and moisture), the four main geometric points (i.e., point, line, plane, and solid), the four musical scale notes, the four rivers in the earthly [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]paradise, the four symbolic figures in Ezekiel's vision, etc., etc., etc. Furthermore, if we examine these four letters individually, we find that each has a deeper significance. The first letter י, which also stands for the number ten, and whose shape resembles a mathematical point, teaches us that God is the beginning and end of everything. The number five, represented by ה the second letter, illustrates the union of God with nature—God as depicted by the number three, i.e., the Trinity; and nature as represented by Plato and Pythagoras through the duality. The number six, given by ו, the third letter, is also revered in Pythagorean thought and is formed by the combination of one, two, and three, symbolizing perfection. Additionally, the number six is the symbol of the cube, the solid bodies (solida), or the universe. Therefore, it’s clear that the universe bears the mark of divine perfection. The fourth and final letter of this divine name (ה) is like the second, represents the number five, and symbolizes the human and rational soul, which serves as the link between heaven and earth, just as five is the center of the decade, symbolizing the totality of all things.
Book III, the exponent of which is Capnio, endeavours to shew that the most essential doctrines of Christianity are to be found by the same method. Let a few instances of this method suffice. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. If the Hebrew word ברא which is translated created, be examined, and if each of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a separate word, we obtain the expressions בן רוח אב Son, Spirit, Father. Upon the same principle we find the two persons of the Trinity in the words, “the stone which the builders refused is become the heed stone of the corner” ( Ps. cxviii, 22 ), inasmuch as the three letters composing the [211]word אבן stone, are to be divided into אב בן Father, Son. Orpheus, in his hymn on the night, described the Trinity of the New Testament in the words, νὺξ, οὐρανὸς, αἰθὴρ, for night which begets everything can only designate the Father; heaven, that olyphus which in its boundlessness embraces all things, and which proceeded from the night, signifies the Son; whilst ether, which the ancient poet also designates fiery breath, is the Holy Ghost. The name Jesus in Hebrew י״ה״ש״ו״ה the πενταγράμματον yields the name יהוה Jehovah; and the ש which in the language of the Kabbalah is the symbol of fire or light, which St. Jerome, in his mystical exposition of the alphabet, has made the sign of the Λόγος. This mysterious name therefore contains a whole revelation, inasmuch as it shows us that Jesus is God himself, the Light or the Logos. Even the cross, which is the symbol of Christianity, is plainly indicated in the Old Testament, by the tree of life which God planted in the midst of the garden; by the praying attitude of Moses, when he raised his hands towards heaven in his intercession for Israel during the combat with Amalek; and by the tree which converted the bitter waters into sweet in the wilderness of Marah.24
Book III, which is explained by Capnio, tries to show that the core beliefs of Christianity can be understood through the same method. Let's look at a few examples of this method. The doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the first verse of Genesis. If we examine the Hebrew word ברא that translates to created, and take each of the three letters that make up this word as the initial of a separate word, we get the terms Son of Spirit Son, Spirit, Father. Similarly, we can find the two persons of the Trinity in the phrase, “the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Ps. cxviii, 22), because the three letters in the word [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Stone stone, can be separated into Father and son Father, Son. Orpheus, in his hymn about night, described the Trinity of the New Testament using the words νύχτα, ουρανός, αιθήρ, where night, which gives birth to everything, symbolizes the Father; heaven, which in its vastness contains all things and comes from the night, represents the Son; while ether, which the ancient poet also refers to as fiery breath, stands for the Holy Spirit. The name Jesus in Hebrew י״ה״ש״ו״ה creates the name יהוה Jehovah; and the ש which, in Kabbalah, symbolizes fire or light, has been interpreted by St. Jerome, in his mystical analysis of the alphabet, as the sign of the Λόγος. This mysterious name therefore reveals a complete understanding, indicating that Jesus is God himself, the Light or the Logos. Even the cross, which symbolizes Christianity, is clearly foreshadowed in the Old Testament by the tree of life that God placed in the garden; by Moses' prayerful posture when he raised his hands to heaven during his intercession for Israel in the battle against Amalek; and by the tree that turned the bitter waters sweet in the wilderness of Marah.24
The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is, however, only an introduction to another work on the same subject which Reuchlin published twenty-two years later, entitled De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This Treatise, like the first, is in the form of a dialogue between a Mohammedan named Marrianus, a Pythagorean Philosopher named Philolaus, and a Jewish doctor named Simon. The dialogue is held in Frankfort, where the Jew resides, to whom the Mohammedan and Pythagorean resort to be initiated into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. The whole is a more matured exposition and elaboration of the ideas hinted at in his first work. [212]
The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is just an introduction to another work on the same topic that Reuchlin published twenty-two years later, called De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This Treatise, like the first, takes the form of a dialogue between a Muslim named Marrianus, a Pythagorean philosopher named Philolaus, and a Jewish scholar named Simon. The conversation takes place in Frankfurt, where the Jew lives, and where the Muslim and Pythagorean go to learn about the mysteries of the Kabbalah. Overall, it's a more developed exploration and elaboration of the ideas suggested in his first work. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, is a symbolical reception of Divine revelation; and a distinction is to be made between Cabalici, to whom belongs heavenly inspiration, their disciples Cabalaai, and their imitators Cabalistae. The design of the Kabbalah is to propound the relations of the absolute Creator to the creature. God is the Creator of all beings which emanated from him, and he implanted aspirations in them to attain actual communion with him. In order that feeble man might attain this communion, God revealed himself to mankind in various ways, but especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses contains far more than appears on the surface of the Pentateuch. There is a recondite wisdom concealed in it which distinguishes it from other codes of morals and precepts. There are in the Pentateuch many pleonasms and repetitions of the same things and words, and as we cannot charge God with having inserted useless and superfluous words in the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that something more profound is contained in them, to which the Kabbalah gives the key.
The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, represents a symbolic understanding of Divine revelation. There's a distinction between Cabalici, who are inspired by heaven, their followers Cabalaai, and their imitators Cabalistae. The purpose of the Kabbalah is to explore the relationship between the absolute Creator and creation. God is the Creator of all beings that came from Him, instilling in them the desire to have a genuine connection with Him. To help fragile humanity achieve this connection, God revealed Himself to people in various ways, especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses holds much more than what seems obvious in the Pentateuch. There is hidden wisdom within it that sets it apart from other moral codes and teachings. The Pentateuch contains many redundancies and repeated words, and since we can't assume that God included unnecessary and extra words in the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that there is something deeper hidden within them, which the Kabbalah unlocks.
This key consists in permutations, commutations, &c., &c. But this act of exchanging and arranging letters, and of interpreting for the edification of the soul the Holy Scriptures, which we have received from God as a divine thing not to be understood by the multitude, was not communicated by Moses to everybody, but to the elect, such as Joshua, and so by tradition it came to the seventy interpreters. This gift is called Kabbalah. God, out of love to his people, has revealed hidden mysteries to some of them, and these have found the living spirit in the dead letter; that is to say, the Scriptures consist of separate letters, visible signs which stand in a certain relation to the angels as celestial and spiritual emanations from God; and by pronouncing them, the latter also are affected. To a true Kabbalist, who has an insight into the whole connection of the terrestrial with the celestial, these [213]signs thus put together are the means of placing him in close union with spirits, who are thereby bound to fulfil his wishes.25
This key involves permutations, combinations, and so on. However, the act of rearranging and interpreting letters, and of understanding the Holy Scriptures for the betterment of the soul, which we have received from God as something divine that the masses cannot grasp, was not shared by Moses with everyone but only with the chosen ones, like Joshua, and through tradition, it reached the seventy interpreters. This gift is called Kabbalah. Out of love for His people, God has revealed hidden mysteries to some, and they have discovered the living spirit within the lifeless text; in other words, the Scriptures consist of individual letters, visible signs that are connected to the angels as divine and spiritual outpourings from God; pronouncing them also influences the latter. To a true Kabbalist, who understands the connection between the earthly and the heavenly, these [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] signs arranged in this way are a means to connect closely with spirits, who are then compelled to fulfill his desires. 25
The extraordinary influence which Reuchlin’s Kabbalistic Treatises exercised upon the greatest thinkers of the time and upon the early reformers may be judged of from the unmeasured terms of praise which they bestowed upon their author. The Treatises were regarded as heavenly communications, revealing new divine wisdom. Conrad Leontarius, writing to Wimpheling on the subject, says—“I never saw anything more beautiful or admirable than this work (i.e., De Verbo Mirifico), which easily convinces him who reads it that no philosopher, whether Jew or Christian, is superior to Reuchlin.” Aegidius, general of the Eremites, wrote to the holy Augustine “that Reuchlin had rendered him, as well as the rest of mankind, happy by his works, which had made known to all a thing hitherto unheard of.” Philip Beroaldus, the younger, sent him word “that Pope Leo X had read his Pythagorean book greedily, as he did all good books; afterwards the Cardinal de Medici had done so, and he himself should soon enjoy it.”26 Such was the interest which this newly-revealed Kabbalah created among Christians, that not only learned men but statesmen and warriors began to study the oriental languages, in order to be able to fathom the mysteries of this theosophy.
The incredible impact of Reuchlin's Kabbalistic Treatises on the greatest thinkers of the time and the early reformers can be seen in the countless praises they gave to him. The Treatises were viewed as divine messages, uncovering new spiritual wisdom. Conrad Leontarius, writing to Wimpheling about it, said, “I've never seen anything more beautiful or admirable than this work (i.e., De Verbo Mirifico), which easily convinces anyone who reads it that no philosopher, whether Jew or Christian, is better than Reuchlin.” Aegidius, the general of the Eremites, wrote to St. Augustine saying that Reuchlin had made him, and humanity in general, happy with his works, which exposed everyone to something previously unknown. Philip Beroaldus, the younger, communicated that Pope Leo X had eagerly read his Pythagorean book, just as he did with all good books; after that, Cardinal de Medici did the same, and he himself would soon enjoy it. 26 The interest in this newly revealed Kabbalah was so significant among Christians that not only scholars but also politicians and military leaders began to learn the eastern languages to understand the mysteries of this theosophy.
1450–1498. Whilst the Kabbalah was gaining such high favour amongst Christians both in Italy and Germany, through the exertions of Mirandola and Reuchlin, a powerful voice was raised among the Jews against the Sohar, the very Bible of this theosophy. Elia del Medigo, born at Candia, then in Venetia, 1450, of a German literary family, professor of [214]philosophy in the University of Padua, teacher of Pico de Mirandola, and a scholar of the highest reputation both among his Jewish brethren and among Christians, impugned the authority of the Sohar. In his philosophical Treatise on the nature of Judaism as a harmonizer between religion and philosophy, entitled An Examination of the Law (בחינת הדת), which he wrote December 29, 1491, he puts into the mouth of an antagonist to the Kabbalah the following three arguments against the genuineness of the Sohar: 1, Neither the Talmud, nor the Gaonim and Rabbins knew anything of the Sohar or of its doctrines; 2, The Sohar was published at a very late period; and 3, Many anachronisms occur in it, inasmuch as it describes later Amoraic authorities as having direct intercourse with the Tanaite R. Simon b. Jochai who belongs to an earlier period.27
1450–1498. While Kabbalah was becoming popular among Christians in Italy and Germany, thanks to the efforts of Mirandola and Reuchlin, a strong opposition arose among the Jews against the Sohar, which was considered the foundational text of this mystical philosophy. Elia del Medigo, born in Candia, then part of Venetia, in 1450, from a German literary family, professor of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]philosophy at the University of Padua, teacher of Pico de Mirandola, and highly respected scholar among both his Jewish peers and Christians, challenged the authority of the Sohar. In his philosophical treatise on the nature of Judaism as a bridge between religion and philosophy, titled An Examination of the Law (Examining Religion), which he wrote on December 29, 1491, he presents three arguments against the authenticity of the Sohar through the voice of a critic of Kabbalah: 1. Neither the Talmud, nor the Gaonim and Rabbis were aware of the Sohar or its teachings; 2. The Sohar was published very late; and 3. It contains many anachronisms, as it describes later Amoraic figures as having direct interactions with the Tanaite R. Simon b. Jochai, who lived in an earlier time.27
1522–1570. The voice of Elia del Medigo and others, however, had no power to check the rapid progress of the Kabbalah, which had now found its way from Spain and Italy into Palestine and Poland, and penetrated all branches of life and literature. Passing over the host of minor advocates and teachers, we shall mention the two great masters in Palestine, who formed two distinct schools, distinguished by the prominence which they respectively gave to certain doctrines of the Kabbalah. The first of these is Moses Cordovero, also called Remak = רמ׳ק from the acrostic of his name קורדואירו R. Moses Cordovero. He was born in Cordova, 1522, studied the Kabbalah under his learned brother-in-law, Solomon Aleavez, and very soon became so distinguished as a Kabbalist and author that his fame travelled to Italy, where his works were greedily bought. His principal works are: 1, An Introduction to the Kabbalah, entitled A Sombre or Sweet [215]Light (אור נערב) first published in Venice, 1587, then in Cracow, 1647, and in Fürth, 1701; 2, Kabbalistic reflections and comments on ninety-nine passages of the Bible, entitled The Book of Retirement (ספר נרושין), published in Venice, 1543; and 3, A large Kabbalistic work entitled The Garden of Pomegranates (פרדס רמונים), which consists of thirteen sections or gates (שערים) subdivided into chapters, and discusses the Sephiroth, the Divine names, the import and significance of the letters, &c., &c. It was first published in Cracow, 1591. Excerpts of it have been translated into Latin by Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol. iv, p. 231, &c., and Knorr von Rosenroth, Tractatus de Anima ex libro Pardes Rimmonim in his Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677.28
1522–1570. The voices of Elia del Medigo and others, however, couldn’t stop the rapid spread of Kabbalah, which had now moved from Spain and Italy into Palestine and Poland, and had influenced all areas of life and literature. Ignoring the many minor advocates and teachers, we will highlight the two great masters in Palestine who created two distinct schools, marked by the emphasis they placed on certain doctrines of Kabbalah. The first is Moses Cordovero, also known as Remak = רמ"ק based on the acrostic of his name Corduroy R. Moses Cordovero. He was born in Cordova in 1522, studied Kabbalah with his knowledgeable brother-in-law, Solomon Aleavez, and quickly gained such recognition as a Kabbalist and author that his reputation reached Italy, where his works were highly sought after. His major works are: 1. An Introduction to the Kabbalah, titled A Sombre or Sweet [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Light (אור ערב), first published in Venice in 1587, then in Cracow in 1647, and in Fürth in 1701; 2. Kabbalistic reflections and comments on ninety-nine passages of the Bible, titled The Book of Retirement (מדריך חתונה), published in Venice in 1543; and 3. A comprehensive Kabbalistic work called The Garden of Pomegranates (Pardes Rimonim), which is divided into thirteen sections or gates (Gates) further broken down into chapters, discussing the Sephiroth, the Divine names, the meaning and significance of the letters, etc. It was first published in Cracow in 1591. Excerpts have been translated into Latin by Bartolocci in Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol. iv, p. 231, etc., and by Knorr von Rosenroth in Tractatus de Anima ex libro Pardes Rimmonim in his Kabbalah Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677.28
The peculiar feature of Cordovero is that he is chiefly occupied with the scientific speculations of the Kabbalah, or the speculative Kabbalah (קבלה עיונית), as it is called in the modern terminology of this esoteric doctrine, in contra-distinction to the wonder-working Kabbalah (קבלה מעשית), keeping aloof to a great extent from the extravagances which we shall soon have to notice. In this respect therefore he represents the Kabbalah in its primitive state, as may be seen from the following specimen of his lucubrations on the nature of the Deity. “The knowledge of the Creator is different from that of the creature, since in the case of the latter, knowledge and the thing known are distinct, thus leading to subjects which are again separate from him. This is described by the three expressions—cogitation, the cogitator and the cogitated object. Now the Creator is himself knowledge, knowing and the known object. His knowledge does not consist in the fact that he directs his thoughts to things [216]without him, since in comprehending and knowing himself, he comprehends and knows everything which exists. There is nothing which is not united with him, and which he does not find in his own substance. He is the archetype of all things existing, and all things are in him in their purest and most perfect form; so that the perfection of the creatures consists in the support whereby they are united to the primary source of his existence, and they sink down and fall from that perfect and lofty position in proportion to their separation from him.”29
The unique aspect of Cordovero is that he mainly focuses on the scientific ideas of the Kabbalah, or the speculative Kabbalah (Theoretical acceptance), as it is referred to in today’s terminology of this esoteric doctrine, as opposed to the wonder-working Kabbalah (Practical acceptance), largely avoiding the extremes that we will soon discuss. In this regard, he reflects the Kabbalah in its original form, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from his writings about the nature of the Deity. “The knowledge of the Creator is different from that of the creature since, in the case of the latter, knowledge and the known object are separate, leading to subjects that are again distinct from him. This is illustrated by the three terms—cognition, the thinker, and the object of thought. Now, the Creator embodies knowledge, knowing, and the known object. His knowledge isn't about directing his thoughts to things [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] outside of him; by understanding and knowing himself, he grasps and knows everything that exists. Nothing exists that isn't connected to him, and nothing that he doesn't find within his own essence. He is the original model of all existing things, and everything exists in him in its purest and most perfect form; thus, the perfection of creatures lies in the way they are linked to the primary source of his existence, and they diminish and fall from that perfect and elevated state in proportion to their separation from him.”29
1534–1572. The opposite to this school is the one founded by Isaac Luria or Loria, also called Ari = אר״י from the initials of his name האשכנזי ר׳ יצחק R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born at Jerusalem 1534, and, having lost his father when very young, was taken by his mother to Kahira, where he was put by his rich uncle under the tuition of the best Jewish master. Up to his twenty-second year he was a diligent student of the Talmud and the Rabbinic lore, and distinguished himself in these departments of learning in a most remarkable manner. He then lived in retirement for about seven years to give free scope to his thoughts and meditations, but he soon found that simple retirement from collegiate studies did not satisfy him. He therefore removed to the banks of the Nile, where he lived in a sequestered cottage for several years, giving himself up entirely to meditations and reveries. Here he had constant interviews with the prophet Elias, who communicated to him sublime doctrines. Here, too, his soul ascended to heaven whenever he was asleep, and in the celestial regions held converse with the souls of the great teachers of bygone days. When thirty-six years of age (1570) the Prophet Elias appeared to him again and told him to go to Palestine, where his successor was awaiting him. Obedient to the command, he went to Safet, where he gathered [217]round him ten disciples, visited the sepulchres of ancient teachers, and there, by prostrations and prayers, obtained from their spirits all manner of revelations, so much so that he was convinced he was the Messiah b. Joseph and that he was able to perform all sorts of miracles. It was this part of the Kabbalah, i.e., the ascetic and miraculous (כבלה מעשית), which Loria taught. His sentiments he delivered orally, as he himself did not write anything, except perhaps some marginal notes of a critical import in older books and MSS. His disciples treasured up his marvellous sayings, whereby they performed miracles and converted thousands to the doctrines of this theosophy.
1534–1572. The counterpart to this school is the one founded by Isaac Luria, also known as Ari = אר״י, from the initials of his name Rabbi Yitzhak Ashkenazi R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born in Jerusalem in 1534, and after losing his father at a young age, his mother took him to Cairo, where his wealthy uncle arranged for him to study with the best Jewish teacher. Until he turned twenty-two, he was a dedicated student of the Talmud and Rabbinic literature, excelling in these areas of study in an extraordinary way. He then spent about seven years in seclusion to freely explore his thoughts and meditations, but he soon realized that merely stepping away from academic studies didn’t fulfill him. He then moved to the banks of the Nile, where he lived in a secluded cottage for several years, dedicating himself entirely to contemplation and daydreaming. During this time, he frequently met with the prophet Elijah, who shared profound teachings with him. It was also here that his soul would ascend to heaven whenever he slept, allowing him to converse with the souls of great teachers from the past. At the age of thirty-six (1570), the Prophet Elijah appeared to him again and instructed him to go to Palestine, where his successor was waiting for him. Following this directive, he traveled to Safed, where he gathered [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] ten disciples, visited the tombs of ancient teachers, and through prostrations and prayers, received various revelations from their spirits. He became convinced that he was the Messiah ben Joseph and that he could perform all kinds of miracles. This aspect of Kabbalah, namely the ascetic and miraculous (Practical Kabbalah), was what Luria taught. He communicated his ideas orally since he didn’t write anything down, except perhaps some critical marginal notes in older texts and manuscripts. His disciples recorded his remarkable teachings, which enabled them to perform miracles and convert thousands to the beliefs of this theosophy.
1543–1620. The real exponent of Loria’s Kabbalistic system is his celebrated disciple Chajim Vital, a descendant of a Calabrian family, who died in 1620 at the age of seventy-seven. After the demise of his teacher, Chajim Vital diligently collected all the MS. notes of the lectures which Loria’s disciples had written down, from which, together with his own jottings, he produced the gigantic and famous system of the Kabbalah, entitled the Tree of Life (עץ החיים). This work, over which Vital laboured thirty years, was at first circulated in MS. copies, and every one of the Kabbalistic disciples had to pledge himself, under pain of excommunication, not to allow a copy to be made for a foreign land; so that for a time all the Codd. remained in Palestine. At last, however, this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah, which properly consists of six works, was published by J. Satanow at Zolkiev, 1772. New editions of it appeared in Korez, 1785; Sklow, 1800; Dobrowne, 1804; Stilikow, 1818; and Knorr von Rosenroth has translated into Latin a portion of that part of the great work which treats on the doctrine of the metempsychosis (הגלגולים).30
1543–1620. The true representative of Loria’s Kabbalistic system is his famous disciple Chajim Vital, who came from a Calabrian family and died in 1620 at the age of seventy-seven. After his teacher passed away, Chajim Vital carefully gathered all the manuscript notes from the lectures that Loria’s students had written down, combining them with his own notes to create the extensive and renowned system of the Kabbalah called the Tree of Life (Tree of Life). Vital worked on this project for thirty years, and initially, it was shared only in manuscript form. Every Kabbalistic disciple had to promise, under the threat of excommunication, not to make a copy to send to foreign lands, which kept all the copies in Palestine for a time. Eventually, this collection of Kabbalah, which primarily consists of six works, was published by J. Satanow in Zolkiev in 1772. New editions followed in Korez in 1785; Sklow in 1800; Dobrowne in 1804; Stilikow in 1818; and Knorr von Rosenroth translated part of the significant work that discusses the doctrine of metempsychosis (The Transformations).
1558–1560. The circulation of Loria’s work which gave [218]an extraordinary impetus to the Kabbalah, and which gave rise to the new school and a separate congregation in Palestine, was not the only favourable circumstance which had arisen to advance and promulgate the esoteric doctrine. The Sohar, which since its birth had been circulated in MS., was now for the first time printed in Mantua, and thousands of people who had hitherto been unable to procure the MS. were thus enabled to possess themselves of copies.31 It is, however, evident that with the increased circulation of these two Bibles of the Kabbalah, as the Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim are called, there was an increased cry on the part of learned Jews against the doctrines propounded in them. Isaac b. Immanuel de Lates, the Rabbi of Pesaro, and the great champion for the Kabbalah, who prefixed a commendatory epistle to the Sohar, tells us most distinctly that some Rabbins wanted to prevent the publication of the Sohar, urging that it ought to be kept secret or be burned, because it tends to heretical doctrines.32
1558–1560. The spread of Loria’s work gave [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]an incredible boost to the Kabbalah, leading to the creation of a new school and a separate community in Palestine. This wasn’t the only positive development to promote and spread the esoteric teachings. The Sohar, which had been circulated in manuscript form since it was first created, was now printed for the first time in Mantua, allowing thousands of people who couldn’t previously get the manuscript to finally own copies.31 However, it’s clear that as these two key texts of the Kabbalah— the Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim—became more widely available, there was a stronger backlash from learned Jews against the ideas presented in them. Isaac b. Immanuel de Lates, the Rabbi of Pesaro and a major advocate for the Kabbalah, who wrote a commendatory letter for the Sohar, explicitly states that some Rabbis wanted to stop the publication of the Sohar, arguing that it should be kept secret or destroyed because it promotes heretical beliefs.32
1571–1648. Of the numerous opponents to the Kabbalah which the Sohar and Loria’s work called forth, Leo de Modena was by far the most daring, the most outspoken and the most powerful. This eminent scholar who is known to the Christian world by his celebrated History of the Rites, Customs and Manners of the Jews, which was originally written in Italian, published in Padua, 1640, and which has been translated into Latin, English, French, Dutch, &c., attacked the Kabbalah in two of his works. His first onslaught is on the doctrine of metempsychosis in his Treatise entitled Ben David. He composed this Treatise in 1635–36, at the request of David Finzi, of Egypt, and he demonstrates therein that this doctrine [219]is of Gentile origin, and was rejected by the great men of the Jewish faith in bygone days, refuting at the same time the philosophico-theological arguments advanced in its favour.33 It is, however, his second attack on this esoteric doctrine, in his work entitled The Roaring Lion (ארי נוהם), which is so damaging to the Kabbalah. In this Treatise—which Leo de Modena composed in 1639, at the advanced age of sixty-eight, to reclaim Joseph Chamiz, a beloved disciple of his, who was an ardent follower of the Kabbalah—he shows that the books which propound this esoteric doctrine, and which are palmed upon ancient authorities, are pseudonymous; that the doctrines themselves are mischievous; and that the followers of this system are inflated with proud notions, pretending to know the nature of God better than anyone else, and to possess the nearest and best way of approaching the Deity.34
1571–1648. Among the many critics of the Kabbalah sparked by the Sohar and Loria’s works, Leo de Modena stood out as the most daring, outspoken, and powerful. This prominent scholar, known to the Christian world for his famous History of the Rites, Customs and Manners of the Jews, which was originally written in Italian, published in Padua in 1640, and has since been translated into Latin, English, French, Dutch, etc., challenged the Kabbalah in two of his writings. His first attack focuses on the doctrine of metempsychosis in his Treatise titled Ben David. He wrote this Treatise in 1635–36 at the request of David Finzi from Egypt, arguing that this doctrine [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]is of non-Jewish origin and was rejected by the prominent figures of the Jewish faith in the past, while also refuting the philosophical and theological arguments made in its support.33 However, it is his second critique of this esoteric doctrine in his work entitled The Roaring Lion (ארי נוהם) that poses the most significant threat to the Kabbalah. In this Treatise—written by Leo de Modena in 1639 at the age of sixty-eight to reclaim Joseph Chamiz, a beloved disciple who was a passionate follower of the Kabbalah—he demonstrates that the texts promoting this esoteric doctrine, falsely attributed to ancient authorities, are pseudonymous; that the doctrines themselves are harmful; and that the adherents of this system are filled with arrogance, claiming to understand the nature of God better than anyone else and to have the closest and most effective means of reaching the Deity.34
1623. The celebrated Hebraist, Joseph Solomon del Medigo (born 1591, died 1637), a contemporary of the preceding writer, also employed his vast stores of erudition to expose this system. Having been asked by R. Serach for his views of the Kabbalah, del Medigo, in a masterly letter, written in 1623, shows up the folly of this esoteric doctrine, and the unreasonableness of the exegetical rules, whereby the followers of this system pretend to deduce it from the Bible.35
1623. The well-known Hebraist, Joseph Solomon del Medigo (born 1591, died 1637), who was a contemporary of the previous writer, also used his extensive knowledge to critique this system. When asked by R. Serach for his thoughts on the Kabbalah, del Medigo wrote an insightful letter in 1623 that highlights the absurdity of this esoteric doctrine and the irrationality of the interpretive rules that its followers use to claim it comes from the Bible.35
1635. We have seen that the information about the Kabbalah, which Mirandola and Reuchlin imparted to Christians, was chiefly derived from the writings of Recanti and Gikatilla. Now that the Sohar had been published, Joseph de Voisin [220]determined to be the first to make some portions of it accessible to those Christian readers who did not understand the Aramaic in which this Thesaurus is written. Accordingly he translated some extracts of the Sohar which treat of the nature of the human soul.36
1635. We’ve seen that the information about Kabbalah shared by Mirandola and Reuchlin mainly came from the writings of Recanti and Gikatilla. Now that the Sohar had been published, Joseph de Voisin [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] decided to be the first to make some parts of it available to Christian readers who didn’t understand the Aramaic in which this collection is written. So, he translated some excerpts from the Sohar that discuss the nature of the human soul.36
1652–1654. Just at the very time when some of the most distinguished Jews exposed the pretensions of the Kabbalah, and denounced the fanciful and unjustifiable rules of interpretation whereby its advocates tried to evolve it from the letters of the revealed law, the celebrated Athanasius Kircher, in a most learned and elaborate treatise on this subject, maintained that the Kabbalah was introduced into Egypt by no less a person than the patriarch Abraham; and that from Egypt it gradually issued all over the East, and intermixed with all religions and systems of philosophy. What is still more extraordinary is that this learned Jesuit, in thus exalting the Kabbalah, lays the greatest stress on that part of it which developed itself afterwards, viz., the combinations, transpositions and permutations of the letters, and does not discriminate between it and the speculations about the En Soph, the Sephiroth, &c., which were the original characteristics of this theosophy.37 The amount of Eastern lore, however, which Kircher has amassed in his work will always remain a noble monument to the extensive learning of this Jesuit.
1652–1654. Just at the time when some of the most respected Jews challenged the claims of the Kabbalah and criticized the fanciful and unjustifiable methods of interpretation that its supporters used to derive it from the letters of the revealed law, the famous Athanasius Kircher, in a highly academic and detailed treatise on this topic, argued that the Kabbalah was introduced into Egypt by none other than the patriarch Abraham; and that from Egypt it gradually spread throughout the East, blending with various religions and philosophical systems. What’s even more remarkable is that this scholar Jesuit, in praising the Kabbalah, places the greatest emphasis on that aspect which later developed, namely the combinations, transpositions, and permutations of the letters, without distinguishing it from the speculations about the En Soph, the Sephiroth, etc., which were the original features of this theosophy.37 The wealth of Eastern knowledge that Kircher gathered in his work will always stand as a testament to the vast learning of this Jesuit.
1645–1676. The wonder-working or practical branch of the Kabbalah (קבלה מעשית), as it is called, so elaborately propounded and defended by Kircher, which consists in the transpositions of the letters of the sundry divine names, &c., and which as we have seen constituted no part of the original Kabbalah, had now largely laid hold on the minds and fancies [221]of both Jews and Christians, and was producing among the former the most mournful and calamitous effects. The famous Kabbalist, Sabbatai Zevi, who was born in Smyrna, July, 1641, was the chief actor in this tragedy. When a child he was sent to a Rabbinic school, and instructed in the Law, the Mishna, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the whole cycle of Rabbinic lore. So great were his intellectual powers, and so vast the knowledge he acquired, that when fifteen he betook himself to the study of the Kabbalah, rapidly mastered its mysteries, became peerless in his knowledge of “those things which were revealed and those things which were hidden;” and at the age of eighteen obtained the honourable appellation sage (חכם), and delivered public lectures, expounding the divine law and the esoteric doctrine before crowded audiences. At the age of twenty-four he gave himself out as the Messiah, the Son of David, and the Redeemer of Israel, pronouncing publicly the Tetragrammaton, which was only allowed to the high priests during the existence of the second Temple. Though the Jewish sages of Smyrna excommunicated him for it, he travelled to Salonica, Athens, Morea and Jerusalem, teaching the Kabbalah, proclaiming himself as the Messiah, anointing prophets and converting thousands upon thousands. So numerous were the believers in him, that in many places trade was entirely stopped; the Jews wound up their affairs, disposed of their chattels and made themselves ready to be redeemed from their captivity and led by Sabbatai Zevi back to Jerusalem. The consuls of Europe were ordered to enquire into this extraordinary movement, and the governors of the East reported to the Sultan the cessation of commerce. Sabbatai Zevi was then arrested by order of the Sultan, Mohammed IV, and taken before him at Adrianople. The Sultan spoke to him as follows—“I am going to test thy Messiahship. Three poisoned arrows shall be shot into thee, and if they do not kill thee, I too will believe that thou art the [222]Messiah.” He saved himself by embracing Islamism in the presence of the Sultan, who gave him the name Effendi, and appointed him Kapidgi Bashi. Thus ended the career of the Kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi, after having ruined thousands upon thousands of Jewish families.38
1645–1676. The practical branch of Kabbalah, known as קבלה פרקטית, which was extensively explained and supported by Kircher, involved rearranging the letters of various divine names, etc. As we have observed, this was not part of the original Kabbalah, but it had significantly captured the attention of both Jews and Christians, leading to serious and tragic outcomes among the former. The well-known Kabbalist, Sabbatai Zevi, born in Smyrna in July 1641, played a central role in this drama. As a child, he attended a Rabbinic school where he studied the Law, Mishna, Talmud, Midrashim, and the entire body of Rabbinic knowledge. His intellectual abilities and the depth of his knowledge were so impressive that by the age of fifteen, he began studying Kabbalah, quickly grasped its mysteries, and became unmatched in his understanding of “the revealed and the hidden.” By eighteen, he earned the respected title sage (Smart) and began giving public lectures on divine law and esoteric teachings to large crowds. At twenty-four, he declared himself the Messiah, the Son of David, and the Redeemer of Israel, publicly pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, a privilege reserved for high priests during the time of the Second Temple. Even though the Jewish sages of Smyrna excommunicated him, he traveled to Salonica, Athens, Morea, and Jerusalem, teaching Kabbalah, claiming to be the Messiah, anointing prophets, and converting thousands. His followers were so numerous that in many areas, business completely halted; Jews liquidated their possessions and prepared to be redeemed from their captivity, led by Sabbatai Zevi back to Jerusalem. European consuls were instructed to investigate this extraordinary phenomenon, and Eastern governors reported to the Sultan about the commercial standstill. Sabbatai Zevi was subsequently arrested by the order of Sultan Mohammed IV and brought before him in Adrianople. The Sultan told him, “I am going to test your Messiahship. Three poisoned arrows will be shot at you, and if they don't kill you, then I, too, will believe you are the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Messiah.” He saved himself by converting to Islam in front of the Sultan, who then named him Effendi and appointed him Kapidgi Bashi. Thus concluded the life of the Kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi, having caused the ruin of countless Jewish families.38
1677–1684. Whether the learned Knorr Baron von Rosenroth knew of the extravagances of Sabbatai Zevi or not is difficult to say. At all events this accomplished Christian scholar believed that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine inspiration, and that it is most essential to the elucidation of the doctrines of Christianity. With this conviction he determined to master the difficulties connected with the Kabbalistic writings, in order to render the principal works of this esoteric doctrine accessible to his Christian brethren. For, although Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin and Kircher had already done much to acquaint the Christian world with the secrets of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had given translations of any portions of the Sohar.
1677–1684. It's hard to say whether the educated Knorr Baron von Rosenroth was aware of the excesses of Sabbatai Zevi. Regardless, this knowledgeable Christian scholar believed that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine inspiration, and that it is crucial for understanding the doctrines of Christianity. With this belief, he set out to overcome the challenges associated with Kabbalistic writings in order to make the key works of this hidden doctrine available to his Christian peers. Even though Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin, and Kircher had already done a lot to introduce the Christian world to the mysteries of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had provided translations of any parts of the Sohar.
Knorr Baron von Rosenroth, therefore put himself under the tuition of R. Meier Stern, a learned Jew, and with his assistance was enabled to publish the celebrated work entitled the Unveiled Kabbalah (Kabbala Denudata), in two large volumes, the first of which was printed at Sulzbach, 1677–78, and the second at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684, giving a Latin translation of the Introduction to and the following portion of the Sohar—the Book of Mysteries (ספר דצניעותא); the Great Assembly (אדרא רבא); the Small Assembly (אדרא זוטא); Joseph Gikatilla’s Gate of Light (שער אורה); the Doctrine of Metempsychosis (הגלגולים), and the Tree of Life (עץ חיים), of Chajim Vital; the Garden of Pomegranates (פרדס רימונים), of Moses Cordovero; the House of the Lord (בית אלהים), and the Gate of Heaven (שער השמים), of [223]Abraham Herera; the Valley of the King (עמק המלך), of Naphtah b. Jacob; the Vision of the Priest (מראה כהן), of Issachar Beer b. Naphtali Cohen, &c., &c., with elaborate annotations, glossaries and indices. The only drawback to this gigantic work is that it is without any system, and that it mixes up in one all the earlier developments of the Kabbalah with the later productions. Still the criticism passed upon it by Buddeus, that it is a “confused and obscure work, in which the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless are mixed up and thrown together as it were into one chaos,”39 is rather too severe; and it must be remembered that if the Kabbala Denudata does not exhibit a regular system of this esoteric doctrine, it furnishes much material for it. Baron von Rosenroth has also collected all the passages of the New Testament which contain similar doctrines to those propounded by the Kabbalah.
Knorr Baron von Rosenroth decided to study under R. Meier Stern, a knowledgeable Jew, and with his help, he managed to publish the renowned work titled Unveiled Kabbalah (Kabbalah Uncovered), in two large volumes. The first volume was printed in Sulzbach between 1677 and 1678, while the second was printed in Frankfurt-on-the-Maine in 1684. It provides a Latin translation of the Introduction and the following sections of the Sohar—the Book of Mysteries (Book of Modesty); the Great Assembly (אדרא רבא); the Small Assembly (אדרא זוטא); Joseph Gikatilla’s Gate of Light (Sh'ar Ore); the Doctrine of Metempsychosis (The Transformations), and the Tree of Life (Tree of Life), by Chajim Vital; the Garden of Pomegranates (Pomegranate Orchard), by Moses Cordovero; the House of the Lord (House of God), and the Gate of Heaven (Gate of Heaven), by [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Abraham Herera; the Valley of the King (King's Valley), by Naphtah b. Jacob; the Vision of the Priest (כהן מטבע), by Issachar Beer b. Naphtali Cohen, etc., with detailed annotations, glossaries, and indices. The only downside to this extensive work is that it lacks a systematic approach and merges the earlier developments of Kabbalah with later writings. However, Buddeus's critique that it is a “confused and obscure work, in which the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless are mixed up and thrown together into one chaos”39 is a bit harsh; it should be noted that, although the Kabbala Denudata does not present a coherent system of this esoteric doctrine, it offers plenty of material for understanding it. Baron von Rosenroth also compiled all the passages from the New Testament that contain ideas similar to those proposed by the Kabbalah.
1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers, produced a new era in the criticism of the Sohar. Even such a scholar and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, or Jabez (יעב״ץ), as he is called from the acrostic of his name (יעקב בן צבי), maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he entitled The Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of the Sohar all the rest is of a late origin.40 He shows that (1) The Sohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses [224]the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’ More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race, and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, with Sohar, iii, 221 b, 161 a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North Spanish expression Esnoga.
1758–1763. Among the Jews, the claims and repercussions of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers led to a new phase in the critique of the Sohar. Even a scholar and devoted Kabbalist like Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, or Jabez (יעבץ), as he is referred to from the acrostic of his name (Yaakov Ben Tzvi), argues in his work, which he composed between 1758 and 1763 and titled The Wrapper of Books, that aside from the core content of the Sohar, everything else originates from a later period. 40 He demonstrates that (1) The Sohar misquotes biblical passages, misinterprets the Talmud, and includes some rituals that were established by later Rabbinic authorities (פוסקים). (2) It mentions the crusades against the Muslims. (3) It employs the philosophical terminology from Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of Maimonides’ More Nebuchim and draws on the idea from Jehudah Ha-Levi’s Khosari that “Israel is the heart of the human race, and therefore feels its suffering more intensely” (Khosari, ii, 36, with Sohar, iii, 221 b, 161 a); and (4) It recognizes the Portuguese and North Spanish term Esnoga.
1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the antiquity of the Sohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in his work on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from the Sohar to shew that the Hebrew vowel points were known A.D. 120, at which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of the Zohar.”41
1767. While the Jews were uncertain about the age of the Sohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in England argued that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of the Kabbalah, using its ideas to support their unique beliefs. For example, Dr. Gill, the well-known Hebraist and commentator, in his work on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, cites passages from the Sohar to demonstrate that the Hebrew vowel points were known CE 120, noting that “Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba, author of the Zohar,” lived during that time.41
1830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in his Modern Judaism, also premises the antiquity of the Sohar. Taking this pseudonym as the primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominated Gematria, Notaricon, Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy.42
1830. Allen, in his account of the Kabbalah in Modern Judaism, also points out the ancient origins of the Sohar. Treating this pseudonym as the main source of the early Kabbalah, Allen, like all his predecessors, confuses the early mysticism and magic with the later misuse of the Hagadic interpretation rules, known as Gematria, Notaricon, Ziruph, etc., which the Kabbalists later adopted, along with the original ideas of this theosophy.42
1843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent work La Kabbale (Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between the Book Jetzira and the Sohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He moreover maintains [225]that the Sohar consists of ancient and modern fragments, that the ancient portions are the Book of Mysteries (ספרא דצניעותא), the Great Assembly or Idra Rabba (אדרא רבא), and the Small Assembly or Idra Suta (אדרא זוטא), and actually proceeds from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century; that the fatherland of the Sohar is Palestine; that the fundamental principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b. Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century, owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to palm the doctrine of the Sephiroth upon passages in the Talmud in a most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no necessity for repeating the arguments here.43 Still Franck’s valuable contribution to the elucidation of the Sohar will always be a welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.
1843. Even the knowledgeable Professor Franck, in his outstanding work La Kabbale (Paris, 1843), does not differentiate between the Book Jetzira and the Sohar, but sees the esoteric ideas of the latter as an evolution and continuation of the beliefs presented in the former. He also claims [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that the Sohar is made up of both ancient and modern sections, with the older parts being the Book of Mysteries (ספרא דצניעותא), the Great Assembly or Idra Rabba (אדרה רבה), and the Small Assembly or Idra Suta (אדרא קטנה), which actually come from the school of R. Simon b. Jochai. He states that several other sections date from a later period, though not beyond the seventh century; that the homeland of the Sohar is Palestine; that the foundational concepts of Kabbalah, initially shared orally by R. Simon b. Jochai with a small group of his students, were gradually documented and expanded through additions and commentaries from the first to the seventh century, and that this entire compilation, finished in the seventh century, remained secret until the thirteenth century due to its numerous critiques of the Asian religions, when it was finally introduced to Europe. To support his views on the ancient origins of Kabbalah, Franck is forced to interpret the doctrine of the Sephiroth in a quite unnatural way using passages from the Talmud. However, since this issue has been covered in the second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.), it is unnecessary to restate the arguments here.43 Nonetheless, Franck’s significant contribution to understanding the Sohar will always be a helpful resource for those studying this challenging text.
1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the [226]study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine, for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as contained in the Alphabet of R. Akiba (אותיות בר׳ עקיבא), the Dimensions of the Deity (שיעור קומה), the Heavenly Mansions (היכלות), and even the Book of Jetzira (ספר יצירה) and similar documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it knows nothing about the so-called Sephiroth and about the speculations respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described as Hagada and not as Kabbalah.”44 As to the Sohar, Landauer maintains that it was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on the authorship of the Sohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)
1845. A new era in Kabbalah studies emerged thanks to the research of M. H. Landauer, who died on February 3rd, 1841, when he was just thirty-three years old. This learned Rabbi's early death is a huge loss to literature. Despite his health issues that caused him ongoing suffering during his brief life, he dedicated himself from a young age to studying Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the vast wealth of Jewish knowledge. He later attended the universities of Munich and Tübingen, and alongside his other biblical critiques, he set out to explore the depths of Kabbalah. It was this scholar who, after thoroughly studying this esoteric doctrine, was the first to differentiate between the ancient mysticism of the Gaonim period and true Kabbalah. He demonstrated that “the former, as found in the Alphabet of R. Akiba (Letters of Rabbi Akiva), the Dimensions of the Deity (Floor level), the Heavenly Mansions (היכלות), and even the Book of Jetzira (Book of Creation) and similar documents, fundamentally differ from later Kabbalah, since it does not concern itself with the so-called Sephiroth or theories about the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the correct understanding of Kabbalah, its contents should be referred to as Hagada rather than Kabbalah.” 44 Regarding the Sohar, Landauer argues that it was authored by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s opinions on Kabbalah and the authorship of the Sohar, as Steinschneider rightly notes, are particularly significant and informative because he originally held the opposite views. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)
1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very elaborate critique on Franck’s Religious Philosophy of the Sohar, which is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much, however, Joel positively states, that though the Sohar in its present form [227]could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary or oral.45
1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a detailed critique of Franck’s Religious Philosophy of the Sohar, which serves as a valuable supplement to Franck’s work, even though Joel's piece is mostly negative and aims to dismantle Franck’s theory without offering an alternative. However, Joel clearly states that while the Sohar in its current form [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] couldn’t have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and although its author may not have lived before the thirteenth century, its core doctrines largely are not the creation of the author but are drawn from ancient Jewish sources, whether documentary or oral.45
1851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’s la Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the authorship of the Sohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of the Sohar.46 Several of his arguments are given in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and authorship of the Sohar.
1851. After seven years, Jellinek kept the promise he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’s la Kabbale ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux by publishing an essay on the authorship of the Sohar. In 1851, this dedicated scholar released a historical-critical treatise, in which he demonstrates, almost conclusively, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of the Sohar.46 Several of his arguments are presented in the second part of this essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our discussion of the age and authorship of the Sohar.
1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and composition of the Sohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitled Contributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the study and history of the Book Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected with the Sohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar, as well as (2) discusses additional points connected with the Sohar, and (3) gives the original text to the history of the Kabbalah.47
1852. While he was deeply involved in his research on the authorship and composition of the Sohar, Jellinek was also broadening his work to include the history of the Kabbalah as a whole. He shared the results in two volumes (Leipzig, 1852), titled Contributions to the History of the Kabbalah. The first volume covers (1) the study and history of the Book Jetzira, (2) various topics related to the Sohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings that preceded the Sohar; while the second volume (1) continues the exploration of Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar, (2) discusses additional points related to the Sohar, and (3) provides the original text regarding the history of the Kabbalah. 47
1853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published, [228]twelve months afterwards, the first part of a Selection of Kabbalistic Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1) The Treatise on the Emanations (מסכת אצילות), (2) The Book of Institutions (ספר העיון), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3) The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitled Kether Shem Tob (כתר שם טוב), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics, the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by the erudite editor.48 May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.
1853. Building on his previous works, Jellinek published [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the first part of a Selection of Kabbalistic Mysticism twelve months later. This collection includes the Hebrew texts of (1) The Treatise on the Emanations (Tractate of Emanation), (2) The Book of Institutions (Non-fiction book), by R. Chamai Gaon, (3) The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise titled Kether Shem Tob (Keter Shem Tov), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, primarily sourced from manuscripts at public libraries in Paris and Hamburg, are prefaced by scholarly Introductions that discuss the characteristics, age, authorship, and sources of each document, authored by the knowledgeable editor.48 May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfill his promise and continue editing these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as well as publish his own work on the meanings of this esoteric doctrine.
1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitled Jerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith (מעשה בראשית) and the Maase Merkaba (מעשה מרכבה), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to the Book Jetzira and to the Sohar an antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—
1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, titled Jerusalem and Tiberias, spends seventy pages describing the Kabbalah. One might have expected this dedicated writer, who relies on Jewish sources, to present the findings of the aforementioned Hebraists. However, Dr. Etheridge does not do this; he mixes up the meanings of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith (The Creation Story), and the Maase Merkaba (Chariot of God) with the teachings of the Kabbalah and mistakenly attributes an ancient origin to both the Book Jetzira and the Sohar that contradicts modern scholarly findings. The following excerpt from his work will suffice to illustrate the accuracy of our observations:—
“To the authenticity of the Zohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that ascribes it as a pseudo fabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the [229]book itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.”49
“There have been some objections to the authenticity of the Zohar as a work from the early Kabbalistic school, but they aren't significant enough to warrant a thorough investigation. The idea that it was a pseudo fabrication by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century likely has few supporters among scholars today. References to Shemun ben Yochai and Kabbalah in the Talmud, along with a lot of internal evidence found in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]book itself, strongly suggest that although Shemun may not have been the actual author, it reflects his teachings and those of his close disciples.”__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned of our own time in the pseudo fabrication of the Sohar by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz,50 Geiger,51 Sachs,52 Jellinek53 and a host of other most distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact; as well as the statement that there are references to the Kabbalah in the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of literature.
Now the bold claim that there are few believers among today's scholars in the *pseudo* creation of the *Sohar* by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century, when respected scholars like Zunz, Geiger, Sachs, Jellinek, and many other prominent Jewish academics consider it nearly a settled fact; along with the assertion that there are *references to the Kabbalah in the Talmud*, can only be explained by the fact that Dr. Etheridge has not properly understood the significance of the Kabbalah and is completely unfamiliar with contemporary research in this area of literature.
1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned Steinschneider, which appeared in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful information.54
1857. The detailed essay on Jewish literature by the knowledgeable Steinschneider, published in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia and translated into English, offers a comprehensive overview of this complex doctrine. However, it is worth noting that the sections dedicated to this topic provide not so much an analysis as a thorough account of its literature; and, like all of this outstanding scholar's works, they are filled with valuable information.54
1858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of the Sohar appeared in a Jewish periodical, entitled Ben Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55 This analysis was [230]made by Ignatz Stern, who has also translated into German those portions of the Sohar which are called the Book of Mysteries, the Great Assembly, and the Small Assembly, and has written a vocabulary to the Sohar. The recent death of this great student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception of the analysis of the Sohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and editor of the Ben Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.
1858–1861. A highly informative and comprehensive analysis of the Sohar was published in a Jewish magazine called Ben Chananja, volumes i, ii, iii, and iv.55 This analysis was [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]conducted by Ignatz Stern, who also translated into German the sections of the Sohar known as the Book of Mysteries, the Great Assembly, and the Small Assembly, and compiled a vocabulary for the Sohar. The recent passing of this prominent Kabbalah scholar is deeply mourned. Aside from the analysis of the Sohar, all his works remain in manuscript form; and it is hoped that the esteemed Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin and editor of the Ben Chananja, who played a key role in bringing the retiring Ignatz Stern to public attention, will publish his literary works.
1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews, to this theosophy.56
1859. Since Kabbalah has played such a significant role in the intellectual and religious development, as well as in the history of the Jewish people, modern historians of the Jews, while portraying the challenges faced by the nation, recognized it as a crucial part of their story to outline the emergence and evolution of this esoteric belief system. Therefore, the knowledgeable and kind Dr. Jost dedicates seventeen pages in his history of the Jews to this theosophy.56
1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de Leon is the author of the Sohar.57 Whatever may be the shortcomings of this portion [231]of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.
1863. No one has examined the doctrines, origins, and development of this esoteric system with more thoroughness, knowledge, and fairness than the historian Dr. Graetz. He has skillfully followed the principles set out by the late scholar Landauer, distinguishing between mysticism and the Kabbalah more effectively than any of his predecessors. Graetz has provided a clear explanation of the doctrines and significance of the Kabbalah in its original form, and he has convincingly shown, in a detailed essay, that Moses de Leon is the author of the Sohar.57 Regardless of any shortcomings in this section [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of Graetz’s history, anyone who studies it will gain insight into the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.
1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique.58
1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szeged, whose name has already come up in relation to Ignatz Stern, published a lengthy review of Graetz’s take on the Kabbalah. Although the Rabbi worked hard to challenge Dr. Graetz’s stance, besides perhaps demonstrating that the Kabbalah wasn’t created in opposition to Maimonides’ philosophy, the knowledgeable historian’s conclusions remain intact. Furthermore, Dr. Löw’s critique often confuses mysticism with the Kabbalah. 58
We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.
We aren’t aware of anything new on this topic since Graetz’s research on the Kabbalah and Löw’s extensive critique of that research were published. Of course, we can't claim to provide a complete history of the literature on this theosophy; the purpose of this essay and the limitations of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions” in which it appears make that impossible. However, we can confidently say that nothing essential to the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine has been left out.
Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.
Several works that provide extensive accounts of the Kabbalah have been left out, as these descriptions don't offer anything particularly noteworthy in their approach to the Kabbalah, nor have they led to any significant events among the followers of this system.
Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’ Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59 Basnage’s History of the Jews,60 where a very lengthy account is given of the [232]Kabbalah, without any system whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of Kabbalistic authors;61 and Molitor’s Philosophy of History.62
Among the works that were left out are Buddeus' Introduction to the History of Hebrew Philosophy;59 Basnage's History of the Jews,60 which provides a very detailed account of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Kabbalah, without any structure to it, mostly drawn from Kircher's work; Wolfs' account of the Jewish Kabbalah, found in his comprehensive Bibliographical Thesaurus of Hebrew Literature, which includes an extensive list of Kabbalistic authors;61 and Molitor’s Philosophy of History.62
We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63 For, although he does not attempt to separate the gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and the Sohar without deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.
We truly regret missing Munk’s description of the Kabbalah.63 Although he doesn’t try to distinguish between the gnostic and mystical elements, which later blended with the original teachings of this esoteric system, no one can read the fascinating section on the Kabbalah and the Sohar without gaining insights that aren’t available anywhere else.
3 עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב״ה שהתיבו׳ מתחלקות לשמות בענין אחר כאלו תחשוב על דרך משל כי פסוק בראשית יתחלק לתיבות אחרות כגון בראש יתברא אלהים וכל התורה כי מלבד צירופיהן וגימטריותיהן של שמות. ↑
3 It is still generally accepted that the entire Torah is made up of the names of the Creator, which can be categorized into different names. For instance, consider the verse in Genesis divided into separate words, like "In the beginning, God created." Furthermore, the Torah also includes the combinations and gematria of the names. ↑
4 This remarkable Treatise was first published by R. Abraham, Vilna, 1802; it was then reprinted with all its faults in Lemberg, 1850. The erudite and indefatigable Dr. Jellinek has now reprinted it in his Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i, Leipzig, 1853, and the above analysis is from the Introduction to this excellent edition. ↑
4 This remarkable treatise was first published by R. Abraham in Vilna in 1802; it was later reprinted with all its errors in Lemberg in 1850. The knowledgeable and tireless Dr. Jellinek has now reprinted it in his Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i, Leipzig, 1853, and the analysis above is from the introduction to this excellent edition. ↑
8 This will be seen from the reduction of the respective names to their numerical value by the rule Gematria, viz.:—
8 This will be evident from reducing the respective names to their numerical value using the method Gematria, namely:—
ל 30 + א 1 + י 10 + ז 7 Sure! Please provide the text you'd like me to modernize. ר 200 | = 248; |
ו 6 + ה 5 + י 10 + ר 200 + כ 20 + ז 7 | = 248; |
and ם 40 + ה 5 + ר 200 + ב 2 + א 1 | = 248. |
12 Dicitur haec doctrina Kabbala quod idem est secundum Hebraeos ut receptio veritatis cujuslibet rei divinitus revelatae animae rationali.… Est igitur Kabbala habitus anima rationalis ex rectâ ratione divinarum rerum cognitivus; propter quod est de maximo etiam divino consequutive divina scientia vocari debet. Comp. De Auditu Kabbalistico, sive ad omnes scientias introductorium. Strasburg, 1651. ↑
12 This doctrine is called Kabbala, which is understood by the Hebrews as the reception of the truth about any divinely revealed matter to the rational soul.… Therefore, Kabbala is the state of the rational soul’s understanding of divine things through right reasoning; for this reason, it should be referred to as the greatest and also the divine consecutive divine knowledge. See De Auditu Kabbalistico, sive ad omnes scientias introduction. Strasburg, 1651. ↑
14 The MS. of Ibn Wakkar’s Treatise is minutely described by Uri (No 384). It is written in a character resembling the later German Hebrew, is furnished with references to the passages in the Bible and verbal translations in Latin, and contains such clerical blunders as no Hebrew copyist would commit. The above analysis of it is taken from the article in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxxi, p. 100, &c., written by the erudite Steinschneider. For the other Kabbalistic works of Ibn Wakkar we must refer to the same elaborate article. ↑
14 The manuscript of Ibn Wakkar’s Treatise is detailed by Uri (No 384). It’s written in a style similar to later German Hebrew, includes references to Bible verses and translations in Latin, and contains clerical errors that no Hebrew copyist would make. This analysis comes from the article in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxxi, p. 100, &c., authored by the knowledgeable Steinschneider. For Ibn Wakkar's other Kabbalistic works, we recommend referring to the same comprehensive article. ↑
20 Vidi in illis (testis est Deus) religionem non tam Mosaicam quam Christianam; ibi Trinitatis mysterium; ibi verbi Incarnatio, ibi Messiae divinitates; ibi de pecato originali, de illius per Christum expiatione, de cælesti Hierusalem, de casu dæmonum, de ordinibus Angelorum, de Purgatoriis, de Inferorum poenis; Eadem legi, quae apud Paulum et Dionysium, apud Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimus. Comp. Index a Jacobo Gaffarello, published by Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. i, p. 9 at the end of the volume. ↑
20 I witnessed there (God is my witness) a faith that was not only Mosaic but also Christian; there was the mystery of the Trinity; there was the Incarnation of the Word, the divinity of the Messiah; there were discussions about original sin, its redemption through Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of demons, the ranks of angels, purgatory, and the sufferings of hell; the same teachings we read about daily in Paul and Dionysius, Jerome and Augustine. Comp. Index a Jacobo Gaffarello, published by Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. i, p. 9 at the end of the volume. ↑
22 Hic libri (Cabbalistorum) Sixtus IV, Pontifex maximus, qui hunc, sub quo vivimus feliciter, Innocentium VIII, proxime antecessit, maxima cura studioque curavit, ut in publicam fidei nostrae utilitarem, Latinis literis mandarentur, jamque cum ille decessit, tres ex illis pervenerant ad Latinos. Vide Gaffarelli in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, appendix to vol. i, p. 9. ↑
22 This book (Cabbalists) was carefully supervised by Sixtus IV, the Pope, who lived during the reign of Innocent VIII, his immediate predecessor. He worked hard to make sure it was written in Latin for the benefit of our faith. By the time he died, three of them had already been translated into Latin. See Gaffarelli in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, appendix to vol. i, p. 9. ↑
32 Comp. his Resp., ed. Vienna, 1860, p. 24, &c., פסק נגד הרבנים אשר בקשו לעכב הדפסת הזוהר מטעם גזרות המלכות על שריפה התלמוד; and again, ibid. p. 26, עוד יש מהם שהוסיפו סרה ואמרו כי העיון בזוהר יביא למינות ולפיכך טעון גניזה או שריפה לבער הקדש. ↑
32 Comp. his Resp., ed. Vienna, 1860, p. 24, &c., A ruling against the rabbis who sought to postpone the printing of the Zohar due to royal edicts regarding the burning of the Talmud.; and again, ibid. p. 26, There are still some who have added slander and said that studying the Zohar leads to heresy, and therefore it needs to be hidden away or burned to eliminate the holy. ↑
34 The ארי נוהם was published by Dr. Julius Fürst, Leipzig, 1840. Leo de Modena’s relation to the Kabbalah, the Talmud and Christianity is shown in an elaborate Introduction by Geiger in the מאמר מגן וצנה Berlin, 1856. See also the article Leo de Modena, in Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, vol. ii, p. 811. ↑
34 The Ari Nohem was published by Dr. Julius Fürst in Leipzig, 1840. Leo de Modena’s connection to the Kabbalah, the Talmud, and Christianity is explored in detail in an introduction by Geiger in the Article on defense and security published in Berlin, 1856. Also, check out the article Leo of Modena in Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, vol. ii, p. 811. ↑
39 Confusam et obscuram opus, in quo necessaria cum non necessariis, utilia cum inutilibus, confusa sunt, et in unam velut chaos conjecta. Introductio in Historiam Philosophiae Hebraeorum. Halle, 1702. Buddeus gives in this Introduction (p. 232, &c.), a detailed description of the Kabbala Denudata. ↑
Printed by the Hebrew Publishing Company „Menorah” Ltd. Prague.
Printed by the Hebrew Publishing Company "Menorah" Ltd. Prague.
Colophon
Availability
Metadata
Title: | The Kabbalah: its doctrines, development, and literature | |
Author: | Christian David Ginsburg (1831–1914) | Info https://viaf.org/viaf/11054330/ |
File generation date: | 2022-10-26 19:22:24 UTC | |
Language: | English | |
Original publication date: | 1920 |
Revision History
- 2022-03-17 Started.
External References
Corrections
The following corrections have been applied to the text:
The following corrections have been made to the text:
Page | Source | Correction | Edit distance |
---|---|---|---|
88 | και | καὶ | 1 / 0 |
88 | ἄπείρος | ἄπειρος | 1 / 0 |
91 | הכמה | Wisdom | 1 |
92 | אשים | Individuals | 1 |
93 | χαρίς | χάρις | 2 / 0 |
93, 97, 111, 128, 140, 159, 159, 168, 191, 195, 201, 206 | [Not in source] | . | 1 |
93 | οῦρανῶν | οὐρανῶν | 1 / 0 |
94 | מ | מי | 1 |
97 | שנוטלין | כשנוטלין | 1 |
97 | תחעמט | תתמעט | 3 |
97 | שנוטולין | שנוטלין | 1 |
97 | מהשלמותו | מהשלמתו | 1 |
97 | לכד | לכך | 1 |
98, 99 | בינח | בינה | 1 |
99 | . | [Deleted] | 1 |
99 | נצת | נצח | 1 |
100 | הסד | חסד | 1 |
101 | המוטבע | המושכל | 3 |
104, 105 | [Not in source] | ., | 2 |
106 | εικών | εἰκών | 1 / 0 |
110 | יצירה | היצירה | 1 |
110 | ακατασκεύαστος | ἀκατασκεύαστος | 1 / 0 |
111 | דלעיללא | דלעילא | 1 |
111 | וכלא | וסלא | 1 |
114 | להתבראות | להבראות | 1 |
115 | ‘ | “ | 1 |
116 | Ecl. | Eccl. | 1 |
117 | developes | develops | 1 |
117 | כפרצופא | בפרצופא | 1 |
117 | רשימא | רשימה | 1 |
117 | חקיקא | חקיקה | 1 |
117 | למחזי | למחמי | 1 |
117 | דקיימא | דלא קיימא | 3 |
117 | דּשרר | דשדר | 2 / 1 |
117 | אלדים | אלקים | 1 |
117 | איהו | הוא | 3 |
117 | אשתכח | עלם | 5 |
119, 124, 124, 131, 153, 160, 193, 231 | [Not in source] | , | 1 |
125 | , | . | 1 |
125, 188 | [Not in source] | ) | 1 |
128 | לאליפן | לאליפז | 1 |
128, 202 | [Not in source] | ” | 1 |
130 | σὼματικὸς | σωματικὸς | 1 / 0 |
131 | [Not in source] | 30 | 2 |
131, 196 | [Not in source] | + | 1 |
140 | הקךש | הקדש | 1 |
142 | [Not in source] | ’ | 1 |
144 | mirifico | Mirifico | 1 |
148 | the | The | 1 |
149 | ” | ’ ” | 1 |
154 | one | two | 3 |
159 | ” | [Deleted] | 1 |
159 | cabalistical semptorum | cabalisticae scriptorum | 4 |
159 | , | ., | 2 |
160, 160 | , | ; | 1 |
175 | ׳ | 1 | |
181 | At | at | 1 |
182 | 1304 | 1204 | 1 |
187 | χαὶ | καὶ | 1 |
187 | ἀῤῥητος, αγνωστὸς | ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος | 3 / 0 |
188 | οίον | οἷον | 1 / 0 |
190 | Grætz | Graetz | 2 |
191, 197, 198 | [Not in source] | “ | 1 |
192 | Asiatic | Assiatic | 1 |
193 | סוך | סוד | 1 |
196 | 30 | 20 | 1 |
196 | religon | religion | 1 |
199, 215 | Cabbala | Kabbala | 1 |
200 | cons quutive | consequutive | 1 |
200 | introdutorium | introductorium | 1 |
202 | l | i | 1 |
208 | ὄυντως | ὄντως | 1 |
209 | αἰ θὴρ | αἰθὴρ | 1 |
223 | utila | utilia | 1 |
231 | fur | für | 1 / 0 |
232 | Philsophie | Philosophie | 1 |
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!