“And They Shall Be One Flesh”: On The Language of Mystical Union in Judaism 9789004328730, 9004328734

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union
Chapter 3 Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism
Chapter 4 Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union
Chapter 5 “As Light Unites with Light”: The Language of Union in Jewish Neoplatonism
Chapter 6 The Language of Union in the Writings of Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides
Chapter 7 Mystical Union in Early Kabbalah
Chapter 8 Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia
Chapter 9 Language and Images of Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre
Chapter 10 “Single Unification, Single Bond”: The Language of Union and Unity in the Zohar
Chapter 11 From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism: A Brief Overview
Chapter 12 Concluding Remarks
Primary Sources
Bibliography
Index of Names and Subjects
Index of Primary Sources

Citation preview

“And They Shall Be One Flesh”: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism

Supplements to The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Edited by Elliot R. Wolfson (University of California, Santa Barbara) Christian Wiese (University of Frankfurt) Hartwig Wiedebach (University of Zurich)

VOLUME 26

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sjjt

“And They Shall Be One Flesh”: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism By

Adam Afterman

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Afterman, Adam, author. Title: And they shall be one flesh : on the language of mystical union in  Judaism / by Adam Afterman. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2016] | Series: Supplements to the  Journal of Jewish thought and philosophy, ISSN 1873-9008 ; volume 26 |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016026410 (print) | LCCN 2016027152 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004328723 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004328730 (E-book) Subjects: LCSH: Mysticism—Judaism—Influence. | Cabala—Influence. |  Mystical union. Classification: LCC BM723 .A35 2016 (print) | LCC BM723 (ebook) | DDC  296.7/12—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016026410

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1873-9008 isbn 978-90-04-32872-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32873-0 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgements viI 1 Introduction 1 2

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union 25

3

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism 49

4

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union 60

5

“As Light Unites with Light”: The Language of Union in Jewish Neoplatonism 79

6

The Language of Union in the Writings of Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides 102

7

Mystical Union in Early Kabbalah 130

8

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia 151

9

Language and Images of Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre 171

10

“Single Unification, Single Bond”: The Language of Union and Unity in the Zohar 189

11

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism: A Brief Overview 225

12

Concluding Remarks 237 Primary Sources 243 Bibliography 245 Index of Names and Subjects 271 Index of Primary Sources 279

Acknowledgements* My interest in the idea of mystical union first grew out of conversations I had many years ago with my late father, the poet Allen B. Afterman. The program in “Jewish Philosophy, Talmud and Kabbalah” at Tel Aviv University Department of Hebrew Culture Studies has been my academic home for the last six years. I am privileged now to chair this program and I thank my colleagues and students at Tel Aviv University for their support, interest, and involvement in my work, especially Menachem Lorberbaum, who was kind enough to read different drafts of several chapters of the book, and for an ongoing dialogue; Ronit Meroz for her constant support and interest in my work and for sharing unpublished materials; Ron Margolin for his constant support and ongoing interest in my work; and Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Gideon Bohak, Michael Mach, Yuval Jobani, and department chair Vered Noam for their warm support. I would also like to thank the chair of the School of Jewish Studies, Tamar Sovran, and my Deans at TAU, Shlomo Biderman, Eyal Zisser, and Leo Corry for their ongoing support of my work. Thanks go to my colleague and head of the Tel Aviv University Center for Religious and Interreligious Studies (CRIS), Menachem Fisch, for his ongoing support and engagement with my work, and to my colleagues at CRIS, Yossef Schwartz, Barbara Meyer, Lina Salaymeh, and Ahmad Igbariah for sharing the passion for the study of interreligious matters in the academy. I would also like to thank many of my colleagues and friends with whom I discussed ideas and elements of this project over the years, including: Daniel Abrams, Yoav Ashkenazi, Avriel Bar-Levav, Yossi Chajes, Avraham Elqayam, Jonathan Garb, Tom Greggs, Moshe Halbertal, Zev Harvey, Joel Hecker, Melila Hellner-Eshed, Ruth Kaniel Kara-Ivanov, Yehuda Liebes, Yair Lorberbaum, Zvi Mark, Daniel Matt, Jonatan Meir, Maren Niehoff, Brian Ogren, Yakir Paz, Elchanan Reiner, Biti Roi, Hillel ben Sasson, Eli Schonfeld, Sara Sviri, Sandra Valabregue Perry, Hami Verbin, Tzahi Weiss, and Oded Yisraeli. I would like to express my gratitude to the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute, Rabbi Donniel Hartman, and to Hana Gilat for their ongoing support and encouragement. My colleagues and friends at SHI—Sharaga Bar-On, Yitzhak Benbaji, Avital Davidovich, Dov Elbaum, Yair Furstenberg, Micah *  Chapter 2 in this book is based upon my article: “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union,” Published in The Journal of Religion 93 (2013): 177–196; and my article: “Time, Eternity and Mystical Experience in Kabbalah’, Time and Eternity in Jewish Mysticism, edited by Brian Ogren, Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2015, 162–175, was used partially in chapters 8 and 10.

viii

Acknowledgements

Goodman, Israel Knohl, Marcie Lenk, Shlomo Naeh, Ariel Picard, Avi Sagi, and Adiel Schremer—were kind enough to discuss with me over the years elements of the problem of union and integration with God. Angelica Berrie, Chair of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, has supported my personal and academic path in the field of Jewish studies and interreligious research, and I am very grateful to her, as I am for the ongoing support of Rabbi Jack Bemporad, director of the John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. A major part of the work for this book was undertaken during the spring and summer of 2015 when I served as a visiting senior lecturer in Jewish Studies at the Harvard Divinity School. The wonderful hospitality and enchanting libraries made an ideal setting for writing the bulk of this book. I would like to thank Dean David Hampton for his kind invitation to visit HDS, and his faculty— Karen King, Kimberley Patton, Charles Stang, Kevin Madigan, Ann Braude, Francis Clooney, and Jon Levenson—for their warm engagement. I would also like to thank the graduate students at HDS, in particular those that participated in my seminar on “Intimacy with God: Jewish Conceptions of Communion, Mystical Union and the Holy Spirit”. Their engagement with some of the sources and ideas analyzed in this book at the time that I was writing it was extremely valuable. While in Boston, I also very much enjoyed my conversations with Rabbis Arthur Green and Or Rose at Hebrew College. The current study was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation that allowed me to focus on this topic from 2013 to 2015, and to collaborate with a group of intelligent and dedicated TAU graduate students who contributed at various stages to different aspects of the project: Noam Hoffmann, Omer Michaelis, Marva Shalev Marom, and Idan Pinto. Special thanks are due to Elliot R. Wolfson, the editor of the SJJT series at Brill, for his sincere and open engagement with my work, which helped me improve my arguments. The privilege of working with an editor who is at the same time not only a leading scholar in the field but also one who has written extensively on the topics analyzed in this book was invaluable to me. The team at Brill, including Meghan Connolly, was extremely helpful in bringing the manuscript to print. I would like to also thank my English editor, Sue Fendrick, for her fine work. My engagement with the problem of integration with God and its different articulations and vocabularies in Judaism was undertaken through a long and fruitful dialogue with Moshe Idel. His extensive writing on this topic not only laid some of the cornerstones of my own study, but also opened the door for a new perspective.

Acknowledgements

ix

The ongoing support and love from my family, my mother Susan Afterman and her husband Josef Shai, and my brothers Gedaliah (and his wife Emma), Yshai, and Hadar is an ongoing source of strength. I am grateful to my wife’s parents and their spouses—Orit Fogel-Shafran and Meshulam Shafran, Alain Fogel and Helga Dotan—and especially my wife’s grandmother, Hanna Pickmann Chaikin, for their ongoing interest in and support of my work. To my loving wife, Danielle: with her I came to learn the mystery of love and union, to which our children Alma and Joel have recently joined. I dedicate this book to her in love:‬"‫‬"ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד‬

Chapter 1

Introduction The unity of God and His absolute oneness are key ideas for all monotheistic religions. Within Judaism, medieval Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah both had an especially deep and profound interest in the unity of God. For the former, the oneness and non-corporality of God is the primary, most evident truth—the foundation of all Jewish thinking and religiosity. For the latter, it is the deepest secret and, at times, even a mystery to be actively realized and experienced by the mystic. Medieval Jewish thought went beyond the understanding of monotheism underlying the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic Judaism, articulating a further dimension—one of metaphysical and theological structures extending between God and man. These theological and metaphysical “ladders” that stretch from heaven to earth allowed for new forms and expressions of religious experience and transformation to develop. Reaching intimacy with God was thus understood in terms of spiritual or mental elevation, a process that leads to forms of communion and union with Him. These radical, innovative spiritual states, considered the new heart of religious life, were projected backwards into biblical and Talmudic language, while also expressing the next step in a religious path coming into being. This medieval development is no less than a radical revolution in Judaism, in which medieval Jewish spirituality, in both branches of philosophy and in Kabbalah, represents a new form of religion that goes beyond the conventions of biblical and rabbinic Judaism.1 Neither biblical nor rabbinic Judaism articulated or promoted forms of spiritual communion and union with God. These new religious ideals are rooted in the synthesis of Judaism with Platonism and Aristotelianism—first in Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism, and then later developed especially in novel syntheses from the tenth century onwards. I will argue here that, along with the theological understanding of the oneness of God, inevitably leading to understanding Him in terms of the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Neoplatonic “One”,2 a new religious ideal was introduced: the desire to become one with God. By becoming one with the ultimate and 1  I have argued this in: Adam Afterman, Devequt: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011), (Hebrew). 2  See: Diana Lobel, A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue: Philosophy and Mysticism in Bahya ibn Paquda’s “Duties of the Heart” (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 66–95.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_002

2

Chapter 1

transcendent One, man was thought to be able to reach the ultimate religious ideal: coming close to God and loving Him so much to the extent of ultimately uniting with Him in a total union of love. In most Jewish medieval systems of religious transformation, man was first to unite with mediating beings, erecting the metaphysical ladder leading to the divine. Man must climb the ladder of metaphysical knowledge by transforming into each and every sub-divine mediating entity, usually associated with angels. The crucial final step was the integration into the divine thought or intellect associated many times with God’s Wisdom. The Aristotelian classification of divine thought as a unity of “thought as subject” with “thought as object” determined the process of transformation required for such integration. Both Platonic and Aristotelian systems have a unified principle of oneness at their fundamental core; this fact shapes the entire human movement towards what truly exists as a movement from multiplicity to unity, at the apex of the pyramid of being. Religious perfection in medieval Judaism was transformed into a pursuit of God’s perfection—his simplicity, his transcendence, and his oneness. This volume is an exploration of this complex revolution, in which an ancient religion embraced forms of Hellenistic philosophy in an Arab-Muslim garb. Judaism was transformed by the emergence of new religious ideals, the most radical of which is that of the two becoming one: the human ascending and integrating into the divine and the metaphysical realms, or alternatively, the divine descending and dwelling in the human. To this day, this idea is rejected by many (both theologians and scholars) as a notion that contradicts the fundamentals of Judaism; such integration confounded the categorical, unbridgeable difference between God as the creator and all of creation. Nevertheless, many Jews since Philo have thought and taught otherwise, and were deeply intrigued by religious paths leading to various forms of union with the divine. I will argue here that the religious idea of mystical union primarily originated in Philo, and should therefore be perceived as an originally Jewish idea, emerging from the synthesis between ancient Judaism and middle Platonism. For the next millennium, until the 10th century, rabbinic Jews did not relate to this synthesis any further, perhaps due to the destruction of the Jewish community in Alexandria. Yet ancient Jewish mysticism developed ideas of transformation and ascensions that, although essentially different from the medieval spiritual and metaphysical paths leading to the divine, nevertheless provided an important background to the medieval revolution. It was only in the 10th century, when

Introduction

3

Jews encountered Neoplatonism, that the concepts of mystical communion and union were reintroduced into Judaism. The Jewish language of union results from remarkable moments of openness to surrounding cultures—first in the Hellenistic Judaism of Philo, later in medieval Jewish theology with its striking openness to Muslim and Arab culture. In this way, fundamentally new religious ideas and vocabulary evolved, which were carefully bound to the fabric of scripture and the rabbinic matrix of thought. Although at first primarily inspired by philosophical sources, with the emergence of 13th-century European Kabbalah, the Jewish language of union embarked on its own route, developing different features such as the unique ideal of mystical embodiment so characteristic of Jewish mysticism. Uniting with God by means of the body is a key idea in some of the most important Jewish mystical sources (including the Zohar and later works); however, it stands in contradiction to the manner in which Philo and later Jewish Platonists—who were the first to offer such a synthesis—understood the idea of spiritual union. The history of Jewish unitive language is constituted of these two trends: the lineage of Philonic or Neoplatonic mystical union, in which the human is elevated to God’s dwelling and becomes one with Him; and the lineage of mystical embodiment, the notion of the divine indwelling by means of its name, light and spirit, in the midst of the human. The various vocabularies Jews employed for the articulation of these two trends, their convergence and divergence, is the history of the Jewish language of mystical union to be presented below.

The Study of Unio Mystica in Judaism

Of the many mystical states and experiences, mystical union has received special attention as a highly controversial matter. Scholars of past generations denied categorically the possibility of unio mystica in Judaism;3 Gershom Scholem (1897–1982), the founder of the study of Jewish mysticism and Kabbalah as an academic field of research, along with many of his students, argued forcefully against the possibility of mystical union in those movements.4 Scholem and others claimed that theological constraints or 3  See the detailed analysis in Moshe Idel, Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005), 4–26 and in the references in the following footnotes. 4  See: Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, trans. by A. Arkush (Philadelphia: Princeton University Press, 1987), 299–309; 414–416, 454–460; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish

4

Chapter 1

c­ onsiderations prevented Jewish mystics from developing a theory and practice of a full mystical union.5 Due to Scholem’s authority, his observations on this particular matter have been widely accepted as common truths for almost a century of research. This fundamental position has had a strong impact on scholars of general or comparative mysticism as well when considering Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism. In Scholem’s resonant words from his seminal essay on communion with God, devequt is claimed to be “the highest ideal of the mystical life as the Kabbalists see it.” That being said, and although devequt is “the last grade of ascent to God”, it is “not union, because union with God is denied to man even in that mystical upsurge of the soul, according to Kabbalistic theology. But it comes as near to union as a mystical interpretation of Judaism would allow.”6 Despite his discussion of a few notable exceptions from the Baal Shem Tov’s circle, Scholem maintains that “[e]ven in this ecstatic frame of mind,” which is the utmost point of communion, “the Jewish mystic almost invariably retains a sense of the distance between the Creator and His creature.”7 In his essay “On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in Our Time”, Scholem argues even further: Jewish mysticism as such does not exist at all in the sense of direct, unmediated union with the godhead. There is no such thing within the framework of the Jewish tradition, as such a union requires a level of daring which seems impossible within the context of the concepts traditionally accepted by one who calls himself a Jew.8

Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), 8–11, 122–123; Gershom Scholem, “Mysticism and Society,” Diogenes 58 (1967): 58; Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality, (New York: Schocken Books,1971), 203–204, 227; Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter publishing house, 1970), 174–176; and the comment by Joseph Weiss, Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 90, note 5. 5  See: Moshe Idel, “ ‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Jewish Mysticism,” in Doors of Understanding: Conversations in Global Spirituality in Honor of Ewert Cousins, edit. Steven Chase (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1997), 303–333; Moshe Idel, “‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: Some Observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (2002), 19–41. 6  Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 203–204. 7  Scholem, Major Trends, 123. 8  Gershom Scholem, On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism In Our Time, edit. Avraham Shapira, trans. Jonathan Chipman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997), 7.

Introduction

5

Scholem’s denial of mystical union is inextricably linked to his notion of symbolism, and to the role he assigns to symbolism in Kabbalistic discourses. Scholem argued that symbols are uniquely suited to capture the transcendent and ineffable.9 Nathan Rotenstreich thus aptly observed: It is in this sense that symbolism on the one hand and the denial of the unio mystica and pantheism on the other, seem to be the two correlated axes, comprising as it were the epistemological and ontological components, respectively of Scholem’s interpretive work.10 As Scholem sees it, by collapsing this ontological difference, the possibility of mystical union would undermine Kabbalah’s foundational symbolic structure, weaken the validity of the symbol as the main sense-carrier of its texts and praxis, and banish its functionality from the mystical peak of communion with God.11 In a different but related conceptual key, one of Scholem’s most sophisticated students, Joseph Ben Shlomo, tied together the negation of the existence of pantheism in Kabbalah with the alleged absence of mystical union in this literary heritage.12 9  See: Moshe Idel, Old Worlds, New Mirrors: On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-Century Thought, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 90–91. 10  Nathan Rotenstreich, “Symbolism and Transcendence: On Some Philosophical Aspects of Gershom Scholem’s Opus”, The Review of Metaphysics, 31(1978), 605 and ibid., 611–612. 11  That being said, and in accordance with the dialectical character of Scholem’s intellectual art, known for its to and fro movement, see Elliot Wolfson’s important claim that with respect to the “central issue” of unio mystica, “Scholem was genuinely ambivalent, contradictory, or dialectical.” Elliot Wolfson, “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience in the Zoharic Literature,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After, edit. Joseph Dan and Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1993) 216; Following Wolfson, Hartley Lachter points to the pattern expressed in the eighth of Scholem’s “Ten Aphorisms on the Kabbalah”, in which he writes on the “transformative perspective”, which he doubts whether to describe it as “magical or utopian”, that “contains all worlds, even the concealment of Ein Sof itself, in the place where I stand.” (Quoted by Hartley Lachter, “Paradox and mystical union in the Zohar,” PhD. diss., (New York University, 2004), 92). At this point Scholem discloses another type of communion, notably different from the one we emphasized above, in which Union is not denied or limited, but turns into a negotiation, a intermingling of man and the divine and a tension that allows for the revelation of the highest of secrets, that of the Ein-Sof, and not only its concealment, veiling or withdrawal. 12  See: Joseph Ben-Shlomo, “Gershom Scholem on Pantheism in the Kabbala,” in Gershom Scholem, the Man and His Work, edit. Paul Mendes-Flohr (Albany, New York: University of New York Press, 1994), 56–71.

6

Chapter 1

Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem on Mystical Union

Although many fundamental differences exist between Buber and Scholem, including profound disputes about the nature of Hasidism and Jewish mysticism, both share the placing of full unio mystica on the other side of the border of authentic Jewish mystical experience. Scholem’s typology of unio mystica and Judaism, as well as his understanding of the mechanism of the “Jewish mystic” psyche—the inherent conflict between the natural desire for union or the quest for fundamental unity and the constraints of Jewish tradition—was possibly forged in his pondering of the mature Buber’s reflections on his own ecstatic experience, to be analyzed below.13 For these two giants, Judaism was an institutionalized religion that, including its mystical trends, was delimited by a clear borderline. For the mature “dialogical” Buber, total union with God fundamentally contradicts the ideal of “dialogue”, the most important Jewish religious value—that is, that man and God engage each other in an “I and Thou” relationship. For Scholem, full mystical union erases the possibility of religious intimacy. Both consider “dialogue” and “intimacy” to be the unique features of “authentic” Jewish mystical experience, while the complete “negative” union is understood as contradicting core Jewish values. Scholem points to textual evidence that Jewish mystics utilized the language of devequt (which he associated only with communion) when describing their mystical experiences or translating them into the rich vocabulary of Jewish theology and discourse, allegedly avoiding the terminology of full union. In other words, although Jewish mystics (like all mystics!) strived to experience a full mystical union (and perhaps even privately achieved it), when the moment came to return to society and articulate the experience in the language of Judaism, it was always translated into the only available language, the vocabulary of devequt, which Scholem associated with the milder “communion” instead of “union”.14 This scholarly argument has been proven to be wrong, and this volume will demonstrates once again the extent that Jewish mystics use unitive vocabulary to describe their encounter with the divine, including but not exclusively the language of devequt. That is, in some cases where the 13  See: Paul Mendes-Flohr, From Mysticism to Dialogue: Martin Buber’s Transformation of the German Social Thought (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 62–64, 93–126. It is the later Buber who through reflection on his own ecstatic experiences shifted from a “mystical” quest for unity to a religious quest for dialogue. 14  This idea was fully articulated in Scholem, “Mysticism and Society”.

Introduction

7

­language of devequt appears, it is in fact used to describe unitive integrations; in other cases, there is a use of other unitive vocabulary instead of or in addition to devequt. But for Scholem, the religious language of devequt is intended only to represent a milder form of mystical encounter with the divine, which allows intimacy and love to exist in the gap between the two independent partners. In fact, he perceived the entire symbolic language of Kabbalah as existing in and being nourished by this gap between God and man, a gap that generates the Kabbalistic symbol and “voice”. The mysticism of communion and intimacy was, he felt, the Jewish response to the pantheistic goal of full unio mystica, which categorically attempts to erase that gap.15 Scholem argued that Kabbalah avoided pantheism because it would have been such a major threat to the “Jewish” void or gap (or “exile”), a void that sustains the boundaries between Israel and the gentiles and grounds the entire exilic Jewish existence, mentality, and way of life.16 Through the 20th century, mainly in the writings of Jewish scholars who had emigrated from largely Christian countries, the notion of mystical union (as they understood it, i.e., only in its negative apophatic form) serves as a powerful counter-criterion for the “authentic” Jewish mystical experience. This non-experience functioned in Scholem’s as well as in Buber’s writings as a “shadow experience”, a kind of mystical heresy, the most common ground that a non-dogmatic religion like Judaism can maintain. In the absence of a Jewish credo, Jews functioned in a fluid but limited semiotic field in which experiences of a full mystical union could not be expressed (although Scholem agreed that perhaps was experienced). This semiotics allowed only for the language of communion, and grounded these experiences in Jewish concepts besides union. It seems that for ideological and theological purposes, derived from complex relationships to Christian Europe and 20thcentury German philosophy17 (the significant “other”), Scholem and Buber saw it as impossible for Jewish practice to generate a moment of full “negative” union between man and God. According to Shaul Magid, Scholem was also truly concerned by a potential “moral danger”—a form of annihilation of man within the “pure being”, and 15  See Joseph Ben-Shlomo, The Challenge of Spinoza and Spinozism, (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012), (Hebrew). 16  See the section “The Kabbalah and Pantheism” in Scholem, Kabbalah, 144–152. 17  See Shaul Magid, “Gershom Scholem’s Ambivalence Towards Mystical Experience and his Critique of Martin Buber in Light of Hans Jonas and Martin Heidegger.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Vol. 4(2) (1995), 266–267.

8

Chapter 1

his rebirth as an authentic man free of God.18 Magid argues that Scholem was concerned with the forms of union developed by the 20th-century German philosophers. In these forms, the annihilation of man and rebirth as a liberated “pure being” was consequently the death of God, the ultimate negation of God and ethics.19 The free man who has no relation with the “other”, neither human nor divine, is considered an unethical man. It is therefore possible that Scholem and Buber both struggled against not only the Christian ideal of unio mystica, but also against the idea (articulated by Nietzsche and Heidegger) of the annihilation of man as the ultimate negation of God, leading to the birth of a “free” man, no longer restricted to old ethics. Thus, while presenting a theory of “intimacy” and “dialogue” between man and God, they categorically denied even the possibility of another type of unitive religious experience, in which man becomes one with God but maintains an intimate dialogue with Him. Throughout this volume, starting with Philo, we shall see that such an alternative does indeed exist in Jewish sources. In contradiction to the assumption that full and absolute unio mystica cannot sustain both the human subject and a form of intimacy with God, we shall see that many Jewish sources starting with Philo offered this form of union—one that does not abolish the human subject, and allows for intimacy and for a love relationship between the united human and divine. Buber and Scholem both clearly shared an antipathy towards the notion of unio mystica, as an element the absence of which clearly distinguished Jewish from Christian mysticism. Both assumed that any mystical tradition ought to represent the most sophisticated living manifestation of any institutionalized religion; thus, Kabbalah and even more so Hasidism should stand in sharp contrast to Christian mysticism. While both religion’s mysticisms were designed to ultimately overcome the chasm between the creator and man, only Christian or secular Spinozistic pantheism allowed for full union to take place, demolishing the boundaries between man and God. For Scholem, the core of Judaism is characterized by a form of mystical intimacy, for Buber, of dialogical intimacy; If for Scholem the key term for signifying the Jewish alternative to Christian mysticism was “intimacy with God”, for Buber it was “­dialogue”,

18  On the other hand one should also bear in mind Scholem’s complicated attitude towards “nihilism”. While for Cohen the motivation is clearly ethical, for Scholem it is not always clear what was motivating him in his strong opposition to any form of negative mystical union. 19  Ibid., 267–268.

Introduction

9

particularly “between” (zwischen), that signifies the nature of Judaism as truly distinct from Christianity.20 Both Spinoza’s pantheism and Paul’s incarnation designate uncrossable borderlines for Jewish mysticism, blocking the path to mystical union. Jewish mysticism must avoid both Spinoza and Paul, and as Scholem perceived it, the language of communion, reflected in the language of devequt, serves this exact purpose. Scholem and Buber invested a considerable amount of effort analyzing and understanding the mystical phenomenon of the gap between God and man. This gap or void allows for ethics, intimacy, and dialogue, and generates the entire Kabbalistic “voice”: the project of symbolically writing about what cannot be written, articulating silence.21 Buber’s philosophy, or form of mysticism, was focused on the tension between the multiplicity of worldly phenomena and the unity underlining the world.22 Indeed, Buberian thought in its entirety may be understood as a project of overcoming duality, especially that of society and man, and that of man and God, without obliterating either of them. Following Elliot Wolfson, I find this tension key to Buber’s mature thought—resolving the multiplicity of human existence and the urge to venture beyond Jewish and religious boundaries in some form of universal unity, without eliminating the individual human persona or human ethics. Wolfson summarizes Buber’s understanding of unity with God as differing from unio mystica in this way: “man is unified with God, i.e. stands in the presence of the eternal and boundless Thou, when he sets himself at a distance from God in order to act upon the world.”23 The distance from God is the key that allows for human dignity and ethical action to take place. This view is similar (though not identical) to Scholem’s understanding of the mystical “intimacy” achievable with God at moments of devequt: ­upholding individuation and maintaining human 20  See Elliot Wolfson, “The Problem of Unity in the Thought of Martin Buber,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 27(3) (1989): 433–434; Israel Koren in The Mystery of the Earth: Mysticism and Hasidism in the Thought of Martin Buber, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 248 argues that: “there is considerable similarity between Scholem’s description of devequt as intimate communion with god, located somewhere between the absence of devequt and unio mystica and Buber’s characterization of the I-Thou relationship as lying somewhere between the lack of I-Thou relation and ecstasy or ultimate mystical unity.” 21  See Ron Margolin, The Human Temple: Religious Interiorization and the Structuring of Inner Life in Early Hasidism, (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005) (Hebrew), 6–54; Koren, The Mystery of the Earth, 247–273. 22  See Wolfson, “The Problem of Unity,” 423–444. 23  Ibid., 444.

10

Chapter 1

i­ntegrity and ­individuality allows for the intimate relationship to take place without the dissolution of man. The classic typology introduced by Scholem in his Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism characterizes the mystical experience in terms of Platonic union.24 This famous typology was never actually supported by evidence from original sources; it was a rather simple theological claim originating, I believe, in Hermann Cohen’s philosophy (we shall return to this source below). In one of his striking and mature reflections on this topic, Scholem argued the following: Debequth is therefore not Unio but communion. In the sense the term acquired in Kabbalistic usage it always contains an element of distance despite its character of intimacy. Debequth is not becoming one with God but entering into an infinitely close liaison with him, roughly corresponding to that called adhaeresis by medieval Christian mystics [. . .] Debequth does not consist in tempestuously rushing toward God and becoming absorbed in him [. . .] in contrast to some later schools, the old kabbalist did not go any further, and in this remained true to their Jewish theistic character [. . .] any pantheistic overstepping of the limits they fixed for themselves in their interpretation of the mystical path is far from their thoughts.25 Here we must be mindful of Scholem’s application of the term “intimacy”— full mystical union would negate intimacy per se, and the mystical goal is “intimate communion with God”.26 Scholem’s widely influential views were also adopted by scholars of comparative and general mysticism such as Walter Stace. In his classic Mysticism and Philosophy, he wrote: Jewish tradition has always frowned on the kind of mysticism in which identity, or even union, with God is claimed. Its emphasis is on the great 24  See Scholem, Major Trends, 5. 25  Scholem, Origins, 302–303. And, Scholem, Major Trends, 122–123: “It is only in extremely rare cases that ecstasy signifies actual union with God in which the human individuality abandons itself to the rapture of the complete submission in the divine stream. Even in his ecstatic frame of mind the Jewish mystic almost invariably retains a sense of the distance between the Creator and His creature . . . he does not regard it as constituting anything so extravagant as identity between the Creator and creature”. 26  Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 203.

Introduction

11

gulf which separates God from his creation, so that a claim to a union or identity which negates that gulf generally seems objectionable to the religious Jew. Hence that tradition is rather poor in the type of mysticism that we are here expounding. Nevertheless some examples can be found among the later Hasidim, although they tend to be regarded as heretical by the more orthodox Jewry.27 Stace recognizes that in some forms of what he refers to as “introvert mystical experiences”, the individual experiences or imagines becoming one with the infinite or the absolute. Some mystics would distinguish this experience from ontological claims, while accepting the experience as a psychological fact, insisting that the self was not ontologically annihilated in the transcendent.28 For example, Stace quotes no other than Martin Buber, who wrote about his personal experience of ecstatic union:29 Now from my own unforgettable experience I know well that there is a state in which the bonds of the personal nature of life seem to have fallen away and we experience an undivided unity. But I do not know—what the soul willingly imagines and is indeed bound to imagine (mine too once did it)—that in this I had attained to a union with the primal being or the Godhead [. . .] In the honest and sober account of the responsible understanding this unity is nothing but the unity of this soul of mine, whose “ground” I have reached, so much so [. . .] that my spirit has no choice but to understand it as the groundless. But the basic unity of my own soul is certainly beyond the reach of all the multiplicity it has hitherto received from life, though not in the least beyond individuation, or the multiplicity of all the souls in the world of which it is one—­existing but once, single, unique, irreducible, this creaturely one: one of the human souls and not “the soul of the All”.30 Considering Scholem and Buber’s argument on Jewish mysticism and particularly Hasidism,31 this excerpt is remarkable. Buber attests to having personally 27  Walter Terence Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1961), 106, 116. 28  Ibid., 154. 29  Ibid., 155. 30  Martin Buber, Between Man and Man, (London: K. Paul, 1947), 24–25. 31  On the disputes between Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber see for example Idel’s article, “Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem on Hasidism” in his book Old Worlds, 205–216; Margolin, The Human Temple, 6–54 (Hebrew).

12

Chapter 1

experienced unio mystica, but later qualifies himself, explaining his experience as the a priori unity of his own consciousness in neo-Kantian terms; while Scholem, the most important scholar of Jewish mysticism in the 20th century, argues consistently that such experience may not be experienced by an authentic Jew! Stace explains Buber’s ambivalence as deriving from his Jewish “character”, perhaps the same character Scholem referred to in his study quoted above, that of the Jewish mystic and of Jewish society as a whole. Stace stated that the young Buber had experienced an ecstatic mystical experience of union, but could not fully express or articulate it, due to pressure from Jewish cultural rejection of such ideas. Stace explains that this complexity had forced Buber to intellectually reject what he sensually experienced: For there can be, I surmise, little doubt that the environmental pressure of the culture to which he [Buber] belongs was a basic cause of a change of mind which quite obviously went against the grain of his own more spontaneous feelings. [. . .] In the non-Judaic cultures mysticism is usually defined in a way that makes the concept of “union” with what Buber calls “the primal being” part of the essence of it. Yet we find the historian of Jewish mysticism, Professor G. G. Scholem saying that union is not an essential of Jewish mysticism [. . .] it is true that in the later Hasidic mystics we find often enough the kind of mysticism that includes “union.” But it is clear that this is an aberration from standard Jewish types and tends to be frowned on in Jewish culture. In the tradition of the Semitic religions generally there is considered to be a great gulf fixed between creature and Creator which is such that the individual soul can never annul it, and that indeed it is a kind of blasphemy to claim that it has been annulled. This is true of Islam as well as Judaism. And Christianity inherited it from Judaism, It is evident that there have been numerous mystics within all three religions who have experienced that sense of the dissolution of individuality, that passing beyond oneself, which we have called trans-subjectivity. But all three religions are, in greater or less measure, frightened of it lest it should lead to the “heresy” of pantheism.[. . .] The strongest reaction against union is that of Judaism, which habitually interprets its own religious experience as what it calls “devekuth,” which means direct contact or adhesion, in spite of the Hasidic exceptions.32 32  Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy, 157–158.

Introduction

13

Stace, it seems, related to Buber as the mystic whose own experiences demonstrates the truth of what the scholar of Jewish mysticism, Scholem, wrote about. Apparently, Buber carried forth Scholem’s exact argument as the great authority on Jewish mysticism. For Buber, mysticism is rooted in the “longing for union”33 (which Jews never completely achieve), a messianic kind of longing. Buber himself, while reflecting upon his early ecstatic experiences, wrote: As far as I understood mysticism, its essential trait is the belief in a (momentous) ‘union’ with the divine or the absolute [. . .] If you read attentively the introduction to Ekstatische Konfessionen, you will see that even then, in my ‘mystical’ period, I did not believe in it, but only in a ‘mystical’ unification of the Self, identifying the depth of the individual self with the Self itself . . .34 Ron Margolin emphasizes the influence of Kantian philosophy on the young Buber that guided him to perceive all religious vocabulary as a human product, including the concept of God. Therefore, even his experience of unio mystica was naturally comprehended by him as nothing more than an experience of the unity of the self. Although psychologically experienced as an ecstatic union with a transcendent God, it was conceptually explained as the realization of the a priori unity of consciousness itself.35 The mature Buber, explains Margolin, then broke free from the Kantian limits in moving to the religious dialogism of I and Thou. Much of Buber’s later work reflects a dialogical understanding of the encounter with God, not as a mystical union but rather a dialogue between two who never merge. As part of what Mendes-Flohr names as the shift from mysticism to dialogue,36 Buber abandoned the notion of a mystical union and embraced instead the notion of “encounter”, which presupposes and preserves

33  See Martin Buber chapter “God and the Soul”, in his book The Origin and Meaning of Hasidism, ed. and trans. Maurice Friedman, (New York: Horizon Press, 1960), 186; quoted by Koren in The Mystery of the Earth, 169. 34  Cited in Maurice Friedman, Martin Buber’s Life and Work: The Early Years 1878–1923, (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1981), 86. Referred to and analyzed by Wolfson, “The Problem of Unity,” 426 note 20. 35  Ron Margolin, “Martin Buber’s Concept of Responsibility Its Philosophical and Jewish Sources and Its Critics,” in Jewish and Polish Philosophy, edit. Jan Woleński, Yaron M. Senderowicz and Józef Bremer, (Kraków, Budapeszt: Austeria Publishing House, 2013), 79. 36  Mendes-Flohr, From Mysticism to Dialogue, 64–68.

14

Chapter 1

man’s and God’s separate existence. In his classic essay “God and the Soul”, Buber describes the mysticism that developed in the theistic traditions: Here the mystic knows of a close personal intercourse with God. This intercourse has as its goal, certainly, a union with God . . . He is The One standing over against this man; He is what this man is not and is not what this man is. It is precisely on this duality that the longing for union can base itself. In other words, in this close intercourse that the mystic experiences, God, no matter how infinite he is comprehended as being, is still person and remains person. And even if the mystic wants to be merged in Him, he means none other than Him whom he knows in this intercourse, just this person.37 Here, Buber articulates a unique model of “dialogical union”, thus allowing an intense erotic encounter between the two, without dissolving the human into the divine.38 He explains further: Those human beings may serve as a metaphor who in the passion of erotic fulfillment are so carried away by the miracle of the embrace that all knowledge of I and You drowns in the feeling of a unity that neither exists nor can exist. What the ecstatic calls unification is the rapturous dynamics of the relationship; not a unity that has come into being at this moment in world time, fusing I and you, but the dynamics of the relationship itself which can stand before the two carries of this relationship, although they confront each other immovably and cover the eyes of the enraptured. What we find here is a marginal exorbitance of the act of relation.39 Buber’s “dialogical union” and Scholem’s theory of “mystical intimacy” draw on Hermann Cohen’s ethical perception of Judaism, and in particular his reading of Maimonides. Furthermore, Scholem’s understanding of Kabbalistic cognitive dynamics may have derived from young Buber’s experience, whose

37  Buber, “God and the Soul” in The Origin and Meaning, 186–197; Koren, The Mystery of the Earth, 169–170. 38  See Nelson Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay in the Phenomenology of Mysticism (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 78. 39  Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. and notes Walter Kaufmann (New York: Scribner, 1970), 135; Pike, Mystic Union, 78–79; Koren, The Mystery of the Earth, 155–156.

Introduction

15

i­nfluence on Scholem becomes more and more evident in recent studies,40 perhaps also on his understanding of unio mystica. The roots of Scholem’s view are to be found in Hermann Cohen’s profound philosophical outlook and the way he analyzes Maimonides, and, I believe, also to some extent in the manner Martin Buber reflected upon his own ecstatic experiences. Cohen and Buber both share a deep rejection of what they characterize as “pantheism” and a form of union between man and God which is nonethical, the form of unio mystica that abolishes the created human. Both offer an ethical and “Jewish” alternative form of union. It is rather clear that the same is true of Scholem, who rejected any form of strong and total union as the core experience of Jewish mysticism, and offered the alternative of a milder form of communion, one that allows the human and divine to unite in intimacy. In his discussion of classic medieval Jewish philosophy, Cohen (1842–1918) articulated a clear a priori principle for any possible Jewish philosophy: Judaism as a religion must serve ethics. Thus, the negative ideal of mystical union, which he perceives as negating ethics, cannot be part of any legitimate Jewish philosophy:41 Maimonides’ fundamental aversion not only to asceticism but to mysticism altogether is characteristic of his ethics. His rationalism animates his intellectualism, so that it never ossifies into spiritualism, nor is it seized by the wings of pantheism [. . .] His intellectualism safeguards him against the looming danger of pantheism. Hence he deals exhaustively with the concept of approximation, of “drawing nigh” unto God [. . . .] Even his predecessors did not conceive of the concept of “drawing close to God” as referring to a substantive union with God. [. . . .] In the same spirit, Maimonides combats all sensuality and corporeality from within God Himself, hence also in the relationship of man to God. To him, “drawing close to God” can only mean ethical emulation, e­ thical training according to the model that represents the elementary law of ethics.42 40  See Margolin, The Human Temple, 8; Boaz Huss, “The Mystification of the Kabbalah and the Modern Construction of Jewish Mysticism.” BGU Review 2 (2008): 1–14. 41  Hermann Cohen, Ethics of Maimonides (Modern Jewish Philosophy and Religion: Translation and Critical Studies). Translated with commentary by Almut Sh. Bruckstein, (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 114–115, 118–119, 121; Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon,” 114; see the discussion by Elliot R. Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift: Apophasis and Overcoming Theomania (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014), 14–33. 42  Aaron Hughes, “Maimonides and the Pre Maimonidian Philosophical Tradition According to Hermann Cohen,” JJTP 18.1 (2010): 17–18.

16

Chapter 1

Cohen outlines the borders of Jewish religion: “pantheism”, “mystical union” and “nihilism” are all principles that construct an unethical religious system. For Cohen, Moses Maimonides and his Neoplatonic predecessors did not understand the concept of “drawing close to God” as referring to “substantive union with God”. In a single paragraph, Cohen, the genius Jewish philosopher, outlines the entire conceptual framework that to a great extent served as a basis for much of the scholarly understanding of Jewish philosophy and mysticism in the 20th century, and even in recent years. Here we find the roots of the dominant theory that stipulated that Jewish mystical belief and practice never evolved into what some considered the most advanced form of mystical expression, culminating in a full mystical union. That theory was evident in Gershom Scholem’s categorical denial of full mystical union even in the most radical forms of Jewish mysticism.43 Interestingly enough, the same Cohen in his classic Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism insists that Judaism is based upon an idea of union of God and humanity as a form of logical correlation between man and God that share the “Holy Spirit”. It is very interesting to see that even Cohen articulates a Jewish form of ethical union between man and God as the core of Judaism.44 This is, however, a form of unity without an ontological union of substance. In the words of Elliot Wolfson, “For Cohen, the divine and the human are united—though not identified—through the very reason that preserves their difference.”45 This Jewish form of union is ethical and not substantial, and must be distinguished from other forms of mystical union that abolish the human subject. We have seen that the deep resistance to full negative unio mystica is rooted in Cohen’s philosophy and the way he reads Jewish philosophy and Maimonides. I believe that he had a profound impact on both Scholem and Buber, and that this theological outlook shaped (as Moshe Idel has demonstrated) the way most scholars viewed Jewish mysticism.46

43  See Rotenstreich, “Symbolism and Transcendence,” 611–62; Magid, “Gershom Scholem’s Ambivalence”, 245–269. 44  See: Hermann Cohen, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, Trans. S. Kaplan, with an introduction by L. Strauss (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1995) [Chapter Vii, 8–133], 104–106. 45  Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift, 15. 46  See Idel, Enchanted Chains, 6–30.

Introduction

17

Scholars of Jewish mysticism in the past two to three decades have powerfully challenged Scholem’s influential typology of the mystical experience in Judaism, including the absence of full mystical union.47 In contrast to Scholem’s claim concerning a theological barrier which prevents the Jewish mystic from attaining union, Idel surveyed and characterized the legitimacy of mystical union in the Jewish mystical tradition, and insisted that it was widely disseminated within Kabbalistic and Hasidic circles.48 Along with Idel, who has published widely on this matter, Elliot Wolfson has independently considered unio mystica in medieval Kabbalah, particularly in the Zohar, and has written extensively about theories of mystical embodiment and incarnation in classic Kabbalah.49 To be sure, Scholem’s theological insistence that Judaism must be limited to a religion of “communion”, and not of “union”, finds a parallel distinction in some of the relevant primary sources. Some sources in medieval Jewish and Arab philosophy, Jewish theology, and Kabbalah draw a similar distinction between cleaving/communion and union; they deny the possibility of union, at least in this life. Below, I will elaborate on the meaning of some of the medieval ­distinctions, which must be clearly set apart from the modern discourse of pantheism, symbolism, and nihilism. This is complex terrain, partly resulting

47  Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 59–73; Moshe Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah (Albany: SUNY Press, 1988), 1–31; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 3–30; Moshe Idel, “Universalization and Integration: Two Conceptions of Mystical Union in Jewish Mysticism,” in Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ed. Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989), 27–57; Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 160–210; Elliot R. Wolfson, Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007), 111–143. Elliot Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 330, 357, 361, 364–367, 376, 386; Afterman, Devequt, 36–43, 58–62, 191–192, 273–285, 340–344 (Hebrew). 48  Especially consider Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 62–63, 77–91; Moshe Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), 20–22, 35–38; Idel, “Universalization,” 27–58; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 3–30 and Idel, “Unio Mystica as a Criterion” in its different versions. 49  See for example; Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 330, 357, 361, 364–367, 376, 386; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 160–210; Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 111–143; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Bifurcating the Androgyne and Engendering Sin: a Zoharic Reading of Gen 1–3,” in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3, ed. Caroline Vander Stichele and Susanne Scholz (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 87–119.

18

Chapter 1

from the medieval authorities’ projection of the new religious ideals of communion and union onto biblical and rabbinic vocabulary. The key term that was chosen for the purpose of designating a non-unitive mystical contact was the Hebrew term deriving from the root DVQ, and the several statements in Deuteronomy (to be considered in Chapter 2) that command Israel to “cleave” or unite with God. Many Jewish medieval authorities associated the terminology of DVQ with the terminology of communion or the Arabic Neoplatonic term ittisal–and at the same time used a different term for union usually based upon the Hebrew letters of ahd (one) and the Arabic itihad. To make things even more complicated, modern Hebrew terminology of DVQ is largely associated with gluing or committing to a value or goal, but not intuitively with “union”. This led to a complex outcome in which, in modern scholarly research (deeply motivated by the theological concerns analyzed above), the vocabulary of DVQ has become associated mainly with the meaning of communion or conjunction and not necessarily with union. Thus, a specific theological modern reasoning50 resonates with a set of philosophical medieval distinctions between conjunction and union, which is preoccupied with epistemological and not theological concerns. This perspective was reinforced by biblical vocabulary, which seemed to modern ears to best fit the terminology of communion more than that of union. Taken together, these linguistic uses have forged a kind of intuitive insight for the contemporary Hebrew speaker, perceiving the biblical terminological level, the medieval philosophical level, and finally modern philosophical reflection all going against the possibility of mystical union in Judaism. Unlike the discourse of devequt,51 the discourse of union and unity has not yet received a systematic exposition. In addition, unlike devequt, the language of union deriving from the Hebrew root “one” is not correlated directly to any specific biblical commandment, but rather with two biblical verses, reflecting two key meanings fundamental to the language of union in early medieval Kabbalah. These verses form the basis for two ideas: first, unity with God as metonymic to the sexual union of husband and wife; second, the idea of union through embodiment, drawing on Genesis 2:24: “Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so they become one flesh”, where the term 50  For a recent presentation of the theological difference in Jewish mysticism between a mysticism of communion and that of union, see Philip Alexander, The Mystical Texts (London & New York: Continuum Press, 2006), 8–9 and Lobel, A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue, 21–26. 51  On the correlation between the “devequt” verses from Deuteronomy and the mystical vocabulary of communion see throughout my book: Afterman, Devequt.

Introduction

19

AHD (one) is used to describe the cleaving of man and woman, and the term “flesh” hints its embodied character. In the first case, the paradigm of unitive cleaving of husband and wife was projected onto the “marriage” of God and the collective Israel, and at times onto the personal intimate encounter of man and God.52 Given the theosophical types of union and unity, the Kabbalists are depicted as able to take part in these mythical and perhaps mystical moments of inner unity, described as sacred marriage, the secret of “divine unity” and “the one”. The latter union is hinted at in the unity of flesh, and is actually theurgical, effecting through practice a level of unity within the godhead. This notion is drawn from Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One”53 where the unity of God (declared daily) is seen as reflecting the quality of God’s inner union with himself and the Shekhinah. God’s unity and oneness depends on theurgical performance, thus the Kabbalist participates in moments of unity and union, experienced in the dynamic godhead. In contrast to Scholem’s fundamental argument, not only did medieval Jewish thinkers feel free to articulate forms of union with God or aspects of Him, they did so in many different ways, which developed Judaism into what I consider as a “religion of union”.54 Many of them were interested in actively participating in the inner unity and oneness of the divine, by achieving moments of union with its different aspects, persons, or powers. I would argue even further that the lack of any formal systematic theology originating out of the Hebrew Bible or the classic rabbinic texts opposing such elements or states of union contributed to the flourishing of a large variety of unitive languages and vocabularies in later phases of Judaism. One of the most interesting findings I will analyze in detail in this study is the impact of Jewish theology and philosophy on Kabbalah specifically with regard to mystical union. Jewish mystics and medieval theologians did not hesitate to articulate their religious ideals and experiences using the language or vocabulary of union. In addition, the different formulas of union that Jewish philosophers such as Moses Maimonides introduced into Jewish thinking 52  See the collection of studies by Charles Mopsik, Sex of the Soul: The Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in Kabbalah (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005), 29–31, 115–127, 163–167. 53   The Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishers, 1997). Compare however to the JPS translation “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the alone”, that emphasizes not the oneness or unity of god but rather the idea that God alone is our Lord. 54  Cf. Alexander, The Mystical Texts, 8; Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 18.

20

Chapter 1

had a decisive impact, especially once adopted and absorbed into mystical systems where they functioned differently than in their original settings. We will see here the manners in which Jews created and used (some would even say abused) unitive philosophical terminology to diversely describe religious experiences and encounters with the divine. But first let us introduce some of the distinctions employed in this volume between the various types of union of God and man. The first major distinction concerns the “spatial” character of union. It can occur in God’s “residence”, thus conditioned upon the human agent “reaching” God by “climbing” the metaphysical ladder that extends between heaven and earth. For this union to take place, the human must climb the different grades i.e. angels by becoming one with their being. Usually such union is conditioned upon the acute spiritualization of man, who transforms into a spiritual, abstract entity in order to be able to integrate and unite with God. This form of union is conditioned upon human transcendence, and is most characteristic of Philonic and later Neoplatonic types of mystical union. But union may also take place within man, when God as the Name, the divine light, and the divine spirit dwells inside the human being. Because dynamic embodiment of the divine in the human is often referred to precisely in the language of union, it is appropriate to consider it a form of mystical union. In other words, we shall see that some of the Jewish mystics employed the language of union in order to describe the embodiment of the divine in the human body or human existence, not just in man’s complete ascent to and union with the divine in the heavenly realm. In the category of unions that takes place in God (and not man), we find these fundamental types that will be discussed in much detail in the following chapters: Negative union: This union is realized by and with the non-being/naught of God’s existence; as such, it may lead to annihilation of the human subject or persona. Hermann Cohen, Gershom Scholem, and Martin Buber identified this type of union with unio mystica, and (based on this assumption, which was partially valid for Christianity, as shown by McGinn55), through its rather 55  See the series of articles by Bernard McGinn and Louis Dupré, that clarify that the western Christian idea of unio mystica is manifested in various forms, many categorically differ from the strong apophatic model of Neoplatonic unio mystica, and that the association between such negative criteria and Christian mysticism is in many times rather difficult: see Bernard McGinn, “Love, knowledge and unio mystica in the Western Christian tradition,” in Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith, ed. Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn

Introduction

21

narrow assumptions investigated Jewish mysticism, thus reaching what Idel, Wolfson, and many others consider to be wrong and distorted conclusions. This negation served as we saw a very important role in their own system of thought, as well as also as a key criterion by which to distinguish between Judaism and Christianity. Negative union is associated usually with the highest possible union in the Neoplatonic “path of return” in which the human soul unites with the transcendent “One” that exists beyond the “positive” categories of thought and being. Positive union: This is a union that takes place with some “positive” element or aspect of God, which actually falls under the categories of being and thought. Such aspects may include God’s intellect, thought, mind, spirit, will, light, the sefirot, and wisdom. This union does not lead to the annihilation of the human persona, but rather allows the human to include or obtain the godly qualities with which he united. As we shall see in detail, the Neoaristotelian language of union is always “positive” as the human intellect unites with a metaphysical or divine intellect. It is important to notice that the Neoplatonic union with the Nous, however, is a “positive” type of union similar to the Neoaristotelian discourse of union.56 Eschatological union: By uniting with the unified God or the unified metaphysical realms, the human completes the process of transformation that has begun in this life. The union with the metaphysical realm, usually considered a unified realm (at least in comparison to the material realm), is at the same time a shift from this world to the world to come. Eschatological union occurs postmortem as part of the afterlife (in rare cases, it is possible to experience this type of union while still alive in the body). This union is often associated with a form of apophatic union, where the human unites with an angel or a divine grade like an angel, through this eventually reaching the eschatological union. Since the existence in the “afterlife” is described as an existence of angels, the possibility of reaching the angelic status while still in the body, as a form of (New York: Macmillan Pub Co, 1989); Bernard McGinn, “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, 56 (1987): 7–24; Bernard McGinn, “Unio Mystica/Mystical Union”, The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism, ed. Amy M. Hollywood and Patricia Z. Beckman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 200–210; Louis Dupré, “The Christian Experience of Mystical Union,” The Journal of Religion 69 (1989): 1–13; Louis Dupré, “Unio Mystica: The State and the Experience,” in Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: An Ecumenical Dialogue, eds. Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn (New York: Macmillan Pub Co 1989), 3–23. 56  See further the discussion in chapter 4.

22

Chapter 1

apotheosis, is described many times in terms of a mystical union with a specific divine grade or “place”. Theurgical union: This union with the godhead is achieved during a theurgical act. Occasionally, the prior unification of the dynamic godhead serves as a condition for the union to occur, while in other instances the union is an instrumental act of sacred theurgy. At times, this union generates, energizes, and even initiates processes in the divine entity. This union serves additional purposes beyond the mystical one of coming closer to the divine. Theosophical union: This union, relevant only to Kabbalistic discourse, occurs in the midst of the diverse and dynamic godhead. The human agent may or may not participate, in various manners in the moment of internal unity and union of the divine. Many times such participation in the mystery of the divine unity presupposes an initial integration into the godhead. Man might also impact and even initiate such union, as in theurgical union. Embodied union: This union occurs in the midst of the human being, and is described with the vocabulary of union—the divine dwells within the human, and is embodied within him. Some thinkers describe this embodiment in unitive terms. In this context, I follow Wolfson, who has analyzed in classic Kabbalah the development of what he describes as a “sophisticated practice of poetic embodiment”, in which the Kabbalist becomes a textual embodiment or even an incarnation of the divine. Wolfson employs the unique locution “imaginal body” in order to convey the unique type of embodiment “that is not material flesh but which nevertheless is a concrete phenomenon and not merely a figure of speech”,57 This specific union occurs inside of man, as the divine penetrates, dwells, and (Wolfson even uses the term) incarnates inside man who is a text or word, as the human body transforms into a linguistic angelic body for the divine dwelling.58 This form of union that becomes more and more important in the history of Jewish ­mysticism and finds its articulation in Hasidism may be viewed 57  Wolfson, “Bifurcating”, 92; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 38–39, 41–42, 119–122, 246–249; Elliot Wolfson, “The Body in the Text: A Kabbalistic Theory of Embodiment,” Jewish Quarterly Review 95.3 (2005): 479–500; Elliot Wolfson, “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms, ed. Tikva Frymer-Kensky et al. (Colorado: Westview Press, 2000), 239–254; See the useful analysis of Wolfson’s theory of embodiment and incarnation offered by Shaul Magid, Hasidism Incarnate: Hasidism, Christianity and the Construction of Modern Judaism (California: Stanford University Press, 2015), 160–168. 58  See: Wolfson, “Bifurcating”, 92–94; Cf. Moshe Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2007), 57–68 who criticizes the employment of the term “incarnation” in the study of Jewish mysticism, and Jonathan Garb, Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 6.

Introduction

23

also as a form of internalizing of the divine or the absorption and assimilation of the divine. Seen from a phenomenological point of view in addition to the ­analysis of the “objective” language of embodiment of the divine in the human it is possible to view the same proc­ess as a process of internalization of the divine structures and dynamics into the human.59 It will be evident that Jewish sources present a wide range of forms of mystical unions and embodiments (and even forms of incarnations), while much of past scholarship considered only “negative apophatic union” as a “full” mystical union. As we shall see, Jewish sources display numerous descriptions of positive unions and embodied unions, and even some descriptions of radical negative unions. However, because this form of negative union was long considered by scholars as the only authentic or “real” form of unio mystica, the intellectual exploration (and in many cases, rejection) of unio mystica (in both Judaism and Christianity) was primarily dominated by this narrow formula. In this context, unio mystica in its most radical form was understood as representing Christian mysticism, as well as a general “objective” criterion on the basis of which any religious tradition, including Judaism, was to be examined. Perhaps the most important element of this criterion was the element of dissolution of the human subject—a real and full mystical union must include the disappearance, temporarily or permanently, of the human personality and individuality. This matter should be reexamined, as Bernard McGinn has noted: [. . .] It was not until 17th century France, however, that we find ‘la mystique’, or ‘mysticism’ [. . .] as Michael de Certeau argued.60[. . .] The same 17th century that witnessed the creation of the term mysticism seems also to have been responsible for the coining of the term unio mystica among theological commentators on mysticism. The term’s popularity from the 19th century on seems to have more to do with the academic study of mysticism than with the mystics themselves.61 59   Such a move is presented in much detail by Ron Margolin, Inner Religion: The Phenomenology of Inner Religious Life and Its Manifestation in Jewish Sources (From the Bible to Hasidic Texts), (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2011) (Hebrew). 60  See his study on the creation of the category and concept of “mysticism” (la mystique in French), Michel de Certeau, “ ‘Mystique’ au XVIIe Siècle: Le Problème du Language Mystique,” in L’Homme Devant Dieu: Mélanges Offerts au Pere Henri de Lubac, 3 vols. (Paris: Aubier, 1964), 2:267–291; Bernard McGinn, “Mystical Consciousness: A Modest Proposal,” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 8 (2008), 44–63. 61  McGinn, “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union,” 185 (in his concluding remarks).

24

Chapter 1

In recent years, critical voices have also emerged, calling on the scholarship of Jewish mysticism to question the categories, and theological (and perhaps political) assumptions, presumably guiding its research, including the terms “mystic(al)” and “mystical union” as metacategories foreign to and imposed upon Jewish religiosity.62 These voices should be taken into serious consideration, especially since these categories of religious experiences are beyond the reach of critical inquiry. Accordingly, the path undertaken here is not an inquiry into the nature of the experiences known as unio mystica or mystical union, but rather an investigation of the language Jewish thinkers have used when they wrote about such ideas or experiences of uniting with God, some element of Him, angels, or any other sub-divine or metaphysical elements related to the divine. The investigation of language, images, and symbols instead of the experience itself opens up a very rich world that has not yet been fully investigated. The history of the terms “mystical” and “unio mystica” as categories in Christianity (including in moments of dispute and struggles for power) results in further complications in a Jewish context, in which they have no internal history, at least until the beginning of the scientific reflection on Jewish sources.63 This study will avoid the examination of “mystical experiences”, and detach from any theological discourse or commitment that is not based upon the actual primary sources. For the many forms of mystical union, Jews have developed a rich and complex vocabulary regarding the encounter of man and God. We will explore here articulations of that specific encounter—starting with Philo and ancient Jewish mysticism, continuing with medieval Jewish theology including Spanish Kabbalah and the Zohar, and concluding with a brief outlook into later developments in the time of the Italian renaissance, sixteen-century Kabbalah and Hasidism. 62  Boaz Huss, “Contemporary Kabbalah and the Challenge to the Academic Study of Jewish Mysticism,” Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, ed. Boaz Huss (Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2011), 357–373; Boaz Huss, “The Theologies of Kabbalah Research,” Modern Judaism (2014) 34(1): 3–26; Schäfer, The Origins, 1–33; Alexander, The Mystical Texts, 7–11, 101–119; Garb, Shamanic Trance, 4–7. Hartley Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution: Re-Imagining Judaism in Medieval Spain (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 114 and Gil Anidjar, “Our Place in al-Andalus”: Kabbalah, Philosophy, Literature in Arab Jewish Letters (California: Stanford University Press, 2002). 63  The term “mystical union” is derived from the Mystical Theology of Dionysius, who uses Moses’s ascent of the mountain to encounter God in the cloud and darkness (Ex 19 ff.) as a model for what he describes as “henōsis mystike”, see: McGinn, “Unio Mystica\Mystical Union,” in The Cambridge companion to Christian mysticism, ed. Amy M. Hollywood and Patricia Z. Beckman, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 203; Charles M. Stang, Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: ‘No Longer I’ (New York : Oxford University Press, 2012),117–118, 136–143.

Chapter 2

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union From its inception in Philo’s mystical philosophy onwards, mystical union has always been a controversial matter in Judaism.1 A famous example from Christian scholarship is the often-cited opinion of Edward Caird (1835–1908), who argued while writing on the evolution of religion that, at the time of the birth of Jesus, the “Jewish mind” was incapable of real contemplation, and consequently of reaching what he considered the ultimate, full mystical state of union. Caird contrasts Plotinus, “the mystic par excellence,”2 with Philo the Alexandrian (25 BCE–c. 50 CE), the Jewish philosopher, saying that it was impossible “for a pious Jew like Philo to be a mystic or a pantheist and so to reduce the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to an absolute substance, in whom all the reality of the world is merged.”3 Caird’s categorical denial of the possibility of unio mystica in Philo is a good starting point for revisiting this important (and longstanding) debate. More recent studies of Philo take contradictory positions. As we shall see in detail, some scholars, most notably David Winston who devotes several studies to the question of whether Philo was a mystic and promoted unio mystica, reaches the conclusion that he did not promote the “classic” form of apophatic “negative” unio mystica. Others, including Bernard McGinn and Moshe Idel, argue for the importance of mystical union in Philo’s thought, along with its serving as a likely influence on (and possible origin of) the articulated discussions of

1   See the detailed discussion by Idel, Enchanted Chains, 4–26; Ben-Shlomo, “Gershom Scholem on Pantheism,” 56–72; Nathan Rotenstreich, “Symbolism and Transcendence: On Some Philosophical Aspects of Gershom Scholem’s Opus,” The Review of Metaphysics 31:4 (1978): 604–614; Idel, “ ‘Unio mystica’ as a Criterion: ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Jewish Mysticism”; Idel, “ ‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: Some Observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism”; Schäfer, The Origins, 1–8, 17–20. 2  See: Edward Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, The Gifford Lectures Vol. II, reprinted: (BiblioBazaar, LLC 2009), 210. 3  Caird, The Evolution of Theology, 195, and the discussion in Idel, Enchanted Chains, 18–19.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_003

26

Chapter 2

unio mystica in Plotinus,4 and thus on Platonism and the entire Western mystical tradition.5 Below, I will argue (with McGinn and Idel) that the Neoplatonic scheme of elevation, illumination, and unio mystica, which is later absorbed into all three monotheistic traditions, has an important precedent and possible source6 in Philo’s allegorical commentary on the Torah.7 Philo’s interpretation of the biblical commandment to “cleave” to God as mystical union is a fascinating philosophical moment, in which “theistic union”8 (henōsis) is born out of a synthesis 4  On Plotinus as the first articulated source of unio mystica, see for example the classic pres­ entation by Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism (New York: Meridian, 1955), 372–373 and Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy, 236. 5  See: Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism, Vol. I, (New York: Rossroad, 1992), 38–40; Idel, Ben, 627; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 39, 289 note 13; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 18–19, 22; On the importance of Neoplatonic unio mystica for the development of medieval Jewish mysticism, see Afterman, Devequt; Moshe Idel, “On the Language of Ecstatic Experiences in Jewish Mysticism,” in The Religious Experience, Herausgegeben von Matthias Riedl und Tilo Schabert (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 2008), 56–60; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 42–46; McGinn, “Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica,” 61. Another possible source in ancient Judaism can be found in the Qumran texts that describe how the mystic may commune or cleave with the angels but not with God. Some scholars employ the term “unio mystica” in the analysis of this experience of unity with the angels; See Alexander, The Mystical Texts, 101–143 and Schäfer, The Origins, 122–153; compare to Elliot Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/ Sotericism Recovered,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edit. H. Najman and Judith H. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177–213. 6  See for example the discussion in Enn. 6.7.34 and 6.9.9, and McGinn, The Foundation of Mysticism, 53–55; I assume that the Platonic scheme of elevation and contemplative vision of the Ideas lacks a clear and developed idea of assimilation or union of the Nous with the Ideas. The most relevant Platonic discussions of the ascension of the soul to the world of the Ideas are the Symposium 201D–212A; Phaedrus 243E–2457B; Republic 514A–518B and the Seventh Letter 341CD; Compare however to André J. Festugière, Personal Religion Among the Greeks (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954) and McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism, 26–35 who highlights the commentaries of Festugière and others that find already in Plato the idea that in the height of the soul’s elevation and Nous’s contemplation of the One, there is some kind of “awareness of identity with the present ultimate principle” (ibid., 33); see also the analysis in Jey J. Kanagaraji, Mysticism in the Gospel of John: an Inquiry into its Background (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 67–79. 7  On this category of Philo’s writing see: James R. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” The Cambridge Companion to Philo, edit. Adam Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 38–45. 8  On “theistic union” See John Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 227–229; Robert Arp, “Plotinus, Mysticism, and Mediation,” Religious Studies 40 (2004): 145–148.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

27

of Platonism and Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism, and likely had an impact on Plotinus and the entire Neoplatonic tradition of henōsis—and consequently, on a wide range of medieval Jewish, Christian, and Arab articulations of the idea and experience of unio mystica.9 Although scholarship has addressed mystical union in Philo,10 the articulation of this original notion in the commentary through the biblical 9  See: Alexander Altmann, “Ibn Bajja on Man’s Ultimate Felicity,” in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, ed. Alexander Altmann (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), 104: “The notion of ‘union’ (ittihad), on the other hand, goes back to the Neoplatonic concept of henōsis in Plotinus and his successors and designates the ultimate stage of mystical union”; Alfred Ivry, “Averroes on Intellection and Conjunction,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86 (1966): 81 note 22; Alexander Altmann and Samuel M. Stern, Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009) (reprint), 185–195; Philip Merlan, Monopsychism Mysticism Metaconsciousness: Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963); For the history of the idea of henōsis in Dionysius the Areopagite and especially Philo’s background for his discussion in the De Mystica Theologia on Moses entrance in to the dark cloud, see Ysabel D. Andia, Henosis: L’union A Dieu Chez Denys L’areopagite (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 309–318. 10   Leisegang and Goodenough maintained that Philo borrowed the element of mystical union and hieros gamos from the Greek mystery religions and adapted it to his theology of monotheistic Hellenized Judaism. See Hans Leisegang, Der Heilige Geist: das Wesen und werden der Mystisch-Intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und religion der Griechen. band i, Teil 1: die vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom pneuma und der MystischIntuitiven, (Leipzig, 1919), 231–233; Erwin R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969); for a detailed survey of their views, see Gary Lease, “Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough,” ANRW 20 (1987) 858–880. Eric R. Dodds, on the other hand, categorically denied the possibility of mystical union of any sort in Philo. See: Eric R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experiences from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (New York: W. W Norton & Company, 1965), 71–72 compare however to Eric R. Dodds, “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One’,” The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3/4 (1928): 14; Kanagaraji, Mysticism in the Gospel of John, 67–68, 70–71. See further: Henry Chadwick, “Philo and the Beginning of Christian Thought,” The Cambridge History of later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, edit. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 137–157 and especially 154, where Henry Chadwick notes: “Philo does not speak of an undifferentiated identity of the soul with the One, but of an “unbroken union with God in Love” which is “deification”; Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 18–35 whom ignores the subject; Schäfer, The Origins, 154–174, 352–353 who seems to agree that Philo promoted some kind of mystical union, and Cristina Termini, “Philo Thought within the Context of Middle Judaism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, edit. Adam Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 106–109. Some suggest that Philo might have been influenced by “eastern”

28

Chapter 2

c­ ommandment to “cleave” to God has been largely overlooked. In introducing this element of union with God through his original interpretation of the meaning of the biblical “cleaving” to God, drawing on the Platonic theory of elevation and contemplation of ideas,11 Philo uniquely offered a Platonic interpretation of the biblical injunction: cleaving to God is possible because man is ultimately a Nous that can escape the sensible realm, elevate himself to God’s “place”,12 and there unite with the transcendent God. In my analysis, I consider Philo’s writing to be exceptionally diverse, including different opinions on and approaches to the question of the possibility of union with God, or alternatively, with God qua Logos. I do not assume that all of his writings, approaching different audiences over a large period of time, necessarily maintain a coherent and consistent view regarding this controversial matter. It is possible, however, to recognize a line of thought, a distinct voice in the symphony of Philo’s corpus, where the possibility of mystical union with the One is clearly and explicitly articulated. Before moving on to Philo’s original interpretation of the relevant biblical verses, I would like first to introduce these verses, their translations and rabbinical interpretations, in order to fully appreciate the nature of his innovation. sources that introduced the possibility of mystical union later adopted in to Platonic terms, see the comment by Daniel Merkur, “Unitive Experiences and the State of Trance,” in Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: An Ecumenical Dialogue, edit Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn (London: Macmillan Pub Co, 1989), 175–176. David Winston, who analyzed Philo’s mysticism systematically, reached a different conclusion, that Philo does not promote union with God per se. Winston states in his Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 43–58 esp. 49–50, that union with God is possible only through the Logos who functions as a living hypostatization of an essential “aspect: or dimension of the Deity, the “face of God” turned toward creation. According to Winston’s analysis union with God qua Logos, i.e. God’s “face” is the highest possible human achievement. See the detailed analysis in: David Winston, “Was Philo a Mystic?” in: Ibid., The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Gregory E. Sterling (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001), 151–170 esp. 151 where he states: “human’s highest union with God, according to Philo, is limited to the Deity’s manifestation as Logos”; ibid., “Was Philo a Mystic?” Studies in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage (Cambridge MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982), 15–40; ibid., “Philo’s Mysticism,” Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 78–82 and Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria—An Exegete for His Time, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Book 86) (Boston and Lieden: Brill, 1997), 1–13. 11  See for example Philo’s discussion in Op, 69–71 and QG 3:3 drawing on Phaedrus 243E–2457B. 12  On God as “the place,” see for example De Somniis 1:63; Moshe Idel, “Universalization,” 34–35.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

29

Once the biblical context is explored, we will introduce the main elements of Philo’s articulation of religious experience, including his notions of seeing God, standing beside Him, and dwelling in God as the divine portion and place of the soul, which appear in his commentaries on the various biblical verses. We will conclude with a reflection on the significance of Philo’s discussion for understanding the history and origins of the idea of henōsis as “theistic union”, as well as for the history of medieval Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought.

The Biblical Verses and their Rabbinic Interpretations

The passages that form the basis for Philo’s idea of henōsis and mystical union are to be found in Deuteronomy and Genesis, and are known in scholarly circles as the debequt passages, due to their use of the root d-b-q (‫)דבק‬, meaning “to cling,” “stick,” “cleave,” or “hold fast.”13 Commandments employing forms of this root appear in Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; and 30:2014 (of which Philo interprets 10:20 and 30:20); the root also appears in Deuteronomy 4:4 and in Genesis 2:24, the latter in the context of the “cleaving” of husband and wife. Here are the verses Philo discusses, in the order in which they appear: Genesis (2:24): “Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings (‫ )ודבק‬to his wife, so that they become one flesh.”15 Deuteronomy (4:4): “While you, who held fast (‫ )הדבקים‬to the Lord your God, are all alive today.” Deuteronomy (10:20): “You must revere the Lord your God; only Him shall you worship, to Him shall you hold fast (‫ )ובו תדבק‬and by His name shall you swear.” Deuteronomy (30:19–20): “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life—if you and your offspring would live. By loving the Lord your God, heeding His commands, and holding fast (‫ )ולדבקה בו‬to Him; for thereby you shall have life and shall long endure upon the soil that the Lord swore to your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give to them.” 13  G. Wallis, ‘dābhaq,’ in: G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, trans. J. T. Willis et al., vol. 3 (Grand Rapids Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), 79–84. “King James” and RSV translate “cleave”. 14  See also Joshua 22:5, 23:8; 2Kgs 18:2; and Afterman, Devequt, 16–19. 15  The English translation of the Hebrew Bible is taken from the new JPS translation, Second Edition (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003).

30

Chapter 2

In their biblical context, the injunctions to love and cleave to God are part of the religious covenant between God and the people of Israel; this articulation draws on political vocabulary regulating the covenant between the king and his subjects in the ancient Near East. The terms “love” and “cleave” refer in these verses to a formal and political obligation, and not to personal religious emotions or spiritual motivations.16 In contrast to the key role these passages will later play in Jewish medieval mysticism and philosophy, they receive relatively little attention in rabbinic literature.17 Early rabbinic commentaries view them as a demand for special devotion during the performance of religious obligations, staying loyal to God and avoiding the temptations of idolatry. None of the rabbinic interpretations consider or refer to the possibility of direct communion or union with God.18 Some classical rabbis, emphasizing that cleaving to God is categorically impossible due to His numinous nature that obviates the possibility of any cleaving or union,19 maintain that the Mosaic imperative to cleave referred to the creation of a familial bond with no other than the rabbis themselves!—a prooftext for the requirement to make the scholars part of one’s family, to marry them and support them financially, as one would do to a family member: “But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day” (Deuteronomy 4:4);  now is it possible to cleave to the divine presence concerning which it is written in Scripture, “For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24)?  But [the meaning is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade on behalf of scholars or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by

16  See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 83–84; Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Moshe Weinfeld (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 440. 17  See Afterman, Devequt, 13–37. 18  See Saul Horovitz and Louis Finkelstein (Editors), Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969), section 85, 150; BT Tractate Brachot, 50b, and Afterman, Devequt, 22–32; Compare to Joshua Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature (New York: Intellectbooks, 1969), 3–5, 278– 303, who portrays a totally different picture of rabbinic Judaism as promoting mystical union with God. 19  Idel assumes that this is true for all besides the scholars themselves who have the capacity to cleave to the “fire”, the numinous divine; see Moshe Idel, R. Menachem Recanati the Kabbalist, (Tel Aviv: Shocken Publishing House, 1998), 130 (Hebrew).

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

31

Scripture as if 20 he had cleaved to the divine presence.  Similarly you read in Scripture, “To love the Lord thy God, [to hearken to His voice,] and to cleave unto Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20) Is it possible for a human being to cleave unto the divine presence? But [what was meant is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade for scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence.21 The rabbinic interpretation of the meaning of the verb DVQ ‫ דבק‬in Deuteronomy 30:20, 11:2222 and 4:4 is drawn, it seems, from the context of the term in Genesis 2:24, which alludes to the creation of new family bonds through marriage.23 It is crucial for our understanding of Philo to note here that in the context of Genesis 2:24, the “cleaving” leads to the unity of “one flesh”. As we shall see, Philo will take this notion that cleaving leads to unity and apply it to unity of spirit, to be reached by mystical cleaving to God. For the rabbis, however, since it is impossible to “marry” or “bond” to God on a physical level,24 the possibility of a spiritual cleaving between humans and God is not considered; their solution is to shift the commandment to “cleave” to God to scholars and their students.25 However, the rabbis’ categorical (but 20  On the term “as if” and its meaning in mystical discourse, see, Moshe Idel, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders‎(Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005), 41, 51–54. 21   B T, Tractate Ketubot 111b (Soncino English translation). See the earlier discussion in: Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, translated from the Hebrew with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) section 49, 106: “ ‘And cleave unto him’ (Deut 11:22): is it possible for man to ascend to heaven and cleave to fire? Seeing that scripture has said: ‘For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire’ (Deut 4:24) and ‘His throne was fiery flames; (Dan 7:9). Rather cling to the Sages and to their disciples, and I will account it to you as if you had ascended to heaven and had received it (the Torah) there . . .”; see also; Afterman, Devequt, 24–25, Cf. Abraham J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, (New York: Continuum, 2006), 190–193; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 38. 22  See the discussion in the Sifre quoted above interpreting the commandment as it appears in Deuteronomy 11:22. 23  See: Moshe Idel, Kabbalah and Eros (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2005), 19–21. 24  On the collective level, the “People of Israel” are described by the rabbis as being “married” to God, see: Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. R. Manheim (New York: Schocken, 1969) 104–109; Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 22–35. 25  This is not the only place where the rabbis shift a commandment applying directly to God to the scholars and their students; see: BT, Kidushin 57a; Pesachim 22b.

32

Chapter 2

implicit) denial that “cleaving” may refer to a spiritual or mystical personal contact with God may in fact reflect some awareness of and even a reaction to philosophical interpretations of the commandment such as in Philo’s commentaries.26 Of all the rabbinic interpretations addressing these passages, only the narrative claim (not a commandment) in Deuteronomy 4:4, “But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day,” is interpreted as some form of collective communion with God.27 In one discussion of this statement, we find a short comment attributed to R. Akiva: “ ‘But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God’—literally cleaving!”,28—yet no further explanation is offered as to how such “cleaving” takes place.29 Given the absence in rabbinic sources of spiritual and mystical interpretations of the verses containing a commandment to “cleave” to God, a close reading of Philo’s writing on the topic is especially in order. Such a reading will not only elucidate the relative uniqueness of Philo’s position (and of those he arguably influenced, subsequent Platonic philosophers), but also help us understand the type of mystical intimacy he considered as the core of Mosaic law.

Standing with God: Vision and Union as the Fundamentals of Religious Experience

Before we launch into the intricacies of Philo’s exegetical writings as a basis for his understanding of mystical union, it will be helpful to understand the context of Philo’s characterization of the religious experience. In his allegorical commentaries on Mosaic law, Philo describes two vital experiences that characterize religiosity. The first is a capacity for “visio dei,” a direct mystical vision

26  The Aramaic translations of the Torah renders Deuteronomy (10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20) as if the cleaving is to be directed to God’s “Fear”, rather than God Himself. The Syrian translation uses the verb “NKF” without mentioning God’s “Fear”, a verb that has a more literal meaning of cleaving, sticking, and being joined in marriage. See J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), 351. 27  See: BT, Tractate Sanhedrin, fol. 64a, 65b; See the analysis by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 38–39; Afterman, Devequt, 22–32. 28   B T, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a, translated by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 39, 288 note 9. 29  See further the discussion in: Heschel, Heavenly, 190–193; Yochanan Moffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 49–60 especially 51–52; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati, 125–126, 130; Afterman, Devequt, 32–37.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

33

of the creator not mediated by the Logos or other emanations.30 The second is “unio mystica” itself: the capacity to cleave to and unite with the transcendent God. Both states are distinguished and different from many of the other mystical experiences (such as vision and union with the logos) described by Philo throughout his exegetical enterprise, in that their core is a state of unmediated access to God.31 It is possible to reconstruct a Philonic theory of human transformation leading to an unmediated and intimate experience of God, ultimately allowing mystical union to take place. In contrast, in some of the other religious and mystical experiences described and analyzed by Philo, including prophecy, ecstatic divination, and “sober intoxication”, man is neither required nor seemingly able to achieve full transcendence. As a result, the experience is focused on mediating entities, mainly the Logos, as opposed to a direct interface with the creator Himself.32 In his famous characterization of the “people of Israel”33 as those who attain the unique capacity for mental vision of the transcendent God,34 Philo emphasizes the visibility of the transcendent Deity, drawing not only on the Platonic tradition and Greek mystery religions, but also on the Septuagint.35 Philo is 30  See: Scott D. Mackie, “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: Means, Methods, and Mysticism”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012) 147–179; cf. Ibid., 170 note 59 where Mackie writes that “Noticeably absent from Philo’s mysticism are concepts and motifs central to other ancient Jewish and early Christian mystical traditions, such as mystical union with God . . .” Mackie analyzes the mediated forms of mystical vision in Philo see also Scott D. Mackie, “The Passion of Eve and the Ecstasy of Hannah: Sense Perception, Passion, Mysticism, and Misogyny in Philo of Alexandria, De Ebrietate 143–52,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133.1 (2014): 160–162. 31  See for example the discussions in: Dodds, Pagan and Christian, 93–96; Louth, The Origins, 33–35. 32  See the analysis of Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 49–50. 33  The “people of Israel” in contrast to the “Jews” is an abstract category that includes all philosophers and prophets that seek the knowledge and intimacy with God. See: Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996), 91–127. 34  Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44; Gerhard Delling, “The ‘one who sees God’ in Philo,” in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, edit. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 34–35, 39; Birnbaum, The Place, 91–127; Schäfer, The Origins, 164–174. 35  See the classic discussion in: LA 3:100–103, Loeb Edition, vol. I, 369; Praem, 43–46, Loeb Edition, Vol. IV, 337–339; on the visibility of God in ancient Judaism, see Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 13–51, On Philo, ibid., 50; and compare to David Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 474.

34

Chapter 2

thus introducing a type of unmediated mental vision of the uncreated Father which is not mediated by the Logos.36 This capacity is expressed in Philo’s famous phrase “light by light,” viewing God’s light through His own light, rather than through the light of the Logos.37 The direct vision of God does not include knowledge of the divine essence, nor does it necessarily include ecstatic passion or divination.38 The mind beholding this vision has the unique capacity to elevate itself above the created universe and reach a direct, unmediated vision of the uncreated. The precise nature of this vision is a matter of scholarly debate. David Winston has argued that the “unmediated intuitive vision” as described by Philo is actually an inner intuitive illumination, the result of analytical thought and deduction.39 In contrast to H. Wolfson and H. Lewy, who maintain that Philo is describing an experience that completely bypasses the rational faculties and depends entirely on God’s grace, Winston argues that this particular experience of vision is rather the result of a process of reasoning in the style of an “ontological argument” that leads to inner illumination and vision of the mind:40 “It is this inner intuitive illumination, constituting a rational process of an analytical type, that is to be identified with the divine revelation taking shape in the human mind and enabling it to have a direct vision of God.”41 While some of Philo’s discussions indeed yield perfectly to Winston’s analysis, in the following example, Philo asserts a vision in which the soul must first transcend the created world in order to achieve direct sight of the uncreated One: 36  From some of Philo’s writings one may deduce, however, that the possibility of seeing the One is categorically denied. See for example: Post 167–169; Op, 71–73. 37   Praem, 43–46, Loeb Edition, Vol. IV, 337–339: “But those, if such there be, who have had the power to apprehend Him through Himself without the cooperation of any reasoning process to lead them to the sight, must be recorded as holy and genuine worshippers and friends of God in very truth. In their company is who in Hebrew is called Israel, but in Greek the God seer who sees not his real nature, for that, as I said, is impossible—but that He is . . . As light is seen by light, so God too his own brightness and is discerned through himself alone without anything cooperating. The seekers for truth are those who envisaged God through God, light through light,” See Goodenough, By Light, 176–178; David Winston, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections, (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1981), 27. This famous passage might have influenced Plotinus in the Enn. 5,3,17; 5.5.10. See the discussion by Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44. 38  Loath, The Origins, 19–20; Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 158–159. 39  See: Ibid., 155–161. 40  See: Ibid., 157–161; Idem, Logos and Mystical Theology, 46–47. 41  See: Idem, The Ancestral Philosophy, 159; Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 437.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

35

There is a mind more perfect and more thoroughly cleansed, which has undergone initiation into the greater mysteries, a mind which gains its first knowledge of the first cause not from created things, as one may learn the substance from the shadow, but lifting its eyes above and beyond creation obtains a clear vision of the uncreated One. So as from him to apprehend both himself and his shadow. [. . . .] The mind of which I speak is Moses who says “Manifest thyself to me, let me see thee that I know thee (Exod 33:13)” [. . .] One receives the clear vision of God directly from the first cause Himself. The other discerns the Artificer, as it were from a shadow, from created things by virtue of inferential reasoning.42 Since the intellectual vision is direct and not mediated by the Logos and “inferential reasoning”, it seems that the soul must first transcend all created reality with its “inner eye” and only then view the transcendent “uncreated One”. Philo distinguishes between the great minds, those who reach such direct contact with the uncreated, and the rest of humanity, who must discern the creator through the shadow of the Logos. In another discussion, Philo introduces his interpretation of the divine “portion” granted to those who choose to become intimate with God: “The tribe of Levi shall have no lot or portion among the children of Israel, for the Lord is their portion” (Deuteronomy 10:9); and there is an utterance rung out on this wise by the holy oracles in the name of God, “I am the portion and inheritance” (Numbers 18:20): for in reality the mind which has been perfectly cleansed and purified, and which renounces all things pertaining to creation, is acquainted with One alone, and knows but One, even the uncreated, to whom it has drawn nigh, by Whom also it has taken to Himself.43 Here we are introduced to another facet of knowing the One, via the idea that through human transcendence, the Levite mind can become “acquainted” with the One not through any mediators. God may become the “portion” of that human mind. Another notion that Philo links to the process of human transcendence, of soaring above all created reality and reaching an unmediated experience of God, is referred to as “standing” beside God: “There are still others, whom God 42   Leg. 3:100–103, Loeb Edition, vol. I, 369. 43   Plant. 63–64, Loeb Edition, vol. III, 245; and QE, 2:29, Loeb Edition, vol. XII. Sup 2, 69–70.

36

Chapter 2

has advanced even higher, and has trained them to soar above species and genus alike and stationed them beside himself. Such is Moses to whom he says ‘Stand here with me’ (Deut 5:31)”.44 God’s invitation to Moses to stand beside him is interpreted here as reflecting the capacity of his mind to soar above and beyond all earthly reality in order to reach God at His place and stand there. Mosaic religiosity allows personal engagement with the transcendent deity; this intimacy45 with God is alluded to as “standing” with him at or in his “place,” where God becomes his only portion. Given that only the transcendent God “stands” and all creation moves, in order for the human mind to reach this state of “standing” with God, who becomes the “place” and portion of the soul, it must first transcend the created and moving universe. David Runia investigates the Philonic theme of the “standing” God, and shows that in some of Philo’s discussions this theme is “transferred to the wise man par excellence, Moses (or Abraham), who cleaves to God and achieves the same stability of thought and purpose.”46 (The notion of the standing God and the wise men that stand next to Him is further ­developed—possibly under the influence of Philo—in the Neoplatonic tradition as evidenced in Numenius and Plotinus, and later in Proclus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine.)47 Both experiences described by Philo—mystical vision and mystical “standing” with God, who becomes the mind’s portion—concern the intimate, personal journey of the soul, which, by transcending its corporeality and ascending beyond the created universe, is able to encounter directly the transcendent God. This process, which is also a condition, as we shall see, for mystical union,

44   Sac. 8–10, Loeb Edition, Vol. II, 99; See: David Winston, ‘The Philonic Sage’, Da’at 11 (1983), 15–17 (Hebrew). 45  Following David Winston, I use the term “mystical intimacy” rather than “mystical gnosis” to classify the apex experience of Mosaic law as portrayed by Philo in some of his commentaries; See: Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 110–113; Dan Merkur, Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions, Albany: SUNY Press 1993. Dan Merkur, Mystical Moments and Unitive Thinking, (New York: State University of New York, 1999). 46  David Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 199; See further the discussions by Philo in Post 19–30; Cher, 18–19; Gig. 48–49; Conf. 30–32. 47  See: Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers, 182–205; Merker, Gnosis, 147; For further discussion of possible links between Philo and Plotinus on a related topic, see Tatjana Alekniené, “ ‘L’«extase mystique» dans la Tradition Platonicienne ‘Philon d’Alexandrie ET Plotin,” Studia Philonica 22 (2010): 53–82; on the possible influence of Philo on Plotinus via Numenius, see the references indicated by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 38–39, 289 note 13; Idel, Ben, 642 note 97 and in chapter 3 below.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

37

is not executed by the more “common” ascending to and vision of the Logos, but rather by bypassing the created universe and the Logos altogether.48 According to Philo, in order to attain unmediated access, the individual must uphold certain moral virtues that enable him to come close to God.49 The embodiment of virtues such as piety and faith is a condition for the direct perception of the first cause,50 and for a personal encounter with the transcendent Creator (which at times Philo describes as the products of divine grace).51 This notion—that Torah demands that human beings strive for an intimate and direct encounter with the transcendent God who, despite His transcendence, is capable of having an intimate relationship with those who have sought him—is characteristic of Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic Law. The Platonic tradition provided the anthropological and theological foundations that enabled Philo to articulate the possibility for the soul to ascend to the end of the created universe and ultimately return to God. The odyssey of the soul towards God is probably the most important theme in Philo’s thought, which embodies on one hand the transcendence of the deity, and on the other hand, the idea that the encounter is personal, intimate, and mutual.

Mystical Henōsis in Philo’s Commentary on the Biblical “Cleaving” to God

While interpreting the “cleaving” verses in Deuteronomy 30:20, 10:20, and Genesis 2:24, Philo clearly follows the Septuagint terminology,52 which uses three different verbs:53 Gen 2:24 “proskollēthēsetai”, Deut 10:20 “kollēthēi”, Deut 30:20 “echesthai”.54 Philo seems to connect Deuteronomy 30:20 and 10:20 48  Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 157–159; Chadwick, Philo, 148. 49  See: Mig, 24:132, Loeb Edition, vol. IV, 207–209, to be discussed below. 50  See: Naomi Goldstein Cohen, “Philo’s Cher. 40–52, Zohar III 31a, and BT Hag. 16a,” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 197. 51  See: Louth, The Origins, 30; Chadwick, Philo, 150–153. 52  Philo is interpreting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible; there is generally no evidence that Philo knew or read Hebrew. 53  As G. Wallis, ‘dābhaq,’ notes that the Septuagint uses 13 different verbs to translate the various occurrences of ‫דבק‬. 54  For the various meanings of these verbs in the Septuagint, see: Johan Lust et al., A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2 vol., (Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblelgesellschaft, 1996); Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, (Louvain/Paris/Dudley, Ma: Peeters, 2002), s.v. kollaō; proskollaō, exō. See also John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek

38

Chapter 2

not on a philological basis, since the Septuagint uses two different verbs to translate davak (‫)דבק‬, but rather a thematic and theological one. The common ground for these two verses is the commandment to “attach” to God and its correlation with the concepts of the divine “portion” and “coming near” God and “standing” next to/with Him. This underlining thematic similarity serves as the basis for Philo to bring together the verses despite a difference in terminology (at least, in the Greek translation). While coming to interpret Deuteronomy 30:20, Philo offers a note to the reader about the exact meaning of the Greek verb “echesthai” used in this context.55 Since for the Greek reader this verb is not usually associated with mystical or spiritual cleaving, Philo explains that in this context it means spiritual union with God. Philo’s first discussion of Deuteronomy 30:20 appears in a long section beginning at On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile [Post 12], where he describes the “man of God” who continuously seeks God’s presence, and the “material man” represented by Cain who chooses to cleave to his sensory experiences, and consequently lives a life of wandering and restless movement.56 The man of God seeks the stable and constant existence of the transcendent One, ­leading to a life of tranquility achieved by standing in God’s place and transcending the movement of the universe. By cleaving to God, the soul may escape the fate of all creation, which changes, moves, and eventually disintegrates—­gaining eternal life besides the “standing” God. Philo’s characterization of the man of God suggests that cleaving to God and standing in his place or “next” to Him are one. His interpretation of the commandment to cleave is part of the larger scheme of the “wise men” that stand with the “standing” God, analyzed in Post 12–23.57 Of the four Deuteronomy “cleaving” verses, Philo chooses to interpret the two (10:20; 30:20) that correlate “cleaving” to God with gaining “true” life, suggesting that cleaving leads to real and eternal life “standing” besides God. Philo identifies Moses, whom God calls upon to stand next to Him (“but you stand Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 120. On the range of the m ­ eaning of kollaō in later Christian writings, see Cécile Dogniez et Marguerite Harl, La bible d’Alexandrie: Le Deuteronome, (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 156–157; see also Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) s.v. These verbs do not seem to carry any theological or mystical connotations in profane Greek literature; see Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon—with a Revised Supplement, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) s.v. 55  See: Liddel & Scott: S.V echo c. Med: “hold oneself fast, cling closely.” 56  See: Mackie, “The Passion of Eve,” 142–146. 57  See: Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers, 182–205.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

39

(stethi) here with me” (Deut 5:28)) as the one who has the authority to command “Israel” to cleave to God: But Moses will lay down for his pupils a charge most noble “to love God and hearken to and cleave to Him” (Deut 30:20); assuring them that this is the life that brings true prosperity and length of days. And his way of inviting them to honour Him Who is a worthy object of strong yearning and devoted love is vivid and expressive. He bids them “cleave (echesthai) to Him,” bringing out by the use of this word how constant and continuous and unbroken is the concord and union (henōseōs) that comes through making God our own.58 A second discussion of the same verse from Deuteronomy is found in The Preliminary Studies, XXIV, 133–135: A great and transcendent soul does such a boast bespeak, to soar above created being, to pass beyond its boundaries, to hold fast (periechesthai) to the uncreated alone, following the sacred admonitions in which we are told to “cling (echesthai) to Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20), and therefore to those who thus cling (exomenois) and serve him without ceasing He gives Himself as portion, and thus my affirmation is warranted by the oracle which says “The Lord Himself is his portion” (Deuteronomy 10:9).59 Read together, the two commentaries on the commandment “to cleave” constitute a clear ideal of mystical union.60 Philo’s commentary on 30:20 perhaps constitutes not only the first attempt to interpret that biblical commandment in mystical terms, but fundamentally the first articulation of the idea of mystical union with God as it appears later in the monotheistic mystical traditions.61 Philo’s reading of the imperative to cleave to God and his choice to invoke the term henōsis suggests that a full union with the transcendent creator is not only possible, but is in fact the pinnacle of Mosaic law. God is to be the object of yearning and love; his transcendent nature does not obviate personal intimacy and union with Israel. On the contrary, the Deuteronomic injunction to 58   Post 12, Loeb Edition, vol. II, 335; see Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 167; McGinn, The Foundation of Mysticism, 40 and note 93. 59  Philo, Congr, XXIV, 133–135, Loeb Edition, Vol. IV, 527. 60  Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 167 notes that the discussion in Post 12 includes a “notion of actual union with God.” 61  See Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 167; Afterman, Devequt, 19–22.

40

Chapter 2

cleave to God is a commandment to establish a personal relationship of love with God, to make Him “our own,” to become his closest friend. The union of the soul with the Creator results from the soul’s transcending the boundaries of created existence and reaching an unmediated contact with the divine. Once the soul gains (or re-gains) its transcendent existence and true life, the conditions are met for mystical union with the transcendent God, who becomes the soul’s “portion”; standing in the same “place,” they become one. Philo’s commentary in the De Posteritate Caini is striking for its clear correlation between gaining unmediated access to God and achieving union with Him. In the two discussions of Deuteronomy 30:20, we find that by cleaving to God, the human mind “stands” in God’s place, rendering God his portion and replacing all other concerns. God’s transcendence, which is a fundamental idea in Philo’s biblical exegesis,62 does not preclude the possibility of reaching mystical intimacy with Him, including mystical union of the mind, stripped of all its somatic and corporeal garments. Philo makes it clear that the nature of the encounter is a total union, stressing the depth of intimacy reached through such mystical union. The mystical cleaving to the Uncreated does not result from comprehension of His essence,63 a notion categorically denied by Philo, but rather an alternative stage achieved when the purified soul bypasses the created universe and cleaves to the divine in a theistic union. Mystical intimacy is conditioned upon the soul’s capacity to encounter the divine at His own “place”, beyond the created world which, ultimately, is viewed as lacking true being.64 Union with the One is not characterized as an impersonal merging with an abstract principle or substance. On the contrary, the union takes place with the biblical God, which is capable of loving and maintaining personal relationships of friendships in spite of His transcendence. While Deuteronomy 4:4 correlates cleaving to God and meriting life, Deuteronomy 30:20 is interpreted by Philo as referring to the “real” life lived in God. In On Flight, XI, 56, Philo discusses this connection by viewing Deuteronomy 30:20 in relation to Deuteronomy 4:4:

62  See: Harry Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 94–164; Peter Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 25–55; David Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 442–443; Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 151–154; Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 45–50. 63  See LA 3:206; Mut 7–12. 64  See: Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 52–54; Chadwick, Philo, 151.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

41

She confirmed what she said by holy oracles also, one of them to this effect: “Ye that did cleave (hoi proskeimenoi) unto the Lord your God are alive all of you at this day” (Deuteronomy 4:4.) For only those who have taken refuge in God and become his supplicants does Moses recognize as living, accounting the rest to be dead men. [. . .] Again elsewhere: “This is thy life, and length of days, to love the Lord thy God.”(Deuteronomy 30:20.). This is the most noble definition of deathless life, to be possessed by a love of God and a friendship for God with which flesh and body have no concern.65 Philo stresses once again that cleaving to God is a spiritual process that leads to true friendship with and love of God, and eventually to eternal life next to Him. The same process of spiritual cleaving is reflected in Philo’s interpretation of another verse from Deuteronomy (10:20) which commands “cleaving” to God: Using still loftier language to express the irrepressible craving for moral excellence, he calls on them to cleave (kollasthai) to Him. His words are: “thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and Him shalt thou serve, and to Him shalt thou cleave (pros auton kollēthēsēi)” (Deut 10:20). What then is the cementing substance? Do you ask what? Piety, surely, and faith: for these virtues adjust (harmozousi) and unite (henousin)66 the intent of the heart (dianoian) to the incorruptible Being:67 as Abraham when he believed is said to: “Come near to God” (Gen 18:23).68 65  Philo, Fug, 56, Loeb Edition, Vol. V, 39–41. 66  In other discussions, the terms “harmozousi” and “henousin” are used in a non-mystical sense: See for instance the discussion in Plant 1:60 and Leg 1:8, where Philo correlates the idea of divine portion, virtue, and the number seven, that cause or signify the harmony and unity of human society; see further Det 1:107 and Agr 1:6 where the term is employed in an agricultural context; and Conf 1:69, Leg 1:37, Mig 1:220, Her 1:40, Fug 1:112, Mos 2:243, Spec 4:168, Spec 4:168, Spec 4:207, Virt 1:135, Aet 1:147, QG 3:3 where the term is used in different non-spiritual contexts. 67  Compare to: Fug, 92, Loeb Edition, vol. V, 59–61: “All of this is to the end that the word or thought within the mind may be left behind by itself alone, destitute of body, destitute of sense-perception, destitute of utterance in audible speech; for when it has been thus left, it will live a life in harmony with such solitude, and will render, with nothing to mar or to disturb it, its glad homage to the Sole existence”. See also the translation of David Winston, “Was Philo a Mystic”, 78: “For thus left behind [the thought within the mind] it will live a life in accord with such solitude, and will cleave (aspasetai) in purity and without distraction to the alone existent.” See also: QG, 188, Loeb Edition, Vol. XI, 472–473: “Rightly, therefore, and properly does the wise man believing (his) end (to consist in) likeness to God, strive, so far as possible, to unite the created with the uncreated and the mortal with the immortal.” 68  Philo, Mig, 132, Loeb Edition, vol. IV, 207–209.

42

Chapter 2

The interpretation of the “cleaving” in this verse lacks the element of transcendence that Philo stresses in his interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:20. Here, he emphasizes that embodying certain moral values harmonizes the heart with God, in line with the idea that the Mosaic law aims to unite man’s mind with God without other mediators (such the Logos). The manner in which one heeds the Mosaic commandment to cleave to the Lord is by adhering to piety and faith. From Philo’s two commentaries on the commandment to cleave to God in Deuteronomy 30:20, and especially from the long discussion in Post (12–23), we may conclude that he interprets the biblical imperative to love and cleave to God as a commandment to transcend the created universe and reach His place—to stand there, become God’s true friend and lover, and thereby gain true and eternal life. The union is complete only when man and God stand in the same place and develop a love relationship which resembles family relationships. Loving friendship with God, coming close to him and standing in his place, represents the core and the ultimate goal of Mosaic religion.

Cleaving to God as “Hieros Gamos” in Genesis 2:24

The metaphor of family relations, particularly the marriage bond, is reflected in Philo’s commentary on the “cleaving” verse in Genesis 2:24. As part of his analysis of the creation of man,69 Philo’s interprets the two different, ostensibly contradictory biblical accounts of the creation of Adam (Gen 1:26 / Gen 2:7).70 Philo’s typology of mankind includes the “earthly Man” that dwells in the created and sensory world; the “heavenly Man” who has gained the capacity to look beyond the created world towards both that world and God; and the “divine Man” who is completely elevated beyond the created universe and stands beside God.71 Philo introduces the possibility that the divine man of 69  On Philo’s interpretation of the biblical account addressed to the Jewish community in Alexandria, see: Maren R. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008): 356–366. 70  See: Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 334–346. 71  See: Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982), 47–59; on Philo’s attitude towards the body and questions of self, see Alon Goshen Gottstein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87:2 (1994): 176–177; Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1993), 3–5, 78–80, 231–234; Schäfer, The Origins, 160–161; Mackie, “The Passon of Eve,” 147–148, 150–151; Raymond Martin and John Barresi, The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 42–44.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

43

heavenly origin may become God’s “close friend”.72 Of special interest to us is his analysis of Genesis 2:24: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (proskollēthēsetai) unto his wife, and the twain shall be one flesh (Gen 2:24)”: For the sake of sense-perception the Mind, when it has become her slave, abandons both God the Father of the universe, and God’s excellence and wisdom, the mother of all things, and cleaves (proskollatai) to and becomes one (henoutai) with sense perception and is resolved into sense-perception so that the two become one flesh and one experience. Observe that it is not the woman that cleaves (kollatai) to the man, but conversely the man to the woman, Mind to sense-perception. For when that which is superior, namely Mind, becomes one (henōthēi) with that which is inferior, namely sense-perception it resolves into the order of flesh which is inferior, into sense-perception, the moving cause of the passions. But if Sense the inferior follows Mind the superior, there will be flesh no more, but both of them will be mind. The man, then, that the prophet speaks is such as has been described; he prefers the love of his passions to the love of God. But there is a different man, one who has made the contrary choice [. . .] this man forsakes father and mother, his mind and material body, for the sake of having as his portion the One God “for the Lord himself is his portion” (Deut 10:9). Passion becomes the portion of the lover of passion, but the portion of Levi the lover of God is God.73 Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the “cleaving” of man and his wife, creating a union of flesh, is as follows: the cleaving of mind (man) to sense perception (wife) creates one union of the mind with its physical concerns. The correlation between cleaving and union is fundamental, as when the mind cleaves and unites with sense perception; a united experience is constituted by the two. However, the same unity is reached alternatively with virtue and God when the mind cleaves to God and establishes a unity of spirit or mind. Man, which Philo identifies with the mind, has an inherent capacity to cleave to other concerns, depending on his nature.74 The “material” man cleaves to his 72  See: Gig, 58–64, Loeb Edition, Vol. II, 475–477. 73  L A, II, 49–52, Loeb Edition, Vol. I, 255–257. 74  In his discussion in Post 59–62, we learn that the soul’s essential quality is to unite with any given concerns. This quality is signified by the Hebrew term “Hebron” deriving from the Hebrew root HVR (which has a similar meaning to the verb DBQ i.e. cleaving)

44

Chapter 2

physical body and sense perception, becoming one with sense experience. The man of God cleaves not to his body and senses, but rather to God himself, until God becomes his mind’s portion, an idea we explored above in our discussion of both the visio dei and the union with God. Finally, the Levite, representing the man of God (such as Moses)75 who is not granted a terrestrial portion of the Holy Land, instead has God for his portion, and dwells in him. The intimacy of mind and God is parallel to and mutually exclusive with the intimacy of mind and sense experience. The attachment of the mind to the body is a metaphorical marriage; by stripping away its corporeality and consorting with the divine, the soul regains its “virginity.”76 This idea is revisited by Philo in his discussion in De Cherubim 40–53: “Souls, when they cleave to God (proskollēthōsi theōi), become from women to virgins; they cast off the womanly destruction which is latent in sense and feeling, and follow the true and untempered Virgin, namely that which is pleasing to God.”77 In this transformation from woman to virgin, and the detachment of the self from the body, the union achieved between that soul and God is that of a hieros gamos78—replacing the marriage between soul and sense experience. The “cleaving” between man and woman is the prototype for mystical union with God, and it is achievable by those such as Abraham or the Levite, who dedicate their life to the love of God and not to flesh. The levitical state of mind is defined by a mystical attachment to and love of God. signifying friendship or alliance; the soul becomes a “friend” with its concerns, whether with the body or alternatively with virtue or God; see: Post, 59–62, Loeb Edition, vol. II, 361. “Hebron,” for instance, means “union” but union may be of two kinds, the soul being either made the body’s yokefellow, or being brought into fellowship with virtue. 75  See: Sac 8–9; Gig 61; LA III 99–102; See: Her, 45–46, and Gig, 60–62, Loeb Edition, Vol. II, p. 475: “But the men of God are priests and prophets who have refused to accept membership in the commonwealth of the world and to become citizens therein, but have risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible and dwell there.”; and Goodenough, By Light, 229–230: “Moses . . . has gone beyond any material or created manifestation of God to cleave to God alone, and so has received God himself for his portion.” 76  Cohen, ‘Philo’s Cher 40–52’, 203. 77  Translation by Goodenough, By Light, 388 of a fragment printed in Loeb Edition, Vol. XII, 241 (fragment b). Compare to QE, II, 3, Loeb Edition, vol. XII, 38: “For when a man comes in contact with a woman, he marks the virgin as a woman but when souls become divinely inspired from being woman they become virgins, throwing off the womanly corruptions which are in sense perception and passion.” 78  See: Lease, “Jewish Mystery Cults Since Goodenough,” 862.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

45

In summary, Philo’s reading of the cleaving of “man” and “wife” as union in Genesis completes the picture that emerges from the interpretations of the “cleaving” verses. Cleaving to God means uniting the mind with God; this is possible since the human mind is designed to cleave or unite with its concerns and most importantly with God. Philo maintains that the unity of mind and sensual experience may be replaced with the unity of mind and God. The close reading of Philo’s discussions of unio mystica, derived from his commentary on some of the biblical verses on cleaving, offers a rare opportunity to re-evaluate the trajectories of influence concerning mystical union in the history of religious traditions. We can safely claim that mystical union emerged from Philo’s original Platonic-Jewish interpretation of the Septuagint. Philo was the first to interpret (in writing) the Deuteronomic injunction as referring to spiritual, mystical cleaving to God, rather than to mediating entities, institutions, or people. Philo converted the Deuteronomic, covenantal cleaving into a unique synthesis of a mystical union with the One and religious emotions of love of and intimacy with the God of Israel. Mystical union for Philo is the most intimate experience of God, a religious experience of coming close to God and cleaving to Him in love and friendship. The Septuagint, with its commandment to love and cleave to God, provided Philo, the middle Platonist philosopher, with the idea that it is possible not only to ascend in contemplation and mentally view the transcendent God, but even to cleave to and unite with Him, an idea never before articulated in either Platonic or Jewish traditions. Philo’s discussions of the commandment, and specifically his discussion of the henōsis with God in his commentary on Deuteronomy 30:20, signifies a major innovation, one which must be taken into account as an important precedent and backdrop for the later developments of the idea of henōsis in the Neoplatonic tradition and its later synthesis with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Philo’s allegorical interpretation of Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 10:20, and Deuteronomy 30:20 allowed him to articulate a spiritual understanding of the biblical commandment and consequently to create the category of mystical henōsis. In a similar manner, possibly as a result of direct influence,79 79  On the possible link between Philo and Jewish medieval mysticism, see: Gershom Scholem, Major Trends, 114–115; Goodenough, By Light, 359–369; Elliot Wolfson, “Traces of Philonic doctrine in Medieval Jewish Mysticism: A Preliminary Note,” Studia Philonica  8 (1996): 99–106 and his summery of previous disputes and literature; Yehudah Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000), 111–120 (Hebrew); Yehuda Liebes, “The Work of the Chariot and the Work of Creation as Esoterical Teachings in Philo of

46

Chapter 2

Jewish authors writing under the impact of medieval Muslim and Latin Neoplatonism interpreted the same verses from the Torah as a commandment of mystical communion and union with God.80 Two of the main elements that constitute mystical intimacy in the Philonic commentaries analyzed above—­ contemplative vision and mystical union—became predominant in the Neoplatonic mystical tradition,81 and consequently in medieval Jewish theology and Kabbalah.82 Regarding other, likely more direct influences (closer to his own time), one of Philo’s discussions of mystical union and henōsis— derived from his longer discussion of the men of God, who “stand” by cleaving to the “standing” God—was developed later by Numenius and Plotinus, and suggests that Philo might have played a role in the later developments of the idea of mystical henōsis.83 The two commentaries on Deuteronomy 30:20, the descriptions of the great souls that transcend the created universe and then unite with the One, are very interesting precedents and even possible sources for the Neoplatonic scheme of elevation and henōsis with the One. We thus have an opportunity to re-evaluate the trajectories of influence in this history of religious traditions concerning mystical union. In light of these findings, the presumed polarity between Jerusalem and Athens as two opposing ideological and hermeneutic dispositions must be reconsidered, even if only within the limited scope of the present discussion, which nevertheless is a central theme in the history of the Abrahamic religions. Thus, a new narrative emerges: Under the influence of Platonism, Philo, a Jewish interpreter of the Hebrew Bible, wrote in Greek about the mystical union, henōsis, of man with God. Christianity would later emerge from a Jewish and Greek background and assume the central role in developing these themes Alexandria,” in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination (Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane), edit. Deborah A. Green and Laura S. Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 105–120; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 131–133; Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 59–61. There is no evidence for any direct influence of Philo on medieval Jewish and Islamic philosophy, see: Steven Harvey, “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy,” The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, ed. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 349–350. 80  See: Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 45–72. 81  See: Enneads, IV, 8, 1; VI, 9, 9–11; V 3.17; V 3 34–37; V 5 10; Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44, suggests the possibility that Philo’s theory of mystical vision of God might have influenced Plotinus, who describes at the highest level of spiritual ascension a vision of the light of the One; see: Pierre Hadot, Plotinus: Or The Simplicity of Vision, trans. Michael Chase (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 61–72. 82  See: Wolfson, Through a Speculum and Afterman, Devequt. 83  See the careful discussion in Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers, 199–200.

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union

47

in a philosophic vein. Mystical union, which first emerged under Philo’s influence, further developed independently within the Platonic tradition starting with Plotinus and continuing on through the Middle Ages. The emergence, or perhaps revival, of the idea of mystical cleaving and union in medieval Judaism and at the same time in western Christianity and Muslim ­philosophy84 resulted from the creative absorption of Arab and Latin Neoplatonism. As for medieval Judaism, unio mystica was reconstructed once again through the interpretation of exactly the same key verses from the Torah in light of the Neoplatonic scheme of elevation, illumination, and mystical union. While Philo may have directly impacted later developments in Judaism, it seems almost certain that he had some impact on later developments in the Platonic tradition. This is important because medieval Judaism encountered a Platonism different from Philo’s Platonism, a Platonism that was already enriched by the ideal of path of return and mystical henōsis, and thus may have been indirectly influenced by Philo in this regard even if not directly. The development of henōsis-type language for union is a medieval synthesis that has its own unique features, but at the same time resembles the earlier synthesis between Platonism and Judaism. Beyond mere resemblance, that earlier synthesis may have had a profound impact on the Platonic tradition, and in that way through its second encounter with Judaism reintroduced into rabbinic Judaism features of Hellenistic Judaism long lost.85 If indeed Philo’s discussions had an influence on the Neoplatonic scheme of mystical union, we might note a very interesting resolution in the way that the medieval synthesis between Platonism and Judaism leads again to the articulation of a religion focused on mystical intimacy, communion, and union with God. The most important outgrowth of that synthesis is the renewed yet ancient idea of mystical communion and unio mystica, which functions as a part of a fundamental shift in rabbinic Judaism towards a much more spiritual and philosophical religion. The first-century synthesis of Platonism and Judaism gave birth originally to the idea of unio mystica, and this idea was born once again in medieval Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah. 84  See for example: Peter Adamson, “Al-Kindi and the Reception of Greek Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, edit. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 32–51; Alexander Altmann, “The Delphic Maxim in Medieval Islam and Judaism,” in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, edit. Alexander Altmann (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), 1–40; Idem, “Ibn Bajja On Man’s Ultimate Felicity,” Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, 103–107. 85  See: Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 185–195; Altmann, “The Delphic Maxim”.

48

Chapter 2

The study of Jewish mysticism has for decades now engaged its sources from a methodology of longue durée, viewing traditions and ideas transmitted through subterranean channels to have them emerge only in much later generations. In the case of mystical union, Jewish traditions from antiquity should not be marginalized, and the works of the medieval Jewish philosophers and mystics should not be simply conceived of merely as another chapter in the reception of Greek traditions, but also as the late resonance of original Jewish traditions—some of them ancient syntheses between Jerusalem and Athens that found their later and fullest expression within the hermeneutic frameworks of medieval Jewish theology and Kabbalah.

Chapter 3

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism Philo’s synthesis of Middle Platonism and Judaism included the first articulation of an ideal of theistic union with the monotheistic God. It is my fundamental argument that the Jewish language of union in and of itself is the fruit of such synthesis: first in the Hellenistic world of Philo, and then once again in medieval Judaism which underwent a second synthesis with Hellenism via high Arabic culture—both later developments of Platonism and Neoaristotelian philosophy. It is true that, after this fundamental synthesis, Jewish mystics developed a number of different understandings and depictions of union (including forms of embodied union), some differing drastically from the platonic ideal of “mystical henōsis”. But the project of union with the divine, began as a whole within Judaism, as far as we can tell, with the PhilonicNeoplatonic synthesis. The history of this synthesis, with its diverse foci in the body of Jewish unitive language, will be laid out in detail in the following chapters. Before we continue on to the medieval synthesis, let us address several recent studies that argue for the pre-medieval existence of mystical union beyond the writings of Philo. Prior to the medieval development of Jewish Neo-Platonism, with the great exception of Philo, the henōsis type of mystical union was absent in Jewish sources. It should be noted, however, that the absence of such union does not exclude other types of union. Both the metaphorical union between the “assembly of Israel” as a mythical collective entity engaged in a covenantal relationship with God and the union of Israel and the Torah are found in premedieval sources. I am concerned here with notions of union with God on the private, individual level, which appears to be absent almost entirely in the Judaism of the rabbinic period. However, we must ask whether traces of unio mystica can be found in the vast literature of ancient Jewish mysticism, written outside the scope of Platonism and other forms of Peripatetic philosophy. In the exhaustive varieties of ancient Jewish mysticism, including merkavah mysticism, Heikhalot mysticism, and the community at Qumran, is there evidence of unitive language of any sort, even for partial union with the divine, or with angels? And even if there is no language referring to it directly, could or should the mystical practices of apotheosis, unio liturgica, visionary experiences, enthronement, and other forms of mystical engagement and ­transformations associated with merkavah mysticism be considered forms of mystical union?

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_004

50

Chapter 3

Without entering into a detailed analysis of the mystical experience in premedieval Jewish sources,1 we will argue here that all forms of pre-medieval Judaism should in fact be excluded from the category of unio mystica and distinguished from the language of unitive mysticism. In his evaluation of merkavah mysticism, Gershom Scholem justifiably excludes the notion of mystical union from the merkavah’s mystical ­components.2 While describing the earliest extensive brand of Jewish mystical literature, the Heikhalot literature of late antiquity, Scholem emphasizes that: Ecstasy there was, and this fundamental experience must have been a source of religious inspiration, but we find no trace of a mystical union between the soul and God. Throughout there remained an almost exaggerated consciousness of God’s otherness, nor does the identity and individuality of the mystic become blurred even at the height of ecstatic passion.3

1  See: Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 10–124; Elliot Wolfson, “Yeridah la-Merkavah: Typology of Ecstasy and Enthronement in Ancient Jewish Mysticism,” in Mystics of the book—Themes, Topics, and Typologies, ed. with an introduction by Robert A. Herrera, (Peter Lang: 1993), 21–26; Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries,” 177–214; See also: Morton Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QM,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 181–188; Haviva Pedaya, Vision and Speech: Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2002), 1–110 (Hebrew); Adam Afterman, “Ma’aseh Merkava in Rabbinic Literature: Prayer and Envisioning the Chariot,” Kabbalah 13 (2005): 249–269 (Hebrew); Philip Alexander, “Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature,” Priere, Mystique et Judaisme, Colloque de Strasbourg (10–12 septembre 1984), (Paris: Presses Universitires de France 1987), 43–64; Ra’anan S. Boustan, From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysiticism (Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Joseph Dan, “The Religious Experience of the Merkavah,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 289–307; Rachel Elior, “Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature,” Jewish Studies Quarterly, 1 (1993/94): 3–53; Itamar Gruenwald, “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After, ed. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tuebingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993), 25–48; Michael D. Swartz, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992). 2  Scholem, Major Trends, 56; Elliot Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical Composition From Qumran: A Response to Bilhah Nitzan,” JQR 85 (1994): 191. 3  Scholem, Major Trends, 55.

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

51

This emphasis on the categorical difference between ecstasy and unitive mysticism is fundamental, and recurs in Scholem’s description of all the major trends of Jewish mysticism. Although he perceives the visions of the merkavah, the ascensions on high, and the different experiences of crowning and enthronement to be different forms of ecstasy, taken literally as ek-stasis leaving one’s ontological status, stressing elevating experience, he finds them conceptually and phenomenologically distinct from the Neoplatonic idea of mystical union. Similarly, according to Idel, while in the unitive formulation of ecstasy, the mind conjoins with God or with his mediating entities, in other forms of ecstasy the subject experiences a variety of visionary encounters with God or His angels, but does not actually unite with them at all. The mythological settings in the non-philosophical sources lacked the ontological metaphysical “ladder” leading to union, although in some rare cases the mystic can transform into an angel or into the figure siting upon the throne. Idel follows Scholem’s distinction between the centrality of the ecstatic phenomenon in the history of Jewish mysticism, including ancient Jewish mysticism, and the unitive model of ecstasy that emerged only later in medieval Jewish thought, which reached its peak in the ecstatic Kabbalah of the second half of the 13th century.4 While Idel, like Scholem, recognizes the ecstatic model throughout the entire history of Judaism, he argues further that the unitive ecstatic model is mainly medieval, resulting from the merging of the ecstatic model with the philosophical language of union. It was only this convergence with philosophy, he argues, that provided a suitable climate for ecstasy to be recast as unio mystica. Consequently, unitive ecstasy appears in Judaism relatively late (with the important exception of Philo), only through a synthesis with medieval Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian trends of philosophy. According to Scholem, Idel, and Wolfson, then, merkavah mysticism is perhaps the most far removed type of mystical praxis from the Platonic type of unio mystica. However, there is no scholarly unanimity on this question, and Peter Schafer for example seems to conflate the two categories. In a criticism of Idel, he wrote: In Idel’s attempt to prove that the ecstatic type is the dominant strand in Jewish mysticism and that striving for mystical union is therefore its predominant characteristic, one cannot avoid the impression that he is driven more than necessary by a zeal to turn almost everything Scholem wrote on its head.5 4  See Idel, “On the Language,” 56–62. 5  Schäfer, The Origins, 18.

52

Chapter 3

Schäfer’s critique implies, it seems, a conflation of ecstasy with that of unio mystica; yet however related they may be, they are far from identical.6 While Idel does in many of his studies (following Scholem) emphasize the importance of ecstatic phenomena, he does not argue that unio mystica is central, for example, in ancient forms of Jewish mysticism. Schafer himself admits exactly that; after arguing (in line with his confusion between ecstasy and unio mystica) that Idel claims that unio mystica is key to the analysis of ancient forms of Jewish mysticism, he writes: [. . .] in any case, when we look for his [Idel’s] proofs of the notion of a mystical union in early phase of Jewish mysticism, we find remarkably little. Although he includes Merkavah mysticism in the ecstatic strand [. . .] his chapter [. . .] in “Kabbalah New Perspectives” [on unio mystica] jumps immediately into ecstatic [medieval] kabbalah proper and does not deal with Merkavah mysticism at all expect for a couple of sentences about the transformation of Enoch into Metatron, which falls for him under the category of a unitive mysticism. Influenced by Abulafia’s peculiar kind of mysticism, Idel takes the idea of a Jewish unio mystica to the extreme.7 After replacing the ecstatic model with unio mystica, Schäfer then seems astonished that Idel does not provide any proof for unio mystica in merkavah mysticism. But the reason for that is simple: Idel simply never claimed that unio mystica could be found in ancient Jewish mysticism. While Idel and Scholem disagree about unio mystica, they seem to agree about its irrelevance for the analysis of ancient Jewish mysticism. Elliot R. Wolfson differentiates between Philonic and later Neoplatonic types of mystical henōsis, and other forms of mystical experience or transformation such as theosis, apotheosis, and angelification—all of which represent a different type of mystical phenomena, antedating the medieval spiritual revolution. He argues: The Jewish sources, beginning with the apocalyptic and Qumran texts, may provide a different model based not on henōsis, but rather on the “angelification” of the human being who crosses the boundary of space and time and becomes part of the heavenly realm, a motif that likely has its roots in ancient Near Eastern and Mesopotamian mythology. The 6  The fundamental distinction shared by Scholem, Idel and Wolfson between ecstasy and mystical union was misunderstood by Schäfer in his The Origins, 17–19, 352–353. 7  Schäfer, The Origins, 18–19.

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

53

­ ystical ­experience in this framework involves as well a closing of the gap m separating human and divine, not, however, by the return of the soul to the One, but rather by the ascension of the human into the heavens. This ascension occasions two experiences that must be viewed as phenomenologically distinct participation in the angelic liturgy that is accomplished in a standing posture and enthronement in the celestial realm.8 Wolfson reviews the different genealogy of both mystical streams, warning the contemporary reader not to underestimate their distinct character: This typology of unitive experience has its intellectual roots in Neoplatonism, which is completely irrelevant to the corpus of Heikhalot mysticism. If one applies the Neoplatonic idea of union to the Heikhalot, it is obvious that one will not succeed in finding any passage to confirm such an ideal.9 As stressed earlier, the experiences described in pre-medieval Jewish mysticism should be analyzed under the categories of visionary mysticism, enthronement, apotheosis, and theosis—all of which are categories far removed from the history of Philonic and later Neoplatonic henōsis and not shaped under its influence.10 However, while I do not consider Qumran, Heikhalot or any of the non-Platonic pre-medieval types of mysticism to be centered on union (henōsis), I shall briefly examine here those who argue otherwise and ideas that others have sometimes (incorrectly, in my view) see as evidence of a kind of unio mystica in early Jewish mysticism.

Unio Liturgica as Mystical Union

Peter Schäfer makes a clear distinction between unio liturgica in Qumran and unio mystica. He concludes that: [. . .] there is nothing in the Qumranic texts that would allow the reader to read in to them the notion of unio mystica, or mystical union with God [. . .] some of the texts suggest the idea of unio angelica, or 8  Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical,” 186; Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries,” 191 note 53. Compare to Bilha Nitzan, “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetic and Liturgical Writings from Qumran,” JQR 85, 1–2 (1994), 143–145. 9  Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical,” 192–193. 10  See Moshe Idel, The Angelic World—Apotheosis and Theophany, (Tel Aviv: Yediy’ot Ahronot, 2008) (Hebrew); Idel, Ben, 3–7, 443–444, 552–553; Wolfson, “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical”, 186.

54

Chapter 3

“Angelification” of humans, similar to what we encounter in the ascent apocalypses. Others, probably the majority, advocate a unio liturgica, or liturgical (comm)union with the angels in heaven, similar to what occurs in the Heikhalot literature.11 Schafer notes correctly that the mystical world of both Qumran and Heikhalot mysticism is far removed from the ideal of unio mystica. In his analysis of Qumran mysticism, Philip Alexander concludes that this “mystical corpus” (“Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” and other related Qumran manuscripts) describes a longing for the experience of union with the angels, as a form of participation in the angels’ communion with God. This corpus, he argues, suggests that the leader of the community desires to join the angels’ liturgy in heaven, thus participating in their relationship with God. By means of joint ritual with the host of angels, the leader of the community, if not the community as a whole, may reach a level of unio liturgica which Alexander considers the foundation for an experience of unio mystica.12 He further argues that the key Hebrew term yahad/‫ יחד‬refers specifically to a communion with the angels.13 In addition, Alexander sees many elements of Qumranic liturgy as the seeds of the later ideal of unio mystica. For instance, he has found evidence for ascents to the celestial temple,14 and stresses that this axis of ascension is the key to the next step: communion or even union with the higher reality or realm above. Although participation in the angels’ liturgy and the leading of angelikos bios characterizes Qumran religious life, and the Qumran texts convey a strong longing to take part in the angelic liturgy and form together a united community of worship, I am not convinced they reflect or describe a longing to cleave to the angels as well. The term yahad signifies, rather, the idea of participation with the angels, not of communing or uniting with them. Alexander claims both that the Qumran mystics strive for yichud with the angels, and that this yichud is only a substitute for union with God, which allows the Qumran

11  Schäfer, The Origins, 153, and his conclusion ibid., 341–349. 12  Alexander, The Mystical Texts, 109. 13  See the sources indicated by Alexander, Mystical Texts, 101–104 and see: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998), 188–189; cf. the criticism by Alan Segal “Transcribing Experience,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior, edit. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei Orlov (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 371. 14  Alexander, The Mystical Texts, 74–92.

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

55

mystic to enjoy the angels’ closer relationship to God: “Union with the angels is his way of achieving the supreme communion with God.”15 Elliot Wolfson’s analysis shows that some Qumran texts indicate the possibility of the priest becoming glorified and “transfigured into an angelic body and becomes part of the celestial retinue while remaining a leader of the Yahad below”.16 The transection to heaven, he perceives, shapes the initiates into “k’lei da‘at” (vessels of knowledge), allowing them to contemplate the secrets of God in heaven, while the songs of glory were composed out of the ecstasy of accompanying the “gods of knowledge”. These songs were not only a byproduct of the ascension but also a device for assimilating into the divine potencies.17 Regarding Qumran’s mystical character, Wolfson has argued that the Qumran sources indicate a gnosis of seven divine secrets, leading to a transformation into an angelic elite which stands before the throne “blessing the divine name, and utterance of hymns through which the supernal glory is recounted”.18 This ideal of transformation may perhaps be described as “mystical”, but hardly unitive, once it is compared to Philonic and later Neoplatonic terms. The ritual of joining and participating with the angels is indeed evident, and some of the Qumran literature may be considered mystical, in the sense that it lays the foundations for a profound religious angelikos bios, along with a strong experience of participation with the angels. Nevertheless, I find no clear evidence for a substantial communion with angels in the sources Alexander analyzes, or in general in the Qumran texts. While it is true that participation in the angelic liturgy leads to participation in angelic knowledge, and the receiving of wisdom is one of the most important mystical consequences of the process of transformation,19 such reception does not require a substantial communion. As we shall see, the theme of union with angels will develop later, in medieval Jewish theology and then in classical Kabbalah, and its influence will reach into the Italian Renaissance.

15  Philip Alexander, “Qumran and the Genealogy of Western Mysticism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts; Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 2005, ed. Esther G. Chazon and Betsy Halpern-Amaru in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements, Leiden: Brill, 2010, 215–235. 16  Wolfson, “Seven Mysteries,” 200. 17  Ibid., 207. 18  Ibid., 209. 19  See Wolfson in “Seven Mysteries”.

56

Chapter 3

Enthronement as Mystical Union

The concept of mystical enthronement is rooted in ancient Near Eastern and Mesopotamian mythology, rather far from Neoplatonic ontology and ­epistemology.20 It includes ascension to heaven, and transformation into an angelic being that occupies a throne alongside the throne of God,21 and should be distinguished I believe from the vocabulary of unitive mysticism later prevalent in medieval Judaism. The fact that in medieval Jewish mysticism enthronement transforms into a symbol of mystical union should not reflect back into the ancient sources, where what is evident instead is the link between enthronement and theosis. This is found for example in some Qumran hymns from 4QHE that glorify a human who is divinized, after being translated and sitting on the throne above the angels.22 The human undergoes a substantial transformation, which leads him into a higher level of being in the heavenly hierarchy, but not into a state of spiritual union. In my eyes, the main difference lies is the fact that the human does not transform in to God Himself, and that his transformation is practiced in a mythical setting. In medieval mysticism, man first unites through knowledge and then becomes one with the higher rank, but here, the process of transformation leads to a substantial change without the mechanism of union. The same will be true for the dynamics of apotheosis into an archangel.

Apotheosis as Mystical Union

Michael Schneider argues that the apophatic process that leads to the transformation of a perfected human into an archangel is a form of unio mystica.23 If that same human becomes an angel or any other hypostatical being that is con20  See: Wolfson, “Yeridah la-Merkavah”, 13–44; Schäfer, The Origins, 339–348; Arthur Green, Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 5–11; Adam Afterman, “Glorified with Embroideries of Songs: A Chapter in the History of Mystical Prayer in Judaism,” Da’at 81–82 (2016) (forthcoming in Hebrew); Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 52 (1993): 161–208. 21  Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 84; Wolfson, “Yeridah la-Merkavah’” 26; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 143. 22  See the discussion by Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000), 75–86. 23  See: Michael Schneider, “The Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology from Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

57

ceived of as part of the “godhead” or divine hierarchy, shouldn’t this transformation be considered a form of mystical union? Schneider considers Metatron and other archangels to be an actual extension of God and function as part of the godhead; therefore, becoming one of those angels is a form of uniting with that godhead.24 He conceives of apotheosis as a form of mystical union in a monotheistic mythical setting, differing from the purely Platonic or Philonic dynamics but nevertheless serving as a form of unio mystica. Understanding God as a unity of powers, a Pleroma that includes angels and other divine entities, suggests that transforming into an archangel is a form of unity with God and assimilation into the various elements of the Pleroma. Interestingly enough, the ideal of apotheosis and in particular the apotheosis of Enoch into Metatron will evolve into the main symbol or reference to mystical union in medieval Jewish mysticism. Conclusion The forms of transformation discussed above clearly differ from Philonic henōsis; however, they became extremely important for later medieval developments of Jewish mysticism, including forms of mystical union. The symbols or signs of complete transformation in the ancient world including enthronement, coronation, apotheosis, and theosis were transformed in the medieval Kabbalistic context into symbols or signifiers of mystical union. Unio liturgica, enthronement, coronation, apotheosis, and theosis, interpreted through the lens of philosophical formulas of union, were transformed into key symbols and conceptions of mystical union in the Zohar and medieval Kabbalah. This profound hermeneutical undertaking allowed Jewish readers to reencounter many of the early sources of Jewish mysticism, read, and indeed reenact them as if they referred to moments of mystical union. It is worth mentioning here an important point regarding the general motivation of ancient Jewish mysticism: It was not aimed at constructing theological forms distant from God, but actually cultivating transformative experiences of coming close to God, narrowing the gap, becoming divine,

Jewish Mysticism,” PhD diss., (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007), 20–22. 24  Peter Schäfer, The Hidden and the Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, trans. Aubrey Pomerance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 156–166; Wolfson, “Yeridah la-Merkavah”, 26.

58

Chapter 3

becoming an archangel or a son of God,25 or participating with God and the angels in various matters (in their power or wisdom, etc.). All these forms of “participation” in the divine hierarchy serve as a crucial background for medieval developments. Even though they did not think in Platonic categories, Jews in certain circles in the first few centuries of the Common Era were very interested in radical forms of mysticism that would allow human beings to come very close to God’s being, not simply for the purpose of vision but in order to transform into a hypostatical being and to participate in divine knowledge, wisdom, and power. The potential for individuals to overcome their distance from God and transform into some extension of Him is echoed in the philosophical structures later absorbed into Judaism, which promoted similar ideas in typically noetic and abstract settings. Jewish medieval thinkers were (from earlier Jewish sources) familiar to some extent with ideas that humans can transform into angels or become similar to God, embody the divine in various manners, share in some of His qualities and wisdom, or become an archangel through mystical transformation. These ideas created an appropriate background and rich symbolic language for the fuller, more elaborated language of mystical union itself, which began to develop in the tenth century CE. This theological background of early Jewish mysticism encouraged many medieval thinkers to link ideas like apotheosis, coronation, and enthronement to “new” ideas of mystical communion and union. Medieval Judaism would undergo a major revolution that had already occurred in pagan Hellenism and Christianity through the writings of Plotinus and Augustine, creating a paradigm that would later be evoked in a new expression of Judaism as well, in the construction of new spiritual and mystical ideals including unio mystica. This particular major paradigm shift, which the Christian world had undergone in the third to fifth centuries CE, is presented as follows by Guy Stroumsa: In antiquity, as we have seen, the search for the secrets of the universe had retained at least some of the basic metaphors stemming from its mythological and Shamanistic heritage. This search was now forgotten, and the soul’s adventure became her attempt to merge with the divinity. The esoteric trends that can still be detected in the earliest strata of Christian thought disappeared after the fourth century, while the vocabulary of the ancient mysteries was in some cases re-used to describe the mystical experience. The unio mystica, or rather the way leading to it, 25  See: Idel, Ben, 57–107.

Unio Mystica and Ancient Jewish Mysticism

59

would usually be perceived, from now on, essentially through two different but combined metaphors. One is the metaphor of going up, or ascent, and one that of going inside, or interiorization. Augustine expressed this identification of the two metaphors better than anyone else in a lapidary formula: “Intus Deus altus est, the God within is the God above”, thus widely disseminating in the religious mentality of the West a fundamentally Plotinian metaphor about the mystical ascent.26 The later parallel expression of similar dynamics in Judaism, originated in Philo but found its wide expression in rabbinic Judaism only from the 10th century onwards, which we shall see in the coming chapters.

26  Guy Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, second, revised and enlarged edition (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 180–181. Interestingly enough it should be noted that although writing under the influence of Plotinus, Augustine does not write explicitly about henōsis with god. See McGinn “Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica”, 62.

Chapter 4

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union The rich vocabulary and models of union that developed in medieval Jewish thought owe much to the absorption of the Arab-Muslim theological and philosophical modes of thought that flourished between the 9th and 13th centuries, and their synthesis with Neoplatonic and later Neo-Aristotelian structures. As we shall see, one of the most important innovations of medieval Judaism that grew out of this encounter was an articulation of the new spiritual and religious ideal of devequt: a spiritual, mental, and mystical attachment to and even union with God. The history of the various schools of medieval Jewish thought, philosophy and Kabbalah, is deeply indebted to the discernable impact of four major trends in Arab-Muslim thought: the Kalam, Arab Neoplatonism, Sufism and Arab philosophy/Falsafa. In the context of this study, the main contribution of Kalam was the development of a Jewish discourse of tawhid, the theological analysis of God’s unity and oneness. Chapters introducing the discourse of tawhid (in their analysis of the oneness and unity of the One God as the foundation of Jewish thought) appear in several important treatises, including Saadia Gaon’s (882/892–942) Emunot ve-Deot (Kitab al-Amanat wal-I’tikadat) and Bahya ibn Paquda’s Hovot Ha-Levavot (Al Hidayah ila Faraid al-Qulub). For both thinkers, the analysis of the fundamental oneness of God is expressed in light of the discourse of Kalam, each setting a foundation for an entirely different project: for Saadia, the foundation of a Jewish theology in a Kalam key; and for Bahya, a Sufi Jewish spiritual path of illumination and love. In the latter, we find an articulation of the correlation between the discourse of God’s oneness and the love of God that grows out of such tawhid awareness.1 However, the development of the language of mystical union in medieval Jewish thought drew first and most from Arab Neoplatonism. I will first attend to the absorption of Arab Neoplatonism, and lay out models and vocabulary of union in that context. Quite certainly, traces of Arab Neoplatonism are evident in Jewish thought from a very early stage, starting with Isaac Israeli in the 10th century. The Falsafa or Neo-Aristotelian philosophy was absorbed into Judaism

1  See: Lobel, A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue, 66–95.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_005

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

61

much later, during the second half of the 12th century.2 Finally, the imprint of Sufi vocabulary on the thriving 13th-century kabbalah (specifically ecstatic Kabbalah) is a controversial matter to be discussed in detail below.3 Both Neoplatonism and Falsafa had decisive influences on the growth of the idea, vocabulary, and ideal of union in medieval Jewish thought. The peripatetic tradition in its medieval versions formulated different theories of human transformation and perfection, all agreeing upon the idea that the core substance of man, intellect or soul, can undergo a transformative procedure eventually integrating and elevating him into the higher and universal metaphysical substances in the metaphysical hierarchy, perhaps even the divine. Often the process of assimilation into parallel metaphysical entities such as the “divine thought” was described with a variety of vocabularies of union. One of the key vocabularies originating in the peripatetic philosophical tradition was the Aristotelian epistemological notion of “knowledge as union”—i.e., knowing as complete identification with an idea. In the peripatetic tradition, “pure thought”, such as “divine unmovable substance” in Aristotle, the “active intellect” in later Aristotelian philosophy, or “Nous” in Neoplatonism, exists as substance outside of man. This epistemic kind of union forms in a non-­ material setting, in which any mind, divine or human, unites with the object it is thinking. Thus, the possibility of the assimilation of different minds and their ability to even unite with one another also opened the possibility for the human mind to connect to and even unite with God’s mind. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle mentions the human’s rare merit to “share” and “participate” in the divine thinking, suggesting that the human mind may assimilate gradually and eventually fully unite with divine thought. In the Aristotelian tradition, divine thought is identified as God; consequently, herein lies a model that can explain philosophically how by thinking of and, in fact, along with God’s mind, i.e. universal and eternal ideas, man can eventually unite with it. Knowledge of truths leads to union with God’s mind, or more so even with God Himself. In this tradition, the philosophical ideal of transformation of the human mind is aimed at reaching or realizing a knowledge that leads to inner unification with true ideas, which may deepen the self-realization of the human agent and promote a unification of human faculties, and will eventually lead to the unified divine thought in which man may somehow participate. In a famous 2  See the overview by Steven Harvey, “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy”, The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, ed. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor. 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 349–369. 3  See chapters 8 and 9.

62

Chapter 4

discussion in De Anima (429b–430a), we find that complete knowledge leads to union (at least epistemically).4 Divine thinking is formulated as pure actuality of union between subject and object. Aristotle concludes: “Since, then, thought and the object of thought are not different in the case of things that have not matter, the divine thought and its objects will be the same, i.e., the thinking will be one with the object of its thought”.5 This formula of epistemic unification will later serve as the basis of the adaptations into Judaism of both Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions, leading to the ideal of mystical union in terms of noetic epistemology in medieval Jewish thought. This model exceeds the mere absorption of phrases or terms; it is a mechanism that gives rise to a new worldview, an entirely new understanding of human capacity for transformation and perfection. The next stage of “knowledge as union” as the paradigm of man’s potential to unite with God’s thought appears in one of the interpretations given to the “active intellect” (De Anima 3.5) as a separate substance from man, identified with God’s mind (as in Aristotle’s Metaphysics 12).6 This critical development correlates the Aristotelian mechanism of knowledge as union with metaphysics and theology, thus serving as the foundation for several theological systems that correlate human knowledge, perfection, and ascension up a metaphysical ladder towards the divine. When the Aristotelian tradition as developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias was absorbed into the Neoplatonic tradition, a path leading to a type of “positive” unio mystica was articulated, leading to 4  For the history of the paradigm to be discussed below see: Ibrahim Kalin, Knowledge in Later Islamic Philosophy: Mulla Sadra on Existence, Intellect and Intuition (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2010), 4–70; Herbert Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect (New York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 7–43. 5  Aristotle Metaphysics, XII, 1074b–1075a48. 6  See Alexander, “The De Intellectu Attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias,” in Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect, trans. and eds. Federic M. Schroeder, Robert B. Todd (Toronto, Ontario: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies), 49: “It is the productive intellect [later to be called ‘active intellect’] that is called [intellect] from without, not because it is a part and a faculty of our soul, but because it comes to exist in us from outside whenever we think of it (if thinking indeed occurs through the reception of form), and it is itself an immaterial form in that, when thought of, it is never accompanied by matter, nor is it being separated from matter. Since it has this character, it is reasonable that it be separate from us since what it is to be intellect does not lie in its being thought by us, but it has this character by its own nature, as it is in actuality both intellect and object of thought. Such a form and essence that is separate from matter is imperishable. For this reason too the productive intellect, because it is such a form by virtue of being from without in actuality, is reasonably called immortal intellect by ARISTOTLE”.

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

63

union with God or His pure thought. This Aristotelian form of union may be somewhat parallel to the Neoplatonic union with the Nous, but categorically different from the union with the transcendent One. The union with the intellect, be it the Aristotelian “active intellect” or the Neoplatonic “Nous”, is a positive union in which the human intellect is assimilated and united with the noetic substance. This form of positive union is in itself a union with a unity of intellect. In the Neoplatonic tradition, the union with the “One” transcends the categories of being and thought and is classified (as presented above) as purely negative union. What is important is to realize that the positive union with the unity of intellect7 serves as a crucial element both in the Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian traditions. This form of union was absorbed much more into Judaism than the more rare form of transcendent negative union with the transcendent “One”. Both types of union streamed from the idea of “knowledge as union” correlating to metaphysics in various manners, an idea applied to sub-divine intellects and eventually the divine. My focus here is an analysis of the various manners in which each of these traditions was absorbed into Judaism, developing different models of mystical union and languages of union.

Plotinus and Proclus: The History of Mystical Henōsis and Neoplatonic Judaism

In 1878, Richard Clarerhouse Jebb, a classicist from Cambridge University published the following comment: Neo-Platonism strove to seize the essence of knowledge and of existence. The oriental element traceable in Plato was developed at Alexandria, largely under Jewish influences, into a mystic doctrine. By ascetic discipline and intense contemplation the soul may achieve complete abstraction from the world of the senses, and may attain to complete union (henōsis) with God, the source of all knowledge. This doctrine, defined by Numenius (150 a.d.) and developed by Ammonius Saccas, was expounded in writing by the pupil of the latter, Plotinus (240 a.d.) who claimed inspiration and miraculous power, and averred that, four times during his life, in ecstatic trance, he had risen to the union with deity.8 7  On the Aristotelian “unity of intellect” see: Lloyd P. Gerson, “The Unity of Intellect in Aristotle’s De Anima,” Phronesis 49 (4) (2004): 348–373. 8  Richard Clarerhouse Jebb, Greek Literature, (London: Macmillan and Co., 1878), 157–158.

64

Chapter 4

Plotinus, who is usually credited with the birth of “unio mystica”,9 transformed middle Platonism into a mystical path leading to henōsis. This transformation, argues Jebb, occurred in Alexandria under the influence of Jewish sources, and through the mediation of Numenius and Ammonius (and presumably also Philo). In light of our analysis of Philo’s discussion of henōsis with the One, there seems to be more than one reasonable way to view the development of a mystical tradition of unio mystica which began with the Alexandrian School of middle Platonism, specifically in Philo’s initial discussion of union with God and its later articulation in Plotinus. The philosophical school following Plotinus emerged from the Alexandrian tradition of middle Platonism, drawing most likely on Philo’s extensive writings and perhaps on additional contacts of Jewish sources as well. More than one reasonable channel existed for Philo’s theory to reach Plotinus, through both Numenius and Ammonius. The Platonic master Numenius, being well acquainted both with Philo and other Jewish sources, influenced the entirety of Plotinus’ thought, including his theory of mystical union.10 Moshe Idel has pointed to Numenius as a possible source of Plotinus’ scheme of unio mystica, suggesting that he drew from Philo and rabbinic sources alike.11 Idel introduced the possibility that both Philo and rabbinic discussions draw from a common ancient tradition of spiritual or mystical interpretation of the biblical theme of cleaving to god.12 While rabbinic discussions on this matter are extremely vague at most, thus weakening Idel’s identification of them as a source for Plotinus, Philo’s explicit application of the key term henōsis to denote union with God is indeed highly likely as backdrop to and influence on Plotinus’ articulated theory of theistic henōsis with God.

9  See for example: Louth, The Origins, 18–35; Arthur H. Armstrong, “Platonic Mysticism”, Dublin Review 216 (1945): 130–143. 10  See: Eric R. Dodds, “Numenius and Ammonius,” in Les Sources De Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions, Vandoeuvres-Genève, 21–29 août 1957, (Genève 1960), 5. 11  See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 39 and 289 note 13; on Plotinus’ connections to earlier masters and possible Jewish sources see: Giannis Stamatellos, Plotinus and the Presocratics: A Philosophical Study of Pre-Socratic Influences in Plotinus’ Enneads (New York: State University of New York Press, 2007), 16; Maria Luisa Gatti, “Plotinus: The Platonic Tradition and the Foundation of Neoplatonism,” The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, edit. Lloyd P. Gerson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 13; Luc Brisson and Jean F. Pradeau, “Plotinus”, A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, eds. Mary Louise Gill and Pierre Pellegrin (Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell, 2009), 577–579. 12  See the important yet controversial discussion by Heschel, Heavenly Torah, 190–193.

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

65

In what follows, I will therefore focus on Philo as the major Jewish source for the development of this idea in the Platonic tradition. Even if Philo does not constitute a direct source for the medieval rendering, his mystical interpretation of the commandment of devequt indeed bears witness to a similar interpretive process, springing from a combination of characteristics inherent in both Judaism and Hellenism. Moreover, in light of Philo’s explicit discussions of henōsis analyzed above, it is more than reasonable to assume a direct thematic line ensuing from Philo to Plotinus via Numenius. Plotinus, and following him Proclus and others, articulated a much more detailed theory of mystical union than Philo, one which had a deep and profound impact on the medieval Jewish elite. Before examining the ways that Jewish scholars embarked on synthesis of Plotinus’ and Proclus’ theories of union with rabbinic Judaism, a short presentation of the Neoplatonic theory is in order. Since Proclus and Plotinus were known to the medieval Jewish world mainly through their Arabic translations, it is important to note that Proclus was better known in the Arab (and thus in the Jewish) world than Plotinus. Also at several major points, the Arabic versions of both Plotinus and Proclus were adaptations that occasionally differed from the original text. This “Aristotalization” (to use Cristina D’ancona term) of Plotinus and Proclus’ Neoplatonism, evident in their Arabic translations, led to the double association of the so-called Neoplatonic “One” with both the Aristotelian divine unmovable substance of pure thought and the monotheistic God.13 This allowed for a much smoother understanding of the “ladder of ascension”, by which the human intellect may become one with God qua intellect, without stressing the dramatic leap from the “positive” noetic union with the divine Nous to the mysterious “apophatic union” with the absolutely transcendent “One”. This “double-faced” ascending process made it much more natural for Jews to relate to the Neoplatonic structure of return. Let us consider the axis of the “path of return”: In the Arabic rendering, while the Neoplatonic One was somewhat identified with the monotheistic God, the strict distinction between the transcendent One and the Nous was quite vague, as the monotheistic God was largely associated with his Nous as God qua intellect as well.14

13  Wayne Hankey, “Re-Evaluating E. R. Dodds’ Platonism,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 103 (2007): 499–541. 14  See: Cristina D’Anacona, “Divine and Human Knowledge in Plotiniana Arabica,” in The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, ed. John J. Cleary (Louvain: Catholic University of Louvain, 1997), 419–441.

66

Chapter 4

Anthony Kenny’s insightful classification of Plotinus’s Neoplatonism as “theistic monotheism”15 may offer yet another explanation for how the Neoplatonic theory was absorbed by the Jewish elite relatively smoothly and effectively. This notion of conjunction to the active intellect shaped the development of the concepts of communion and union in Aristotelian Falsafa tradition (to be presented below), and had a tremendous impact on the Jewish language of union as well. The “conjunction” to the active intellect, an element taken from Neoplatonism, was explained as a mechanism that allowed the human agent to overcome the ontological gap between the material world and the metaphysical and even divine realms. This is evident not only in the writings of several key Jewish philosophers including Moses Maimonides, but also in the discourse of a line of 13th-century Kabbalists, which was further elaborated through the Renaissance.16 The ideal of conjunction/communion and noetic union was further developed in Hebrew adaptations of the Neoplatonic terms of conjunction and union with the intellect (in Arabic: ittisal and ittihad).17 The Neoplatonic origins of these terms had a profound impact on Arab western philosophers, who further developed these ideas to build a distinct Neoplatonic vocabulary of the return of the soul to its origin. We find that these two major philosophical trends active in medieval Judaism (Neoplatonism and Aristotelian philosophy) endowed medieval Jewish thought (and later developments in Judaism and in the Christian world) with a rich vocabulary of noetic union (ultimately both originating from Neoplatonic discourse). We will now present the language of union as articulated in each of those philosophical traditions, to prepare the ground for examination of their adaptations in Jewish medieval thought.

15  John P. Kenney, Mystical Monotheism: A Study in Ancient Platonic Theology (New York: Wipf & Stock Publication, 2010), 150–156. 16  This impact of Arab Neo-Platonism on western Muslim and Jewish medieval philosophy was demonstrated by Philip Merlan and Alexander Altmann and further elaborated recently by Cristina D’Ancona. See: Merlan, Monopsychism, 16–21; Altmann, “Ibn Bajja”; Cristina D’Ancona, “Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 10–31. Cristina D’Ancona, “The Origins of Arabic Philosophy,” in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) II, 869–893; and Cristina D’Ancona, “Man’s Conjunction with Intellect: A Neoplatonic Source of Western Muslim Philosophy,” The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 8:4 (2008), 57–89. 17  See: Altmann, “Ibn Bajja,” 103–107.

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union



67

Language of Union in Plotinus and Proclus and their Hebrew Adaptations

Although the Jewish elite was generally better acquainted with Proclus’ “path of return” and union (through his “Elements of Theology” and the Hebrew translations of the “Liber de Causis”), than with Plotinus’ Enneads,18 Plotinus’ famous description of ecstatic union with the One or the Nous was well known in the Jewish world. His unitive ecstasy was translated into Hebrew more than once, including by the 13th-century philosopher, R. Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, who used the term devequt in reference to union.19 In addition, Jewish authors such as Isaac Israeli and some of the early Neoplatonic Kabbalists were exposed to Neoplatonic themes and ideas directly and indirectly, which we can deduce from the fact that the famous Neoplatonic description of unio mystica was translated and then adapted into several sources in Hebrew. Although the main absorption of Neo-Platonism and its “path of return” occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries, we do find the articulation of Neoplatonic ideas in the writings of several 13th and 14th century Jewish thinkers as well. This demonstrates the deep and continuous influence of Neoplatonism, parallel to the rise of the competing Neo-Aristotelian influence, starting from the middle of the 12th century and the rise of Kabbalah in the early 13th century.20 One may broadly determine that Jewish philosophy, theology, and spirituality articulated between the 10th and 15th centuries absorbed, translated, and enhanced Neoplatonic and later Neo-Aristotelian formulas of conjunction and union, which became crucial instruments for the articulation of emerging forms of mystical union in 13th and 14th centuries Kabbalah, as well as in later phases of Jewish mysticism and Jewish philosophy.21Although our argument chiefly focuses on Plotinus and Proclus’ absorption into medieval Jewish thought, and the contribution of Neoplatonism to the development of Jewish vocabulary of union, I will offer here a short presentation of the key themes related to the path of return and union in Plotinus’s Enneads, since here we can find the first articulated discussion of unio mystica—a ­discussion which 18  On Proclus’ influence on 13th century Kabbalah see Elke Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 153–160, 238–244, 276–282. 19  See: Altmann, “The Delphic Maxim”; Idel, “On the Language,” 56–57. 20  An important example is the commentary to the “Guide” by Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, where Neoplatonic sources by Arab and Hebrew authors including from ibn Gabirol are often cited. 21  This was already demonstrated by Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 4–18; Idem, The Mystical Experience, 131–132.

68

Chapter 4

had an immense impact on the development of a later Jewish Neoplatonic path leading to mystical union. In the Enneads, the path to mystical union is conditioned upon the purification of oneself as intellect, and the removal of all obstacles or differences that might separate the soul from the One (VI. 9. 7; I. 6. 9). This process involves the gradual transformation of the soul, which regains its noetic qualities, into a simple and unified being, resembling as much as possible the unity and simplicity of the Nous. After becoming a purified Nous, the soul may approach the ultimate experience of union with the One (or the ultimate principle), described as a moment of divine grace. The process of uniting with the metaphysical Nous is a “positive” type of union, described metaphorically as “feasting” in the light of the intellect,22 becoming the true being of the intellect and the “complete living animal” (Plato, Timaeus, 31b)—i.e., simultaneously being thinking itself and the object of thought. The next step is a quantum leap in which the human intellect suddenly becomes identical with the One. This “apophatic” type of union, is described as following by Dominic J O’Meara: Having become this [The Nous] he is near, and the next is it [the One], already shining in proximity on all the intelligible. Now leaving behind all learning, educated up and established in the beautiful, in which he is, up to this stage he thinks. But carried out by the wave, as it were, of intellect itself, lifted up high by it as it swells, so to speak, he suddenly saw, not seeing how, but the sight, filling the eyes with light, does not make him see another through itself, but the light itself was the sight seen. (VI. 7. 36. 6–21)23 The ontological or mystical moment here seems to be a transcending of ­subject/object dichotomy in a moment of self-transcendence. Although the One involves no variation or limitation, it is nevertheless possible to somehow approach it. The “One” cannot be grasped by thought (V 5 (32) 6; VI 9(9).4), but is nevertheless open to experience and ultimately to union. The nature of the union is therefore non-cognitive, a kind of mystical “vision” which transcends all categories of being and thinking (VI 9.8–11).24 22  See the discussion by Joshua Packwood, Plotinus and the One: A Mystical Union, (Leipzig: Lambert Academic publishing, 2011), 54–56. 23  Dominic J. O’Meara, Plotinus: an Introduction to the Enneads (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 105–106. 24  See the classic analysis in Pierre Hadot, Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision, trans. Michael Chase (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; Reprint edition, 1998).

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

69

Plotinus’ doctrine of union with the ultimate principle, which is (as we saw with Philo) conditioned upon total transcendence of the mind, is described as following: Here, we must put aside all the learning; disciplined to this pitch, established in beauty, the quester holds all knowledge still of the ground he rests on, but, suddenly (exaiphnes), swept beyond it all by the very crest of the wave of Intellect surging beneath, he is lifted and sees, never knowing how; the vision floods the eyes with light, but it is not a light showing some other object, the light itself is the vision. No longer is there thing seen and light to show it, no longer Intellect and object of Intellection; this is the very radiance that brought both Intellect and Intellectual object into being for the later use and allowed them to occupy the quester’s mind. With this he himself becomes identical, with that radiance whose act is to engender Intellectual-Principle. (VI.7.36) The union with the Nous may be classified as a “positive” or a “full” union, for its subject is the noetic substance itself. By uniting with its content, a person becomes one with all noetic principles, and as such he gains in his being and does not lose it.25 Thus, becoming one with the divine intellect, which is “one” in and of itself, is not an experience beyond the capacity of the human mind or existence. On the contrary, it is a positive union: becoming one with the pure, realized, and actualized thought of God. This state resembles the oneness of the “One”, but does not quite reach it. The movement towards union with the Nous and the One may be considered as a call for imitation of the unity and simplicity of the divine mind, and even more so the transcendent One. Thus, in order to unite with the divine unity, man must transform into a ‘one’ within himself. In fact, Plotinus discusses two different forms of union: The union with the unified Nous—characterized in positive terms—and the union with the “One”—characterized conceptually in apophatic terms, as beyond all categories of being and thought (yet including some positive “images” of vision and light). While the Nous is a fully r­ ealized 25  See for example the following phrases of union with the intellect, as translated in the “Theology of Arsitotle”: ‘When the soul leaves this world and enters the higher world . . . it unites with (intellect) . . . without the destruction of its own self . . . it becomes both intellectual thinker (aqil) and intelligible thought (maqul) . . . because of the intensity of it’s conjunction and union with intellect . . . is such condition soul and intellect are “one thing—and two” ’ (Theology of Aristotle, ed. Friederich Dieterici (Leipziq, 1882), 21, Trans. Davidson, in Alfarabi, Avicenna and Averroes, 41. in a paraphrase on Enneads 4.4.2).

70

Chapter 4

and actualized noetic substance that falls under the category of “being”, graspable for the human intellect, the union with the One is of a completely different sort. Its negative character stands in total contradiction to the Nous—for in order to unite with the One, the human intellect must cease to know or think; it must become “silent” and “empty”, unless it wishes to stay in a union of thought, not aiming to ascend beyond the Nous. In other words, in order to transcend the divine Nous and unite with the One, the human subject must transcend its own being as an intellect, which exists through thinking, towards its even truer mode of being as ­“nothingness”—pure potentiality without any content. How can the mind exist beyond or without thinking? This is possible, according to this tradition, for thinking itself is a subject of contemplation—actually, the main subject of contemplation. By detaching from it, the consciousness may be separated from thinking or from identifying itself with the content of thinking, thus free to unite with the nothingness of the “One”. Given that thinking itself is not a form of total unity (argues Plotinus against Aristotle), even in the most realized form of the divine thought, there is still some distinction between its different parts; it is therefore necessary to postulate the existence of the supreme source of unity—The One. The shift from union with the divine thought to union with the One who transcends thought oscillates from being to non-being, from light to darkness. The union with the One is therefore mediated by different states in which the human intellect is described as only “touching” it or “cleaving” unto it, for the final and complete union is a process entirely beyond human cognition. This union is depicted in various manners, in Ennead 6:9; 94 it is described in terms of union with the mystical light; whereas in 7:39 in terms of union with the Platonic “Good”. The most elaborated description is found in 6:9:11: Therefore, first let each become godlike and each beautiful who cares to see God and Beauty. So, mounting, the Soul will come first to the Intellectual-Principle and survey all the beautiful Ideas in the Supreme and will avow that this is Beauty, that the Ideas are Beauty. For by their efficacy comes all Beauty else, but the offspring and essence of the Intellectual-Being. What is beyond the Intellectual-Principle we affirm to be the nature of Good radiating Beauty before it. So that, treating the Intellectual-Kosmos as one, the first is the Beautiful: if we make distinction there, the Realm of Ideas constitutes the Beauty of the Intellectual Sphere; and The Good, which lies beyond, is the Fountain at once and

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

71

Principle of Beauty: the Primal Good and the Primal Beauty have the one dwelling-place and, thus, always, Beauty’s seat is There.26 For Plotinus, the soul not only desires to return to the One, but yearns to become the One, the ultimate source of being, the “Good”: “our concern though is not to be out of sin, but to be God.”27 His unitive language is largely based upon a discourse of contemplative, noetic vision through which the mind becomes one with its objects. These two elements of contemplative vision and the language of union are deeply correlated in Plotinus and the Neoplatonic tradition as a whole; in the midst of these two pillars, the entire western mystical tradition will take place.28 The most famous articulation of psychanodia related to ecstasy and to mystical union may be found in a rather influential passage in the Enneads. This passage, which was well known in its Arabic and Hebrew translations to Jewish thinkers, philosophers and Kabbalists alike, notes the following: Many times, awakened to myself away from the body, becoming outside all else and within myself, seeing a wonderful and great beauty, believing myself then especially to be part of the higher realm, in act as the best life, having become one with the divine and based in it advancing to that activity, establishing myself above all other intelligible beings, then going down from this position in the divine, from intellect down to discursive reasoning, I am puzzled how I could ever, and now, descend, and how my soul has come to be in the body. (IV. 8 [6]. 1. 1–10)29

26  Enneads, 6.99.11, translated by Stephen MacKenna and B. S. Page in: Plotinus (The Six Enneads) (#17 of Great Books Of The Western World Collection) Encyclopedia Britannica; 1st edition (1952). 27   I .2.6.1. 28  John M. Rist, Eros and Psyche: Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 87–112. 29  Translation by O’Meara, Plotinus: an Introduction, 104. Compare to the translation in Plotinus, Enn. IV.8.I, translated by Arthur H. Armstrong, (Cambridge mass. 1984), volume 4, 397: “Often I have woken up out of the body to myself and have entered into myself, going out from all other things; I have seen a beauty wonderfully great and felt assurance that then most of all I belonged to the better part; I have actually lived the best life and come to identify with the divine; and set firm in it I have come to that supreme actuality, setting myself above all else in the realm of Intellect. Then after that rest in the divine, when I have come down from Intellect to discursive reasoning, I am puzzled how I ever

72

Chapter 4

The transcendent element at the core of this experience is emphasized in one of its Arabic adaptations: Aristotle has said: Sometimes I become as if self-centered and remove my body and I was as if I am a spiritual substance without a body. And I have seen the beauty and the splendor and I become amazed and astonished. [Then] I knew that I am part of the parts of the supernal world, the perfect and the sublime and I am an active being [or animal]. When this has become certain to me, I ascended in my thought from this world to the Divine Cause and I was there as if I were situated within it and united in it and united with it, and I was higher than the entire intellectual world and I was seeing myself as if I am standing within the world of the divine intellect I was as if I was united within it and united with it, as if I am standing in this supreme and divine state.30 In the Arab adaptation, the elevation of the human intellect and its union with the divine Nous is expressed through the use of strong phrases of union, such “as if I were situated within it and united in it and united with it”; however, it is not quite clear whether the human subject actually reaches the full union with the One. “Standing” in the supreme divine state above the Nous is most likely identical to the form of union denoted earlier in our discussion of Philo

came down, and how my soul has come to be in the body when it is what it has shown itself to be by itself, even when it is in the body”. 30  Dieterici, Theology of Aristotle, 8, translation from: Idel, “On the Language,” 56–58. Cf. the translation in Altman and Stren, Isaac Israeli, 191: “Sometimes, I was as it were alone with my soul: I divested myself of my body, put it aside, and was as it were a simple substance without a body Then I entered into my essence by returning into it free from all things. I was knowledge, knowing, and known at the same time. I saw in my essence so much of beauty, loveliness, and splendor that I remained astonished and confused, and I knew that I was a part of the exalted, splendid, divine upper world, and that I was endowed with an active life. When this became clear to myself, I rose in my essence from this world to the divine world and I was as it were placed there and attached to it. I was above the whole intelligible world, and saw myself as if I stood in that exalted divine position, and beheld there such light and splendor as tongues are unable to describe and ears are impotent to hear.” Compare: Plotini Opera, eds. Paul Henry and Hand R. Schwyzer, (Burges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959), 69 and Plotini Opera, Plotiniana Arabica, trans. Geoffrey Lewis (Paris- Bruxelles: Museum lessianum, 1959), 225–226 and see: Paul Fenton, “The Arabic and Hebrew Versions of the Theology of Aristotle,” in Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages, ed. Jill Kraye et al. (London: Warburg Institute, University of London Press, 1986), 241–264; Idel, Ascensions on High, 41–47.

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

73

above, for the theme of standing in the Neoplatonic tradition is correlated with union. Indeed, in the original source, cited above (Enneads 6.9.11), we can find a classic description of a state of “unitive ecstasy” with the One.31 R. Shem Tov ibn Falaquera, the 13th-century Jewish philosopher, quotes the famous discussion from the “theology” in his “Sefer HaMa’alot”32 where he quotes many Arab sources. Ibn Falaquera also quoted and translated small portions of the Fons Vitae by ibn Gabirol, and therefore is likely to have read ibn Gabirol’s version of the Neoplatonic union;33 however, the relevant sections are absent from the excerpts of his surviving writings. Here we begin to witness the terminological interpenetration of these languages of union. The union between the soul and the One was translated by Ibn Falaquera in terms of devequt,34 while another version of Plotinus’ ascension, translated into Hebrew and quoted by a famous 13th-century Kabbalist, adds: And in this manner the teacher of righteousness said: when my soul is meditating, I will cast and remove my body from it, and I will dwell as a soul without a body, and I will contemplate the supernal world, and I will experience spiritual delight, which is in the pattern of the delight of the world to come. Mouths tire of speaking about it and hearts as well from containing its form.35 As remarked by Scholem, this translation could have influenced a version of Plotinus’ passage found in the writings of R. Moshe de Leon.36 Scholem noted 31  On ecstasy in Plotinus see: Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul- The Neoplatonism of Iamblicus, (Pennsylvania: Penn State University, 1995), 232–236; cf. Howard Kreisel, Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Dordrecht: Springer, 2001), 626–627. 32  R. Shem Tov Falaquera, Sefer ha-Maʿalot, ed. L. Venetianer (Berlin 1894), 22. 33   See: Charles Manekin (ed.), Medieval Jewish Philosophical Writings, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 49–50; Afterman, Devequt, 54–62. 34  See: Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kaballah, (New York: Schocken Books, 1991), 257–258; Idem, Major Trends, 203; Idel, Messianic Mystics, (New Haven: Yael University Press, 1998), 52. On the impact of this work on 13th century Jewish thought see: Altmann, “The Delphic Maxim”, 26–28; Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 191–192; Paul Fenton, “Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera and the Theology of Aristotle,” Daat 29 (1992): 27–40 (Hebrew). Idel, “Unio Mystica as Criterion”, 317. 35  Translated by Elliot Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination, (Cambridge: The MIT Press), 454. See: R. Moses de Leon, Sefer Mishkan ha-Edut, ed. Avishai bar-Asher (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2013), 81. 36  Scholem, On the Mystical Shape, 257–258. Idel, “Unio Mystica” note 65, notice however that Scholem chooses to skip the passage of union when discussing Falaquera’s version of the “Theology of Aristotle”.

74

Chapter 4

that de Leon (considered by him to be the sole author of the Zohar, the most important classic work of medieval Kabbalah)37 quotes in one of his writings Plotinus’ description of the philosopher’s ecstatic ascent into the world of pure intelligence, and his vision of the “One.”38 Elliot Wolfson has argued against Scholem’s notion via the “Theology of Aristotle”, stressing that de Leon is actually quoting no other than Maimonides.39 Wolfson claims that this is yet another example of a Kabbalist drawing on Maimonides’ eschatology to describe the transformation into the angelical realm, a theme well developed in 13th-century Kabbalah. In later phases of this current research, we shall observe in further detail how several Kabbalists indeed used Maimonides’ eschatology and his unique language of “eschatological union” to interpret the ancient ideal of apotheosis in terms of unio mystica. For present purposes, I conclude by assuming that de Leon indeed quotes some version of Plotinus’s ecstatic union; this example actually provides strong evidence for Jewish authors’ knowledge and application of Neoplatonism in the context of unio mystica. Another important source for Neoplatonic language of union can be found in the “pseudo Empedocles” and the “Book of Five Substances”, paraphrased and translated into Hebrew by Ibn Falaquera, both of which served as important sources for the developed Neoplatonism of ibn Gabirol and other later Jewish Neoplatonists. Alexander Altmann argued that the chapter on ecstasy in Fons Vitae (iii, 56–57) “is clearly modeled on the passage in the theology of Aristotle” and that “it can hardly be doubted that [Isaac] Israeli knew it in some form or order.”40 Furthermore, the Hebrew history of Plotinus’ ascensions to union does not culminate in the 13th century; Yohanan Alemanno (1435–1504) for instance, knew Sefer HaMa’alot, and drew on Plotinus’ paraphrase just like de Leon.41 One can trace a clear line of Jewish authors not 37  Scholem, Major Trends, 203; Scholem, On the Mystical Shape, 257–258; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 22. 38  Scholem, Major Trends, 203; de Leon, Mishkan ha-Edut, Bar Asher edition, 81; It is possible that de Leon was quoting from Shem tov Ibn Falaquera’s translation (see, ibid., 15 note 104); cf. Fenton who argued that the quote was taken from the Moses ibn Ezra, Arugat ha-Bosem. See: Fenton, “The Arabic and Hebrew Versions”, 257–258, 260 note 2; 41–264 and Wolfson, A Dream, 452–457. 39  Wolfson, A Dream, 453–456, note 161. 40  Altmnan and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 192. 41   Moshe Idel, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of Kabbalah in the Renaissance,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 4 (1982): 96 and note 178 (Hebrew). See also the detailed reference by David Kaufmann, Studies in Medieval Hebrew Literature, trans. Israel Eldad (Jerusalem: Mosad ha’Rav Kook, 1962), 79 note 6 (Hebrew).

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

75

only generally acquainted with Neoplatonism, but specifically with Plotinus’ most intense and important discussions of mystical union. These discussions were known to Alemanno and through him most likely also to Pico Della Mirandola.42 Thus we can determine that some of the most important sources on Neoplatonic mystical union, along with an applicable vocabulary of unitive ecstasy, were preserved by Jewish authors leading up to the renaissance.43 A similar phenomenon occurred in one of the most important Neo-Aristotelian (Averroistic) discussions of the possibility of uniting with the active intellect, of which some of the sources were preserved only in Hebrew. These NeoAristotelian and Neoplatonic sources were preserved through Jewish mediation, and were instrumental for the later developments both in the Jewish and Christian world. This fact (Jewish perseverance and transmittance of both ancient languages of union) might not be a coincidence. Rather, it reflects a deep interest in such ideas and in the philosophical bridges between the material human agent and the metaphysical realms, and ultimately, a general tolerance in the environment of Jewish learned circles towards such notions and experiences—in contrast to the opposition we often find in western Christian tradition to both Neoplatonism and Averroism. In the examination of general Neoplatonic impact on medieval Jewish thought, one must not neglect the possible Latin Neoplatonic influence on early Kabbalah, specifically on Azriel of Gerona. This possibility was examined by several scholars, including Gershom Scholem, who devoted important discussions to John Scottus Eriugena,44 whose contemplative mysticism culminates in some form of mystical union (considered milder than in pseudoDionysius.)45 This possible impact of Latin Neoplatonism on the development 42  Moshe Idel, “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism in the Middle Ages and Renaissance,” in Neo-Platonism and Jewish Thought, ed. Lenn Goodman (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 319–351; Moshe Idel, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of Kabbalah in the Renaissance,” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bernard D. Cooperman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish studies, 1983), 186–242. 43  See further the discussion in chapter 11. 44  See: Scholem, Origins, 270–272, 314, 318, 344, 375, 422–423; Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, “L’influence de Jean Scot Sur la Doctrine Du Kabbaliste Azriel De Gerone,” Colloques Internationaux De CNRS 561 (1977): 453–463. 45  On mystical union in Eriugena, see: Deirdre Carabine, John Scottus Eriugena (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 101–107; For a contemporary phenomenological discussion comparing the union in both west and Arab Neoplatonism see: Idit Shaked, A Dialogue with God: Unio Mystica in the Philosophy of Solomon ibn Gabirol and Johannes Scottus Eriugena (Tel Aviv: Resling 2013) (Hebrew).

76

Chapter 4

of contemplative mysticism in early 13th-century Kabbalah, and specifically the Gerona circle, should be seriously considered, although at the moment there is no sufficient historical evidence to support the claim.

Aristotle and Neo-Aristotelian Language of Noetic Union

Aristotelian philosophy as interpreted by Jews in the 12th–14th centuries is clearly the foundation for many discussions revolving around human transformation, leading to some form of noetic union with an intellect or intellectual domain. This tradition stems from the interpretations of the discussion of the “Nous Poetikos” in the De Anima chapters, including the classic division between the active or agent intellect and the potential or material intellect. Various questions and problems arise regarding the nature of each of these elements: Could the material intellect become eternal? Is the active intellect part of man, a metaphysical or even transcendent entity, or even God? These questions (among others) regard the possibility of actual cleaving/conjoining and uniting with the active intellect, and serve as background for a Jewish Neo-Aristotelian vocabulary of noetic union. As we shall see in detail, these Neo-Aristotelian articulations of noetic union, which were used for different purposes by different philosophers, were absorbed by Jewish authors who used this unique vocabulary to pave powerful mystical paths leading to unio mystica. Most common and relevant to our discussion herein is the fundamental dynamics that most medieval Aristotelian philosophers agree upon: human transformation constitutes the potential/material intellect, which eventually cleaves and even unites with the active/agent intellect or any other intellect. This final union (at times eschatological) allows for ontological change to take place and for the material agent to transform into an angelic being. The principle of possible oneness, be it a union between two human faculties or a union between a human and metaphysical entity, is first of all a metaphysical ideal of knowledge, only later applied in medieval theological settings. By enduring the knowledge embodied in the substance of the active intellect, the material intellect becomes one with that knowledge and consequently unites with the substance of the active intellect. Aristotle’s short discussion of the active intellect in his De Anima, along with his much more detailed discussion about the unmovable divine substance in the Metaphysics, led to three main Neo-Aristotelian traditions, as follows: Very briefly, the first theory considers the “active intellect” to be a human faculty. This was the dominant theory in Latin Scholasticism, thus the language of union remained epistemological and not metaphysical or theological, since

Platonic and Aristotelian Traditions of Union

77

union with the metaphysical intellects is not possible while in the body. The second theory identifies the active intellect from the De Anima with the divine unmovable substance of the Metaphysics. This important interpretation, first presented by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was later adopted by different thinkers in the medieval Neo-Aristotelian tradition; some of its modifications assume the human intellect may unite with the divine thought. Let us not forget that Aristotle himself wrote in the Metaphysics Lambda about the ability of human thought to “participate” in the divine realized thought. The third interpretation, which associates the active intellect with the last of ten separated intellects, was adopted as a metaphysical position by several key philosophers in the Neo-Aristotelian tradition, including Al Farabi and Maimonides, some of which allow for the union with the meta-cosmic intellect to occur even while in the body.46 In those interpretations that argue for the active intellect to be a metaphysical entity, we find a scientific structure that explains how through knowledge man may become one with a metaphysical noetic entity, often identified with some category of angels. Others, who like Ibn Tufayl identified the active intellect with the creator, found in the Neo-Aristotelian structure a path potentially leading to an Aristotelian mystical union with God. The same mechanism is used to explain different processes, some of which are viewed as totally internal to man, others as relating to sub-divine realms, and a few as forms of relationship, leading to a union with the One or the creator. All of these views apply phrases of epistemological noetic union, and constitute the Neo-Aristotelian tradition to which the branches of Jewish thought stemming from the 12th and 13th centuries adhered. This path, which leads to what is described as a “conjunction” or “union” with the active intellect, or the Nous in Neoplatonic structures, became a central theme in Judaism from the moment Isaac Israeli, the 10th-century Jewish Neoplatonist, began to adopt Arabic Neoplatonism into Judaism, and also through Moses Maimonides, whose Neo-Aristotelian Judaism burst out towards the end of the 12th century; both were central to the establishment of early Kabbalah in the thirteen century. 46  See: Herbert Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge.” Maimonidean Studies 1 (1992–93): 49–103 and Alexander Altmann “Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy,” in Essays in Jewish Intellectual History, ed. Alexander Altmann (New England: Brandeis, 1981), 77–96; Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides on the Intellect and the Scope of Metaphysics,” in Von der Mittelalterlichen zur Modernen Aufklarung : Studien zur Judischen Geistesgeschichte, von Alexander Altmann (Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism) (Tübingen: JCB Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 60–129.‫‏‬

78

Chapter 4

Even though the focus of this study is the mere vocabulary of unitive experiences, it is impossible to escape the problems related to the intellect, knowledge, and ontology in this tradition. Suffice it to say that one of the most complicated challenges for the medieval trends of Aristotelianism was to explain how the human intellect, essentially embodied in matter, could at some stage “ascend” and enjoy a direct access to the “intelligibles” or immaterial substances that take part in the active intellect. This problematic conjunction of the human intellect to the active intellect leads some interpretations to deny their ontological relationship and view it as a metaphor, or to view knowledge not as ontological union but as “impression”, and others to allow not only conjunction but even a full and complete union of both. The ideal of conjunction and union serves as a theoretical construct explaining how the human intellect may be realized and actualized. Simultaneously, it functions as a theoretical tool explaining human transformation and assimilation into a purely mental creature, both on the religious and metaphysical sphere. The mental transformation could be a religious one, if leading the human intellect towards its true essence as a realized intellect, and ultimately closer to God. Some would argue that this metamorphosis is possible only at the moment of death, of full departure from the corporal body; others claim that such state is achievable here and now. The unitive vocabulary is extremely important for this path as the instrument that facilitates the idea of transformation, of man becoming an angel (the “active intellect”) or becoming one with God. As mentioned before, Jews took an active part in preserving and promoting the more “radical” options that were part of the Neo-Aristotelian tradition. As we shall see in detail, Jewish Averroists Moses Narboni and Elijah Delmedigo continued this discussion well into the 15th century, writing long treatises on the problem of the conjunction/union with the active intellect.47 After introducing the background of both major philosophical trends that impacted medieval Jewish thought, we shall now particularly study the specifics of each synthesis within medieval Jewish world.

47  See: Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, And Averroes, 298–300; Kalman Bland, “Elijah Del Medigo, Unicity of the Intellect and the Immortality of the Soul,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Vol. 61 (1995): 7–13; Kalman Bland, “Elijah del Medigo’s Averrosit Response to the Kabbalah’s of Fifteenth-Century Jewry and Pico Della Mirandola,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1991): 25–53.

Chapter 5

“As Light Unites with Light”: The Language of Union in Jewish Neoplatonism Like their Christian and Muslim counterparts, Jewish writers between the 10th and 13th centuries increasingly expressed the soul’s transformation and progress towards God in Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Neo-Aristotelian terms. These philosophical systems provided models that not only allowed the human soul to come close to God, but also enabled union with Him, through mediating spiritual or mental elements. In the early writings of Jewish Neoplatonists, under the direct influence of Arab Neoplatonism, the notion of mystical union was articulated for the first time since Philo. The Neoplatonist “axis of return”, which constitutes the odyssey of the soul to its origin in the divine, became creatively absorbed into rabbinic Judaism. Judaism was synthesized once again with Platonism, this time in the form of the Platonism of Proclus and Plotinus and their enhanced idea and experience of mystical henōsis with the “Nous” and the “One”.1 In their classic study on Isaac Israeli (855–955),2 Alexander Altmann and Samuel Stern, claimed that this 10th-century Jewish-Arab Neoplatonist articulated for the first time a Jewish-Arabic version of henōsis as ittihad. In his Neoplatonic understanding of Judaism, Isaac Israeli incorporated the ideas of spiritual return and mystical union into his systematic exposition of rabbinic Judaism. Israeli interpreted this spiritual return as a religious journey, and viewed the three stages of Proclus’s ladder of ascension—purification, illumination, and mystical union—as the inner meaning of Judaism and its religious path. His synthesis paved the way for the extensive employment of the terminology of devequt—but significantly, in the Neoplatonic sense of henōsis—in medieval Jewish literature, both philosophical and Kabbalistic. Israeli was the first medieval Jewish author to articulate a Jewish version of unio mystica after Philo. Several of his theories reflect the path of transformation and draw directly from Proclus, and were later quoted by 13th-­century

1  Tamar Rudavsky, “Medieval Jewish Neoplatonism,” In History of Jewish Philosophy, Eds. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (London: Routledge, 1997), 149–187. 2  Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_006

80

Chapter 5

“Neoplatonic” Kabbalists.3 Altmann argues convincingly that the fusion of rabbinic Judaism and Neoplatonism caused the birth of a new concept of devequt and union, as well as the entire axis of spiritual transformation and return. Israeli played a crucial role in the reshaping of rabbinic Judaism and the rebirth of the spiritual and mystical interpretation of the biblical “devequt” in Platonic terms. As part of his revolutionary interpretation of Judaism in Neoplatonic categories, Israeli articulated his understanding of theories of emanation, along with a detailed theory of illumination and transformation which the soul undergoes upon returning to its origins.4 In Israeli’s writings in Arabic, a direct link between Plotinus and Proclus and medieval Jewish thought is evident: the Greek concept of henōsis which signifies the final union is depicted by the Arabic terms of ittisal and ittihad. With the translation into Hebrew of these terms by the use of the Hebrew term devequt with its new meaning, a Jewish synthesis with Platonism was in place, creating a Jewish form of henōsis.5 This significant transformation has been largely overlooked by scholars, due—I would argue—to their theological bias against the idea of a Jewish theory of mystical union. This crucial moment of synthesis, recognized by Altmann, must be understood as a fundamental moment in the histories of Jewish philosophy and Jewish mysticism alike. It is therefore crucial to revisit Israeli with a fresh eye, and reconsider the history of unio mystica in Judaism in light of his writings. While Altmann claims that Israeli developed a Jewish conception of henōsis, he nevertheless raises the question of whether and in what manner Israeli articulated a Jewish version of Proclus’s path of return, and to what extent it include an element of mystical union. Some of the sources he sets forth are ambiguous, but several others speak of union loud and clear, especially as reflected in the writings of Israeli’s student, ibn Tamim. Israeli’s importance lies not only his writing about Neoplatonic union as a Jewish thinker, or reintroducing a Jewish understanding of henōsis for the first time since Philo, but in his bold reinterpretation of the biblical commandment to “cleave to God” and its rabbinic understandings using the Neoplatonic 3  See Alexander Altmann, “Isaac Israeli’s Chapter on the Elements,” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956): 31–57; Moshe Idel, “Nishmat ‘Eloha: On the Divinity of the Soul in Nahmanides and His Schools,” in Life as a Midrash, Perspectives in Jewish Psychology, ed. Shahar Arzy et al. (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronot, 2004), 344–345 (Hebrew). 4  See Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 185–217; Afterman, Devequt, 49–53. 5  An Arabic partial translation, or perhaps paraphrase, of Plotinus ‘Enneads was circulated under the pseudo-epigraphic title The Theology of Aristotle in two recessions (the short and long versions); Paul Fenton, “The Arabic and Hebrew,” 241–264.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

81

scheme of return,6 correlating explicitly the Neoplatonic schema of unio mystica and henōsis with the biblical devequt verses. In addition, Israeli provides a new spiritualized understanding of the phenomena of prophecy, divine providence, eschatology, and religious felicity, all by using the Neoplatonic terms and path of return. Apparently, Israeli’s achievement occurred independently of his ancient predecessor Philo, who invented the Platonic idea of mystical henōsis while interpreting the exact same biblical verses, but remarkably, the same hermeneutical dynamics led to the same philosophical and religious results. However, the fact that in Israeli’s case it was the Arab ittisal and ittihidat and not the Greek henōsis which he synthesized with biblical vocabulary of devequt might have been the difference that allowed for the later synthesis to be absorbed and accepted widely by Jewish thinkers. In his classic study, Altmann titled a chapter: “The upward way: Purification, Illumination, Union”, and argued that the final stage of mystical union by Proclus is based on the Greek term of henōsis.7 This is the first stage after Philo in which this term returns to influence Jewish thinkers, through the mediation of Arab translations of Plotinus and Proclus. But Israeli’s writing provides the strongest and most explicit correlation between the Greek henōsis, the Arabic ittihad, and the Hebrew verbs deriving from the root AHD (oneness, unity, unification) and DVQ. As Altmann noted, this “bold step was of far-reaching significance”,8 as it has paved the path for extensive employment of the terms derived from the Hebrew root dvq in terms of spiritual and mystical union, in philosophical and mystical trends of Judaism alike. Proclus, whose work provides the basis for Israeli’s theory of union, follows the three divisions of ascent crafted by the pagan Neoplatonist Iamblichus, whose influence on Jewish Neoplatonism and Kabbalah has recently received more recognition.9 As Altmann notes, Proclus’s three-stage path of perfection was adapted into Christian mysticism through Pseudo-Dionysius10 (the final stage rendered there as via unitive), into Islam through the Ikhwan al-safa 6  See Afterman, Devequt, 49–53. 7   Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 185. 8  Ibid., 190. 9  See Yehuda Liebes, “Zohar and Iamblichus,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 18 (2007): 95–100; Mathis, Carl K., “Parallel Structures in the Metaphysics of Iamblichus and Ibn Gabirol,” Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (1992): 61–76; Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics, 53–55, 135–139, 153–160, 238–244, 278–282, 303–304. 10  Pseudo-Dionysius was known to several kabbalists who translated portions of his work into Hebrew and his famous text on prayer and the luminous chain was translated in to Hebrew by the late 13th- or early 14th-century Jewish philosopher Yehuda Romano; see: See: Idel, Enchanted Chains, 191–192.

82

Chapter 5

and al-Kindi as itihad, and through them into Jewish Neoplatonism and early Kabbalah as a form of devequt and mystical union. We shall shortly investigate here an exemplary discussion included in the Ikhwan that deals with union as elaborated by Proclus: “Having contemplated these hidden things [the forms], it will cling to them, even as a lover clings to the beloved. It will become one with them as light unites with light.”11 The combination of noetic illumination leading to the union with the One or the Father is evident in Proclus’s understanding of union and mystical illumination: [. . .] after the wanderings in the world of becoming and the purification and the light of knowledge (epistème), the noeric light12 finally shines out and so does nous in us, which moors (hormizoon) the soul in the Father and establishes it in a pure way in the demiurgical intellections (dèmiourgikais noèsesi) and links light with light, not something like the light of knowledge (epistème) but an even more beautiful, more noetic and simpler light than that. For this is the paternal harbour (ho patrikos hormos) finding the Father, the pure unification with him.13 Robert M. van den Berg argues that the idea of unification (henōsis) in Proclus revolves around the process of illumination through the Nous, identified as the “paternal harbor” of existence. This union does not include a full substantial change in the soul, but rather what he considers an illumination that leads to unity.14 Nous in man harmonizes the human soul with the Demiurge, the Father of the universe, the paternal harbor. Since the One is the ultimate goal of the ascending soul, Proclus calls the One “the safe harbour for all beings”.15 Altmann and Stern have shown that there are significant parallels between Israeli’s writings and the Longer Theology of Aristotle as well as another Neoplatonic anonymous source. Stern argues for the existence of a lost pseudo-epigraphic Arabic treatise which influenced both the longer version of the Theology of Aristotle and Isaac Israeli. This text was translated later into Hebrew by Abraham Ibn Hasday in his Tale of the Prince and the Ascetic in the 13th century and therefore named by Stern as the “Ibn Hasday’s Neo-Platonist”. 11  Ikhwan, iii, 28–29 (quoted and translated by Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 186). 12  On the term “noetic light” (divine light), see: Rudolphus Maria Berg, Proclus’ Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 153. 13  In Ti. I 302, 17–25, translation by Berg, Proclus’ Hymns, 51–52. 14  Ibid., 51–53, 58. 15  Ibid., 52.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

83

This source influenced some of Israeli’s major ideas, including that of the return of the soul and in particular the union with God.16 Israeli seems to portray two versions of the final stage of perfection; in several of his discussions, he describes a mystical union with the divine light, while in others, milder forms of attachment or conjunction are described. Altmann recognizes in Israeli a general tendency towards moderation, yet in other discussions he follows Proclus and Plotinus all the way to mystical union. Interestingly enough, the same kind of dynamic is found in Al-kindi’s articulation of Proclus’s three stages of perfection, where instead of the final stage of “union” he describes some kind of communion.17 Apparently, the Neoplatonic sources that had reached Israeli reflect an ambiguous approach towards the final stage of perfection, and Israeli reflects this ambiguity in his own discourse. Israeli, as Altmann has noted18 and I further explored,19 introduces therefore both the ideal of mystical union and the ideal of mystical attachment as devequt (which is different from mystical union). Altmann stresses that in some of Israeli’s other discussions, the idea of Neoplatonic mystical union is expressed explicitly and unambiguously, as something not only possible, but reachable while still in the body.20 As a demonstration of Israeli’s use of the language of union at the outset of his Neoplatonic path, here is one of his discussions quoted by the 13th-century Spanish Kabbalist Azriel of Gerona depicting the souls of the prophets and righteous men as uniting with God:21 That he may avoid beastly and unclean actions in order thereby to obtain [. . .] the Illumination by the light of intellect and by the beauty and splendor of wisdom; when attaining this rank, he becomes spiritual and will be joined in union to the light which is created, without mediator, by the power of God, and will become one that exalts and praises the Creator forever and in all eternity.22

16  See: Samuel Stern “Ibn Hasday’s Neoplatonist: A Neoplatonic Treatise and its Influence on Isaac Israeli and the Longer Version of the Theology of Aristotle,” Oriens 13–14 (1961): 58–120. 17  Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 186. 18  Ibid., 190–191. 19  Afterman, Devequt, 49–53. 20  Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 190. 21  See Altmann, “Isaac Israeli’s Chapter,” 48; Altman and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 191–192. 22  Isaac Israeli, Book of Definitions, 2, II, 56–62, translated by Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 25–26, 192.; See also Moshe Idel, “On Paradise in Jewish Mysticism,” in The Cradle of Creativity, ed. C. Ben Noon, Hod Hasharon 2004, 637 (Hebrew).

84

Chapter 5

The soul presented here unites with the light of the Nous (identified with paradise), but not with the Creator.23 The union described is that of the intellectual mind, as the rational soul, rising to the level of intellect, unites with the light of divine wisdom and becomes an angelic entity.24 Dunash ibn Tamim, a disciple of Israeli whose work reflects Israeli’s type of Jewish Neoplatonism, wrote in his commentary on Sefer Yetzirah: Moses’ soul was superior to the soul of all other men. It was subtle, light, and united with the world of the rational soul, even prior to its separation from the body. In fact, when they should separate themselves from their respective bodies, while the latter are still alive, this separation is a union with the supernal worlds, for in that state the soul becomes intellect, and intellect unites with the divine light in a spiritual, not corporal union (ittihad).25 Following his teacher, ibn Tamim refers to the quasi-eschatological state Moses had reached, in which his intellectual soul unites with the divine light. Ibn Tamim applies here the term “union” several times, using the Arab term ­ittihad.26 It is not absolutely clear whether the union occurs with the divine light or rather with the world-soul; but in any case, Moses’ perfection led him at last to a unitive state of ittihad. While debating whether Israeli’s path of prophetic ecstasy leads to a Neoplatonic unio mystica, Altmann concludes: Here unio mystica takes the form of inspiration or possession, in which the prophet’s soul becomes the organ of God. Plotinus himself at times describes mystical union as a mere passive yielding to the entrance of the One and comes very near to Philo’s concept of ecstasy and inspiration [. . .] Israeli’s doctrine of prophecy as a divine inspiration at the stage of mystical union has therefore a precedent although hardly its model, 23  See however the case of R. Asher ben Meshullam of Lunel, who explicitly identifies paradise with God Himself. See: Idel, “On Paradise,” 637. 24  Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli,189; See also Alexander Altmann, “Isaac Israeli’s Chapter”, 130. 25  See Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 214; Georges Vajda, Le Commentaire sur Le Livre de la Creation de Dunas ben Tamim de Kairouan. Nouvelle edition revue et augmentee par Paul B. Fenton. (Paris: Peeters, 2002), 150; Tzahi Weiss, “The Reception of Sefer Yetsirah and Jewish Mysticism in the Early Middle Ages.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 103–1 (2013): 26–46; Georges Vajda, “Nouveaux Fragments Arabes du Commentaire de Dunash b. Tamim sur le Livre de la Creation,” Revue des études Juives 113 (1954): 37–61. 26  See Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 214–215.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

85

in Philo27 and to some extent in Plotinus. It could have derived from alKindi who replaced mystical union by inspiration.28 Altmann should be credited for recognizing the important trajectory starting with Philo, through Plotinus and Proclus, into Israeli and Ibn Tamim’s medieval Jewish Neoplatonism, for whom “the highest degree of prophecy is interpreted as a mystical union.” Israeli’s interpretation of ancient prophecy and the functions of the perfected teachers of Israel in terms of achieving mystical union will be a cornerstone for much of Jewish thought to follow.29 In this unresolved tension between the radical union and milder forms of conjunction, it is clearly the spiritual union with the light that is considered the final stage of spiritual transformation in Arab-Jewish Neoplatonism, which draws from the Ikhwan al-Safwa’s writing: First the soul becomes a luminous entity, and then it beholds the spiritual forms gradually cleaving to them. In the final stage the rational luminous soul will become one with them, as light unites with light, and will eternally remain with them in a bliss which speech cannot describe and which thought is unable to grasp.30 Altmann and Stern have shown that this Neoplatonic interpretation of eschatological ideas, including the idea of paradise, is in consonance with the Talmudic view on the righteous man who enjoys the “crowning” of the Shekinah’s splendor.31 Israeli was the first philosopher to interpret the idea of “Paradise” in Neoplatonic spiritual terms. For him, entering paradise is described as achieving union with the divine light: [. . .] with the upper soul, and the illumination by the light of the intellect and the beauty and splendor of wisdom. When attaining this rank, he becomes spiritual, and will be joined in union to the light which is

27  As discussed above, I was able to find evidence for Alexander Altmann’s intuition. 28  Ibid., Isaac Israeli, 215. 29  Ibid., 191. 30  Translated and quoted in Ibid. 186. 31  See Idel, Ascensions on High, 206; Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 187–191.

86

Chapter 5

created [. . .] This then will be his paradise and the goodness of his reward and the bliss of his rest and unsullied beauty.32 This union signifies the final eschatological transformation into the higher realm of being. The important innovative interpretation of eschatological ideals and symbols, such as eschatological “crowning” (in terms of Neoplatonic language of union) was further developed by Moses Maimonides and several of the key sources in early Kabbalah and the Zohar. Following Israeli, Shlomo ibn Gabirol (1021–1058) is the most important Jewish Neoplatonist, known for his many innovations in the field of Neoplatonic thought.33 In his articulation of the contemplative path of return to God, he describes the union with the divine Nous. In The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae), Gabirol also promotes mystical union with the “One”.34 Although in some of his discussions he denies the possibility of ascending to the first cause by means of contemplation,35 there are several discussions in which the human soul seems to be able to ascend to the intelligible realm and reach some form of union with the substance therein: You need to raise your mind up to the last intelligible, to purify and clean it from the filth of sensible things in order to release it from the prison of nature. By the power of your intellect you will arrive at the limit of what can be apprehended of the true reality of intelligible substance . . . then your substance will encompass the entire corporeal world, and you will place it in one of the corners of your soul. [. . .] Then the spiritual substances will be placed within your hands, right before your eyes, and 32  Israeli, Book of Definitions, in Altmann and Stern, Isaac Israeli, 25–26 and their analysis ibid., 192; Idel, “On Paradise,” 637; Idel, Ascensions on High, 206. As noted by Altmann and Idel, this text was further paraphrased by the 12th century Neoplatonic philosopher R. Joseph Ibn Zaddiq, who was well known to the Kabbalists in the 13th century. 33  For Ibn Gabirol’s unique appliance of Neo-Platonism see for example: Sarah Pessin, Ibn Gabirol’s Theology of Desire: Matter and Method in Jewish Medieval Neoplatonism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Bernard McGinn, “Ibn Gabirol: The Sage Among the Schoolmen,” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Though, ed. Lenn E. Goodman, (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992) 80–92. 34  See Afterman, Devequt, 53–62 and Shaked, A Dialogue with God, 79–92; Cf. Menachem Lorberbaum, Dazzled by Beauty: Theology as Poetics in Hispanic Jewish Culture (Jerusalem: Yad Yizthak Ben-Zvi Institute, 2011) (Hebrew), 125–156. 35  See the discussion in: Shem Tov Falaquera excerpts from Gabirol’s “The Source of Life”, in Medieval Jewish Philosophical Writings, ed. Charles Manekin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 81.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

87

you will see them encompassing and rising before you. You will consider yourself to be identical with them. Sometimes you will think that you are [only] a part of them on account of your connection with the corporeal substance. Other times you will think that you are the entirety of these substances and that there is no distinction between them and yourself, because of the union of your essence with their essences and the attachment of your form with their forms . . .36 Fundamentally, the transformative ascent up the ladder of knowledge and perfection is achieved by the union of the human intellect with the different grades of noetic substances it constitutes. In this excerpt, the formula of epistemic union with the ontology of substances is a key idea that allows the ascension up the ladder of emanation. Only through the union with the different grades of the divine can the human soul climb the ladder of emanation and ultimately reach the One. “Intellectual knowledge occurs when the form of the intellect attaches to the intelligible form and unites with it.”37 Since the purified intellect has the capacity to “receive all forms” while “thinking” them, a person’s intellect may unite with the different grades of substances, and elevate him up the ontological ladder leading to the One. Shem Tov Ibn Falaqura, who translated portions of Meqor Hayim from the original Arabic into Hebrew,38 wrote that the Pseudo-Empedocles was a possible source of Ibn Gabirol’s philosophy. It was available to Gabirol and others in the Jewish world in several Hebrew translations, and is full of rather articulated expressions of the formulas of noetic/epistemic union, so it is entirely possible that this Neoplatonic text might have been a major source for the employment of such unitive formulas in Gabirol’s Meqor Hayim.39 What underlines Gabirol’s Neoplatonism is the idea of a fundamental unity of all that originates from and returns to the source, the One. Every desire and movement originates in the fundamental eros to return to the One, to become the one—a simple and unified being.40 Clear articulations of the union of the human intellect with the Nous pervade his writing, but did Ibn Gabirol allow for a mystical union with God, the One? He left this matter somewhat ambiguous, 36  Ibid., 49–50; see Idel, ‘Univeresalization’, 29. 37  Ibid., 63 and 67: “since knowledge occurs when the form of the knower unites without an intermediary with the form of the object known.” 38  Ibid., 49–50. 39  See: Jakob Guttmann, Die Philosophie des Solomon Ibn Gabirol (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889), 34. 40  Medieval Jewish Philosophical Writings, 79.

88

Chapter 5

perhaps intentionally. In The Fountain of Life, after the master summarizes for the disciple the fundamentals of his path towards illumination, at the very end of the book the disciple asks: “What benefit can we expect to achieve from this zeal?” The master replies: “Deliverance from mortality, and union with the source of life!”.41 As I have argued elsewhere, appearing as it does at the very end of the entire book, the phrase “the source of life” can reasonably be interpreted to refer to God.42 Another Neoplatonic thinker who developed the Jewish vocabulary of union was the famous poet and Torah commentator Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164). Ibn Ezra’s writing in the 12th century differs from most Jewish Neoplatonists; he wrote in Hebrew, and accordingly his vocabulary of devequt and union developed independently, not necessarily as a translation of key Arabic terms as ittisal and ittihidat. Ibn Ezra articulated a spiritual path based upon a Neoplatonic notion of the love of God, as well as on the commandment to cleave to God.43 As part of his description of the path to transformation and perfection, Ibn Ezra used the language of union to describe how the human soul can undergo a process of universalization and become one with the divine Nous perceived as “universal”.44 According to his system, the Nous is defined in universal terms as “All” (hakol), a form of the divine “Wisdom” which contains all the “ideas” or principles of everything. Thus, becoming one with this entity transforms the human intellectual soul from its particular status to a universal angelic mind. In this process, the language of union is crucial in order to explain how the human agency loses its concrete and particular existence and undergoes a process in which it becomes a universal non-corporal angelic entity, no longer existing in it’s corporal particularity. In the process of uniting with “All”, the transformation into an angel and the integration into the meditating nous are completed. In this context, Ibn Ezra often uses the Neoplatonic language of “part” and “All”, 41  Shlomo Ibn Gabirol, The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae), trans. Alfred B. Jacob (Chicago: The Aries Press, 1987), 303. 42  See: Afterman, Devequt, 61–62; Adena Tanenbaum, The Contemplative Soul: Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 101–102; Pessin, Ibn Gabirol’s Theology, 69–70; Yehuda Liebes, ‘‘Rabbi Solomon Ibn Gabirol’s Use of the Sefer Yetsira and a Commentary on the Poem ‘I Love Thee’,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought (6) 1987, 89 (Hebrew); Cf. Lorberbaum, Dazzled by Beauty, 152. 43  See: Norman Roth, “Abraham Ibn Ezra—Mysticism,” Iberia Judaica IV (2012): 141–150; Aaron Hughes, “Two Approaches to the Love of God in Medieval Jewish Thought: The Concept of Devequt in the Works of Ibn Ezra and Judah Halevi,” Studies in Religion/ Sciences Religieuses, 28 (1999): 139–151; Afterman, Devequt, 102–126. 44  See Idel, “Universalization,” 56–57.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

89

where the union of the “part” with the “All” is the most important phase of religious human transformation.45 The integration into the metaphysical intellect, the first divine emanation (which ibn Ezra named as “All”),46 is depicted in the language of union—knowing the “All” leads to unification with its content. In his system, only the intellectual part of the human soul, which retrieves its noetic features and becomes purely noetic or angelic, actually unites with the “All”. Thus, the human unites with the angelic entity, which transforms his essence into an angel who joins his peers existing in the domain of eternal cleaving to God. Here we find a very important source for the correlation of union with the divine mind and transformation into an angel, a dynamic to be further developed in Maimonides and in Kabbalah. The union with the “all” leads to a full eschatological transformation, in which the human becomes an angel and cleaves forever, along with other angels, to the One.47 This Hebrew vocabulary of union had a major influence on much later writings, largely via Ibn Ezra’s popular commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.48 He had an impact on early Kabbalah (as in the case of the thought of Moses Nachmanides and Menachem Recanati) and, through later translations, on Christian Kabbalah.49 Ibn Ezra interprets the eschatological state of the “world to come” in terms of union of the intellectual soul with the realm of the metaphysical intellects.50 In his commentary to Psalms 1, he introduces the fruit metaphor, through which the soul, unites with the divine or supernal soul, symbolized as a tree that never dies, who enables it through a kiss to attain final union, and by that, eternity.51 45  See Afterman, Devequt, 110–115. 46  See: Elliot Wolfson, “God, the Demiurge and the Intellect: On the Usage of the Word “kol” in Abraham Ibn Ezra,” Revue des études Juives 149 (1990): 77–111; Howard Kreisel “On the Term ‘kol’ in Abraham Ibn Ezra: A Reappraisal,” Revue des études Juives 153 (1994): 29–66; Afterman, Devequt, 103 note 5. 47  See Idel, “Universalization”, 28–33 where he traces such vocabulary of “universalization” from theosophical kabbalah up to Hasidism; Afterman, Devequt, 110–115. 48  See Elliot Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia—Kabbalist and Prophet Hermeneutics, Theosophy and Theurgy. (Los-Angeles: Cherub Press, 2000), 39 note 95; Afterman, Devequt, 102–126; Aaron Hughes, “The Soul in Jewish Neoplatonism: a Case Study of Abraham Ibn Ezra and Judah Halevi,” in Afterlife of the Platonic Soul: Reflections of the Platonic Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions, eds. Maha Elkaisy-Friemuth and John M. Dilon (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 151–152. 49  Idel, “Universalization,” 29. 50  See: Wolfson, “God, The Demiurge and the Intellect,” 95. 51  See Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy 1280–1510: A Survey, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 113–114.

90

Chapter 5

This Neoplatonic metaphor of union as a kiss was used first by Ibn Ezra as an image of eschatological, eternal bliss. This theme was later developed by several theosophical Kabbalists, the Zohar, and some ecstatic Kabbalists. Most notable in this context are 13th-century Kabbalistic sources such as the anonymous Sefer ha-Tzeruf, and Sefer Sha’arei Tzedeq by R. Nathan, Abulafia’s student; Sefer ha-Tzeruf was later translated into Latin for Pico Della Mirandola. The Neoplatonic interpretation of the mystical kiss, which appears throughout both theosophical and ecstatic Kabbalah, had an important impact on the generation of ideas about mystical rapture and union in the Renaissance.52 Following Ibn Ezra appears another great 12th-century poet and thinker, who portrayed mystical cleaving as the authentic meaning of the Torah. Yehuda Halevi (1075–1141) contributed greatly to the development of the vocabulary of mystical attachment and devequt, as well as to the religious ideals of mystical cleaving and integration into God.53 In his famous Kuzari, Halevi aims to introduce Judaism as a religion that meets two fundamental criteria set forth by the King Kuzar, who was seeking a religion for himself and his people. This religion must reflect the most fundamental idea that King Kuzar identifies with any religion: that God does not only communicate with chosen human beings, but that he can make substantial ontological contact with them.54 The miracle of the embodiment of the divine in human flesh (but obviously in a way that differs from Christianity) was for the King (and presumably for Halevi as well) the fundamental truth of religion and its eschatological promise. The other criterion was a religion that can account for a rich way of life, a path full of rituals and commandments that serve the fundamental ideal of contact between God and the religious community. In the Kuzari, Judaism, victorious over both Christianity and Islam, is chosen by the king due to its distinctive characteristics. Through his dialogue with the Jewish scholar, the king becomes convinced of the supremacy of Judaism (despite its apparent weakness in the political realms of his time), and converts to Judaism and announces it to be the religion of the Kuzar people. Halevi presents Judaism in a fundamentally new manner, in sharp contrast to rabbinic Judaism, emphasizing the idea that Jewish religious history is founded upon a mysterious mystical embodiment of the divine in His people,

52  See: Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 141–146 and in chapter 11. 53  See: Ehud Krinis, God’s Chosen People: Judah Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shi’i Imam Doctrine (Turnhout: Brepolis Publishing, 2014), 192–194; Afterman, Devequt, 73–101. 54  See: Kuzari, 1:8, 68.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

91

first individually and later in the community as a whole.55 This idea, which has no precedent in rabbinic Judaism, is an interpretation of Judaism through Neoplatonic and Ismaili terms.56 The phenomenology of divine embodiment, in the form of divine light and the Tetragrammaton, is a crucial source for the entire tradition of “embodied union” which subsequently developed in Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah. Halevi uses two key Arabic terms to articulate a theory of mystical cleaving (which becomes union in rare circumstances), ittisal57 and the Arabic vocabulary of hulul and mahall58 used to develop the theory of embodiment. Hulul and the related mahall are terms taken perhaps from Christian Arabic sources, then possibly penetrated into polemic Muslim Arabic writings arguing against Christian incarnation and from there through Halevi into Jewish theology. Hulul has the technical meaning of a possible Christian form of incarnation, i.e. the complete indwelling of God in a human being. In fact, it became the Islamic Arabic term for Christian incarnation as a category of heresy applied to Sufism, for those individuals who claimed that they have undergone some form of incarnation. Here we have a remarkable moment in which the Christian term for incarnation is used critically in Ismaili writings, and then apparently adopted in a positive (and transformed) sense into the heart of Jewish theology. Halevi describes a wide spectrum of dynamics of embodiment, which in its most extreme articulation has clear ontological ramifications, transforming the human into a half-divine being, thus undeniably indicating a unitive process. The great scholar of medieval thought Shlomo Pines asks where Halevi could have encountered such a notion of humans becoming half-divine and the idea of mystical embodiment and even incarnation.59 Pines thought that the answer was in Ismaili sources, and other sources that were ­interested 55  See: Sara Sviri, “Spiritual Trends in Pre-Kabbalistic Judeo-Spanish Literature: The Cases of Bahya ibn Paquda and Judah Halevi,” Donaire 6 (1996): 78–84. 56  See: Shlomo Pines “Shi’ite Terms and Conceptions in Judah Halevi’s “Kuzari,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 (1980), 165–251; Krinis, God’s Chosen People; Daniel Lasker, “Models of Spirituality in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law from the Orthodox Forum publication series, eds. Adam Mintz and Lawrence Schiffman (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2004) 166–167. 57  See: Diana Lobel, “Ittisal and the Amr Ilahi: Divine Immanence and the World to Come in the Kuzari,” in Esoteric and Exoteric Aspects in Judeo-Arabic Culture, eds. Benjamin Hary and Haggai Ben-Shammai (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 107–130; Krinis, God’s Chosen People, 192–194. 58  See: Diana Lobel, “A Dwelling Place for the Shekhinah,” Jewish Quarterly Review 90 (1999): 103–125; Pines, “Shiiti Terms,” 246–249. 59  Pines, “Shiiti terms,” 246–249.

92

Chapter 5

exactly in these questions, some very critical of the idea of incarnation but nevertheless providing an alternative of embodiment. Besides Christian and Ismaili sources, the sources also include Sufi and Kalam debates against Christian forms of incarnation; it seems that all of these discussion stand at the background of the discourse in the Kuzari and the attempt to articulate a Jewish form of mystical embodiment. The union to which Halevi is referring occurred to those powerful, historical figures who embodied the divine in their corporal existence, functioning as a vessel for divine indwelling.60 On the highest level, we find biblical masters such as Enoch and Elijah, who became concrete vessels for the divine presence, serving as a dwelling or temple for the divine, to the extent that others could actually sense and see the divine dwelling within them. In a few key discussions, which likely had a crucial impact on Kabbalah, we find Halevi using both the terms of ittisal as mystical union and the terminology of hulul/mahall as mystical embodiment in its extreme form, a complete state of integration with the divine. In this state, the divine presence is embodied in the light of the Holy Spirit, which dwells in the glass-polished heart and body of the mystic, allowing the divine name to penetrate the hasid. Thus, the perfected man transforms into a dwelling place for the divine presence, embodying God’s light and name, becoming an angel, and functioning as a divine messenger in this world, speaking God’s word. Halevi also draws here on Sufi vocabulary to express the love, longing, and intimacy a Jew experiences in his moments of mystical union with God. A function of perfection, this embodiment of the divine in the form of the name and divine spirit is the highlight of religious life, even in exile. It demonstrates to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike the truth that lies at the core of Judaism: that this religion is founded upon the authentic experiences by many of the mystical embodiment of the divine in the human, and therefore upon its eschatological promise and ideal of perfection; the possibility for a human to unite with the divine, and for the divine to unite with the human, stands at the core of Judaism. Throughout the Kuzari, Halevi introduces two parallel dynamics—one of the human striving for a mystical contact with the divine, and the other a theory of embodiment and cleaving initiated from above in which the divine (in the form of light, spirit, or name) embodies the human, ontologically changing his status, and elevating that particular human into a higher category of existence. While describing this mode of embodiment, Halevi employs at times the same vocabulary of ittisal that he uses while describing the first type of 60  Kuzari, 3:65.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

93

mystical cleaving. In several of the discussions, he introduces a different set of concepts deriving from the root HLL in which it is clear that he is referring to some sort of embodiment of the divine in the human temple. Thus, at the same time that we see the development of a Neoplatonic ideal of mystical communion with God, His light and Wisdom, we have in Halevi a competing model of embodiment, by which the divine dwells in the hasid, the prophet, and the people. Judaism, in his depiction of it, is founded not only on the collective revelation at Mt. Sinai, but upon the embodiment of the divine in the purified people. Halacha—that is, the path of Jewish practice— may then be explained as a powerful form of theurgy through which Jews may effect substantial embodiment and mystical cleaving.61 In his description of Judaism as a religion of mystical cleaving and embodiment, Halevi applies the ambiguous Arabic terminology of “ittisal”, which signifies different meanings in different contexts. To what extent did Halevi develop an actual theory of unitive attachment to God, and how is that reflected in his use of ittisal? He also applies Sufi and philosophical terminologies of communion and union to describe Jewish cleaving; in their original contexts, these terms refer to an individual, isolated, disembodied quest for communion with the Divine.62 Diana Lobel argues that for Halevi, these terms designate a much more communal and “covenantal relationship”, making the “Jewish” ittisal not a union with the divine but a collective, milder form of mystical “cleaving”. The meaning of ittisal may be ambiguous even for Halevi himself; from the Sufis and philosophers he learns that it indicates the goal of the human quest for contact with the divine or the active intellect; while from Ismaili sources he learns that ittisal may indicate a quest for contact initiated by God.63 Yet it is hard to avoid the question of what kind of “ittisal” Halevi had in mind. What kind of contact does it signify: mystical? unitive? Halevi never explicitly describes the Jewish ittisal in unitive language. Therefore, Lobel’s argument—that Halevi creates a version of ittisal that is communal, ritualistic, embodied, and covenantal (and more moderate than, for example, Sufi ittisal, an extreme state of mystical union for which solitude is necessary)—seems reasonable. But let us not forget the wide range of expressions of embodiment, which in its most extreme articulation has clear ontological ramifications, transforming the human into an angel or a half-divine human, thus undeniably indicating a 61  See: Afterman, Devequt, 73–101. 62  See: Diana Lobel, Between Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000), 21–54. 63  Ibid., 29.

94

Chapter 5

unitive process. The mechanism of mystical ittisal signifies a spectrum of mystical and religious experiences (including prophecy);64 only at the most radical end of the spectrum is the mystical communion that transforms into mystical embodiment. In one example, Halevi uses the term ittisal as a form of embodied union with the divine in which the human is comprised of both humanity and divinity: “Someone who is at such a level is worthy of being called a man of God (Deut 33:1)—an description comprising humanity and divinity—as if you were to say ‘a godly man’.”65 The union to which Halevi is referring occurs to those powerful, historical figures who embody the divine in their corporal existence, functioning as a vessel for divine indwelling. The following passage presents the religious idea of union66 as a source for prophetic experiences as well as sub-prophetic experiences for those around them:67 Prophecy accompanied the community of the Second Temple forty years, on account of the elders who were assisted by the power of the Shekhinah which was present in the First Temple. [Newly] acquired prophecy ceased with the departure of the Shekhinah, and only came at extraordinary times or on account of [a] great force, such as that of Abraham, Moses, the expected Messiah, Elijah and their equals. For they in themselves were a “dwelling place” (mahall) of the Shekhinah, and their very presence helped those present to acquire the degree of prophecy.68 A similar dynamic of mystical embodiment is ascribed to the perfected man (the hasid) in the present. The nature of integration between the hasid and God varies on a spectrum between sub-prophetic vision up through full embodiment (the dwelling of the divine light and the divine name inside him). The idea of embodiment is an ontological theory, not merely an experience of the divine from within; it changes the ontological state of the human, elevating him to a higher, angelic rank.69 Halevi’s Jewish version of ittisal stands for the fundamental mechanism that generates a spectrum of experiences, ranging from sub-prophetic visions 64  See: Krinis, God’s Chosen People, 194. 65  See Kuzari, IV:3 and VI:15–16, to be analyzed below; Krinis, God’s Chosen People, 141–162. 66  See in Kuzari 1:40–43. 67  Lobel, Between Mysticism, 117–118. 68  Kuzari, 3:65; Translated by Lobel in “A Dwelling Place”, 104–105. 69  See Kuzari, 3:1.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

95

through prophetic experience to an eventual embodied ontological mixture of the divine and human—an embodiment that is the essence of Judaism.70 In its more radical sense, we find a substantial understanding of the embodiment of the divine in the bodies of prophets, as well as in the perfected men of the past, who are now half-human and half-divine—i.e., angelic beings. This strong form of ittisal as a substantial embodiment of the divine light and name is achievable for the hasid even in the unperfected circumstances of exile. Below, I shall focus only on the radical form of embodiment in the Kuzari that occurs inside the hasid (or in Arabic, wali) as a result of the process of ittisal.71 In the introductory state, one merely sees the light in his heart, but in the fuller state, this light is fully embodied in the heart. In the ideal state of ittisal, the divine and human are infused into one another and become one, as happens to prophets and special angelic human beings. Achieving the state of a half-divine angelic being is possible for the hasid in the rare circumstances of full infusion with divine light. On the highest level, we find past masters such as the Patriarchs, Enoch and Elijah, who transformed into a vessel for divine presence, serving as a dwelling or temple for the homeless divine,72 to the extent that others could actually sense the divine dwelling inside them. In the time of the Temple, there was naturally a lesser demand for a “human temple”;73 the prophets of that time were mere transmitters of words and messages, not a living presence. But after the destruction of the Second Temple, Halevi offers a Jewish practice achievable in the complex circumstances of exile—a form of embodiment as a human temple. It demonstrates to Jews and gentiles alike the truth that lies at the core of Judaism: the possibility for a human to unite with the divine. The hasid’s capacity to embody the divine is presented as the new model of prophecy, a prophecy of presence. It manifests the most intense, perfected state achievable outside the boundaries of Israel during the exile. This embodiment is greatly intimate, leading to a covenantal dialogue and a strong outburst of religious feelings and love; for Halevi (as well as for Ibn Ezra and Bachya Ibn Paqudah), love and religious emotion go hand in hand with the mechanism of ittisal and union. The divine is not only embodied in the hasid, but also “named” after him, thus doubling the identification 70  See: Afterman, Devequt, 83–99. 71  See: Hughes, “The Soul,” 158. 72  This ideal of mystical embodiment was highly influential on the Kabbalist Moses Nachmanides who quotes Halevi’s theory. See Lobel, “A Dwelling Place,” 103–125 and Afterman, Devequt, 301–303 and chapter 6. 73  On the sources and history of this key phrase up to modern times see Margolin, The Human Temple.

96

Chapter 5

between the two: the divine name dwells in the hasid while his own name is integrated into the divine, just as the Patriarchs gave God their name—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—through such embodiment. The idea of exchanging names as an expression of the union with God served, as we shall later see, several Kabbalists including, R. Jacob bar Sheshet, Abraham Abulafia, and the author(s) of the Zohar.74 In a key discussion, which likely had a crucial impact on Kabbalah, we find Halevi using ittisal in its extreme form, a complete state of integration with the divine (in which, again, the hasid is named after the divine and the divine is named after him).75 In this state, the divine presence is embodied in the light of the Tetragrammaton, which dwells in the glass-polished heart of the mystic, allowing the divine name to penetrate the hasid. Halevi describes this radical state, the most extreme type of Jewish ittisal, as a form of embodied mystical union.76 This passage is located in the Kuzari IV: 15, in the context of a discussion concerning the difference between the God of Abraham and the God of Aristotle. The god of Aristotle is the “cause of causes” whose existence can be deduced by reasoning, but the God of Abraham is a hidden God, available for “tasting” and experiencing only through mystical cleaving. Halevi draws on Sufi vocabulary to express the love, longing, and intimacy a Jew experiences in his mystical union with God.77 What distinguished this specific state of ittisal from the other instances of Halevi’s use of the term is the picture of the divine embodying the hasid, who simultaneously cleaves to a rank of angels and transforms into a higher rank in the ontological hierarchy. In milder forms of ittisal, such transformation is not reached since only full union correlates with the movement to a new ontological rank above normal human beings, to the category of divine humans or humans that are half divine. But in this form of mystical union, there is no need for the human to part from his corporal existence and spiritualize, to ascend to the divine planes beyond the human world. Rather, here the human becomes a vessel for the embodiment of the divine in matter—the human remains alive inside his body and the divine dwells there with him. Thus, the perfected man transforms into a dwelling place for the divine presence, embodying God’s light and name, becoming an angel and functioning as a divine messenger in this world, speaking God’s word. Another important feature of this type of union is the intensity of love and intimacy that accom74  See for example: Idel, Messianic Mystics, 85–94. 75  See: Krinis, God’s Chosen People, 192–194. 76  See: Afterman, Devequt, 89–99. 77  Lobel, Between Mysticism, 151–153, 44.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

97

panies such embodiment: “A servant of God, passionately in love with the object of his worship, almost annihilating himself out of his love, due to the greatness of the bliss of union [ittisal] he feels, and the pain and suffering in being apart from Him. (IV:15:168)”78 The aforementioned short quote (from a longer discussion to be explored below) introduces the secret of the Tetragrammaton and the possibility for the perfected Jew to experience it without mediation through mystical union. The only way to “know” the Tetragrammaton is to “taste” it through union. This passage provides another example of the hasid who reaches this full transformation, embodying the angel, the name, and the light: [. . .] This general term, light, corresponds to what we call Elōhim, as is now clear. “Transparent light” corresponds to the Tetragrammaton, ‘a proper name which describes especially the relation between Him and His earthly creatures, I mean, the prophets, whose souls are transparent and receptive to His light, which penetrates through them as sunlight penetrates through the crystal and the ruby. [. . .] The God of this essence is only and solely Tetragrammaton (Adōnāi), and because He established a union with man, the name Elohim was altered after the creation into Adonāi Elōhim. This the Sages express in the words: A ‘full name over a full universe’. [. . .] No intelligent person will misunderstand the meaning conveyed by ‘Elōhim,’ although this is possible with regard to the Tetragrammaton (Adōnāi),’ because prophecy is strange and rare in single individuals, and much more so in a multitude. For this reason, Pharaoh disbelieved and said: ‘I know not the Lord’ (Exod. v. 2), as if he interpreted the Tetragrammaton in the way penetrating light is understood, and was reminded by it of God whose light is intimately attached\ united to man. [. . .] The meaning of Elōhim can be grasped by way of speculation, because a Guide and Manager of the world is a postulate of Reason. Opinions differ on the basis of different speculations, but that of the philosophers is the best on the subject. The meaning of the Tetragrammaton (Adonāi,) however, cannot be grasped by speculation, but only by that intuition and prophetic vision which separates man, so to speak, from his kind, and brings him in union with angelic beings, imbuing him with a new spirit, as it is written: ‘Thou shalt be turned into another man,’ ‘God gave him another heart’ (1 Sam. x. 6. 9), ‘A spirit came over Amasai’ (1 Chron. xii. 18). ‘The hand of the Lord was upon me’ 78  Kuzari, IV, 15. Translated by Lobel, Between Mysticism, 152; Ehud Krinis, “The Arabic Background of the Kuzari,” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 21 (2013), 16–17.

98

Chapter 5

(Ezek. xxxvii. 11). ‘Uphold me with Thy free spirit’ (Ps. li. 14) All these circumscribe the Holy Spirit which enwraps the prophet in the hour of his ministry, the Nazirite, and the Messiah, when they are anointed for priesthood, or for the royal dignity by a prophet; or when God aids and strengthens him in any matter; or when the priest makes prophetic utterances by means of the mystic power derived from the use of the Urim and Tummim. Then all previous doubts concerning Elōhim are removed, and man deprecates those speculations by means of which he had endeavored to derive the knowledge of God’s dominion and unity. Moreover, at that time, man becomes a servant of God, passionately in love with the object of his worship, almost annihilating himself out of his love, due to the greatness of the bliss of union79 [ittisal] he feels, and the pain and suffering in being apart from Him. [. . .]80 It is hard to overemphasize the importance of this discussion for the development of mystical Judaism and models of mystical embodiment in p ­ articular.81 As Philo and Isaac Israeli developed the foundation for the henōsis type of mystical union in Judaism, in this passage Halevi is laying the foundation for another type of Jewish union. (Both traditions will eventually meet and function together in 13th-century Kabbalah, and in later phases of mystical Judaism.) Here, Halevi depicts the divine light penetrating the wali/hasid/ perfected man, who is polished and pure-hearted as glass; then, he unites with the Tetragrammaton by the direct experience of Him as light, as taste, and as an object of love stronger than death. This experience is associated both with prophecy and the receiving of the Holy Spirit; it also signifies the fullest state of ittisal which, again, culminates in union with the angelic rank, the name, and the light.82 Although Halevi seems rather careful not to use unitive vocabulary per se, the context of full transformation and the employment of Sufi terminology make it possible to deduce that this experience is the fullest form of ittisal with the Divine, and may qualify as unitive. Halevi was well known by the early Kabbalists in the thirteen century; one of the most important Kabbalists, the great Moses Nachmanides, adopts 79  I follow herein Lobel’s translation of ittisal as “union”, in Between Mysticism, 152. 80  Kuzari, IV:15 (Hirschfield translation with modifications); Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 183. 81  See Lobel, Between Mysticism, 147–156 and Afterman, Devequt, 93–99. 82  See: Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 160–187; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Merkavah Traditions in Philosophical Garb: Judah Halevi Reconsidered,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 57 (1990), 179–242; Afterman, Devequt, 89–99; Kreisel, Prophecy, 139.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

99

as we shall see Halevi’s model directly and explicitly, as he writes about the dynamic of the divine dwelling or descending in different anthropomorphic forms of the Holy Spirit into the human realm. Nachmanides develops an esoteric theory of embodiment of the divine essence in lower concrete vessels including human and angels. To explain how this state is possible, Nachmanides refers to the theory of mystical embodiment introduced by Halevi in The Kuzari: The union with the godhead occurs within the human body, not inside the godhead as in “normal” eschatological union. There are radical cases in which God actually becomes embodied in human bodies; in other cases, those humans become first a kind of angels, and then participate in the more “conventional” embodying in the angelic realm. Following up on the idea of union and embodiment of the divine in the perfected human body, another Catalan mystic, Jacob bar Sheshet, also developed a strong mystical path: In his model, the divine and the human become one, not in the midst of the abstract and transcendent realms of divinity, but rather in the midst of the concrete human himself. At the core of both of these theories lies the understanding that at least the “lower” sefirot serve as vessels for the divine essence, the Tetragrammaton, and the Holy Spirit that dwells in the lower aspects of the godhead. By a parallel integration of the human mind into the lower parts of the godhead, the human becomes part of this structure of vessels, an extension of the godhead, a vessel allowing the divine to dwell inside of him for a limited time as it dwells in other parts or extensions of the godhead. At that time the human, like any other sefirah, or metaphysical being associated with the godhead such as the Torah, commandments and angels, is named after the divine name dwelling in him. The embodiment of the Tetragrammaton and the Holy Spirit leads to the momentary union of the human and the divine. The tsaddik is then ontologically functioning as an extension of the godhead, acting below on behalf of the name and spirit dwelling in him, just like the Patriarchs and prophets who functioned as a “chariot” for the divine essence. A similar question regarding the Jewish meaning of the Arabic term ittisal emerges at the end of the book The Duties of the Heart by the 11th-century spiritualist and Neoplatonist Bahya Ibn Paquda. Ibn Paquda’s depiction of the path of transformation is clearly influenced by Sufism, although the term ittisal is less prevalent in his work than in the Kuzari; nonetheless, at the end of the book there is a depiction of intense love for God as a form of cleaving to/ uniting with the divine light. Ibn Paquda does not add any unitive vocabulary to the articulation of this state, but only indicates that it is a form of the most intense love of God: “What does the love of God mean? It is the yearning of the

100

Chapter 5

soul, the desire of its very substance to be attached (littsal) to God’s supreme light.”83 Menahem Mansoor explains that “Bahya began with the unity of God [in his tawhid chapter] and here [in the last chapter about loving God] he ends with the ultimate union with God—the love of God.”84 Scholars debate whether this may be considered a form of mystical union. Diana Lobel argues that for Ibn Paquda, ittisal is used to indicate something milder than mystical union with the divine light.85 Bahya connects Sufi language of spiritual integrity with the biblical language of clinging (devequt), a term that becomes prominent in later Jewish mysticism. Bahya explains that when the Torah declares that one should love and cling to God, clinging (deveqa) means true and pure love.86 Ibn Paquda projects the meaning of the Arab ittisal as communion87 onto the language of devequt, thus likely signifying his use of the milder form of ittisal as communion and not union. Georges Vajda, Julius Guttmann, and Menachem Mansoor all categorically deny the possibility that the ittisal of ibn Paquda is even remotely unitive. Vajda for instance argues that: True Love of God is the ardor of the soul for union with the divine light, a concept of a distinctly mystic character. Bahya does not, however, develop this concept in all its implications [. . .] The Lover of God, such as described by him, keeps at a distance from his loved one. Despite Bahya’s dependence upon Muslim Mysticism [. . .] his teaching remains in the line of Jewish tradition, and he cannot be called a mystic in the strict sense of the term.88 Mansoor adds further: A close examination of Bachya’s idea of “love of God” shows that he has not developed this concept beyond the form in which it is found in the Rabbinical tradition [!]. His “love of God” lacks the passion the mystics 83   The Book of Direction to the Duties of the Heart, from the Original Arabic Version of Bahya Ben Joseph Ibn Paquda’s al-Hidaya ila Fara’id al-Qulub, introduction, trans. and notes by Menahem Mansoor (London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1973), 427. 84  Ibid., 64. (my additions). 85  Lobel, A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue, 222. 86  Ibid. 87  Afterman, Devequt, 65–72. 88   Georges Vajda, “Bahya ben Joseph ibn Paquda,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 4, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing house, 1973), 107–108.

“ As Light Unites with Light ”

101

customarily assign to it. He refers neither to the sweet joy that comes with closeness to God nor to the agony suffered as a result of distance from him. [. . .] For nowhere does he go beyond knowledge of God to any notion of an ecstatic union.89 Although there is certainly no clear evidence that Ibn Paqudah did by ittisal mean some sort of union with the divine light, nevertheless I don’t think he shared the theological constraints introduced by Mansoor and Vajda. This is another marvelous example of the diverse transmission of this rich and complex term from the Arab world: In some contexts, ittisal means nothing more than noetic conjunction with a sub-divine intellect, yet in other contexts it may actually mean union with God. In our exploration of diverse Arabic terminologies incorporated into a Jewish context, as well as its various projections into the language of biblical devequt,90 we must be careful not to assume a priori that the Hebrew terms we use for translation, such as devequt, mean only communion and not union. In the crucial debate concerning the meaning of the term ittisal, most scholars interpret its employment in Jewish writings as non-unitive, particularly when associated with the language of devequt. Yet clearly the theological bias against unio mystica has also constrained some scholarly insights into this term, which likely refers in some circumstances, such as the Sufi context, to mystical union. 89   The Book of Direction to the Duties of the Heart, Mansoor edition, 8. 90  Afterman, Devequt, 67–72.

Chapter 6

The Language of Union in the Writings of Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides By the middle of the 12th century, Jewish thinkers were exposed to a philosophical trend deriving from Aristotelian philosophy, specifically to its later developments in the Arab world. This Neo-Aristotelian trend considered and presented itself as the authentic Aristotelian philosophy; it was highly critical of both Islamic and Jewish Kalam theologies, as well as Neoplatonism. Moses Maimonides is the most important of the Neo-Aristotelian Jewish philosophers, using Aristotelian philosophy to develop and deepen a Jewish philosophical path yet at the same time articulating a systematic critique of Kalam and Neoplatonic Jewish theology; his writings, especially the Guide for the Perplexed, signifies the shift from Neoplatonic to Neo-Aristotelian influence on Jewish philosophy. Interestingly enough, Kabbalah and Jewish Neo-Aristotelian philosophy emerged around the same time, and shared a fundamental point of view: a deep systematic interest in the nature of God,1 and in the metaphysical realms that mediated between heaven and earth. In this worldview, the gulf between human and metaphysical realms, up to and including divinity itself, is crossable through conjunction and even union with the divine and/or with mediating sub-divine realms and beings. In the 13th century, Jewish philosophy shifted in emphasis towards a more Averroistic interpretation of Aristotle, signified by the central vocabulary and imagery of noetic union (knowledge as union) in this particular trend of thought. In the Jewish Averroistic worldview, the human agent can undergo changes through which his intellect can cleave with the metaphysical active intellect. This was the general atmosphere in which several schools of early Kabbalah first developed. The dominant philosophy in the period of time when Kabbalah emerged, the Neo-Aristotelian trend of Jewish philosophy saw the development of a Jewish vocabulary of both noetic union and spiritual cleaving. The Averroistic interpretation of Aristotle as the dominant philosophy in Judaism (following and interpreting Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed) was a crucial engine for the development of radical types of mysticism in early 1 See Jonathan Dauber, Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_007

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

103

Kabbalah.2 This is especially evident in the ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia, who developed a combination of Averroistic-Jewish mysticism.3 In contrast to the Latin (that is, the Christian) world, 13th-century Jewish philosophy was willing not only to embrace the idea of a metaphysical ladder that exists between the human agent and the metaphysical realms, rising towards God, but also to allow the human to climb such a ladder all the way to its divine top. Several Kabbalists drew directly on this structure in developing what we might call a Kabbalistic-Averroistic mystical system; others drew on different elements of this theory to explain mostly eschatological unitive states. Since religious life before and after death was considered a continuation process of “climbing” the metaphysical ladder towards God, the language of Neo-Aristotelian union was used to define specific stages on that ladder; for some it was possible to reach that stage of noetic union before death, yet for most it was possible only after the full departure from the material realm. Neo-Aristotelian union, which occurs through the clinging of the intellect (not the soul) to a divine or metaphysical intellect or thought, could be characterized as a form of “integrative union”. By uniting with the noetic metaphysical entity—that is, pure thought—the human mind undergoes a process of integration into a universal entity.4 Philip Merlan has discussed Neo-Aristotelian union in contrast to Neoplatonic unio mystica, and suggests the following: This union is, if we may say so, the Neo Aristotelian counterpart of the [Neoplatonic] Unio Mystica usually so called. In this union the individual is absorbed into the universal, i.e. the supra-personal, and this supra-­ personal is at the same time characterized as the divine5 [. . .] The God with whom we are united in ecstasy is not the God-above-thinking-and Being, but rather one who is thought-thinking-itself.6 Neo-Aristotelian union is characterized as “positive”,7 allowing the humanrealized intellect to integrate into a metaphysical intellect, possibly God. In this setting, what begins as a conjunction or noetic attachment culminates 2 See: Yossef Swartz, “Magic, Philosophy and Kabbalah: The Mystical and Magical Interpretation of Maimonides in the Later Middle Ages”, DAAT: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 64–66 (2009), 99–132 (Hebrew). 3 See: Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 4–5. 4 See the systematic discussion in Idel, “Universalization”. 5 Merlan, Monopsychism, 19–20. 6 Ibid., 21–22. 7 For the definition of a “positive” union see chapter 1.

104

Chapter 6

in union of intellects. Most humans can undergo this process only postmortem, (though a select few can experience it while still in the body); therefore, the idea of union is linked with the transformation into the next stage of existence—the afterlife. When a person fully unites with the divine intellect, he no longer takes part in human material existence, but rather has become a metaphysical entity, an “angel”, and enjoys eternal bliss. Consequently, in most Neo-Aristotelian thinking (including that of Maimonides), full union stands in contrast to partial and dynamic conjunction. Different Neo-Aristotelian thinkers, Jewish and Muslim, put much effort into explaining and legitimizing the idea of individual existence of the human “form” fully separate from the body, capable of dwelling in a realm of “forms” or angels. These efforts concerning the relationship of union and eschatology should be differentiated from other controversial aspects of the path to communion (a less radical state) in this lifetime as depicted in Neo-Aristotelian Jewish philosophy. Here, our interest is in the language of union and its unique use in Jewish Neo-Aristotelian tradition (especially in Maimonides), along with its function as an eschatological language in Maimonides and early Kabbalah. (We therefore will not be considering in this chapter—as we have done elsewhere—the language of ittisal/communion; this matter should be categorically separated from the language of union.8) Although union completes the process of communion and depends on it, it has different features; most importantly, for Maimonides, it distinguishes those who take part in bodily existence from those who live as angels (after death) in the metaphysical realm. Neo-Aristotelian expressions of epistemic union, which lead, in some systems, to ontological union, are based upon this essential formula from Aristotle’s De Anima: “For in the case of those things which have no matter, that which thinks and that which is thought are the same; for contemplative knowledge and that which is known in that way are the same.”9 This principle applies first to the divine intellect, i.e. a fully realized and actualized intellect. Along with presenting an analysis of the divine noetic substance—be it God or the separated intellects—it constitutes the theological element at the base of this traditional unitive language. The language of communion concerns the establishment of a dynamic, partial engagement— ontological or not—with the divine thought while remaining fully engrossed in bodily existence. The intellect in actu remains in its potential disposition. The latter dynamic characterizes human existence in matter, while the former 8 On the language of communion/ittisal in Neo-Aristotelian Jewish philosophy, see Afterman, Devequt, 134–168. 9 Aristotle, De Anima, 430a3.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

105

depicts the existence of the separate intellects of the angels that participate in God in a completely non-material setting. A major question arises: Can the human intellect participate in such “pure” thinking? Can the human mind only conjoin or also unite with a separate intellect? In the Neo-Aristotelian tradition, humans can transform their being from a potential (“material”) intellect embodied in matter into an intellect “separated from matter” or an angel, by becoming one with metaphysical reality. This is the key to religious salvation, and to reaching the “world to come”—the afterlife. The different opinions concerning the human intellect—its faculties and its capacity to conjoin with non-material substances, ideas, and other intellects—constitute what is known as “the problem of intellect in medieval philosophy”.10 As mentioned above, some philosophical trends allowed for this union between human and divine intellect to occur, not as a miraculous experience, but rather as a natural phenomenon of human transformation in which the acquired intellect is “born” through such cleaving and union. This experience is a key element in medieval Jewish philosophy beginning with Maimonides, who employs unitive vocabulary in this regard. The use of unitive vocabulary in Jewish philosophy introduced into the Jewish world a very strong formula of union that correlated thought, transformation, and being. Through such a process, provided with an ontological bridge between the material and metaphysical realms, the human agent may climb the hierarchy of being. This bridge allows the human worldly agent to transform into a purely noetic being (i.e. an angel) or transform into a “son” of God,11 and as an angel he may participate in the divine order of knowledge, according to his place in the metaphysical hierarchy. The Neo-Aristotelian tradition spanning from Alfarabi to Averroes offers two possible modes of union: The union with the active intellect (before or after death), and the union with God or the “first cause”. Several followers of Arab Falsafa promoted the idea of mystical union with God, which follows the initial union with the mediating intellect; the most prominent was the Arab philosopher Ibn Tufayl (c. 1105–1185). In his celebrated Hayy ibn Yaqzan, Ibn Tufayl introduces a philosophical discourse of union with God as the creator, which had an important weight for Jewish and Christian authors alike.12 The 10 There is a vast amount of literature on this topic; see: Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes; Altmann, “Maimonides on the Intellect,” 79–84. 11 See: Idel, Ben, 328–329. 12 See: Bernd Radtke, “How Can Man Reach the Mystical Union? Ibn Tufayl’s and the Divine Spark,” in The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, ed. Lawrence I. Conrad (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 165–194; Sami S. Hawi, Islamic Naturalism and

106

Chapter 6

mystical path of Ibn Tufayl, which originated in the Neo-Aristotelian system, is crucial for our understanding of the way Jewish mystics, like Abraham Abulafia, developed a mystical path within the Neo-Aristotelian tradition under similar conditions.13 The attempt to integrate the Islamic mystical tradition with the tradition of the Falsafa characterizes Ibn Tufayl’s mysticism.14 According to Josef P. Montada: “ibn Tufayl sees philosophy as establishing the need for mystical union, as explaining how it is possible, and even as something necessary to avoid confusion on the way, but he does not admit that the mystical state is a part or result of the philosophical inquiry itself”.15 Indeed, several key Muslim philosophers who took part in the Falsafa movement, most importantly Ibn Sina, had a keen interest in mystical experiences, of which they heard or read from Sufi sources. Both Ibn Sina and Ibn Tufayl quote different Sufi sources describing unitive experiences that provided the philosophers with material supporting their theoretical and philosophical analysis. These depictions take place in the conceptual framework of Neo-Aristotelian philosophy, including the unique terminology of ittisal and ittihad that classifies the moment of full mystical union.16 Philosophical reflections by Ibn Sina (980–1037), Ibn Bajja (1085–1138), and Ibn Tufayl (1105–1185) articulated the Sufi-inspired path leading to philosophical union. The theological reflections on the meaning of unio mystica, along with the means to reach it, articulated a structured path that includes the transformation of one’s heart into a polished mirror, which can then receive the divine light and reflect on it. The image of the polished hearts that functions as a receptor of the divine light is one of the classical images for the reaching of mystical union. This image originated in Ibn Sina, and was absorbed into early Jewish sources such as Ibn Paqudah and Judah Halevi.17

Mysticism: A Philosophical Study of Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 232–235. 13 See: Hawi, Islamic Naturalism, 233. 14 See: Joseph P. Montada, “Philosophy in Andalusia,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, eds. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 165–175. 15 Montada, “Philosophy in Andalusia”, 175. 16 Radtke, “How Can,” 175–181, 193. 17 See: Sarah Stroumsa, “Habitudes Religieuses et Liberté Intellectuelle dans la Pensée Arabe Médiévale,” Monothéisme et Tolérance (1998): 57–73; Aaron Hughes, The Texture of the Divine: Imagination in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Thought, (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004), 82–114; Afterman, Devequt, 66–67, 93.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

107

This transformative, structured mystical path includes three stages, according to Ibn Tufayl: while contemplating the divine attributes, the mystic becomes similar to the object of the quest; thus by the act of knowing, the seeker defuses in God’s essence.18 Clearly, then, Ibn Tufayl believed that man might reach full mystical union with God. Ibn Bajja and Ibn Rushed, on the other hand, limited the results of conjunction to a possible union to the active intellect only. Although several philosophers in this tradition convey different ideas in different writings, generally the attitude towards union with God in the Falsafa tradition can be summarized as following: For al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, Ibn Tufayl, and to a degree also al-Kindi, the union occurs between man and God. For Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushed, union may only occur with the active intellect, either while in the body or at the moment of death or postmortem.19 The exploration of Jewish Neo-Aristotelian language of union began, as we have seen, with Yehuda Halevi’s Kuzari and his depiction of the “philosopher’s” worldview—a well-articulated presentation of Neo-Aristotelian philosophy in a popular book. In the philosopher’s viewpoint, we find the employment of a strong, philosophical, unitive vocabulary, leading to some form of eschatological monopsychism. This classic exposition of the noetic union is presented by the philosopher in the Kuzari (I:1), apparently adapted from Ibn Bajja: In the perfect person a light of divine nature, called Active Intellect, will attach itself with him [the perfected], and its Passive Intellect will attach itself to that light with such a unifying attachment therewith that both are but one. The person [of such perfection] thus observes that he is that Active Intellect himself, and that there is no difference between them. [. . .] This degree is the last and most longed-for goal for the perfect man whose soul, after having been purified, has grasped the inward truths of all branches of science, has thus become equal to an angel, and has found a place on the nethermost step of seraphic beings. This is the degree of the Active Intellect, viz. that angel whose degree is below the angel who is connected with the sphere of the moon. There are spiritual forces, detached from matter, but eternal like the Prime Cause and never threatened by decay. Thus the soul of the perfect man and that Intellect become One, without concern for the decay of his body or his organs, 18  Radtke, “How Can,” 170; Hawi, Islamic Naturalism, 150; Gitit Holzman, “Seclusion, Knowledge and Conjunction of Thought of R. Moses Narboni.” Kabbalah 7 (2002): 164, (Hebrew). 19 Radtke, “How Can,” 183.

108

Chapter 6

because he becomes united to the other. His soul is cheerful while he is alive, because it enjoys the company of Hermes, Asclepios, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; nay, he and they, as well as every one who shares their degree, and the Active Intellect, are one thing.20 The philosopher uses an Arabic phrase with the terms ittisal and ittihad, signifying unitive attachment, and uses several other phrases to indicate that by thinking the active intellect, man may unite with it. Interestingly enough, Jews learned philosophy even from the rejected views of the philosopher in the Kuzari. A remarkable example is Yochanan Alemanno who, after introducing the Averroistic interpretation of Aristotle that suggests a possible union with the active intellect, quotes from the Kuzari as following: It [the possibility of conjunction with the active intellect] is well known also from the books “The Possibility of the Conjunction”, “The Quality of the Conjunction”, and Averroes’ “Short Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima”, that we can cleave to the Active Intellect. R. Judah Halevi has also explained this subject briefly in his Sefer ha-Kuzari: “One who is complete will cleave to the Active Intellect, receiving a supernal light of divine nature, which is called Active Intellect. His passive intellect will attach itself so completely to this light that the man and the Active Intellect will be indistinguishable from each other.”21 The significance of this relatively radical exposition by the Neo-Aristotelian philosopher, based on Ibn Bajja,22 is in the clear use of explicit unitive language. Although presented as a rejected opinion in the Kuzari, it nevertheless constitutes an important source for later readers to be exposed to the ideal of metaphysical union as a potential part of any Neo-Aristotelian system.

20 Kuzari 1:1 (Hirschfield translation with my modifications). On the union with the active intellect in the Kuzari, see Herbert Davidson “The Active Intellect in the Cuzari and Hallevi’s Theory of Causality.” Revue des Etudes Juives 131 (1972): 351–396 and Kreisel, Prophecy, 105–110. 21 Alemanno, Hay ha‘Olamim, MS Mantua, fol. 102r. Translated and quoted by Fabrizio Lelli, “Prisca Philosophia” and “Docta Religio: The Boundaries of Rational Knowledge in Jewish and Christian Humanist Thought,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 91, 1/2 (2000): 65, who notes that Alemanno is quoting indeed from Kuzari 1:1 and refers further to Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 62, 302, n. 16. 22 See Pines, “Shiite Terms”, 210–217.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides



109

Moses Maimonides

Judah Halevi’s confrontation with Neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the middle of the 12th century seems in retrospect a lost cause, in light of the magisterial synthesis of Judaism and Neo-Aristotelian philosophy offered by Moses Maimonides towards the end of the 12th century. Considering his vast philosophical writings on the subject, our focus here will be mainly on his vocabulary of union (and not of communion, which I have analyzed elsewhere23). A major gap exists between the early Maimonides and the Maimonides of the Guide. This is not a gap between the esoteric and exoteric Maimonides, or between the philosophical and halakhic Maimonides, but rather between his different positions on the spectrum of the Neo-Aristotelian philosophy presented above.24 At first, Maimonides held a position that allowed ontic cleaving to the active intellect, and a postmortem union with the metaphysical noetic realm, leading to a permanent union with God. However, by the time of his later writing in the Guide, Maimonides had become more critical and skeptical of the entire idea of metaphysical knowledge, or at least of the model of “knowledge as union”— the mere possibility of knowing abstract ideas and through such knowing to ontologically unite with a metaphysical intellect. Nevertheless, in several discussions, Maimonides presents the dynamics of communion/ittisal with the active intellect and also the idea of noetic union with the active intellect; these include a very important discussion in which union with the active intellect at the moment of death is described as the ultimate human perfection. Both the early and the later Maimonides agree that union is possible only at the time of death or after it. In his terminology, while ittisal/cleaving characterized the dynamics in worldly existence, ittihad/uniting with the intellect characterizes the dynamics after the full exit from the body. Maimonides is crucial to the development of two forms of mystical practices in early Kabbalah, both related to something impossible in his own philosophical system—the realization of eschatological states of union in the here and now. The two main followers of Maimonides on this matter are the Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia and Moses Nachmanides.25 The main difference between 23 See Afterman, Devequt, 134–168. 24 See: Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Secrets of the “Guide to the Perplexed”: Between the Thirteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1990), 159–207. 25 On the influence of Maimonides’ theology on early Kabbalah in general and Abulafia in particular, See: Moshe Idel, “Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,”

110

Chapter 6

Abulafia and Nachmanides on this point is that, for Abulafia the achieving of the Maimonidean eschatological union is the main mystical goal of his own Kabbalistic path—a goal that any Jew can reach if he employs the proper methods of meditation Abulafia provides.26 For Nachmanides, on the other hand, reaching the Maimonidian kind of eschatological union is an extremely rare achievement, functioning more as an ideal of perfection than a real mystical goal of his Kabbalistic path. For Nachmanides, the main goal of his spiritual path is different, as it is a complex dynamics of integration into the godhead, a process that continues after death and includes at some stage an element of union that resembles Maimonides eschatological noetic union. As we shall see below, Nachmanides uses both Maimonides and Halevi to analyze a very rare and exclusive mystical state, depicting a kind of union that was usually (as with Maimonides) reached only after death, and only very rarely while still part of this world (as in the case of Enoch and Elijah). Different Kabbalists apply Maimonides’ vocabulary in the service of their own ideas. Abraham Abulafia used Maimonides as a Neoaristotelian platform for his radical mystical path leading to full union with the active intellect, and occasionally, with God as well. This use has been explored in several studies by Moshe Idel, and we will further investigate it in the following chapter.27 Maimonides’ unitive vocabulary also impacted the 18th-century philosopher Jewish history 19 (2004): 197–226; Moshe Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” in Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky, (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 31–81; Moshe Idel, “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A linguistic Turn,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, ed. Alfred Ivry et al. (Amsterdam: Routledge, 1998), 289–329; Elliot Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings of the Great Eagle: Maimonides and Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” in Moses Maimonides (1138–1204); His Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical “Wirkungsgeschichte” in Different Cultural Contexts, eds. Görge K. Hasselhoff and Otfried Fraisse, (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004) 209–237; Elliot Wolfson, “Via Negativa in Maimonides and its Impact on 13th Century Kabbalah,” Maimonidean Studies 5 (2008): 393–442; Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides’ Attitude Toward Jewish Mysticism,” in Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, ed. Alfred Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 200–219; Harvey, Warren Z. “Aspects of Jewish Philosophy in Medieval Catalonia.” In The Life and Times of Mosse ben Nahman: A Symposium to Commemorate the 800th Anniversary of his Birth, 1194–1994, (Girona: Ajuntament de Girona, 1994) 141– 157; Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, “Philosophy and Kabbalah, 1200–1600.” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, ed. S. Daniel, H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 218–257; Jonathan Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” in The Cultures of Maimonideanism, ed. James T. Robinson (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), 57–88. 26 See further in detail in chapter 8. 27 Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–30.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

111

Shlomo Maimon, as has been demonstrated by Gideon Freudenthal.28 But Maimonides’ use of unitive language for describing mediating sub-divine realms or entities as elements of postmortem existence does not make him into a mystic.29 Even though recent studies reflect a vigorous debate about whether “philosophical mysticism”30 or “mystical philosophy” potentially or explicitly exists in his corpus, Maimonides did not promote mystical states of union or communion with God at all. In contrast to many other medieval Jewish thinkers, he did not allow for any form of attachment with God, partial or complete. God is to be loved only from a distance. There is no attestation in the Maimonidian corpus for any term designating ontological attachment (­ittisal, ittihad, devequt, etc.) pointed towards God, only to sub-divine, mediating entities. Maimonides in his early writings made a careful distinction between the religious language of love and eros,31 of which God is the only object, and the language of noetic conjunction and union, which refers only to the active intellect or the noetic angelic realm and is not a religious language but rather a technical metaphysical language. Unlike many Jewish philosophers and practically all Kabbalists, Maimonides did not identify love and union/communion—God is to be loved without direct contact of any sort. On the contrary, any contact with the metaphysical realm can not involve engagement with religious emotions. Maimonides influenced early Kabbalah, which emerged partially as a reaction to his thought.32 He is often considered the source of philosophical ideas 28 Gideon Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon,” in Maimonides and His Heritage, ed. Idit Dobbs-Weinstein et al. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 113–114, 117. 29 See: Afterman, Devequt, 134–168. 30  See: David Blumenthal, Philosophic Mysticism: Studies in Rational Religion, (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2006); Ithamar Gruenwald, “Maimonides’ Quest Beyond Philosophy and Prophecy,” in Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies, ed. Joel L. Kraemer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 141–157; Gideon Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides,” DAAT 64–66, (2009): 80–82, 84–91 (Hebrew) and Menachem Lorberbaum, “Mythical Mysticism and Intellectual Mysticism,” in Myth, Ritual and Mysticism, ed. Gideon Bohak et al., (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014), 671–697 (Hebrew) and Lorberbaum, Dazzled by Beauty, 36–45, 115–120. 31 Steven Harvey, “The Meaning of Terms Designating Love in Judaeo-Arabic Thought and Some Remarks on the Judaeo-Arabic Interpretation of Maimonides,” in Judaeo-Arabic Studies; Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies, ed. Norman Golb (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 175–196. 32 Idel, “Maimonides and the Kabbalah”.

112

Chapter 6

and expressions in this trend, although Kabbalists were exposed to a wide variety of philosophical sources translated into Hebrew. Isaiah Tishby and Elliot Wolfson have argued for Maimonides’ unitive language (besides other elements) as having an important impact on the early Kabbalistic portrayal of the mystical path, only in the Kabbalists discourse the unitive vocabulary is applied to the godhead and not to a sub-divine intellect.33 However, this influence must be carefully examined; some Kabbalists, such as Moses Nachmanides (who will be discussed in greater detail below), explicitly employed Maimonides’ language in their eschatological discussions, while others only vaguely refer to his theory, quoting possibly other sources if any. In any case, his language of union served Kabbalists mainly in their analysis of the afterlife, or as tools to depict acute transformations in which individuals reach a pre-death eschatological status. In contrast to Maimonides’ impact on the development of the most radical forms of union characterized as semieschatological states achieved here and now, the Kabbalists used a different set of vocabulary or language for the description of the more “normal” states of union, those experienced as part of day to day halakhic life.34 Interestingly enough, the Kabbalists drawing both from the Neoplatonic and the Neo-Aristotelian traditions, used the first tradition to develop the main mystical path that is to be implemented in this life, through ritual and halakha, leading to a gradual integration into the godhead, an integration that includes elements of union and at times moments of mystical union and mystical embodiment. The Neo-Aristotelian tradition was used mainly to explain the eschatological union. Those who have read Maimonides carefully on this issue used his unitive vocabulary to describe the moment of transition from our world to the afterworld. This moment and its reaching were described in unitive terms and associated with union with the angelic realm.35

Maimonides Theories of Noetic Union

Union with the metaphysical realm, which Maimonides refers to in his Commentary on the Mishnah, is one of universalization; it secures the eternity of the human intellect that contemplates noetic metaphysical ideas. Its unitive character signifies the eschatological angelic existence: the human 33 See Wolfson, “Via Negativa,” 421–422. 34 See chapter 7. 35 Cf. Wolfson, “Via Negativa,” 421; Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings,” 232–233.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

113

agent fully transforms into an angel, and at the same time achieves union with the angelic realm. This passage was quoted and discussed by the 13thcentury Kabbalist and great rabbinical authority Moses Nachmanides in his book on the afterlife titled Sha‘ar ha-Gemul.36 In the last part of his discussion, Nachmanides constructs a systematic discourse that aims to offer a solid alternative to Maimonides’ metaphysical (or as Idel puts it, “mentalistic”) interpretation of rabbinic homilies regarding the afterlife. Although generally critical of Maimonides’ postmortem theory, Nachmanides is actually in favor of this specific discussion, for it allows both integration into an ontological (for him, divine) realm, as well as a union of angels/souls with God from or within the angelical eschatological realm. Both unions are based upon the paradigm of “knowledge as union”, and appear at the end of the integration process— the conjunction with the metaphysical realm from within worldly existence. Maimonides also offers a critical Neo-Aristotelian interpretation of the rabbinic image of “crowning” with the light of the Shekhinah. Crowning in God or in the divine light as “eschatological union” will become a fundamental symbol and idea in Kabbalah following Maimonides. There is a fundamental difference between Maimonides’ and Nachmanides’ eschatology. For the philosopher, the human intellect integrates into an angelic sub-divine realm which allows a close relationship with God, while for the Kabbalist the afterlife is a life inside the godhead, in which the human continues to live infused with God Himself. Thus, Nachmanides borrows from Maimonides the schema of eschatological noetic union, but applies it directly to a noetic element in the godhead instead of a sub-divine intellect. Nevertheless, the result is similar, though not identical: the human becomes fully integrated into a different realm while the schema of union explains his transformation—into an angel (for the philosopher) or into a part of the godhead itself (for the Kabbalist). In addition, although critical of Maimonides’ theory, Nachmanides nonetheless borrows more than once his specific unitive language to describe the union of the mind with the divine “understanding”, identified with a specific “place” in the godhead which occurs in the afterlife. Towards the end of this treatise, Nachmanides refers to Maimonides, quoting in Hebrew from his original Arabic Commentary on the Mishnah a discussion from his introduction to 36 See: Moshe Idel, “On Maimonides in Nahmanides and His School and Some Reflections,” in Between Rashi and Maimonides: Themes in Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegesis, ed. Ephraim Kanarfogel and Moshe Sokolow. (New York: Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press, 2010), 131–164; Afterman, Devequt, 150–154.

114

Chapter 6

Pereq Heleq. In the quoted passage, Maimonides offers a noetic interpretation for some rabbinic homilies’ describing the post-mortem status and its symbolism, including the condition of the soul in the afterlife: In the world-to-come our souls intelligize some secrets of the Creator, just as they intelligize in this world some secrets of the stars and spheres, or more. And thus did the sages said: “In the world-to-come there is no eating or drinking, but the righteous are sitting and their diadems are on their head, and they enjoy the splendor of the Shekhinah.” And the meaning of [the locution] “their diadems are on their heads” is the existence of the soul by [the dint of] the existence of the thing she knows, and its being identical with that thing [Hi’ ve-hu’ davar’eħad] as those among the philosophers who understand, said on this issue, and it takes long to explain it. And what they [the sages] say “they enjoy the splendor of the Shekhinah”, their intention is that those souls delight what they intelligize from the secret of God, blessed be He, as the holy living creatures and the other groups of angels [delight] what they intelligize and they know something of the secret of the Creator. Therefore, the good retribution [ha-gemul ha-tov] and the aim of the intention is that man should comprehend the supernal retribution [ha-gemul ha-‘elyon], and will enter in that category. And the existence of the soul will be endless like the existence of the Creator, Blessed be He, since He is the cause of her existence and her comprehension of Him.37 The formula of union that Maimonides identifies as originating from the “philosophers” allows him to explain both the rabbinic symbol of light of the Shekhinah as a crown on the heads of the righteous, and the human intellect’s ability to “transport” from material existence into the noetic metaphysical angelic realm, existing as an individual “form” forever united in God’s knowledge. We will focus here on this key sentence: “And the meaning of [the locution] ‘their diadems are on their heads’ is the existence of the soul by [the dint of] the existence of the thing she knows, and its being identical with that thing 37 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, introduction to Perek Chelek, Hakdamot le-Ferush ha-Mishnah, ed. Mordekhai Dov Rabinovits (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1960), 125–127 the translation is that of Nachmanides who independently translates Maimonides’s Arabic reflecting a better translation than the one usually printed in the regular editions. The Hebrew translation by Nachmanides was translated in to English, quoted and analyzed by Idel, “On Maimonides in Nachmanides”.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

115

[Hi’ ve-hu’ davar’eħad]ˮ.38 Here, Maimonides explains the rich and complex symbol of the righteous man crowned in the light of God in the afterlife, in terms of full noetic union. This is a remarkably critical moment in which two worlds merge through Maimonides’ interpretation: a very rich and ancient rabbinic tradition applying the crown as a key symbol in regard to both God and man39 merges with the philosophical ideal of union. By the identification of crowning with union, Maimonides offers a key symbol for articulating the concept of union that will be used by many, including a number of early Kabbalists and in particular the author(s) of the Zohar. Crowning with or by the light of God is the key rabbinic symbol for contact with the divine;40 in Maimonides’ work, it was charged with unitive meaning and became an important image for eschatological union. One of the early Kabbalists who further developed this notion, Nachmanides, described explicitly how eschatological crowning is a state of union with the divine light.41 Following him and several of his contemporaries, we shall see in detail how the Zohar transforms crowning into the key symbol for a mystical union that is achievable for humans in the here and now—with other elements of the godhead or with the divine light itself. For Maimonides, the notion of noetic union is the bridge that allows for the intellect to move freely from the material to the non-material realms, and become an angel forever. Significantly, at this stage Maimonides considers metaphysical existence as a “realm” and not just as a pure mental “state”. In 38 On this specific phrase see the remarks of Georges Vajda, Recherches sur la Philosophie et la Kabbale dans la Penséee Juive du Moyen Age (Paris: Mouton, 1962), 26; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 5; and compare to Maimonides Mishneh Torah, laws of repentance, chapter 8, 2–3 and his analysis in the Guide, I:68, 164–165 (Pines Translation): “And it is become clear that the act of every intellect, which act consists in its being intellectually cognizing, is identical with the essence of that intellect. Consequently the intellect, the intellectually cognizing subject, and the intellectually cognized object are always one and the same thing in the case of everything that is cognized in actu”, according to the last statement, all of this is true only in thinking which is purely in actu meaning without potentiality or beyond material existence. 39 See: Arthur Green, Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997). 40 See: Adam Afterman, “‘Glorified with Embroideries of Songs’: A Chapter in the History of Mystical Prayer in Judaism” (forthcoming in DAAT Journal, in Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “The Identification of the Authors of Two Ashkenazi Commentaries to ha-’aderet veha’emunah and R. Elazar of Worms’ Theurgic Conceptions of the Divine Gloryˮ, Kabbalah 29, (2013): 67–208 (Hebrew). 41 See: Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 254 and note 429.

116

Chapter 6

that realm, not only there is a distinction between different forms or angels, but also a hierarchy based upon the level of participation in the divine knowledge, which depends on the amount of direct knowledge they have of divine wisdom. This linkage determines their standing on the ladder of angelic being. Thus Maimonides hints at the possibility that the higher-level angels may participate in some form of union with God. Returning to Maimonides’ discussion of eschatology, Moshe Idel has shown that the rare Arabic term “Al-mala Al-ala” refers to the angelic noetic realm with which the human intellect unites postmortem, which appears only in his early discussion in the Commentary on the Mishnah and in none of Maimonides’ later discussions.42 This term refers to the angelic divine realm, which resembles the angelic domain in Jewish Neoplatonic sources such as Ibn Ezra. Idel notes as well that the disappearance in Maimonides’ writings of this unique, mistranslated terminology for the angelic “pleroma” or “realm” is somewhat related to the disappearance of the epistemological unitive formula of “knowledge as union” or the “eschatological union”. In this union, angels, and to a certain extent also the intellects of the departed righteous, may become one with God; after uniting with the mediating noetic entities, these then participate forever in the intellection of God, thus possibly also uniting with Him.43 While this noetic principle has been applied to God, as is the case in the above passage, it disappeared both terminologically and conceptually in the later writings of Maimonides. However, this Maimonidian understanding of noetic union as a kind of scientific explanation of eschatological existence will be highly influential on the history of both Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah.44 In terms of understanding the human felicity to unite with the active intellect in this life, we find a clear difference between the early Maimonides, whose writing is deeply influenced by Ibn Sina, and the later Maimonides who most probably rejects the entire Neo-Aristotelian project of “knowledge as union” and the possibility of reaching union or even substantial communion with the active intellect. This skepticism represents another trend in the Falsafa

42 Idel, “On Maimonides in Nahmanides,” 145. 43 Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides,” 92, for example, assumes that while reaching the noetic union, the soul becomes one with the “creator”. 44 See: Dov Schwartz, “Avicenna and Maimonides on Immortality: A Comparative Study,” in Medieval and Modern Perspectives on Muslim-Jewish Relations, ed. Ronald L. Nettler (New York: Routledge, 1995), 185–197; Sarah Stroumsa, “True Felicity: Paradise in the Thought of Avicenna and Maimonides,” Medieval Encounters 4, 1 (1998): 51–77.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

117

tradition.45 As noted above, Jewish philosophers succeeding Maimonides do not follow him on this point; rather, they take on the line of Averroes, Ibn Tufayl and Ibn Bajja; the attempt to construct a noetic “bridge” between man and God remains a central theme in their writings. There are nevertheless a few key discussions in the Guide that were later read through an Averroistic lens by Maimonides’ students and followers, and that continue the discourse of “knowledge as union” and suggest that a noetic bridge does exist between the perfected and the divine. In the Guide (I:68), we find a classic formulation regarding the unity of the divine intellect in act, subject, and object.46 The unity of God’s thought is considered one of “the foundations of the Torah”47 while the exposition of the unity of God’s mind, based on Aristotle48 is taken further as true for any intellect including “ours”.49 Here Maimonides introduces the basic Neo-Aristotelian structure that allows the human thought to transform and become first united in itself and then possibly also one with the “pure” realized thought that exists “outside” in the metaphysical realm. In another key chapter of the Guide (III:51), Maimonides applies a set of terms, including ittihad, to deliver a binary theory of relationship to the divine and the metaphysical realm. It includes, on one hand, an intense erotic love of the transcendent God, unrelated to knowledge or cognition of Him; and on the other a technical non-personal and non-intimate communion leading finally to union with the active intellect.50 Referring to Moses and the Patriarchs, Maimonides writes in two different places about their union with the active intellect at a “kiss of death”: This was also the rank of the Patriarchs, the result of whose nearness to Him, may He be exalted, was that His name became known to the world through them: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob . . . this is My name for ever (Exod 3:15) because of the union of their

45 See: Shlomo Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge according to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in Studies in the History of Jewish Thought, ed. Warren Z. Harvey and Moshe Idel. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997), 404–431. 46 See: Josef Stern, The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 232–239. 47 Guide, chapter 1:68, Pines edition, 163. 48 Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda XII, 7, 9. 49 See: Guide, chapter 1:68, Pines edition, 165. 50 See: Ravitzky, “The Secrets”, 159–207.

118

Chapter 6

intellects through apprehension of Him,51 it came about that he made a lasting covenant with each of them: then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and so on (Lev 26:42) For in those four, I mean the Patriarchs and Moses our master, union with God- I mean the apprehension of Him52 and love of Him- became manifest, as the texts testify.53 While dwelling in the body, the elite undergo a process in which they dynamically cleave to the active intellect, and finally unite with it at the final moment of death. This is a technical process, not a religious one, as it does not constitute a relationship with God. The process of union and transformation works only in one direction, i.e. from the material realm to the non-material realm, although there is also an opposite dynamic of emanation of shefa, influx or noetic energy, from the active intellect into the human and the material domain. In general, this dynamic is not described as being embodied in or incarnating in the human agent. It is understood as a cognitive event inducing prophecy in certain circumstances, but without ontological changes in the status of the human. In other words, the fact the human is receptive to the noetic content emanating from the active intellect does not mean he is transformed into a “holy” man or a divine being, as in the case of Halevi’s theory of divine embodiment. On the other hand, the integration into the non-material realm is real, and leads to an eschatological union. The spirit that envelops the human mind affects only that part of the mind that is receptive enough. Only in very advanced states of conjunction on the verge of eschatological union would a person experience physical effects as well (as the most advanced prophecies of the biblical Moses were portrayed by Maimonides). In ­principle, the body is not a medium for the divine or the divine energy to dwell in, just the human psyche. In contrast, as we shall see, for the Kabbalists who have a much more positive view of the human body as an extension and reflection of the godhead, the body may in fact become a vessel for the divine dwelling, as in Halevi’s theory.54

51  Arabic: ’ittihād ’uqūlihim bi-’idrākihi. Guide, 3:51 (Joel, 459:16–17); Blumenthal, Philosophical Mysticism, 111 Note 17. 52 Arabic:   al-’ittihād bil-lāh ’a’nī ’idrākuhu wa-mahabbuhu, Maimonides, Guide 3:51 (Joel, 459:19). 53 Maimonides, Guide III:51, Pines Edition, 623–624. 54 See Yair Lorbebraum, In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Yair Lorberbaum, “Nahmanides’ Kabbalah on the Creation of Man in the Image of God,” Kabbalah 5 (2000): 287–326 (Hebrew).

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

119

The technical terminology of communion and union with the active intellect is external to the erotic love focused on God, and is shared by the early and later Maimonidian writings. The contrast between the beautiful and intense way Maimonides writes about the erotic love of God stands in a total contradiction to the technical and non-personal relations between the human intellect and the active intellect. The difference between the early and later Maimonides lies at the moment of transition from material to noetic existence; instead of uniting with the metaphysical “realm” of the angels as in the early Commentary to the Mishnah, in the Guide, the perfected men unite with the “active intellect” and are considered angelic beings. Before reaching this state, the mind must gradually cleave to the active intellect; once fully separated from corporality, it can reach union. Although the eschatological moment of transforming into an angel (i.e. becoming one with the active intellect), is unitive in character, it cannot be considered a form of union with God, nor can Maimonides be said to be presenting a form of either “philosophical mysticism” or “mystical philosophy” as in the debates we referenced above.55 In contrast to other readings of Maimonides, which argue that Maimonides simply describes a mystical process that leads to an experience of unio mystica with God,56 he is a rather conservative philosopher who does not promote any kind of integration or attachment to God.57 Maimonides’ choice of the terminology of ittihad in this context in the Guide (III:51) is remarkable and should receive proper notice,58 but it only signifies the completion of dynamic communion with the active intellect, at the moment of death alone. Here, God is not the subject of either ittisal or ittihad. Elliot Wolfson explains the farthest that Maimonides goes in his use of truly unitive terminology: Maimonides did allow for the possibility of union in the case of the ultimate act of worship, the highest level of prophecy attained by “the perfect noble ones” [. . .] a line of interpretation confirmed by the strong unitive language utilized to characterize the experience of devequt by 55 See: Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon”, 113–154; Gruenwald, “Maimonides’s Quest”, 141–157. 56 See: Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides,” 77–97; Freudenthal, “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon,” 113–114, 117. 57 Compare to Lorberbaum’s reading, in Dazzled by Beauty, 115–120 and Blumenthal, Philosophical Mysticism, 123. 58 See Blumenthal, Philosophical Mysticism, 77, 111, 123–124.

120

Chapter 6

subsequent exponents of Maimonides, including his son Abraham and his translator Samuel ibn Tibon.59 Indeed, Maimonides’ unitive vocabulary was strengthened and developed by some of his readers. For example, we find his student and first translator into Hebrew, Samuel Ibn Tibon, reading Maimonides through the lens of Ibn Rushed,60 who wrote: “The soul then unites with the intellect and they become one single thing, for then, the soul becomes divine, of a higher order, immortal as is the intellect with which it has united, the intellect whose being is separate from matter.”61 Ibn Tibon picks up on the mechanism of union with the active intellect as the key for achieving immortality—a theme that in the Guide is rather marginal, and discussed only briefly.62 In contrast to Maimonides himself, his student is very interested in this topic and argues that by uniting with the active intellect, the human intellect and the divine intellect become one. He uses the Maimonidean phrase “she and he are one” in reference to the human reaching the bliss of eternity.63 To conclude, Maimonides is essential to the development of key ideas and practices in early Kabbalah, and his impact should be viewed as part of a much wider exposure to different philosophical and theological sources, including Jewish-Arab Neoplatonism, Latin Neoplatonism, and Jewish theological authorities such as Yehuda Halevi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Shlomo Ibn Gabirol. We will now return to Nachmanides, the great critical reader of Maimonides and major Kabbalist, to see, beyond the way he quotes the long discussion 59 Wolfson, “Via Negativa,” 421. 60 On Averroes’ understanding of noetic union with the active intellect, see Alfred Ivry, “Averroes on Intellection and Conjunction,” Journal of the American oriental society 86 (1966): 76–85. 61 Samuel Ibn Tibon, Maamamar Yikkawu ha-Mayyim (Presbourg, 1837), 91. Translated by Idel in Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 5. 62 See Pines, “The Limitations,” 417–418. 63 Additionally, Hillel ben Shemuel of Verona, an important Averroist Jewish philosopher (and teacher of Abraham Abulafia), not only writes in his “Book of Rewards of the Soul” of Neo-Aristotelian developments, but also copies at length parts of Averroes’ “Treatise on the Conjunction with the Active Intellect”. He refers to several translations of Ibn Rushed, done by Ibn Tibon. In the midst of his discussion of the conjunction with the active intellect, Hillel writes about the union with the active intellect while using a strong phrase of union: “he is he”. Moses Narboni develops these ideas further in the 14th century, see: Hillel ben Shemuel of Verona, Book of Rewards of the Soul, ed. Joseph B. Sermoneta, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1981), 73, 76, 90 (Hebrew).

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

121

of Maimonides in his treatise, how he adapts some of Maimonides’ unitive vocabulary in order to enrich his own Kabbalistic eschatology. Generally speaking, for Nachmanides the eschatological process of integration is focused on the godhead; the human integrates and lives in and through the godhead and not as, in Maimonides theory, in an angelic realm. What he does take from Maimonides is the understanding that at some stage the human does unite with a specific noetic or mental “place” or grade in the godhead, and by that becomes a part of, integrated into, and united with that place. Union signifies this eschatological transformation. Yet for Nachmanides and many that will follow him (for example, Isaac of Acre to be analyzed below,) this special state of eschatological union is a mystical ideal that humans strive to realize in this life despite the risk of dying through doing so; a few figures—the ultimate mystics like Enoch—have managed to do exactly that. As in many other Kabbalistic systems, Nachmanides writes about another, opposite dynamic, that of the divine dwelling or descending in different forms of the Holy Spirit and angels into the concrete realm. In contrast with Maimonides’ view, this dynamic has ontological ramifications. The divine essence when it descends down to the concrete realm, and dwells in angels and humans, gains very particular features. Nachmanides develops an esoteric theory of embodiment of the divine essence in lower concrete vessels that is relevant not only for the perfected humans but also and especially for angels.64 This is, then, a doubled dynamic—that of the human going through a process of spiritualization and gradual integration including union into the godhead, accompanied by a parallel process of the divine integrating into and dwelling in the concrete realm, including within perfected humans. In Nachmanides’ system, and in contrast to Jacob Bar Sheshet’s (to be analyzed in chapter 7), the divine embodiment in humans is not characterized in unitive vocabulary but rather in anthropomorphic language. In other words, when the divine is embodied in a vessel, it becomes anthropomorphic or theomorphic and not one with God in the sense that the philosophers describe such unity. The synthesis of the divine with the vessel does not brings about a simple abstract union, but rather an ontological synthesis or unity. Nachmanides uses the language of union in order to describe a very specific element in an eschatological union where the human intellect unites with God’s mind, but at the same time other components of the human undergo a different process of integration. The moment of embodiment of the divine is not characterized as 64 See: Elliot Wolfson, “The Secret of the Garment in Nahmanides.” DAAT 24 (1990): xxv–xlix; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being 250–255; Lorberbaum, “Nahmanides’s”, 312–317.

122

Chapter 6

simple union, but rather in terms of an essence taking over the entire human, whose body now temporarily functions as an extension of the divine body as part of an organic whole. The same is true for the process of integration into the godhead; it is a proc­ ess of integration into a living organic being, and not just a union with a static mind. This is probably the most important difference between Maimonides’ and Nachmanides’ views of the afterlife: For Nachmanides, the human is integrated with his mind, soul, and body after going through a process of spiritualization that will allow him to exist as part of a divine living organism. For Maimonides, only the realized intellect unites with the sub-divine intellect and exists forever in the static mind of God. Toward the end of his treatise in the last part of Torat ha-’Adam, Nachmanides refers explicitly to Maimonides and quotes in Hebrew an entire discussion including the excerpt analyzed above. Nachmanides is very interested in those discussions by the young Maimonides, since they interpret some anthropomorphic expressions in mental or cognitive terms, and also allow an ontological understanding of the eschatological state as a union with the angelical realm and not just as a pure mental state. In other sections of the same book, this formula of noetic union serves a similar function, explaining how eventually the soul transforms and infuses into the godhead. What is important for Nachmanides is the idea that man can be transformed and elevated by uniting with divine knowledge, incorporated into the godhead: The existence of the soul in its unification with the “supernal knowledge” [daat ‘elyon] is like the existence of the angels, and the elevation of the soul over the body nullifies the corporeal faculties [. . .] to the point that the body exists as the existence of the soul without eating or drinking [. . .] for the existence of the body will be like the existence of the soul, and the existence of the soul will be united with the “supernal knowledge”.65 The unitive formula used by Nachmanides, which appears several times in his own discussions, allows for union to complete the transformation of man into the higher divine rank. The key phrase is they shall become one,66 as in the following example:

65 Translated and discussed by Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 253. 66 See Idel, “Nishmat ’Eloha”, 343–345.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

123

[The rabbis] said that their existence (i.e. after death or in the ­afterlife) will be in a being that is known to them, and that both they and He will become one, and this is the explanation of the scriptural phrase, “to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 11:22 and elsewhere).67 Nachmanides correlates the eschatological unitive formula, the symbol of crowning in light, and the symbol of eating or consuming the light—all related to the eschatological state. In between that state and the normal human state lies a spectrum of purification and transformation in which the human undergoes a process of integration in to the godhead.68 Nachmanides correlates the eating of the manna as a state of mystical cleaving and not union, as an intermediate state between the normal and eschatological union.69 Moshe Halbertal has argued that Nachmanides’ recurring use of noetic unitive formulas attests to the development of a path that leads to mystical union, as part of the mystical path ascribed to men in this life,70 but Nachmanides himself only applies this formula exclusively in order to explain the eschatological state. In this last passage quoted above, Nachmanides follows Abraham Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of a verse from Deuteronomy 11:22 as an expression of a promise of a future eschatological reward of “cleaving”, which signifies for Nachmanides a union with a particular aspect of the godhead considered inferior to the throne of glory. In this particular instance, the verse is not interpreted as a commandment or prescription of presence.71 Nachmanides employs a theory of integration into the godhead that begins in this life and culminates in the afterlife. The human soul is considered divine, and therefore able, along with his intellect and body, to undergo a process of purification that elevates and assimilates the different human components into the organic godhead. This process does not lead usually to a full union in this life, a union in which the entire human being is infused into the godhead, but rather to a gradual integration. The mystical transformation leading only at the end to a moment of union is based upon what Elliot Wolfson has called the “transformation of 67 Cited from Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, trans. David Goldstein, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3rd Vol., 1010, note 354 translating Nachmanides, Shaar ha-Gemul, Warsaw 1909, 46. 68 See Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 253–254 who qualifies this process in terms of “incarnational drift”. 69 See in his commentary to exodus 16:6 and Afterman, Devequt, 305–306. 70 See: Moshe Halbertal, By Way of Truth: Nahmanides and the Creation of Tradition, (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2006), 76, 128, 167, 206, 208 (Hebrew). 71 See: Afterman, Devequt, 302–303.

124

Chapter 6

the carnal body into the textual body of Torah”,72 and only after the unitive element comes into place. Generally, this unitive vocabulary serves Nachmanides only for the purpose of describing the advanced eschatological state of full integration into the godhead. In contrast to Maimonides and following Halevi, he believed however that on very rare occasions it is possible to reach the eschatological state while still in the body, as with Enoch and Elijah. Only in this sense is the eschatological union described with the Maimonidean formula of union relevant as a mystical goal in this life. In a key discussion, Nachmanides explains the following: Those who leave aside all matters of this world and do not pay attention to it as if they were not corporeal beings, and all their thoughts and intentions are toward their Creator alone, as in the case of Elijah, by the cleaving of their souls to the glorious Name, they live forever in their bodies and in their souls, as it appears in Scripture in the case of Elijah and according to what is known of it from the kabbalah, and as it is in legends about Enoch and those belonging to the world-to-come who will rise in the time of the resurrection. Therefore scriptural verses say regarding the reward for the commandments “in order that your days will be lengthened” (Exod 20:12), “in order that you may live” (Deut 16:20), “in order that you may lengthen the days” (ibid. 22:7), for the language comprises all the types of life as is appropriate for each one.73 Nachmanides here articulates a path of reintegration, not of acute union as in Abraham Abulafia’s radical mysticism (to be discussed in chapter 8). The different elements of human existence gradually merge into the divine in a process of “sublimation”—i.e., the afterlife is not static as for Maimonides, but a process of mystical elevation of the human into the dynamic godhead, continuing several steps after “death”. Only in rare cases do humans reach a unitive state with the godhead while still alive in the physical body, and in those cases the unitive vocabulary applies for them as well. In that case, we might consider their union in terms of a form of mystical embodiment, since the union takes place while they are still alive in their material bodies.74 In those rare 72 Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 250. 73 See: Nachmanides commentary on Lev 18:4 translated with discussion by Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 251 and Afterman, Devequt, 307–309. 74 See: Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 251–254 and compare to Scholem, Origins, 456 who wrote that “According to Nachmanides [. . .] Enoch and the three Patriarchs, Moses, and Elijah had achieved this supreme state already on earth; however, it is not a full unio

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

125

cases, the perfected human both has the divine embodied in him and is mentally and spiritually integrated and united in the divine. To explain how this state is possible, Nachmanides refers to the theory of mystical embodiment introduced by Yehuda Halevi in the Kuzari: While still in the body, the union with the godhead occurs within them, not inside the godhead as in “normal” eschatological union. Remarkably, Nachmanides uses Maimonides’ Neo-Aristotelian formula of noetic union to explain how the perfected mind unites with the divine “understanding”, and Halevi’s theory of mystical embodiment to explain how the divine embodies at the same time those that reach such union while still alive in their material body. Here we find a great example of how the two lines examined in this study—the line of philosophical union or henōsis on one hand, and the line of mystical embodiment on the other—merge together as early as the mid-13th century in the Kabbalah of a great rabbinical authority such as Nachmanides. Several Kabbalists follow Nachmanides and employ Maimonides’ formula of noetic union to designate the status achieved by humans who transform into angels and thus reach an eschatological angelic status. By uniting with the angelic rank many times associated with a divine rank, the human assimilates into their ontological rank or higher, and no longer are corporeal in the same manner as before. Maimonides’ identification of the “separate intellects” with different categories of angels, in particular that of the active intellect with the “ishim” or the archangel Gabriel, had important ramifications for the development of spiritual practices that focused on union with angels. For Maimonides who writes under the impact of Neo-Aristotelian philosophy, the “active intellect” is an abstract category of angels, not a personal or a specific angel, which was not true for some of the Kabbalistic systems drawing on him. The theory that allows for union with the angelic realm, which Nachmanides borrows from Maimonides, is extremely significant in his theory of apotheotic and eschatological existence. This theory allows Nachmanides to offer a systematic understanding of the afterlife, in which the human is elevated into a semi-divine

mystica with the deity but rather a communion, as we have argued at length in our discussion of the subject of kawwanah. In the prophetic vision, during which the soul is united with the objects of its contemplation, it is in this state of debhequth, that it obtains a ‘knowledge of God face to face.’ In this longing for its origin, the highest soul of man becomes capable of penetrating all the intermediary spheres and rising up to God by means of its acts—which, strangely enough, are united here with contemplation.”

126

Chapter 6

existence, but at the same time to account for the rare cases of apotheosis of Enoch and Elijah as a form of a unitive eschatological embodiment.75 It was Pico de Mirandola in the 15th century who first noticed that the ideal apotheosis of Enoch into the archangel Metatron was actually understood in Jewish sources as a form of unio mystica.76 This idea was first articulated in the writings of Jewish philosophers such as Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides, and further developed by different Kabbalists following Nachmanides. In several Kabbalistic sources from Nachmanides’ school,77 the ancient mode of apotheosis, most notably that of Enoch, was interpreted in terms of mystical union with a metaphysical entity, or a preexisting divine grade associated with the angel Metatron. In other words, the pre-medieval notion of transformation through ascension to a higher plane of existence was interpreted as a mystical process, in which the human (as a spiritual entity) unites with the angelic being, associated usually with metaphysical entities such as the “active intellect”, the “Nous” or a divine grade (sefirah), thus transforming the human into that entity. The element of union is used to explain the full transformation, rather than just a correlation or an “engagement” with that angel or sefirah. An actual union—in which the human becomes that entity or divine grade—differs substantially from engaging with an angelic entity through vision or even through spiritual cleaving, because the human in no more human. The union transforms the human into whatever he unites with; only through this philosophical mechanism of union could full mystical transformation be explained in the medieval mind—that is, with abstract and spiritual categories.78 Many Kabbalists took Maimonides’ noetic unitive formula and used it to explain this process of ontological transformation leading to complete unity with metaphysical or theosophical ranks identified as angels.79 Alongside the 75 See the sources and discussion in Lobel, “A dwelling place”. 76 See: Pico Della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man, trans. A. Robert Caponigri, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1967), 9; Idel, The Angelic World, 104. 77 On Nachmanides’ School, See: Moshe Idel, “We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This,” in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. Isadore Twerski, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 1983), 51–73; Moshe Idel, “Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman: Kabbalah, Halachah and Spiritual Leadership,” Tarbiz 64, (1995): 535–580 (Hebrew); Elliot Wolfson, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,” AJS Review 14, (1989): 153–78; Daniel Abrams, “Orality in the Kabbalistic School of Nahmanides: Preserving and Interpreting Esoteric Traditions and Texts,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 85–102; Haviva Pedaya, Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003) (Hebrew). 78 Compare to a different analysis by Oded Yisraeli, Temple Portals: Studies in Aggadah and Midrash in the Zohar, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2013), 94–99 (Hebrew). 79 See the comment by Idel, The Angelic World, 210, note 59.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

127

complete identification of the human with the angelic ontology, this transformation also leads to union with the “super human”, or the first ideal human “Adam”.80 Following Nachmanides, Bachya Ben Asher (1255–1340), a key Kabbalist in his school, also reflects upon the transformation of Enoch into Metatron the archangel, and describes it in terms of mystical union with this angel, who is considered a permanent rank in the theosophical realm, i.e., the godhead. By uniting with the godhead, Enoch cleaved and eventually united with “Metatron”, reaching a union while still alive. This discussion includes once again Maimonides’ formula of eschatological union.81 The same idea appears in an anonymous 13th-century source, which uses the Maimonidean eschatological formula in relation to Enoch’s apotheosis, presenting it in terms of unio mystica: And this attribute was transmitted to Enoch son of Jared, and he kept it, and would attempt to know the Creator, blessed be He, with the same attribute. And when he adhered to it, his soul longed to attract the abundance of the upper [spheres] from the [sefirah of] wisdom, until his soul ascended to and was bound by the [sefirah of] discernment, [Binah], and the two of them became as one thing.82 This is the meaning of what is written [Genesis 5:22]: “And Enoch walked with God.ˮ And it is written in the Alpha Beta de-Rabbi Akiva that he transformed his flesh into fiery torches, and he became as if he were one of the spiritual beings.83 Enoch did not merely become an angel, but rather was incorporated into a higher position in the midst of the godhead. His apotheosis is explained as a particular, powerful form of unio mystica in which he unites with a specific godly sefirah while dwelling in corporal existence. Residing in the godhead, it was “as if” he became a spiritual being, i.e. angel, but apparently even higher than the rest.

80 See: Idel, The Angelic World, 102–104; Moshe Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 234–237. 81 Bahya Ben Asher, Kitvei Rabbenu Bahya, ed. Hayyim D. Chavel, (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1981), commentary on Genesis 5:24. 82 Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 235 note 5, notes that this expression “became as one thing” is related to the perception of the experience of Enoch as a unio mystica. 83 Ms. Jerusalem 1959 8 fol. 200a; Translated by Idel, “On the Language,” 58; Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 235.

128

Chapter 6

In Abraham Abulafia’s mysticism, too (which will be discussed at length later in chapter 8), the specific union with the “active intellect” identified with the archangel Metatron84 is presented as a form of unio mystica.85 And following Abulafia, a key discussion by the Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac of Acre articulates this identification in a similar manner. Enoch’s mystical union with Metatron, now considered a hypostatic entity in the godhead, is in fact both a state of eschatological union with God and an apotheosis into a theosophical entity.86 This apotheosis is depicted as the ideal accomplishment of “eschatological union”, a union rarely achieved in this life and extremely dangerous to be able to achieve without actually dying. These later Kabbalists draw on Maimonides’ understanding of eschatological union, both in his Commentary to the Mishnah and his discussion in the Guide. Before we proceed to a detailed analysis of the ecstatic unitive Kabbalah, promoted by these two key Kabbalists (Abulafia and Isaac of Acre), we will first attend to a group of important Kabbalists who were greatly influenced by the Neoplatonic language of union, including the writings of Israeli and Ibn Gabirol, and the writings of several 12th-century key Jewish thinkers such as Abraham Ibn Ezra and Halevi. In general, the Neo-Aristotelian language of union served the early Kabbalists in articulating radical forms of mystical union that are normally achievable only after death, or in very rare cases during this lifetime, and thus stands more as a mystical ideal than a concrete, achievable experience. For Nachmanides, the state of eschatological union is post-nomian and in fact post-human, requiring most of us, aside from the rare individual, to die first. For Abulafia, it is essentially the same, but he allows for the possibility for more people to access such experiences if they are willing to undergo an extremely radical mystical path, that will practically tear their being apart and very violently allow them to achieve, in the here and now, the eschatological union that is normally reserved for the afterlife. As a practical matter, not that many people were interested in such a violent and radical path. In contrast to the Neo-Aristotelian language that served this purpose, the language of Neoplatonic union served the more “normal” mystical path of the kabbalists. Neoplatonic language was integrated into the nomian theurgical path, which used the elements of union as a tool without bursting through 84 See: Abulafia’s discussion in his: Sefer Sitrei Torah, (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 52–55 (the secret of the angel and intellect). 85 See: Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 236. 86 See: Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 236–237; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 67; Idel, The Angelic World, 104 and the discussion in chapter 9.

Moses Maimonides and Moses Nachmanides

129

or venturing beyond this world, or tearing apart the human composite. The Neoplatonic path was integrated in to the Jewish halakhic way of life, and its unitive elements were incorporated into the nomian path of Kabbalistic perfection. We will now examine just how 13th-century early Kabbalists incorporated the Neoplatonic vocabulary and language of union into a powerful mystical theosophical path.

Chapter 7

Mystical Union in Early Kabbalah With the emergence of medieval Kabbalah at the end of the 12th century in Provence and Catalonia, a unique new theosophical language developed with a strong affinity between theosophical dynamics and symbols, theurgical practice, and mystical experience. In sharp contrast to Maimonides, these Kabbalists developed a dynamic, diverse, and only sometimes unified godhead. At the same time, they were influenced by the spiritual Neoplatonic “path of return” developed in Muslim and Jewish sources, and made a considerable effort to incorporate some elements of the Neoplatonic path and the Jewish halakhic life form. The language of mystical union in the writings of the early Spanish Kabbalists was largely founded on the language of devequt. The notion of communion/union was introduced as a mystical goal in and of itself, and usually associated with the biblical commandment to “cleave” to the Lord. Even the more technical form of union with the divine as part of theurgic unification was associated with the fulfillment of the commandments to “cleave” to and “love” the Lord. One of the most important elements developed in light of the Neoplatonic discourse was the religious and mystical ideal of devequt and union, situated now in the heart of religious life and correlated with a set of other key religious values. In the Neoplatonic Kabbalah of Isaac the Blind (1160?–1235?), the first Kabbalist in Europe to compose a written treatise, we find theurgy and mystical union as two parts of the same dynamic.1 The contemplative, Neoplatonist form of mysticism practiced by Isaac the Blind (“The Hasid”) and his disciples was based on three concepts: devequt—mystical union/communion with the godhead; kavannah—mystical intention and concentration of thought during performance of ritual and commandments; and theurgy—an exchange of power between the illuminated and the godhead while and during the union and concentration of thought. The unique combination of contemplative elevation of thought and soul, union with the divine Name and sefirot, and theurgic practice (intended to affect the godhead and unify its different dynamic elements) formed the central core of the early Kabbalistic understanding of a 1 See: Scholem, Origins, 199–364; Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 73–102; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 288–306. I argued in Devequt, 169–175, in contrast to Scholem, that the ideal of communion and union is not yet developed in the Bahir.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_008

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

131

mystical practice that could accompany all forms of daily worship and ritual observance.2 The process of mystical cleaving and union in this type of Kabbalah is usually focused on the divine Wisdom, identified both with one of the higher “mental” sefirot or potencies in the godhead and with the Neoplatonic Nous. Simultaneously, the Kabbalist gathers the divine elements into a unified name that may be embodied in the human, and cleaves to it. The theurgical-mystical experience includes two unitive aspects: the union of human thought with its corresponding element in the godhead, as well as an “embodied union” described as the dwelling of the unified divine name in the midst of the Kabbalist. Early 13th-century Kabbalah incorporated the language of union from the various philosophical and theological sources discussed above, by which it introduced new forms of religious practices. Besides cultivating their profound interest in mystical experience and empowerment, vision and cleaving, and union with God as a goal in and of itself,3 the early Kabbalists incorporated these unitive practices as key elements in their theurgical performance, and as a tool for understanding the inner dynamics of Kabbalistic theosophy. Fundamentally, the Kabbalist’s engagement with the godhead is designed to lead to their mutual integration, as well as to the unification of the godhead itself, which may later embody the Kabbalist. The dynamics that are set off at the moment of union with a particular element in the godhead are then completed 2 See: Moshe Idel, “Some Remarks on Ritual and Mysticism in Geronese Kabbalah,” Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 111–130; Moshe Idel, “On R. Isaac Sagi Nahor’s Mystical Intention of the Eighteen Benedictions,” in Massu’ot, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, eds. Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994), 25–52 (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “Did Rabbi Isaac Sagi Nahor Believe in Metempsychosis? Some Remarks on the Study of Provencal Kabbalah”, in Romania, Israel, France: Jewish Trails, Volume in Honor of Prof. Carol Inacu, ed. D. Delamaire et al. (Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 2013), 51–60; Moshe Idel, “Prayer in Provence Kabbalah”, Likkutei Tarbiz 6 (2003): 421–442 (Hebrew); Adam Afterman, “Letter Permutation Techniques, Kavannah and Prayer in Jewish Mysticism,” Journal of the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6, no. 18 (2007): 53–59; Adam Afterman, The Intention of Prayers in Early Ecstatic Kabbalah: A Study and Critical Edition of an Anonymous Commentary to the Prayers, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004), 80–82, 90–92, 111–112, 121 (Hebrew); Haviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 163–164 (Hebrew); Scholem, Origins, 65, 100–102, 195–196, 306; Gershom Scholem, “The Concept of Kavvanah in the Early Kabbalah,” in Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, edit. Alfred Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 168, 174. 3 Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 288–306; Afterman, Devequt, 227–265.

132

Chapter 7

with a “secondary union” with a much more integrated godhead, or with its extension, as in a form of light or spirit. For these early Kabbalists, the inner dynamics of the multifaceted godhead include moments of union between its diverse elements, creating a mysterious unity. This process is often described as depending on Jewish ritual that creates contact with the divine elements and unifies them into a whole, so that the Kabbalist may then form a union with them as a single whole entity. A classic example of the way the early kabbalists described such a process can be found in the following: The Hasid [Isaac the Blind] our teacher said: The essence of the worship of the enlightened and those that meditate on His name is in the verse: “and cleave to Him” (Deut 13:5). This is a cardinal principle in the Torah with respect to prayer and blessings:4 that one must harmonize one’s thought with God’s “Faith” [Wisdom] as if it united above, to unify the Name in its letters and to comprise within it the ten emanations [sefirot] like a flame bound to a coal.5 Here, the union of human thought with divine wisdom constitutes the first step in the theurgical process of unifying the name with the divine potencies. The Kabbalistic theosophical language is dual—it both focuses on inner separation and the existence of distinct elements, and emphasizes the occasional union of those distinct elements. The dynamic of union assimilates into theosophical language by participation in its moments of inner harmony and union. This theosophical language is charged at times with profound sexual symbolism; images of love, kissing, and sexual union brings out the masculine and feminine elements in both the individual and collective aspects of union.6 We should therefore carefully distinguish the language of “theosophical union” from the language of mystical experience or union, which describes the interaction of the individual mystic with the divine or the participation with all of the above. Often Kabbalistic sources will focus on the “objective” or 4 As both prayer and blessings involve the pronunciation and meditation upon the name of God. 5 Ezra Ben Shlomo, in Commentary on the Song of Songs, in Kitvei Ramban, ed. Chayyim D. Chavel. (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964), 2nd Vol., 522. My translation is based also upon Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 290–291. 6 See: Mopsik, Sex of the Soul, 128–149; Daniel Abrams, The Female Body of God in Kabbalistic Literature, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004), (Hebrew).

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

133

“­ theosophical” dynamics of union (possibly as a result of a prior Kabbalistic action), without necessarily emphasizing the experiential element of human participation. In some cases, the union of thought leads to a level of initial integration into the godhead that leads then to a second order dynamics in which the human agent takes part in the theosophical dynamics of union. In those cases, the partial integration into the godhead allows for the human component then to become a subject of the theosophical “objective” dynamics and language of union. Below, we shall look at several key examples of theosophical unitive vocabulary, which naturally resulted from the diverse, dynamic notion of the godhead in the monotheistic tradition. In order for the Kabbalistic godhead to somehow still represent the idea of monotheism, even “organic monotheism”, it must first undergo a process of inner unification. The more dynamic and elaborated the theosophy, the stronger the language of union applied; thus the Zohar, with its strong mythical and sexual theosophical imagery, developed a correspondingly powerful vocabulary of theosophical union.7 Only by means of inner unification can the Kabbalistic godhead stand up to the philosophical ideals of tawhid. The belief that God is “one,” and at the same time a complex set of personalities, powers and aspects, evoked the need for a strong theosophical language of union, that may absorb the mystics who actively take part in divine life. As reinforcement for this approach, one may consider 13th-century Kabbalah’s representation of boundaries between the human and the godhead, which are rarely clear or defined. Perhaps the most fundamental idea that this literature conveys is the mutual, affective openness of the channels between the godhead and the Jewish people. Thus, the same language of union that strongly applies to and within the divine must somehow apply to humans, at least at those special moments of integration. In early Kabbalah, the human agent is actively involved in the realization of the godhead’s inner unification by means of sacred theurgy, especially prayer and daily blessings. In this tradition, the Kabbalist actively initiates, acts upon, and unifies the diverse and dynamic theosophy (in the form of the divine name and the sefirot), and as a consequence of doing so, he may enjoy moments of harmony, unity, and bliss that emerge from the divine. Once theurgy is linked to the strong language of theosophical union as means for action, one enters the infusion leading to a form of mystical union or a form of participation in the inner union of the godhead. These three elements—­ theosophical union, theurgy of union (i.e. designed to unite the godhead in 7 See the discussion in chapter 10.

134

Chapter 7

itself) and mystical union—are the corner stones of classical Kabbalah. In some discussions, the language of union is used in reference to only one or two of the poles, while in others it refers to all three. For most early Kabbalists, the godhead’s inner union is actively brought about by Kabbalistic practices and sacred Jewish theurgy. Although sometimes this crucial process of unification is described as occurring independently, the Kabbalist is never considered totally detached from the divine dynamics; rather, he is usually depicted as participating in this greater event, even actively initiating it and possibly experiencing it. This participation in the inner unity of the godhead is often described as an ontological state rather than an experience. The language of union serves a crucial role in theurgic dynamics, for to truly be able to impact the dynamic godhead one must first unite its multiplicity into a much simpler and unified being, ready for effective human action. This logic resembles the mystical one—to allow human interaction with the godhead, it must first be simplified, unified, and accessible for mystical encounter. While in the purely philosophical settings man was required to transform himself to become a simple, abstract, non-dynamic, un-concrete and non-particular entity, in order to integrate with the divine— here the divine needs to first undergo such process in order to allow the human agent to interact with it, both theurgically and mystically. For example, by uniting with God’s thought, the human mind can take control over the lower sefirot, governed by divine Wisdom, and act upon them, unifying them into an entity available for mystical encounter in different ways; one may unite the lower with the higher sefirot or with the divine name, as well as many other theurgical procedures, all of which depend on the initial union of the human with divine thought. Without fully uniting with the divine thought, situated in the higher sefirot, the human cannot fully take control over the divine power system nor unify its elements. In the second stage to come, the Kabbalist may experience a more significant contact, as the embodiment of the Holy Spirit or name in his very momentary existence. The first Kabbalists borrowed two dialects of unitive language and applied them in different manners, thus constructing the axis of mystical integration and communion/union. The first was the schema of “knowledge as union” imported to explain the union of human thought with divine wisdom or understanding, occurring in the midst of the godhead. The second was the language of “embodied union”, imported to explain the integration of the unified divine, the divine spirit or name, within man. 13th-century Kabbalah clearly continues both theories, systematized together; as we shall see, many times both forms of union work together and

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

135

union takes place at the same time both in the godhead and in the human through extensions of the divine essence such as the Holy Spirit. Additionally, 13th-century Kabbalists added their own notions of embodiment as union, developing new and unique expressions of this concept, as we saw above in the case of Nachmanides.8 Significant among them is the identification between the Torah and the commandments, and God or the godhead,9 which led to the articulation of new forms of integration and union with the divine: a union with the Torah and the commandments both in the midst of the godhead and through physical embodiment of the ritual or commandment in the human social sphere. This interpretation evokes the Torah as a body, a textual body that e­ mbodies the divine, and opens up new understandings of what it means to engage with the Torah and the commandments.10 In addition, concrete halakhic performances were perceived as ritualistic embodiment of the Torah, i.e. divine. Due to the initial identification of the divine with the Torah and commandments, learning Torah and performing the commandments as “vessels of light” was in early Kabbalah a powerful manner of embodying divine light and spirit in within concrete human existence.11 We might classify the different trends of early Kabbalah by the degree to which they were influenced by the philosophical discourse of union with God. The more philosophically orientated the Kabbalist is, the more likely we are to find an articulated and explicit ideal of spiritual union with God. In several discussions, written by R. Isaac the Blind’s students, the idea of devequt is depicted as leading to union with God’s Wisdom as an end in and of itself, the fulfillment of the biblical commandment to “cleave to God”. Yet in other discussions, the dynamic of union is depicted only as an element in a theurgical process leading to another type of union with the dwelling “aspect” of the divine—i.e. the name, the Shekhinah or the spirit. This is usually implemented through sacred theurgy or other special techniques.12 Elements of­ 8 See above in chapter 6. 9 See: Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002), 45–79; Idel, Old Worlds, New Mirrors: On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-Century Thought, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 177–182; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 202–207. 10 See: Wolfson, “The Body in the Text.” 11 See: Moshe Idel, “Some Remarks on Ritual and Mysticism in Geronese Kabbalah,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 111–130. 12 See: Idel, “Some Remarks,” 111–130; Afterman, “Letter Permutation,” 66- 68, 71–87; Howard Kreisel, “From Dialogue to Contemplation—The Transformation of the Meaning of Prayer in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of Bracha

136

Chapter 7

unitive mysticism alongside the language of union are evident in the writings of Ezra Ben Shlomo, a senior disciple of R. Isaac the Blind. Drawing on philosophical sources, perhaps but not necessarily on Maimonides’ discussion in his Arabic Commentary on the Mishnah, he introduced into Kabbalah the articulated understanding of mystical cleaving and union. In a short discussion later quoted by several other Kabbalists, he uses a phrase describing noetic union in order to enrich the mystical contemplative model focused on the divine Wisdom (a tradition he received from his teacher): Say to Wisdom: ‘You are my sister’ (Proverbs 7:4) That is to say, to unite [human] thought to Wisdom [Hokhmah] as if they will be one thing.13 Isaiah Tishby published the commentary to the midrash by Ezra’s colleague, Azriel of Gerona, who quotes this exact sentence from Ezra’s commentary. Tishby argues that Ezra adopted Maimonides’ formula of noetic union, as applied in his Commentary on the Mishnah discussed in detail above.14 However, Ezra (who quotes Maimonides only rarely) does not mention Maimonides here at all. As a Neoplatonic Kabbalist, his orientation differs from Maimonides; such a formula could have been derived from many Neoplatonic sources.15 Here in Ezra’s short sentence we bear witness to a clearly non-­eschatological state, in which the mechanism of noetic union is used as a component in a distinct mystical theurgical practice, thus making it unlikely that (as Tishbi would have it) it is Ezra’s intention to apply Maimonides in this specific case. We must be careful not to identify all philosophical influence on early Kabbalah with Maimonides alone. There are a variety of manners in which the philosophical vocabulary of noetic union, including Neoplatonic terminology, was adopted into Kabbalistic systems, enriching the mystical path leading to union with the divine wisdom.

Sack, ed. Zeev Gries et al. (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2004), 59–83; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 190–195 and Eitan P. Fishbane, As Light Before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 127–140. 13 Azriel of Gerona, Commentary on Talmudic Aggadoth, ed. Isaiah Tishby, (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1945), 20 (Hebrew), translation cited from Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1010 n. 354, quoting Ezra Ben Shlomo from his commentary, See: Liqqutei Shikhehah u-Peah, (Ferrara, 1556), 5b. Compare to the translation in Wolfson, “Via Negativa”, 422. 14 Isaiah Tishby, Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 20, note 11. 15 Compare to Wolfson, “Via Negativa” and Afterman, Devequt, 259–260.

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

137

This short quote from Ezra’s commentary drew much attention from many scholars, who provided different explanations of its unitive expression. Tishby in a footnote to his Wisdom of the Zohar wrote that: . . . remarks of this kind introduce into the idea of devequt a note of unio mystica, contrary to Scholem’s categorical conclusion that devequt is not to be identified with mystical communion [. . .] In my view there are other currents in Kabbalistic teaching and practice, particularly from the Safed period onward, that are meant to lead to unio mystica in a far more concrete and experiential manner than one would infer from the studies of Scholem.16 In his groundbreaking, extensive studies on mystical union, Idel had listed this quote as an example of mystical union.17 I have argued elsewhere that this specific sentence “That is to say, to unite [human] thought to Wisdom [Hokhmah] as if they will be one thing” in this discussion, does not describe mystical union for the following reasons: A system in which, first, the soul is an essential element which undergoes only a partial process of integration into the godhead, and second, only human thought is uniting with the divine thought and for theurgical reasons only, does not indicate on the whole a unitive integration of the entire human into the godhead. This is merely one element of union that takes part in the wider dynamics of partial integration of the human into the godhead for both mystical and theurgical purposes.18 The unification of human and divine thought, or alternatively the human soul into the divine soul, serves specific purposes leading towards a fuller integration in the second stage when the integrated and unified name or spirit envelops the human agent. One of these purposes is the mystical dynamics of light and content, shifting from the divine to the human agent as an element of prophecy and ecstatic prayer.19 Others are purely theurgical. In both cases, union with divine thought became fundamental for the inner dynamics of both the godhead and the mystic.

16 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1010, n. 354. 17 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 46–47. 18 See Afterman, Devequt, 235–253; Afterman, The Intentions of Prayers, 125–129. 19 See Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 297–300; Scholem, Origins, 299–309, 412–430; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati, 127–132, Jonathan Garb, The Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004), 74–79 (Hebrew); Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 140–207 (Hebrew).

138

Chapter 7

In another treatise, the “Secret of the Tree of Knowledge” (a fascinating source ascribed in some manuscripts to the same Ezra ben Shlomo), a union of the human soul and the universal soul is presented as the explanation of the dynamics of prophecy and religious perfection:20 The righteous man, who raises his pure and immaculate soul to the supernal “holy soul”, unites with it and knows the future; and that is the meaning of the prophet and his path, for evil urge has no power over him to separate him from the upper soul. That is why the prophet’s soul unites completely with the upper soul, and with his intellect [he] fulfills the Torah, for they [the commandments] are incorporated within him. That is why our sages said that the Patriarchs fulfilled the Torah in their intellect, and they said that the patriarchs are themselves the merkavah [chariot, for God], and the same is also true of their children after them, and of every righteous man. [. . .]21 Here we find a few Kabbalistic additions to the standard Neoplatonic model of union between the particular soul and the universal soul, which is depicted as an explanation of prophecy (as in similar discussions by Abraham Ibn Ezra and other Neoplatonists). Here in the Kabbalistic discussion, the universal or divine soul is identified with the godhead i.e. the lower sefirot, the Torah and the commandments. The association of the Torah and the commandments with the godhead and the divine soul (itself a form of embodiment) is fundamental to classic Kabbalah.22 Here too we can detect a spectrum of integration with the godhead: while only cleaving to the Torah and the commandments as divine vessels, the mystic is required to embody them within his corporal self, through concrete physical performance and the uttering of actual words

20 See Afterman, Devequt, 237–239; Idel, “On the Language,” 57–58; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 298. 21 The Secret of the Tree of Knowledge, (attributed to Ezra of Gerona by Scholem), translated by Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, 66–67. Cf. the translation by Idel, “On the Language,” 58: “The righteous causes his unblemished and pure soul to ascend [until she reaches] the supernal holy soul [and] she unites with her [the supernal soul] and knows future things. And this is the matter [in which] the prophet acted, as the evil inclination did not have dominion over him, to separate him from the supernal soul. Thus the soul of the prophets is united with the supernal soul in a complete union.” 22 See Adam Afterman, “The Phylactery Knot: The History of a Jewish Icon.” in Myth, Ritual and Mysticism, ed. Gideon Bohak et ad. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014), 441–480 (Hebrew).

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

139

while blessing the performance, ritual or commandment.23 The physical performance is accompanied by the mental kavvanah through which the mystic reaches union with the divine wisdom or the divine soul associated with the lower sefirot. Only then he is ready to actively draw light from the higher sources of the godhead (usually from the light of “Wisdom”), to the specific “form” (a commandment or portion of the Torah that is now performed). By drawing the light down to the lower vessel, associated with the divine soul, the Kabbalist maintains the inner balance and harmony between the higher abstract sefirot and the lower more concrete sefirot, which usually suffer from a disassociation and distance from the source of light. Through the integration into the godhead and by means of sacred theurgy, the Kabbalist can vitalize the “sons” below, drawing “light” or “water” from the higher source in “Wisdom” to the lower sefirot and through them to himself. Through this performance in the physical domain, the practitioner completes the circle and draws the light also into his soul and body.24 In the final stage, the Kabbalist like the lower sefirot is a vessel for ­mystical light, and receives the Holy Spirit that functions here as an extension of the essence of the godhead. Some humans are so intensely associated with the divine, the hypostatical Torah, and the commandments that they need not perform the commandments on the physical level in order to unite with them in the midst of the godhead. Such were the Patriarchs who lived before the Torah was given, i.e. revealed from its theosophical being into its historical existence; every tzaddik ever since has the option of uniting with the soul of God, which embodies the Torah and the commandments. By means of union (and not mere cleaving), the Patriarchs performed the rituals and commandments while these were only “forms”, theosophical “beings”, or “ideas”, fully embodying them. This idea—that the Patriarchs performed the commandments through mystical union before these were revealed, embodied from the divine into the history of concrete human existence at Sinai—is relevant for all who have achieved such a level of perfection and union; they must have served as a “merkavah”, a chariot to the divine indwelling. 23 See Afterman, The Intentions of Prayers, 126–127; Afterman, “The Phylactery Knot,” 473–474. 24 See Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 208–209; Idel, “Some Remarks”; Moshe Idel, “Performance, Intensification, and Experience in Jewish Mysticism,” Archaevs XIII (2009): 95–136; Moshe Idel, “On the Performing Body in Theosophical-Theurgical Kabbalah: Some Preliminary Remarks,” in The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity, in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, eds. Maria Diemling and Giuseppe Veltri (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 251–271; Afterman, Devequt, 253–265.

140

Chapter 7

This is a classic example of what we referred to earlier as “positive” and “embodied” union. Not only did the Patriarchs obtain their living, sensual, particular identity in the moment of union, they were embodied with divine fullness, a texture extracted from the Torah. This union does not consist of “ideas” or noetic forms, but rather the Torah woven from the Tetragrammaton and halakhic forms or vessels, by which a reverse union occurs—man dwelling in god dwelling in man. This practice initiates another major form of embodiment practiced by the Patriarchs, becoming a “chariot” or a “temple” to or for the divine. We shall return to this idea, exploring its development from early Kabbalah to its fuller articulation in the writings of Jacob bar Sheshet and Isaac of Acre, leading to its radical discussion by one of the first Hasidic masters. Another important theme is that of uniting with God’s Will, as part of the performance of ritual and as a way to draw down to man through the theosophy the energy, the light, and Holy Spirit. Azriel of Gerona introduces this notion that only through union with God’s Will, the sacred theurgical process (in this case that of a sacrifice) may be effective.25 The union with the source of power above Wisdom in the godhead is the condition for a successful theurgic act. The initial union is followed by a second wave of emanation of the Holy Spirit, now emanating from the inner unity of the godhead, with which the priest is thought to unite: More on the secret of the sacrifice from the Kabbalist Azriel: In the [book of] Bahir is it written: “What is a sacrifice? That it brings close the powers/entities”26 and the meaning of this is that the sacrifice is separated and his different limbs are separated from each other but its function is one: to vitalize and strengthen the human soul. So in that way while sacrificed all the limbs are serving one purpose and they all return to one spirit (the Holy Spirit) that the human soul enjoys and becomes “as if it is one with it”.27 By uniting with the divine Will, emanating from the highest source in the godhead, the priest facilitates the process of regaining the godhead its inner unity. In this context, the product of the theurgic act of yichud is crucial: the Holy Spirit emanates from the godhead, where the human agent first united, 25 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 984. 26 See The Book Bahir, Abrams Edition, 78, 165. 27 Ms. Vatican 211, 10b quoted by Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalistic Interpretations of the Secret of Arayyot in Early Kabbalah,” Kabbalah 12 (2004): 122–124 and note 200 (Hebrew); Afterman, Devequt, 267.

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

141

a­ vailable for union with the priest. In Scholem’s typology of early Kabbalistic mystical practices, he emphasizes the understanding of kavvanah as the unification of the human will with the divine Will: There is no doubt that here, in the mystical conception of the kavvanah of prayer, the Jewish form of the unio mystica, the basic act of mysticism, makes its appearance; it contains those aspects of the unio which alone can become vital for a Jewish mystic. For this is certainly not a union of the essences of God and man, but the “short circuit of the will” (as I would like to call this process) that is bought by kavvanah. For those early kabbalists, the fixed text of prayer was the precious setting for the pearl of an experience of God; of a genuine unio per voluntatis conformitatem realized by means of kavvanah. Kavvanah is thus a process in which meditation concerning divine things in prayer takes place: in it the limited passes into the limitless, and the two unite with one another.28 This dynamics can be found in yet another later source published by Scholem, known as the “Chapter on Kavvanah by the Early Kabbalists” (“Sha‘ar ha-­ Kavvanah le-Mekubalim ha-Rishonim”).29 This text propounds what Scholem considered a type of unio mystica, in which “the upper [divine] will clothes itself in his [the mystic’s] will”, leading to some sort of “identification” between the two wills.30 Scholem also notes some similarities between the unitive mysticism embodied in this text and Abulafia’s ecstatic unio mystica.31 We will quote here only the most important part of this very interesting treatise: And he who in this manner lifts himself by the strength of his intention from one thing to another, until he reaches the Infinite must direct his kavvanah in a way that corresponds to that which he wishes to accomplish, so that the upper will clothes itself in his will [. . .] when the upper will and the lower will in its identification, in its adherence to unity, 28 Gershom Scholem, “The Concept of Kavvanah,” 166; Scholem recognizes that in some of the discussions the element of union is not the will but the soul or thought (ibid., p. 167). 29 Scholem, “The Concept,” 172–174; Scholem, Origins, 416. 30 Scholem, “The Concept,” 171. 31 Cf. Lawrence Kaplan, “Faith, Rebellion, and Heresy in the Writings of Rabbi Azriel of Gerona,” in Faith: Jewish Perspectives, eds. Avi Sagi and Dov Schwartz (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 298 note 32; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 301–302; Scholem, Origins, 419; Garb, The Manifestations of Power, 79–80.

142

Chapter 7

become one, then the stream gushes forth with sufficient strength to accomplish his intention.32 The circle of students of the Hasid (R. Isaac the Blind), active in Gerona, developed different mystical practices of integration into the godhead as part of sacred Kabbalistic theurgy. We have seen that the element of union of thought with thought, soul with soul or will with will are key features of the theurgic practice that leads to a secondary integration of the human as a whole and the divine as a whole. I would now closely examine the most elaborated theory of mystical union and embodiment, as it appears in the writings of yet another member of the Gerona circle active during the middle of the 13th century: Jacob bar Sheshet. One of the most original ideas and practices produced by 13th and 14thcentury Kabbalists following Judah Halevi is the idea that the mystic may erotically unite with the divine by means of his body, as well as with the feminine persona of the divine, with the Tetragrammaton or the holy spirit dwelling in him. In contrast to the more philosophically orientated models of perfection, in which the body, its faculties, and the somatic existence in general were considered obstacles to reaching perfection and assimilating into the divine, there are alternative models in which the Kabbalists view the body as a locus and an instrument for the dwelling of the divine (many times in the form of the Tetragrammaton or the holy spirit), leading to moments of union inside the mystic. In this model, the divine and the human become one, not in the midst of the abstract and transcendent realms of divinity, but rather in the midst of the concrete human himself. The application of such a model in the writings of Moses Nachmanides has been previously noted; a similar model of “corporal union” appears in the writings of Jacob bar Sheshet, in mid-13th-century Catalonia.33 Elliot Wolfson, Charles Mopsik, and Daniel Abrams have examined different aspects of the “embodied union” in classic Kabbalah.34 A key to this idea may be found, as mentioned in chapter one above, in the manner that Kabbalists 32  “Chapter on the Kavvanah by the Early Kabbalist”, translated by Scholem, “The Concept”, 173. 33 See: Gad Freudenthal, “The Kabbalist R. Jacob ben Sheshet of Girona: The Ambivalences of a Moderate Critique of Science (ca. 1240),” in Temps I Espais De La Gerona Jueva: Actes del Simposi Internacional Celebrat a Gerona, ed. Silvia Palanas i Marcé (Gerona: Patronat del Call de Gerona, 2011), 287–302; Afterman, Devequt, 270–285. 34 See Wolfson, “The Body in the Text,” 479–500; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 39–40, 207– 209; Mopsik, Sex of the Soul, 128–149; Abrams, The Female Body, 45–151.

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

143

read Genesis 2:24, particularly the expression “and they shall be one flesh”.35 In contrast to Philo, for whom this verse serves as an important element in his non-corporal mystic henōsis, as Charles Mopsik has shown this verse (read as correlating corporal or sexual union with divine union) was fundamental for several Kabbalists who developed what I would call a corporal understanding of mystical union. Jewish mystics were able to unite with God while in their bodies as part of the physical performance of ritual, and not only with their souls or minds; this allowed for an entire new range of mystical practices of union to be developed beyond the purely philosophical concepts and vocabulary. Moreover, since union was considered by several Kabbalists (particularly in the Zohar) as a corporal activity, its practice was easily correlated with other major corporal activities, such as performing rituals and commandments and even to the act of sexual intercourse. As we shall see, some Kabbalists did not hesitate to correlate mystical union with sexual intercourse between husband and wife. This reveals much about their perception of mystical union as an embodied performance, both somatic and halakhic, a vision far from the apophatic “negative” Neoplatonic unio mystica that served as a theological criteria in previous scholarship. Here we find a distinct Jewish form of union, very much coherent with the fundamental characteristics of Kabbalah, but differing greatly from the apophatic negative union, and also further developed from the model of “knowledge as union”. The union happens at once in the divine realms and inside the human body, including all parties: God, the Torah, the community and the individual are all fused together in the moment of union, while the human becomes a vessel for the divine essence to dwell in. In the Zohar, a special correlation was established between the performance of sexual relations with the concrete human wife and the parallel union with the Shekhinah.36 Another interesting form of embodied union may be found in the secret of eating and ritual meals,37 as uniting with the divine light is described as consuming and eating light.38 This set of symbolism is rather sophisticated, as it considers eating as a fallen form of mystical union with the divine light. 35 See further Wolfson, “Bifurcating”, 103–119. 36 See Yehuda Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah”, in Essential Papers on Kabbalah, ed. Lawrence Fine (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 212– 242; Abrams, The Female Body, 29–44; Wolfson, “Bifurcating”. 37 See Joel Hecker, Mystical Bodies, Mystical Meals: Eating and Embodiment in Medieval Kabbalah, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005), 82–115; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 253–254. 38 Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 362.

144

Chapter 7

Uniting with the light is depicted as the true form of consumption or eating. As food is a fallen form of light, so is eating a primitive or fallen form of consumption or union with light. The eschatological existence is characterized by the spiritualized body, which lives like the angels, solely on divine light that sustains both angels and humans at that state. Moses, while spending 40 days on the mountain, reached that specific state and survived those days by consuming light. In between the mystical consumption of light as mystical union and the fallen form of eating known to us as normal eating is a spectrum along which eating can be transformed into something more spiritual and even mystical. This is exemplified in the Manna, which the generation that escaped Egypt consumed in the desert. The eating of the Manna was a form of mystical cleaving, between normal eating and the mystical and unitive eating of the light that is characteristic of eschatological existence. It was considered a spiritual food, as its taste was determined by human imagination. This generation was considered by some Kabbalists from the Zohar circle(s) as spirituality advanced, achieving the stage of spiritual eating just below that state of eschatological union and consumption of the light.39 Following other Geronise Kabbalists, Bar Sheshet identifies the contact of human thought and divine thought as unitive. What is unique in his system is the fact that he imports the phrase of union originating from a philosophical source and applies it to describe the contact of the human soul with some of the lower dimensions of the godhead.40 The combination of a momentary union of human thought with divine thought, and the union of the human soul with the corresponding divine soul (as in the source by ben Shlomo discussed above), allows for the human to become a momentary vessel, as the entire lower structure of the sefirot, for the presence of the divine essence. At the core of this theory lies the understanding that at least the “lower” sefirot serve as vessels for the divine essence, the Tetragrammaton, who may dwell in each of them. By undergoing integration into the sefirotic structure, the human becomes part of this structure of vessels, allowing the divine to dwell inside of him for the time being. At that time, the human, like any other sefirah, is named after the divine name dwelling in him. The embodiment of the Tetragrammaton leads to momentary union of the human and the divine. The tzaddik/Kabbalist is then an extension of the godhead, acting below on behalf of the name dwelling in him, just like the Patriarchs and prophets who transformed into a “chariot” for the divine essence. 39 Hellner-Eshed, A River, 86–92. 40 See Afterman, Devequt, 270–285.

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

145

In a critical and groundbreaking discussion, Jacob Bar Sheshet analyzes two key biblical and rabbinical images, enthronement and merkavah, as symbols of mystical union. Clearly, due to God’s metaphysical, incorporeal Being, both symbols signify for Bar Sheshet the union between God as the Tetragrammaton and one of the following entities: a divine vessel (sefirah), an angel, or a human. Taken from the Bible as well as other classic sources, the image of God “sitting” on a throne or a chariot symbolizes here the union of God with a lower vessel, usually an angel or human; upon uniting with the particular entity, God’s name transforms into the entity, while specific qualities of that entity (including its name) are integrated into God. Bar Sheshet explains that every occurrence of enthronement imagery symbolizes God joining in union with a divine vessel—i.e. one of the sefirot, an angel, or a human. He applies strong unitive language to characterize this sort of embodiment, presenting it as a symbol for a mutual union, in which the names and attributes of both parties merge. For Bar Sheshet, the process of integration into the godhead undergoes through two stages in the dynamics of union: in the first, the agent unites with the divine thought and by this initial union of thought actively becomes an extension and a part of the godhead. This initial integration allows for the theurgic procedure of acting upon the dynamic godhead and bringing it back to its inner harmony and unity; at the same time, as result of this process, the human soul (due to this initial integration into the godhead) is now one of the potential vessels of the divine, yet another vessel of the godhead like and in comparison to the sefirot and angels. We should bear in mind that this practice functions through a theory of the godhead as comprised of vessels and divine essence. The sefirot are not absolutely the divine essence, but rather vessels that the divine essence may dwell in under certain circumstances. When the divine name or spirit dwells in a specific sefirah, there is a temporary union between the essence and the vessel, and the sefirah then is identical to God. The same dynamics are true regarding the perfected humans who transform themselves into vessels capable of receiving the divine indwelling. The divine essence, the Tetragrammaton, may dwell in the human soul in a similar manner to the way he dwells in the sefirot and angels. The initial integration reached by the union of thought and the dynamics of devequt allow the human now to be part of the godhead as a potential vessel of mystical dwelling. Once the divine essence dwells in that human, the Kabbalist describes this dwelling with unitive vocabulary—the human vessel becomes one with the divine name. As we shall see in detail, this process of initial integration into the godhead, which then allows for the human to participate in theosophical or even

146

Chapter 7

e­ schatological dynamics of union that are usually inaccessible, will also be reflected in some of the Zoharic homilies. The dynamics that lead, after the initial integration, to the full fusion between the human vessel and the divine allows Bar Sheshet to offer quite a surprising interpretation of the anthropomorphic language in the Torah. He argues that in the Torah, God’s classic depictions as having a body and limbs refer directly to moments in which he was embodied in human beings.41 Proper understanding of anthropomorphic language in the Torah actually decodes moments of embodiment and mystical union.42 The throne and footstool imagery in Kabbalah do not refer to physical items but are relational terms indicating the mutual unitive relations between God and his receptive vessels. The vessels are given God’s name, which embodies the angel or human, enabling them to function as messengers in the world below, while God may use their physical forms as he wishes.43 Normally humans do not reach such elevated union while still alive, but rather first cleave to the angelic rank, which in its turn is uniting with God: The Torah calls the union of the angels with the creator may He be blessed, by the word Throne; and the union of man to the angelic union is Footstool [. . .] For man is incapable of uniting with the Creator in a permanent, unmoving union, for man is composed of the four elements . . .44 The union of God with the different entities who are engaged in thinking of him has ontological ramifications: “This is the rule: the attached entity is called the name of the thing to which it is attached; and the thing by the name of that which is attached to it”.45 He further refers to the idea that “There are those that are called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and they are the righteous, the Messiah, and Jerusalem . . . All of these instances prove that that which is attached to a thing is called by the thing’s name . . .”.46 The righteous are named after God due to the divine name dwelling within them. Bar Sheshet provides a good example of the manner in which early Kabbalists not only absorbed but transformed the philosophical (both Neoplatonic and 41 Jacob Bar Sheshet, “Response of Correct Answers”, Chapter II, in The Early Kabbalah, ed. Joseph Dan, texts trans. Ronald C. Kiener (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 135. 42 See: Wolfson, “Bifurcating,” 88–95. 43 Bar Sheshet, “Response,” 133–134. 44 Ibid., 136. 45 Ibid., 134. 46 Ibid., 135.

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

147

­ eo-Aristotelian) languages of union, aiming to enrich their religious and mysN tical practices. Thus, philosophical ideas were first applied to interpret a variety of rabbinic symbols, such as the “crowning” in the light of God and God “sitting” on the merkavah and his throne, used in rabbinic texts to depict the afterlife or eschatological existence, then transformed into powerful images and symbols for mystical union. These rabbinic themes and symbols (later interpreted as referring to mystical union) include the image of enthronement as well as the theme of the Patriarchs (and the righteous ever since) serving as a chariot (merkavah) to God. The symbol of the chariot as union refers to the fact that the Patriarchs, and later any perfected humans, function as a potential vessel of the divine essence that can “ride” them at any point he wishes. In addition, the symbols of the crown and coronation were interpreted as referring to union, and later developed as key symbols for mystical union in the Zohar;47 eschatological eating was now interpreted through unitive vocabulary as a form of mystical union. Finally, the apotheotic notion of Enoch’s transformation into an archangel was also considered an actual union with the godhead (and not just becoming an angel), leading to an eschatological state while still in the body. As a Neoplatonic Kabbalist, Bar Sheshet distinguished between human thought and soul, each correlating and uniting with its corresponding element in the godhead. Hermeneutically speaking, his initial approach is to use the same phrase of union that describes the union of thought (knowledge as union) in order to refer to both the union of the human soul with the divine, and their mutual union while the godhead itself is harmonized. The mechan­ ism that allows this complex dynamics of momentary embodied and corporal union to take place is the understanding that both sefirot and human beings can serve as vessels for the divine indwelling of the Tetragrammaton; like the sefirot, man may become a receptive vessel for the embodiment of the divine name as a result of the initial integration into the godhead through the union of thought. Once the name is embodied, they become one—the human is named by the name dwelling in him, while the divine integrates the particular human persona in Himself. The only difference is that the human agent must undergo a major transformation in order to make his body, soul, and mind able to receive and hold the divine presence.

47 Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 254; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 361–363; Elliot Wolfson, “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and the Ritual of Androgynisation.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 335–344.

148

Chapter 7

The union of the soul is achieved when the divine dwells in the specific sefirot with which the Kabbalist unites. Thus, the embodiment of the divine name inside the Kabbalist is described in terms of unio mystica. The fact that the human first undergoes the initial union allows him to become a subject of theosophical union that usually takes part only inside the theosophy. Now that he is part of the theosophy, the inner dynamics of theosophical union can apply also to him. Wolfson’s analysis of this theory shows that the identity achieved by the Kabbalist and the name is close to homosousis,48 the fundamental principle being, as we have seen, “what is united to a thing is called by its name and similarly the thing by the name of that which is united to it.”49 This unique theory of embodied mystical union may have been inspired by Halevi’s theory of the embodiment of the Tetragrammaton more than any Neoplatonic discussion. Even though the early Kabbalists applied the Neoplatonic vocabulary of union, in many cases they used them as a jumpingoff point, developing unique forms of union that correlated with their mystical paths and with the fundamental idea that the divine causes its spirit and lights to flow and emanate towards and in the human. Though some of them also developed theurgic practices, the understanding that union is to be reached in the body through sacred theurgy differs quite significantly from the way Neoplatonic theologians perceived the dynamics of mystical henōsis. The idea that through initial union or partial union the human agent becomes subject to theosophical dynamics of union (inaccessible without the initial integration) will be followed up and developed in the Zohar. The ultimate case of unitive mystical embodiment is discussed in a very popular and influential treatise, Iggeret HaKodesh, dealing with the mystical significance of sexual intercourse. The Iggeret HaKodesh is attributed to the famous Kabbalist and rabbi Moses Nachmanides, but was most likely written by a Kabbalist close to the Gerona circle.50

48 See: Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 39–40, 190–260; Afterman, Devequt, 275–279. 49 Jacob Bar Sheshet, Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, ed. Georges Vajda (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1968), 78, my translation. Cf. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 40. 50 See: Monford Haris, “Marriage as Metaphysics: A Study of the ‘Iggereth Hakodesh’,” Hebrew Union College Annual Vol. 33 (1962): 197–220; Karen Guberman, “The Language of Love in Spanish Kabbalah: An Examination of the ‘Iggeret ha-Kodesh’ ”, in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times I, ed. David R. Blumenthal, (Chico: Scholar Press, 1984), 53–105; Abrams, The Female Body, 107–110; Garb, Manifestations of Power, 77–78; Charles Mopsik, Lettre sur La Saintete: Le Secret de la Relation Entre L’homme et la Femme dans la Cabale, (Lagrasse: Verdier, 1986).

Mystical Union In Early Kabbalah

149

Here we find an elaborate use of vocabulary of mystical union and embodied union with the divine accompanying the physical union below. While husband and wife are uniting in sexual union “as one flesh”, the male unites with the godhead for the purpose of creating together a “holy seed”. The male, who is one with the mental aspects of the divine, functions at the moment of sexual union as one with God. He thus secures the transfer of the Holy Spirit from the male, charging the sperm with divine noetic energy, to the female. In the basic mystical dynamic, as we have observed in other Neoplatonic Kabbalist sources, the Kabbalist elevates his thought and unites it with the divine thought (Wisdom), and then can operate as the subject of God’s essence in the world, while drawing power and energy from the divine to his mind and body. Here, we witness a specific form of embodied union—after uniting with the divine, the Kabbalist draws the divine light to his mind and body, then the divine light illuminates the sperm (believed to be stored in the brain) and thus a holy child may be conceived at the moment of sexual union. The union between both elements creates what an anonymous Kabbalist describes as a channel or tube of light, “one line” that allows for divine power to transfer as light from the divine realm to the human mind and “charge” the human sperm in the male’s mind. The mystical union allows the human subject to become an instrument for the movement of the divine power, from the masculine divine body to the feminine human, guaranteeing that the child conceived out of such relations will be holy.51 First, the man must unite his thought with his wife’s thought; then he must unite their united thought with the divine thought. The treatise emphasizes that the male must be “as one” with his wife, not only as “one flesh” but as one “mind”,52 united in the purpose of performing the commandment of reproduction. Thus their thought will become one, as a precondition to its uniting with the divine wisdom: [. . .] and they should be as one in the act of the commandment, so then their thought will conjoin and become one, and the divine can dwell inbetween them, and they will give birth to a son according to the holy “form” they both will contemplate.53 After both unions of thought and body are conceived, the couple can unite as one with the divine thought, and draw its divine energy into their minds: 51 See Garb, Manifestations of Power, 78; Mopsik, Sex of the Soul, 139–149. 52 See Iggeret Hakodesh, in Kitvei Ramban. 2nd Vol. ed. Hayyim D. Chavel, (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964), 331 (Hebrew). 53 Igeret Hakodesh, Chavel Edition, 331.

150

Chapter 7

Human thought has the ability to strip itself and to ascend to and arrive at the place of its source [Divine Wisdom]. Then it will unite with the supernal entity, whence it comes, and it [i.e. the human thought] and it [its divine source] become one entity.54 And when the human thought returns to its place in the human, the divine dwells in between the male and female and the divine light is drawn “down” and is embodied into the body of the mystic.55 As Idel notes, “the cleaving to the divine is described here in strong terms, which describe anabasis as a case of unio mystica”.56 The ideal of union with the divine while engaging in sexual intercourse is perhaps the most representative (if also most radical) of the Kabbalistic understanding of “embodied union”; along with Neoplatonic mystical union, it constitutes the ultimate praxis of union in early Kabbalah. 54 The anonymous Kabbalist is drawing from Ezra ben Shlomo. See Tishby, Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot, 20; See Moshe Idel, “Sexual Metaphors and Praxis in the Kabbalah,” in The Jewish Family; Metaphor and Memory, ed. David Kraemer, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 205–206; Scholem, Origins, 305. 55 Iggeret Hakodesh, Chavel Edition, 333. 56 Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), 97, 104; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati, 134–135.

Chapter 8

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia No Jewish mystic has been associated more with the idea and experience of unio mystica than Abraham Abulafia (1240–1292). The massive number of articles and books dedicated to his mystical path in general and his unitive mysticism in particular is remarkable;1 especially significant in this field is the rich and diverse work of Moshe Idel. According to Idel, Abulafia—as the founder of “ecstatic Kabbalah”2—represents more than any other Kabbalist a type of ecstatic mysticism that aspires to, realizes, and experiences unio mystica at the core of its religious path. Abulafia promoted ecstatic unitive mysticism all over Europe, and his spiritual approach was influential on generations after his death in 1292. Even now, his experiences, writings, and mystical manuals continue to affect those interested in Jewish mysticism.3 A historical view of Jewish mysticism must grant Abulafia a unique position as both the creator and transmitter of a new form of ecstatic mysticism, offering a powerful mystical path leading to unio mystica.4 Abulafia is distinguished in the landscape of Jewish mystical writing by the remarkable number of detailed techniques of letter permutations and meditations on divine names that he prescribed in order to reach mystical union, alongside a series of unitive formulas and phrases he employed and recommended on the mystical path. No one in Jewish history had ever prescribed 1 On Abraham Abulafia’s mystical path see: Idel, The Mystical Experience; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–100; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia; Elliot Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow and Temporal Transcendence, Angelic Embodiment and the Alterity of Time in Abraham Abulafia,” Kabbalah 18 (2008): 133–190; Elliot Wolfson, “Abraham Ben Samuel Abulafia and the Prophetic Kabbalah,” in Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah; New Insights and Scholarship, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 68–90. 2 On Abulafia as the founder of “ecstatic Kabbalah” see Scholem, Major Trends, 105–129. 3 See Boaz Huss, “The Formation of Jewish Mysticism and its Impact on the Reception of Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah,” in Religion and Its Others, ed. Heicke Bock et al. (Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 2008), 142–162. 4 See Idel, “Abraham Abulafia and ‘Unio Mystica’,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, Volume III, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 147–178; Idel, Kabbalah: New perspectives, 61–70; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_009

152

Chapter 8

in writing such a breadth of mystical technique leading to unio mystica.5 This remarkable variety of formulas and phrases situates him as the most effective promoter of unitive ecstasy in the history of Judaism, at least up until Hasidism. Given the existing breadth of detailed analysis of unio mystica in Abulafia,6 I will limit the current study to a general exposition, in which the main themes and ideas attached to unio mystica in Abulafia’s Kabbalah will be explored. It is quite clear that philosophical (Falsafa) psychology and the entire NeoAristotelian structure of thought (including the phrases of noetic union discussed above) are the main theoretical context in which Abulafia’s mystical union functioned.7 The development of radical mystical paths leading to unio mystica, based upon a Neo-Aristotelian structure, is not unique to Abulafia, and should be understood in the context of 13th-century developments in Jewish and Arab Neo-Aristotelian philosophy, including Jewish Averroism. Abulafia and several of his followers were undeniably key figures in the development of unitive mysticism in Judaism. Abulafia’s mysticism is based upon Averroes’ unitive noetic metaphysics, though Maimonides (both the younger and the elder) did not allow for a noetic union with God and rejected Averroes’ metaphysics.8 Idel considers that “in several places he [Abulafia] states, in accordance with the view of Ibn Rushd,9 and in contradiction to that of Al-Farabi and Maimonides that cleaving to the active intellect is possible in this world [. . .] in order to express this union, Abulafia utilizes the well-known formula originating in Islamic mysticism ‘he is he’ ”.10 In several discussions, Abulafia asserts, following this tradition, that cleaving to the active intellect and even experiencing a mystical union with God are both possible in this world. Uniting with the metaphysical realms and ultimately with God, an action which Maimonides associates with the eschatological state of the afterlife, is accessible for Abulafia in this world, through powerful mystical techniques that are capable of bringing about eschatological 5 See: Afterman, “Letter Permutation”. 6 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 61–73; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–100. 7 On Abulafia’s philosophical sources see Moshe Idel, Secrets and Pearls: On Abraham Abulafia’s Esotericism (forthcoming); Idel, The Mystical Experience, 124–134; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31. 8 See Idel, “Abualfia’s Secrets of the Guide,” 294–296; Afterman, Devequt, 154–168. On Maimonides’ position in line with Al-Farabi criticizing the possibility of the human intellect to cleave to the active intellect see Pines, “The Limitation” and the overview discussion by Stern, The Matter and Form, 97–249. 9  Idel refers to Ivry, “Averroes on Intellection,” 76–85. 10 See Idel, The Mystical Experience, 125–126.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

153

union in the here and now.11 Similar to the Neo-Aristotelian philosopher and mystic Ibn Tufayl, Abulafia promotes union with God under certain circumstances. As part of the more radical Neo-Aristotelian tradition, his views stand in contrast to those of Al-Farabi and Maimonides, since these figures tend to question the feasibility of full union with the intellect and consequently deny the possibility of union with God.12 Abulafia was a sophisticated Averroist and a serious philosophy student, taught by the well-known Averroist philosopher Hillel Ben Shemuel of Verona.13 Among other spiritualists influenced by Maimonides, Abulafia is not the only one to use the formula of noetic union. As we observed earlier, this formula served a whole range of Kabbalists and philosophers in the 13th century, and lies at the heart of a deep and important controversy over the possibility of reaching immortality. For them, the mere possibility of noetic union postmortem is key to the religious idea of afterlife. Articulating in a philosophical environment that union with the intellect is not only possible, but open to all true philosophers, his mystical path goes the extra step towards the realization of eschatological reality through linguistic techniques imported from the Ashkenazi linguistic esoterica. Becoming one with the active intellect is fundamental for his theory of noetic union, which becomes in certain circumstances a mystical union.14 In Abulafia’s mysticism, man, God and the Torah/ divine name become one in the act of intellection; thus, uniting with the active intellect is at the same time an act of mystical union with the Torah and the divine Name.15 “Ecstatic Kabbalah,” known sometimes also as “prophetic Kabbalah”, originates in several different worlds: It draws the conceptual understanding of the prophetic transformation leading to unio mystica from Maimonides and the Spanish Kabbalists; and derives from Ashkenaz both the belief in the ­present-day existence and relevance of prophecy, even when in exile, and some linguistic techniques for its achievement. Based on the tripartite foundation of mysticism-prophecy-messianism, Abulafia’s Kabbalah—much like the Spanish Kabbalah which preceded it—is highly elitist and mystical; its ideal 11 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–31; Idel, The Mystical Experience, 124–138. 12 See Pines, “The Limitations,” 82–109; Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical”, 92–98. 13 See the edition of Hillel Ben Shemuel of Verona, Book of Rewards of the Soul, ed. Joseph B. Sermoneta (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of science, 1981) (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “The Pearl, the Son and the Servants, in Abraham Abulafia’s Parable,” « Quaderni di Studi IndoMediterranei », VI (2013): 103–135. 14 See Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 143–144. 15 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 243–244.

154

Chapter 8

of prophecy pertains only to a select few, men of superior intellectual and mystical capacities who are able to seek union with the divine. If “prophetic Kabbalah” stands for the prophetic goal of Abulafia’s mysticism, “Kabbalah of divine names” refers to its linguistic means. The divine names, and their ultimate source—the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), stand at the heart of Abulafia’s worldview,16 serving multiple interrelated purposes: ontologically, they are the essence of the divine and the basic substance of creation; mystically, they are the common element allowing for the union between the human and the divine, the chief technique for achieving such a connection, and the actual content of the resulting prophetic experience; and hermeneutically, they are the hidden layer of the Torah, the key to decoding its many secrets. Abulafia’s prophetic and mystical ideal thus acquires a linguistic sense: becoming one with the Tetragrammaton. As with prophetic and ecstatic Kabbalah, the Kabbalah of divine names constitutes a complex synthesis between two discordant spiritual worlds: (1) the linguistic pantheism and mystical transformation theory of l­ inguistic-ecstatic Kabbalah originating from the book of creation (Sefer Yetzirah) and Ashkenazi homilies;17 (2) the Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics and noetic transformation theory of Maimonides and other Neo-Aristotelian philosophers. The combination of an esoteric Jewish tradition with a contemporary philosophical theory accounts for the remarkable originality and depth of Abulafia’s mystical path. Linguistic Kabbalah was established in Catalonia in the middle of the 13th century by a small group of ecstatic Kabbalists who had studied various Ashkenazi commentaries to Sefer Yetzirah, fusing them with elements of Spanish Kabbalah and philosophy.18 Linguistic Kabbalah emphasizes the divine 16 Moshe Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” in Mystics of the Book; Themes, Topics, and Typologies, ed. Robert A. Herrera, (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 97–122; Moshe Idel, “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah to the Understanding of Jewish Mysticism,” in Gershom Scholem’s “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism” 50 Years after; Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, eds. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 117–143. 17 See Moshe Idel. “Reification of Language in Jewish Mysticism,” in Mysticism and Language, ed. Steven T. Katz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 42–79. 18 On the group of ecstatic Kabbalists active in Catalonia, See Moshe Idel, “The Vicissitudes of Kabbalah in Catalonia,” in The Jews of Spain and the Expulsion of 1492, ed. Moshe Lazar (CA: Labyrinthos, 1997), 31–35; Moshe Idel, “Ashkenazi Esotericism and Kabbalah in Barcelona,” Hispania Judaica Bulletin 5 (2007): 69–70, 103–104; Moshe Idel, “Sefer Yetzirah: Twelve Commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah and the Extant Remnants of R. Isaac of Bedresh’s Commentary,” Tarbitz 79 (2010): 471–556 (Hebrew).

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

155

names rather than the sefirot (hypostatic potencies) as the primary matter of the godhead, and consequently of creation.19 At its core, linguistic-ecstatic Kabbalah is a system of linguistic ontology and technique. The godhead, the source of all being, is a linguistic entity, a name that through permutation of its own letters unfolds into a text, which is the Torah. The universe—a text emanating from His name—was created out of linguistic substance, and through linguistic generative principles. God and man are thus part of one linguistic continuum, able to connect and eventually unite through the esoteric use of divine names.20 Becoming one with God’s name (or, as it is sometimes designated, becoming the son of God21) is the absolute mystical goal of linguisticecstatic Kabbalah. While these tenets are faithfully preserved in prophetic Kabbalah, their significance is fundamentally transformed by their alliance with Abulafia’s interpretation of Maimonides’ Neo-Aristotelian theology as articulated in the Guide to the Perplexed.22 Abulafia, who was well acquainted with the Guide and wrote three commentaries to it, uses its Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics, psychology, and theory of contemplative transformation (with its potential mystical implications) as the theoretical basis for his Kabbalistic path. A practical mystical path enhanced the Maimonidean philosophical theory whereas the Ashkenazi arcane ideas were endowed with philosophical structure and coherence. The implications of this synthesis are far-reaching. On an ontological level, Maimonides’ noetic metaphysics is incorporated into the linguistic pantheism of Sefer Yetzirah. The godhead, accordingly, is identified not only with the pure noetic realm but also with the Tetragrammaton and its derivative divine names. The result is a relatively static godhead (as opposed to the more dynamic, sefirotic godhead), whose essence is both noetic and linguistic. On a mystical level, Maimonides’ Neoplatonic view of prophecy as an overflow of noetic shefa (efflux) from the supernal realms into the human mind 19 For Abulafia’s understanding of the sefirot and its place in his larger Kabbalistic system see Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 94–177; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 9. 20 See Afterman, The Intentions of Prayers, 35–84. 21 See Idel, Ben, 276–376. 22 On the influence of Maimonides’ theology on early Kabbalah in general and Abulafia in particular, See Moshe Idel, “Maimonides’ “Guide of the Perplexed” and the Kabbalah,” Jewish history 18 (2004): 197–226; Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” 31–81; Idel, “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide,” 289–329; Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings,” 209–237; Wolfson “Via Negativa,” 393–442; Jonathan Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” in The Cultures of Maimonides: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought, ed. James T. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 9–57.

156

Chapter 8

is compounded with the linguistic concept of shefa as Hebrew letters (most notably, the Tetragrammaton) penetrating the human mind. Man, who has the mental capacity to contain the intellectual-linguistic presence of the divine, must labor to become its receptacle. By using techniques of letter permutation, man is able to liberate the mind from its bodily constraints, freeing it to cleave to the divine name and noetic efflux.23 This state, far more than a mere intellectual conjunction or ephemeral ecstatic experience, is the fulfillment of the ultimate objective of the Kabbalah of divine names: the complete mystical union with the Divine. Abulafia’s Kabbalah, then, is distinguished for the totality of the mystical union it posits, and for the detailed measures it offers for achieving such a union. In both of these respects, Abulafia departs from Maimonides’ theory of noetic transformation. The latter describes a long, meticulous transformative process, achieved by painstaking contemplation, intellectual purification, and spiritual exercises related to the commandments;24 over the course of his life, man may gradually become an angelic entity through the cleaving of the human mind to the active intellect.25 Abulafia’s mystical transformation, on the other hand, is a swift, almost violent process, induced by specific linguistic techniques. It is not limited to the noetic cleaving to the inferior active intellect, but allows for the actual assimilation of man into the godhead itself.26 While Maimonides’ God transcends the noetic realm, remaining forever out of reach, Abulafia identifies Him with the intellectual-linguistic godhead and its absolute source in the Tetragrammaton. Like many others before him, Abulafia interpreted ancient Jewish theories of apotheosis in terms of mystical union; unlike others, he believed its scope extends to perfect union with God.27 The apotheosis that in ancient Jewish mysticism culminated with the temporary embodiment of the Tetragrammaton in the transformed angelic man was perceived by Abulafia as a complete mystical union with the Tetragrammaton. This union redeems the mystic from his limited, human existence, as the divine name assumes the messianic role of 23 See Scholem, Major Trends, 131–134. 24 See Stern, The Matter and Form, 306–349. 25 Maimonides’ theory of transformation is essentially double-phased; man must first become an Adam (man)—a rational agent who, through contemplative transformation, receives the noetic efflux descending from the active intellect. It is only then that man can become an Ish (human), establishing a conjunction of thought with the lowest of the separate intellects—the active intellect. See Afterman, Devequt, 146–154. 26 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 7, 10. 27 See Idel, Ben, 194–245.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

157

supreme teacher. The mystic is granted a new name, a divine or angelic name harboring messianic reverberations, which sometimes signifies the transformation into a divine noetic-linguistic being.28 The linguistic pantheism underlying the Kabbalah of divine names postulates that all of reality is linguistic in substance, an infinite text emanating through letter permutation from the Tetragrammaton.29 Man, like God, is a linguistic entity, a name. The nature of his apotheosis is therefore linguistic, as well as contemplative. If Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics claims that man is essentially an intellect, and must perfect his intellectual being to cleave to the noetic divine, prophetic Kabbalah requires man to realize his true existence as a name, and fully integrate into the Tetragrammaton. The result of this twofold transformation is the mystical union of the noetic-linguistic human with the noetic-linguistic divine. The first step towards attaining such a union in Abulafia’s mystical path is the emancipation of man from false reasoning and the incorrect use of language. As proper thinking frees the mind, proper understanding of the true nature of language extricates human consciousness from its narrow existence. In the infinite linguistic text of reality, man is a “semantic island”, preserving his identity by confining its linguistic essence to human meaning. Man is restricted to the semantics of his life (much as other linguistic entities, such as words, are limited to a particular meaning); he conventionally uses language as a semantic vehicle rather than as a divine instrument of infinite creative potential. Following Sefer Yetzirah, Abulafia views letters—not words—as the primary units of language. This movement from the semantic to the sub-semantic level of language is a movement of liberation: liberation from conventional modes of thinking and, by extension, liberation from material existence. Bound to the body by “semantic knots”, the human mind is limited to corporal-material, concrete reality, unable to ascend to the higher realms of the spiritual. Matter is a cloud that shadows man’s life, blocking the noetic light from illuminating his mind. To transcend the world of matter and enter the supernal kingdom, man must overcome the material agent within him—the imagination, which obscures his sight and constrains his thought. The key for true mental liberation is thus the violent break from the grip of imagination and semantic association, cultivating a letter-based (rather than a word-based) mode of thinking. The loosening of the “semantic knots” extricates the mind from the hold of the imagination and material body, allowing it to be filled with the 28 See Idel, Messianic Mystics, 296. 29 See Idel, “Reification of Language,” 42–79; Idel, Hasidism, 215–218.

158

Chapter 8

noetic-linguistic energy emanating from above. Man becomes a free linguistic entity, transcending narrow human existence to unite with the linguistic divine. Man, for his part, is absorbed into the Tetragrammaton, losing his own body and identity in the process, but gaining a liberated and positive existence, which encompasses all levels of linguistic reality and, ultimately, reaches its divine source in the Tetragrammaton. As aforementioned, Abulafia not only articulates a comprehensive theory of prophetic transformation, but offers detailed descriptions of specific mystical techniques to achieve it. Regarding God and man as two parts of one linguistic continuum, Abulafia believed the connection between the two may best be forged through the use of their common element: the Hebrew alphabet. Hence, the vast majority of mystical practices in his writings (as in all of ecstatic Kabbalah) involve methods of letter permutation.30 Abulafia describes dozens of extremely complex techniques designed to break through the “semantic knots” of human thought and allow the divine efflux to penetrate one’s mind. Following in Maimonides’ footsteps, he defines the first step of the transformative process as philosophical illumination, establishing an initial contact with the noetic efflux descending from the supernal realms. Abulafia then departs from Maimonides, who believed the philosophical illumination must be pursued through subsequent contemplative practices, gradually strengthening the contact of the human mind with the active intellect. In contrast, Abulafia claims that, however powerful the established contact between the human and the divine, the noetic efflux will inevitably be neutralized by the human faculties of reason and imagination, converting the pure divine energy to categories of human thought. He therefore posits an alternative second step, a mystical step, designed to free human thought from conventional semantic patterns and open one’s mind to the divine efflux. At times, this proc­ ess may culminate with the complete disintegration of the mystic’s intellectual faculties, inducing the full encounter with the divine.31 According to the noetic ontology, God and man are part of one “intellectual chain”, one noetic continuum, with intellectual efflux overflowing from the former to the latter.32 During the ecstatic experience, this efflux (identified by Abulafia with the letters of the Tetragrammaton33) penetrates the human 30 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 97–103; Afterman, “Letter Permutation”. 31 See Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 133–190. 32 See Idel, Enchanted Chains, 76–114. 33 See Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 138–146. As Wolfson, Ibid., 140–141, and Wolfson, “Abraham ben Samuel,” 79, indicates, Abulafia is drawing on Yehudah ha-Levi’s mysticism which identifies the Tetragrammaton as the mystical light and noetic energy that

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

159

mind, replacing the materialistic concerns from which the mind has been released.34 Thus, with the human intellect serving as a mediator between God and man, prophecy may occur, as the intellectual efflux communicates certain content to the mystic. Since the mystic’s intellect mediates most prophecies (those integrations of communion that are not unitive), some of the experiences are autoscopious, constituted of one’s vision of himself in the midst of the ecstatic vision, revealing secrets.35 This content may be experienced in several different ways: a voice, a flow of ideas, visions of angels, light, or giant letters (all of which are mental representations of the noetic energy).36 As Idel has noted, here Abulafia fuses the idea of universalization and union: by becoming universal one unites with the active intellect. The unitive experiences depicted as with either the active intellect or God are considered universal and metaphysical.37 On the rare occasions when one reaches a full mystical union, however, these dynamics of overflow are no longer relevant,38 as the human mind unites with the Tetragrammaton (and, incidentally, the Torah), fusing the noetic-linguistic continuum into a single entity. In those cases, Abulafia employs very powerful phrases of union such as “He is He” or “I am He and He is I” and “I” “I” all referring to the union with God.39 Thus the language of noetic union with a sub-divine entity, the active intellect, transforms into a mystical radical discourse of becoming one with God. Let us now refer to a number of short discussions in which Abulafia adapts the Maimonidean formula for depicting union with God. In his long and most detailed commentary to the Guide, Sitrei Torah (“The Secrets of the Torah”), Abulafia discusses mystical union at length: They [the human spiritual faculties] will be united with it [the active intellect] after many hard, strong and mighty exercises, until the particular and personal prophetic [faculty] will become universal, permanent and everlasting similar to the essence of its cause, and “he and He became ­ enetrates the human leading to the embodiment of the Tetragrammaton in the mystic’s p heart as discussed above. See also: Afterman, Devequt, 93–99. 34 Idel, “On the Language”, 43–84. 35 Idem, 64–67. 36 See for example, Abulafia, Hayyei Ha-Olam Ha Ba, ed. Amnon Gros (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 1999), second edition, 159 (Hebrew); Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 143. 37 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 9–10; Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 145–146. 38 See: Robert J. Sagerman, The Serpent Kills or the Serpent Gives Life: The Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia’s Response to Christianity, (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 205 and note 84; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 151–152 and Wolfson, “Abraham ben Samuel,” 78–84. 39 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 10–12.

160

Chapter 8

one entity”;40 He prophesies, according to the entity which causes him to pass from potentiality into the final and perfect actuality and ‘he and he became one entity’ inseparable during this act.41 Another powerful description of mystical union as erotic love appears in Or HaSekhel, including the unitive phrase “he and she are one”.42 The ultimate stage of transformation is reached by an all-consuming meditation on the Tetragrammaton, accompanied by various linguistic techniques. At its climax, the mystic is filled with an outburst of erotic love to God, completing his mystical union with the divine name.43 Thus in this mystical system, man, God and the Torah become one in the act of intellection.44 As indicated, Abulafia’s mystical path first focuses on the “active intellect” allowing for full noetic union to take place. Rarely, the whole noetic world may “collapse” into the Tetragrammaton and a full mystical union with it can take place. Much of Abulafia’s mysticism is actually focused on the active intellect and not necessarily on union with God; Abulafia blurs the philosophical distinction between the active intellect and God on purpose,45 thus allowing the full union with God to occasionally take place. Abulafia’s mechanism for acute transformation is established upon what Idel characterizes as “dissociation” from the body and corporality. Once disconnected from the body and its faculties, the human-actualized intellect returns to its source. Based upon the assumption that the body imprisons the intellectual soul by binding the spiritual faculties to the corporeal world, the separation from the body will eventually allow the return to the source. 40 Abulafia, Sitrei Torah, 138, translated by Idel, “Universalization,” 30; See also Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 6: “And will unite with it [the active intellect] after many hard strong and mighty exercises, until the particular and personal prophetic [faculty] will turn universal, permanent and everlasting like the essence of the cause and he and he will become one entity.” 41 Abulafia, Sitrei Torah, 88, translated by Idel in, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 5–6. 42 Abulafia, Or ha-Sekhel, ed. Amnon Gros, (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2007), 136 (Hebrew). 43 This union is often described using erotic imagery, See: Idel, The Mystical Experience, 179–222; Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 77–81, 184–185; Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 139–140; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 87–93. 44 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 243–244. 45 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 7–11 and Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 151 and note 156. Some of Abulafia’s discussion not only suggests the collapse of the metaphysical realm but also some kind of noetic pantheism in which the various noetic or intellectual parts of existence construct one entity or one continuum. See: Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 12–14.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

161

The dissociation from matter automatically means a reintegration into the intellectual continuum and into the divine. Idel notes that Abulafia’s discussions are distinguished from the more philosophically oriented descriptions of intellectual union, due to the presence of strong corporeal elements relating to techniques of name recitation. In his classic description of union with God in Hayyei Ha Olam Haba, Abulafia writes the following: The benefit of the knowledge of the name [of God] is its being the cause of man’s attainment of the actual intellection of the active intellect and the benefit of the intellection of the active intellect is the ultimate aim of the life of the intellectual soul and it is the reason of the life of the “next world”; this aim is the union of the soul, by this intellection, with God forever.46 In another discussion, Abulafia describes the union with the Tetragrammaton, through which the mystic is named after the name dwelling in him, like the angels: The transformed mystic should be named “Master” because his name is like the name of the master be it only in one, or in many, or in all of His names. For now he is no longer separated from his Master, and behold he is his Master and his master is he; for he is so intimately united with Him, that he cannot by any means be separated from Him, for he is He . . .47 This brings us to a major theme in Abulafia’s Kabbalah—the union with the active intellect, which is a union with the angel Metatron. As we have observed, the theme of union with angels was developed by different Kabbalists, following several philosophical discussions. In the last quarter of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century, we find a major return of the Zohar and other Kabbalistic sources to an angel-centered religiosity.48 The increasing importance of angels, and specifically of the mystical practice of uniting with angels, partly derives from Ashkenazi influence infused

46 Quoted and translated by Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 9–10 and Idel, The Mystical Experience, 128–129. 47 Commentary on his own book titled “Sefer Hay’ashar” (written 1279), translation based upon Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 10. 48 See Idel, The Angelic World, 45–49.

162

Chapter 8

into Spanish Kabbalah at that time.49 The Ashkenazi materials included different versions of Heikhalot mysticism along with some manuscripts that are focused primary on angels. Abulafia uses Maimonides’ idea that the active intellect is identical to the abstract category of angels, ishim, but identifies it with the specific angel Metatron or Gabriel (continuing a tendency in some Muslim sources to identify the active intellect with the angel Gabriel). This identification leads to a mystical path that combines the noetic transforming and cleaving to the “active intellect” with the Ashkenazi and ancient sources that depict communication with specific angels. Cleaving to a general category of angels as in the case of Maimonides is different from cleaving to a specific angel that has a long history.50 For Abulafia, the dynamics of cleaving to the angel transforms the mystic into an angel himself, and puts into motion the overflowing dynamics associated with the holy spirit.51 The notion of apotheosis is interpreted in terms of mystical union. Many of Abulafia’s experiences are centered on the angel, communicating and uniting with it. Idel had noticed the personal character of Abulafia’s active intellect, to the extent of an experience of autoscopia, in which the angel appears in the form of the mystic himself.52 Fusing ancient traditions based on a personal communication with angels with philosophical cleaving and uniting with the active intellect, Abulafia merges the ancient ideal of apotheosis with a strong ecstatic path. Thus, by uniting with the active intellect the mystic not only encounters Metatron, but also transforms into Metatron. Upon becoming an angel he is named as his master, i.e. the Tetragrammaton, which dwells within him as in Metatron. In the moment of angelification, the mystic is granted a new theophoric name;53 once embedded with the name of God, his dynamic cleaving to the angel culminates in union. Modalities of time perception, essential elements to the religious experience in general, become crucial while analyzing religious-mystical experiences. For

49 See Moshe Idel, “From Italy to Ashkenaz and Back: On the Circulation of Jewish Mystical Traditions,” Kabbalah 14 (2006): 47–94. 50 See Moshe Idel, “Definitions of Prophecy: Maimonides and Abulafia,” in Maimonides and Mysticism, eds. Avraham Elqayam and Dov Schwartz (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2009), 7–14 (Hebrew). 51 See Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 133–190. 52 See Idel, “Definitions of Prophecy,” 7–8. 53 Idem, 31–32, 77–81; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 298–302; Idel, Ben, 302–313.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

163

Abulafia, the mystical dynamic is an escape towards eternity from the burden of time perception. The experience of time in Jewish mystical sources, particularly “sacred” time and eternity, has been subject to several important discussions.54 In the mystical path of Abulafia, which draws on philosophical sources, becoming one with God is conditioned on transcending all categories of change, including time, for the sake of uniting with eternity. In Abulafia’s philosophical mysticism, union with God occurs above and beyond time, as a static island in the midst of eternity.55 The contrast between time and eternity stands at the heart of the spiritual transformation of Abulafia. The shift from time to eternity is a shift from multiplicity and movement towards unity and eternity. Due to the contradiction between time and unity, the mystical path which leads to union negates time. This classic antithesis of the moving time and the immobile eternity56 had a profound impact on the understanding of time and eternity in medieval Jewish mysticism, including Abulafia’s unitive mysticism as well as other mystics working with the Neo-Aristotelian and early Neoplatonic paradigm of time.

54 See: Elliot Wolfson, Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Elliot Wolfson, “From Sealed Book to Open Text: Time, Memory, and Narrativity in Kabbalistic Hermeneutics,” in Interpreting Judaism in a Postmodern Age, ed. Steven Kepnes, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 145– 178; Elliot Wolfson, “The Cut that Binds: Time, Memory, and the Ascetic Impulse,” in God’s Voice from the Void; Old and New Studies in Bratslav Hasidism, ed. Shaul Magid (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002), 103–154; Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 133–190; Elliot Wolfson, “Undoing Time and Syntax of the Dream Interlude: a Phenomenological Reading of “Zohar” 1:199a–200a,” Kabbalah, 22 (2010): 33–57; Moshe Idel, “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah,” in Jewish History and Jewish Memory; Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. Elisheva Carlebach et al. (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 153–188; Moshe Idel, “Sabbath: on Concepts of Time in Jewish Mysticism,” in Sabbath—Idea, History, Reality, ed. Gerald J. Blidstein (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2004), 57–93; Moshe Idel, “Higher than Time: Observations on Some Concepts of Time in Kabbalah and Hasidism,” in Time and Eternity in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Brian Ogren, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 179–210; Adam Afterman, “Time, Eternity and Mystical Experience,” 162–175. 55 For an alternative reading of the mystical experience of time in Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah see: Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 175–176; Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 55–57. 56 See Shlomo Pines, The Concept of Time in Late Neo-Platonism, Texts with Translation, Introduction and Notes by Samuel Sambursky and Shlomo Pines, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987), 10.

164

Chapter 8

In several of his writings, Averroes refers to the active intellect as the “eternal intellect” and “eternal reality;”57 Abulafia makes use of this term in several of his writings as well.58 Due to the eternal characteristic of the active intellect, in the rare moments of union with the intellect, and even more so with God, the mystic transcends time and reaches eternal existence. “Eternity” is then identified with the religiously charged concept of the “life of the world to come.” Experienced as a dramatic shift in the modalities of time perception, this path encourages the practitioner to overcome time and thus become one with eternity. For Abulafia, religious ideas related to “sacred time”—the time in between mundane time and eternity—are “hints” of what lays beyond human, material existence, i.e. the pure eternal divinity. Eternity is the focus, while institutionalized ideas of “sacred time” merely symbolize the more radical ideals that the mystical path pursues. One aspect here of the wide synthesis between Judaism and different forms of Greek philosophy is the merging of the philosophical terms of “time” and “eternity” with rabbinic terms that previously lacked a clear definition, such as “life of the world to come” (hayyei ha-olam ha ba), returning to or reentering the garden of Eden/Paradise,59 and other eschatological and messianic states.60 The transition from the perception of normal “human” time to the experience of eternity is a radical shift, interpreted in light of traditional Jewish terms related to the achieving of private eschatological or pre-eschatological states. In the case of Abulafia, reaching union with the noetic metaphysical realm and ultimately with God is the experience of eternity associated with the religious vocabulary of the life of the world to come. Thus he articulates in Otzar Eden Ganuz: And concerning this it says in the Torah, “And you who cleave to the Lord your God are still living this day”; and this is the matter of which they said, “And cleave to Him,”; “And to Him you shall cleave”, for that cleaving brings about the essential intention, which is eternal life for man, like the life of God, to whom he cleaves.61

57 See Charles Genequand, Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics: A Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book Lam, (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 50, 65. 58 See Idel, The Mystical Experience, 125–126. 59 See Idel, “On Paradise,” 609–644. 60 See: Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–84. 61 Quoted and translated by Idel, The Mystical Experience, 125.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

165

Abulafia interprets the biblical commandment to cleave to God in terms of spiritual union with the active intellect and ultimately with the first cause. The correlation of the Torah’s vocabulary of cleaving with the ideal of “eternal life” is reflected in the understanding of the phrase “this day”, which hints at an eschatological eternity reachable here and now, as in the following quote: For he is your life and length of your days [Deuteronomy 30:20] and it says “You, who cleave to the Lord your God, are all alive this day” [4:4]. The one who in not united to God does not live eternal life that is like “this day” (ha-yom) which is eternal (tamid) and thus the addition in the verse quoted “this day”.62 Through his realized human intellect, man may reach the moment of unio mystica and live eternally. A similar idea appears in a source written by an anonymous student of Abulafia: Whoever is drawn toward the vanities of temporality, his soul shall survive in the vanities of temporality; and whoever is drawn after the [God’s] Name which we have cited, which is above temporality, his soul shall survive in the eternal [realm], beyond time, in God, may He be blessed.63 In uniting with God and becoming one with the Tetragrammaton, man becomes one with eternity, as the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton signify the unity of past, present, and future—that is to say, the afterlife or “time out of time”.64 In the mystical path of ecstatic Kabbalah, which functions with the dichotomy of time and eternity,65 we find a thick Kabbalistic tradition associating the Shabbat meals with divine names, and Shabbat as a time and context of entering into paradise. The meals each represent a different divine name, while each divine name is both the technique and the substance of the mystical union (although the concept of three meals has other more metaphorical meanings as well). Sacred time in general, and Shabbat in particular, is challenging for a Jewish mystic like Abulafia, whose focus is not on sacred time but rather on eternity. What meaning does sacred time have in a mystical system 62 Abulafya, Hayyei ha-Olam ha Ba, 129. 63 Quoted and translated by Idel, The Mystical Experience, 125. 64 Compare to Wolfson, “Kenotic Overflow,” 134–138, 175–178. 65 I follow herein Idel, “Sabbath,” 67–74 and Idel, “On Paradise,” 626–627.

166

Chapter 8

that alternates only between “normal” time and eternity? In a discussion from his introduction to the mystical manual Hayyei Ha-olam Haba, Abulafia wrote: The intention of all these sacred names is to apprehend/achieve [lehasig] the three degrees, designated in our tradition as three meals, known from the secret of haYom haYom haYom, as it is said “Gather it today for today is a Sabbath of the Lord”, “today you will not find it in the field” and the secret of the manna is the secret of the descending water and the descending dew.66 In his analysis of this source, Idel states that Abulafia considers the three meals of Shabbat and the experience of devequt and union as beyond time and place. Despite the reference to holy space (“paradise”) and holy time (“Shabbat”), Abulafia’s mystical system does not recognize meaning in anything less than eternity beyond any category of change and space. Therefore “paradise” and “Shabbat” are in this context but metaphors for what is beyond time and space. The bliss of Shabbat—like that of Paradise and the Garden of Eden—may be experienced using the divine names in special meditation and not through the actual concrete meals. It seems therefore that for Abulafia, and for his teacher Baruch Tugarmi who wrote a short and enigmatic discussion on this matter, the three meals of Shabbat serve as symbols for the spiritual eating that constitutes the experience of paradise. Sabbath becomes an allegory for the apex of a mystical experience that can be attained any day, not only during Shabbat.67 The classic rabbinic idea that Shabbat is a form of anticipating the future eschaton is rendered here as an ecstatic experience of eternity in the present. The Shabbat meals represent the possibility of attaining eternity through union, achievable here and now. Yet, the experience is not that of holy time but rather that of a union with eternity associated with the “world to come”. The divine names symbolized in the Shabbat meals can be used to enter paradise and experience eternity any day—not only on Shabbat. A significant testimony of one of Abulafia’s students, R. Nathan, attests to practicing his master’s mystical techniques on Shabbat evening following several nights in which he was practicing letter permutation techniques.68 We can learn from this important testimony that the ecstatic Kabbalist emphasizes the mystical technique and 66 Quoted and translated by Idel, “Sabbath,” 70. 67 Ibid., 68. 68 Moshe Idel, Le Porte Della Giustizia Saare Sedeq, A Cura di Moshe Idel, (Milano: Adelphi, 2001), 479.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

167

not the context of sacred time; evidently, there was no real difference between the practice of mystical techniques on Shabbat and on the others days of the week; the experience itself was independent of Shabbat. Abulafia’s mystical path gives expression to the yearning to break free from human material existence and reach eternity in the present moment; the ritual meals represent a gate onto paradise and eternity. It is not Shabbat that he wishes to taste, not even sacred time, but rather eternity itself. As such, the window to eternity is open every day, including but not limited to Shabbat. We have seen, then, that for Abulafia, mystical union manifests itself in three dimensions: in the metaphysical realm through the noetic mechanism; in the linguistic domain, in which the human becomes one with the Tetragrammaton and with a specific angel; and through the important third dimension of eternity beyond time, even sacred time. Abulafia’s powerful mystical path led to the expansion of ecstatic Kabbalah, and continued to enrich and construct the practice and images of mystical union through the Renaissance69 and even Hasidism.70 Before we turn to one of Abulafia’s successors, R. Isaac of Acre, let us first attend to an important question regarding the possible influence of Muslim mysticism on the emergence of ecstatic Kabbalah, particularly its language of mystical union, as it may have affected Abulafia and his students and successors.

On Sufi Elements in the Development of the Unitive Mysticism in 13th-Century Kabbalah

Several of Abulafia’s students followed in his footsteps, developing powerful mystical methods that include elements of mystical union.71 The vocabulary and images of mystical union in early ecstatic Kabbalah were well developed by the last quarter of the 13th century. The rich language and images of union that developed in subsequent generations, in the writings of R. Nathan and R. Isaac of Acre, had a crucial influence on later forms of ecstatic and

69 Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 20. 70 Idel examines the basic motives and images of mystical union as developed in ecstatic Kabbalah and follows their development into Hasidic sources, see Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 61–73. 71 See Idem, 61–66; on the mystical path of an anonymous ecstatic Kabbalist author writing around the same time as Abulafia, see in Afterman, The Intentions of Prayer, 35–86.

168

Chapter 8

­ nitive m u ­ ysticism, not only in Judaism—as in Hasidic radical forms of unitive ­mysticism—but also in the Christian circles of the Renaissance. Given the similarity of motifs in Muslim mysticism in the same period, the question naturally arises whether this critical development in Jewish mysticism was shaped by the influential Sufi language of mystical union. We will briefly examine here the general possibility that Sufi sources may have influenced some elements of the unitive mystical element that developed in Judaism even before the end of the 13th century while R. Isaac was active. The question of the Sufi impact on medieval Jewish thought and Jewish mysticism in particular is a controversial matter.72 In contrast to Arab and Muslim philosophy, which had a great impact on the development of medieval Jewish thought, whether there were encounters—deliberate or not—between Muslim and Jewish mystics is still very much an open and unclear question in regard to the early stage of medieval Jewish mysticism. By the end of the 13th century, and certainly later in the 16th century, Jewish mystics demonstrate clear acquaintance with Sufi sources and practices. Given the substantial influence of Arab philosophical and theological traditions on medieval Jewish thought, and the fact that both mystical schools in Judaism and Islam cultivated a rich vocabulary of mystical union, it is only reasonable to explore the possibility that Muslim mystics had some impact on their Jewish counterparts—and vice versa. The imprint of some Sufi ideas on Jewish mystics is clearly discernable in some of the theological and spiritualist writings of the 11th and 12th century, such as the Book of the Direction to the Duties of the Heart by ibn Paqudah,73 and possibly the Kuzari by Yehuda Halevi.74 Also, such theological Sufi terminology can be identified in some of Maimonides’ writings towards the end of the 12th century, as is evident in the famous chapter in his Guide 3:51.75 Maimonides’ son, Abraham Maimoni, and several of his descendants were even known as “Jewish Sufis”. Their unique mystical society and writings deserve a special account.76 It is possible also that they had some encounters with Kabbalists 72 See: Paul B. Fenton, “Judaism and Sufism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, ed. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 201–217. 73 See for example: Mansoor, The Book of Direction to the Duties of the Heart, 29–36. 74 See Lobel, A Sufi Jewish Dialogue, 21–24. 75 See Steven Harvey, “Maimonides in the Sultan’s Palace,” in Perspectives on Maimonides— Philosophical and Historical Studies, ed. Joel L. Kraemer (London: Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization, 1996), 47–75. 76 See Paul Fenton, “Abraham Maimonides (1186–1237): Founding a Mystical Dynasty,” in Jewish Mystical Leaders and Leadership in the 13th Century, eds. Moshe Idel and Mortimer Ostow, (Maryland: A Jason Aronson Book, 1998), 127–154.

Mystical Union in the Ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia

169

from the west during the 13th century, and in that way might have been a cultural bridge for Sufi influence for the non-Arabic speaking Kabbalist. As Kabbalah emerged at the beginning of the 13th century in Christian France and Spain, the first Kabbalistic sources to be composed in a Muslim context in North Africa are in debt more to Arab theology and astrology than to Sufi mysticism.77 Several key figures of Arab Muslim philosophy had a deep interest in Sufi experiences of mystical union, most importantly Ibn Tufayl,78 Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Sina. All offered a conceptual analysis of the mystical experiences of Fana, introducing the concept of ittihad;79 some of this vocabulary was adopted by Jewish philosophers such as Halevi and Maimonides, and thus entered early Kabbalah. Idel emphasizes a translation of a passage found in one of Al-Ghazali’s writings, written in Barcelona early in the 13th century, which concerns Sufism.80 Nonetheless, these are theological conceptual analyses of the Sufi experiences, not the original writings and imagery of these experiences themselves. Haviva Pedaya argues for a substantial phenomenological similarity between the forms of mystical experience of the early Geronise Kabbalah in the first half of 13th-century Catalonia, which she qualifies as ecstatic and unitive, and the Jewish Sufi group, which developed around Maimonides’ descendants.81 Pedaya analyzes the Jewish Sufi source known as Prakim Behatzlacha, an anonymous text written most likely by Maimonides’ grandson,82 situating it perhaps a generation after the western Kabbalists were active in Gerona. Following Pedaya in this argument about affinities of phenomenology is Harvey Hames, who accepts her investigation and argues further for the apparent Sufi impact on the ecstatic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia.83 In contrast, Idel considers the possible influence of Sufi sources on Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah and his path 77 See Moshe Idel, “The Beginning of Kabbalah in North Africa?—A Forgotten Document by R. Yehuda ben Nissim ibn Malka,” Peamim 43 (1990): 4–15 (Hebrew); Cf. Saverio Campanini, “Yehudah ben Nissim Ibn Malka: Perush Ha-Tefelot,” (Appendix) in: Giulio Busi, Catalogue of the Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Community of Mantua, (Firenze: Firenze Cadmo, 2001), 219–241; Cf. Afterman, The Intention of Prayers, 23–34; Afterman, “Letter Permutation,” note 11. 78 Montada, “Philosophy in Andalusia,” 171–175. 79 See Harvey, “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy,” 349–369. 80 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 106–107. 81 See Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 172–200. 82 See Paul Fenton, The Treatise of the Pool, (London: Ishk Book Service, 1981), 44–46 [Arabic section]. 83 Harvey Hames, “A Seal Within the Seal: The Imprint of Sufism in Abraham Abulafia’s Teaching,” Medieval Encounters 10 (2006): 153–172.

170

Chapter 8

of mystical union, but concludes that, although it is possible, he couldn’t find enough evidence for such positive influence.84 He does offer that Abulafia’s use of the term derekh as mystical or spiritual path suggests a Sufi influence of the word tariqa;85 further, he recognizes the explicit influence of Sufi sources on Abulafia’s student R. Nathan as well as on later developments in ecstatic Kabbalah,86 mainly in R. Isaac of Acre and early 16th-century Kabbalah centers in Jerusalem and Safed. Paul Fenton has suggested that Abulafia may have encountered Sufis during his brief visit to Acre around 1260, or elsewhere in the course of his wide travels. He argues that concrete contacts between Kabbalists and Sufis took place during the 13th century in the Holy Land, where thriving centers of Muslim culture flourished, such as in Jerusalem and even Safed. Contemporary Palestinian Kabbalists close to the circle of Abulafia “not only betray a certain number of Sufi practices in their esoteric discipline but also testify to have directly observed the Sufi dhikr ritual”.87 Fenton argues further that the focal point of Abulafia’s ecstatic method is the practice of hazkarah, a term reminiscent of the Arabic dhikr, and noting that “the meditative ritual, practiced in an isolated and dark place, as set out in Abulafia’s writings, obviously involves Sufi techniques.”88 In regard to Isaac of Acre (c. 1270–1340), Fenton argues that he in particular seemed to have had direct knowledge of Sufi techniques, including solitary meditation and techniques of visualization of letters. Isaac was also an important link in the transmission of these methods to the later Kabbalists of the 16th-century Safed;89 he very possibly may have had personal contacts with Sufis and had a good knowledge of Arabic. Alternatively, he may have made the acquaintance of David Maimonides and his pietistic companion during the latter’s exile in Acre, which lasted until 1289. Given the unique background of R. Isaac and some of his sources in the history of ecstatic Kabbalah, the following chapter will discuss his contribution to the development of a rich language and imagery of mystical union and mystical embodiment synthesized (by the end of the thirteen century) from three major sources: Jewish philosophy, Kabbalah and Sufism. 84 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 106–107. Idel, “Ashkenazi Esotericism,” 11, note 77. 85 Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 144 note 22. 86 Ibid, 73–90, 112–113. 87 Fenton, “Judaism and Sufism”, 214. 88 Ibid, 214. 89 See Paul Fenton, “Influences Soufies sur le Dévéloppement de la Qabbale à Safed: le cas de la Visitation des Tombes,” in Expérience et Ecriture Mystiques dans les Religions du Livre, eds. Paul B. Fenton and Roland Goetschel, (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 163–190.

Chapter 9

Language and Images of Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre While Abraham Abulafia’s mystical path is articulated mainly using the language of Neo-Aristotelian unitive epistemology, in his student and follower R. Nathan Ben Sa’adyah Harar and in the writing of R. Isaac of Acre one can find—besides the language of philosophical union—a variety of images, some Sufi, to describe the path to mystical union. Broadly, through both its medieval trends of Platonism and Aristotelianism, philosophy was the major source of the vocabulary of union. The Sufi sources likely contributed a few interesting images and formulas, which enriched the Kabbalists imagery only towards the end of the 13th century.1 Isaac of Acre was a key figure who drew on several Sufi images (soon considered in detail), and contributed much to the development of the unitive type of mysticism. However, as we shall see, he may have merely been using Sufi imagery in order to describe unio mystica and other established themes.2 We do have attestations of one of Abulafia’s students, Nathan Ben Sa’adyah Harar, an important source for Isaac of Acre as well, having heard of Sufi practices. He uses in his writing an image of the completion of a circle for a human cleaving to the divine,3 to exemplify the mystical union.4 This interesting image is a symbol of the human coming into a larger unity with the divine, together signifying the complete circle. It stresses the idea that without union, not only the human is in a state of lack, but also the divine. (This idea that the union is somehow serving and completing both, will be further cultivated, as we shall see, in the mystical path of R. Isaac of Acre.) 1 See the remarks by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 306 notes 64, 68. 2 Interestingly, the Neo-Aristotelian philosopher Moses Narboni who developed the NeoAristotelian Averroistic path of union was also influenced by several Sufi discussions. See George Vajda, “Comment le Philosophe juif Moïse de Narbonne Comprenait-il les Paroles Ecstatiques des Soufies?” in Actas del Primer Congreso de Estudios Arabes Islámicos, (Madrid: Comite Permanente del Congreso de Arabes e Islamicos, 1964), 129–135. 3 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 73–90, 112–113. 4 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 63–66 who analyzes not only R. Nathan’s discussion but also the development of this image as well as the process of integration as union in later sources in the history of Jewish mysticism up to Hasidism.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_010

172

Chapter 9

One observes, in R. Nathan and his student R. Isaac, a clear tendency to use a variety of imagery in order to describe the unitive experience—its dangers and boundaries, but also its mutual benefits. While Abulafia preferred the use of Neo-Aristotelian formulas of epistemic union, the later ecstatic Kabbalists introduced different images to demonstrate the ideal of union, and to convey the difference between the desired union and a union leading to death, and the mutual effect of the desired union on both the divine and man. A line is drawn between the positive and the negative union—if the human agent knows how to control the intense mystical dynamics, the process is not only positive for him but also for God who incorporates the individual’s specific persona into his fuller being. Another important theme is the rabbinic motif of the Patriarchs serving as a chariot to God, which was well developed into a rich discussion of the mutual benefits and consequences of unio mystica. Divine engagement with special personas, their incorporation into His mental and personality structures, is known through early mystical writings that contain the idea that the Patriarchs serve as a chariot for God. Early Kabbalah further developed the mechanism for the Tetragrammaton to dwell in each of the Patriarchs (and every perfected mystic ever since) and to absorb the unique personality, name, and individual persona that continues to live as part of the godhead, functioning as part of God’s mental and psychological structure. Thus, the Patriarchs, who in this sense never died, function as God’s psychological qualities—for example, by incorporating the persona of Abraham, God learned the meaning of “mercy”, while Abraham is alive in God through the eschatological union. Consequently, through mystical union the human persona is not only not annihilated, but absorbed and incorporated into the divine. The “Patriarchs as the chariot” and its classic Kabbalistic interpretations thus served as a form of “positive” mystical union as well as a powerful use of symbol derived from midrash, thus serving as a bridge between the rabbinic sources and the “new” ideal of unio mystica. This is a key symbol for unio mystica as mystical embodiment in 13th-century Kabbalah, and is intimately connected to two other main eschatological themes discussed above: apotheosis and union with angels. These three elements go hand in hand and find their full elaboration in R. Isaac’s Kabbalah. The notion of God’s “sitting” on or “dwelling” in men or angels was used as a symbol for mystical union and a way of understanding the mutual assimilation of the human and the divine persona. Drawing upon the symbolism of enthronement as unio mystica developed by the Kabbalist Jacob Bar Sheshet, a very rich tradition emerged synthesizing the rabbinic images of enthronement (particularly God in or on a human) and the symbolism of God riding the merkavah or chariot as key “ancient” symbols

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

173

for mystical union and embodiment. These traditions were correlated with yet another key symbol of mystical union: “crowning”—the eschatological image of the divine crowning the human and the human crowning the Shekhinah. The same image functions also on the collective level, in which God crowns Israel as a collective, and Israel crowns the Shekhinah. These theories were enriched with the parallel apotheosis tradition of Enoch and the general ideal of mystical union with angels, all creating a tradition correlating both mystical union and embodiment with Jewish rabbinic and biblical themes and ideas. The main focus of all of these ideas is the notion that unique individuals reach a form of eschatological union in which they initially function below as an extension of the godhead, and at some stage reach complete eschatological union through which they live beside or inside God. The interpretation of key symbols such as the “Throne” and the “Crown” with unitive vocabulary provided a rich matrix of symbols and ideas supporting the notion of unio mystica as an original (biblical and rabbinic) value, into which ecstatic Kabbalists incorporated the philosophical phrases for union (both Aristotelian and Platonic), and eventually images deriving from Sufi sources. The combination of the enriched and charged biblical and rabbinic symbols and themes with philosophical terminology and vocabulary and powerful Sufi images brought about a complicated mystical vocabulary of unio mystica fully integrated into the Jewish tradition. We shall now examine how R. Isaac of Acre synthesizes all of the above and more.

R. Isaac of Acre

The mystical path of R. Isaac of Acre is the focus of heated scholarly discussions regarding mystical union in medieval Kabbalah, due in large part to the extreme examples of unitive experiences that he provides, using powerful imagery, alongside more moderate philosophical terminology. He was noted as one of the first Kabbalists to draw on Sufi imagery in his unitive imaginings; the images he used and developed became influential in later developments in Jewish mysticism. His use of this imagery (some of it likely drawn from Sufi sources) was aimed at enriching the standard philosophical vocabulary applied by most preceding Kabbalists, including Abulafia, concerning mystical union. Simultaneously, he drew on several Kabbalistic ideas which were relatively well developed by the end of the 13th century, such as: the notion of apotheosis as mystical union with an angel or eschatological divine rank, the “Patriarchs as merkavah”, the symbol of enthronement as mystical union and

174

Chapter 9

embodiment, and the fundamental understanding of devequt as including (at least in some circumstances) the notion of unio mystica. All of this situates him in a key position in the history of unio mystica in Judaism; not only were his writings well known by 16th-century Kabbalists, but the images he uses for mystical union spread widely into modern forms of Jewish mysticism including Hasidism.5 Together with Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah, R. Isaac’s contribution represents a stage in Jewish thought in which sophisticated theories of mystical union developed rich vocabularies and phrases that impacted later generations. Due to his expressive, articulated images of union, R. Isaac is frequently used as an exception to Scholem’s categorical claims about the absence of unio mystica in Jewish mysticism.6 He is also is known for his unique blend of almost all Spanish schools of Kabbalah extant in his day.7 Eclecticism itself is one of the most dominant features of R. Isaac’s works, and at times his two major works—Me’irat ‘Einayim8 and Ozar Hayyim9—have the character of a compendium, containing important discussions on almost all aspects of the Kabbalah of the 13th century. Some of the most significant and interesting threads in R. Isaac’s writings are those that focus on devequt and union with God. Here I will pursue a nuanced understanding of R. Isaac of Acre’s use of the language of union in light of an analysis of the key themes and symbols he draws together. The language and symbolism in his writing was at the focus of scholarly debate from the early stages of scholarship on mystical union. One of the first studies of the issue of unio mystica in Judaism was a now-classic article by Ephraim Gottlieb, “Illuminations, Prophecy and Devequt in Ozar Hayyim” published in 1969.10 Gottlieb marked R. Isaac of Acre as a Kabbalist who, in parts of his writings, promoted different forms of languages for unio mystica. Gottlieb’s arguments were subsequently supported in the many studies of Moshe Idel, and in Eitan Fishbane’s recent monograph on R. Isaac. In his 5 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 63–73 and in chapter 11. 6 See Scholem, Kabbalah, 176 and Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 203–204. 7 See Amos Goldreich, Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, Sefer Me’irat Einayim by R. Isaac of Acre: A Critical Edition (Jerusalem: Akkadamon, 1981), 412 (Hebrew) and cf. Fishbane, As Light, 35–46. 8 Probably written in the first decade of the 14th century, see Goldreich, Me’irat Einayim, 98–99, 354; Cf. Fishbane, As Light, 12, 37. 9  Apparently written in the early 1330’s. See Goldreich, Me’irat Einayim, 364, 368; Cf. Fishbane, As Light, 42. 10 Ephraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, (Tel Aviv: University Of Tel Aviv, 1976), 231–247 (Hebrew).

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

175

article, Gottlieb notices that in some discussions, the vocabulary of devequt does indeed include elements of a strong language and imagery of unitive mysticism. Clearly, for R. Isaac, at least in some circumstances, devequt means a form of mystical union. Gottlieb also considers the possibility that R. Isaac may have been influenced by Sufi imagery of unio mystica. Gottlieb, who struggled with the problematic equation of devequt and union, reached the conclusion that some of R. Isaac’s discussions refer to a union with the infinite, while others describe a union with the divine Wisdom. He concluded that for R. Isaac, devequt included clear “motives of unio mystica”.11 Given that R. Isaac was above all an eclectic thinker, attention should be devoted to the different images and models he employs while articulating his mystical path. Below, I will offer an analysis of what I consider the key passages presenting mystical union in R. Isaac’s works, while attempting to locate them within the different Kabbalistic models he was drawing from. R. Isaac’s articulations of the mystical path developed two important features: The first is an awareness of the potential dangers involved in mystical moments, especially in mystical union, and consequently a warning about the danger of dying in the ecstasy of union; the other is a highly positive view of union as a mutual and beneficial experience, not only for the human agent. This somewhat ambivalent approach to unio mystica is considered a challenge for the mystical virtuous: to reach mystical union and avoid the potential dangers involved, including death. Both the potential negative and the promise for a positive outcome are illustrated with powerful images, serving an important addition to the classic philosophical discourse illustrating and explaining mystical union. Let us begin with the two most famous and powerful new images for unio mystica in R. Isaac’s writing (in addition to familiar Kabbalistic ideas such as the apotheosis of Enoch, the “Patriarchs as merkavah”, and the philosophical discourse of union): the images of sinking and drowning in water, and burning in fire.12 These important motifs are situated in the context of the ancient apophatic transformation and eschatological union with an “archangel” as the most extreme mystical state achievable while still in the body, as transmitted in the school of Nachmanides; R. Isaac was a key student in Nachmanides’ school and wrote a super commentary on Nachmanides’ esoteric commentary on the Torah. As part of this tradition, as we saw above, Enoch’s transformation into Metatron by uniting with the divine rank associated with the angel represents a rare mystical achievement, not of becoming an angel but rather achieving an eschatological union with God while still alive in the body. As mentioned 11 Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 237. 12 Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, Ms Moscow-Gunzburg, 775, 111a.

176

Chapter 9

above, a key theme in early Kabbalah is this act of transformation, which is considered to be a powerful moment of unio mystica in which (in extremely rare cases) unique individuals manage to reach eschatological union with an aspect of the godhead while still alive. This is not the more common state of mystical union, as it includes a “jump” to a more advanced stage of integration into the dynamic godhead, an integration that continues after death and at the same time includes the embodiment of the human by the divine. R. Isaac uses several different phrases and images of union to explain this complex state, which demands virtuosic capabilities of self-control and mental power. In order to reach the state of eschatological union while still alive, the Kabbalist must unite with the divine grade known as “Metatron” (and not the actual subdivine angel), but at the same time must be wary not to die in the process. It is useful to quote another discussion in which R. Isaac warns against the natural tendency of the mystic to drown in the mystical light in the moment of full mystical union. The eschatological mystical union may lead in a split second to the undesired mystical death; being able to reach this form of union without sinking as in water, or being consumed as in fire, is a matter of commitment, self-control, and technique. It is crucial to realize that for R. Isaac, reaching the final and complete union is a semi-eschatological state on the verge of death; as such, the individual who reaches it cannot continue at the same time to function normally in the human realm. While dying is not desirable even in a “mystical kiss”, transforming into a different, eschatological state is desirable indeed. Although it may be considered the ideal way to “die” (as a form of “kiss of death”), this eschatological union exists as an ideal at the end of the path of mystical transformation. It thus may be considered the defining, ultimate experience—on the ladder of transformation and union leading to the ultimate eschatological state—yet without dying as consequence. Reaching the eschatological state without dying during the acute apotheosis is the desired product of union with a specific element in the godhead. As we shall observe, it is possible to reach “positive” union without dying, but R. Isaac encourages his students not to be afraid of the devastating experience, for ultimately after the normal phase of fear dissolves, the most precious and intimate moments of love with God appear. For R. Isaac, the true uniomystic essence does not consist of violent death and fear, but rather of love and intimacy. The real moment of union with God is a moment of intimacy and not death. Nonetheless, the student must be extremely wary not to lose himself in the midst of the ocean of light—unlike Moses, who would have lost himself in his desire for the ultimate eschatological state of union if it wasn't for God who prevented him from drowning in the mystical light, so that he

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

177

could continue to function as a prophet on His behalf. Sinking in the light— which is considered to be the absolute and final union with God—is dangerous, for it might swallow up the individual. God’s refusal to grant Moses’ wish testifies that this state of unity is indeed the desirable final stage of the Jewish mystical path, but at the same time, extremely risky: When Moses our Master said: “show me thy glory”, he sought his death, in order that his soul should obliterate the barrier of her palace which separates between her and the wondrous divine light, which she was eager to contemplate. But because Israel still needed Moses, God did not wish that Moses’ soul would leave her palace in order to apprehend this light of His [. . .] Now you, my son, strive to contemplate the supernal light since I have certainly introduced you into, the sea of the Ocean, which surrounds the [whole] world. But be careful and guard your soul from gazing and your heart from pondering [upon the light], lest you sink; and the effort shall be to contemplate but [at the same time] to escape from sinking [. . .] Let your soul contemplate the divine light and certainly cleave to it, as long as she dwells in her container.13 Here the Kabbalist warns his student against sinking into the ocean of light, but at the same time encourages the contemplation and union with the light, desirable as long as the soul still “dwells in her container” (in its body) and does not experience an ecstatic death. The master instructs his student to contemplate and cleave, but at the same time guard his soul from sinking. Moses’ request of God to feast on His face attests to his desire to reach the ultimate state of mystical union symbolized by mystical feasting (another key symbol for union with the light, through which he desires to sink into divine light in total ecstasy). The same motif of sinking in the ocean of light appears in R. Isaac’s rich discussion in Ozar Hayyim, in which Gottlieb and others located the most developed usage of unitive language and imagery in R. Isaac’s writing. Therein, R. Isaac speaks in several different unionistic locutions: Also on that day I saw the secret of the fire that consumes fire, for the secret of fire is Form, and the consuming here is when one thing is swallowed by another, and [Gen 2:24] “[man] shall cleave to his wife becoming one flesh”, as the intellectualizing Hasid allows his soul to ascend and 13 Isaac of Acre, Sefer Otzar Hayim, 775, fol. 161b, translation and discussion by Idel, “On the Language,” 58–59.

178

Chapter 9

to cleave correctly to the Divine Secret which cleaves to her and swallows her [the soul]. And this is the secret of [Num 4:20] “they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die.”14 [. . .] The secret of this consumption is the true devequt; if this soul will consume it will consume, and if it shall not consume, it shall be consumed [. . .] i.e. if she will pursue the Intellegibilia she will perceive them and they will be held and engraved [upon her] and this is truly the secret of consumption. And of this consumption and this devequt it is said [Ps 34:9] “taste and see that God is good”. [The soul shall] cleave to the Divine intellect and He will cleave to her, for more than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to nurse.15 She and the Intellect become one entity, as one who pours a pitcher of water into a flowing spring, and it all becomes one entity. And this is the secret intention of our Rabbis of blessed memory when they said: “Enoch is Metatron”. This is the secret of [the phrase] “a fire that consumes a fire”.16 In this passage, Isaac of Acre uses several images to describe the mystical encounter leading to full mystical union, echoing and incorporating the ancient ideal of mystical apotheosis. The discussion of unio mystica in relation to the apotheosis of Enoch into Metatron is part of a wider trend in 13th-century Kabbalah generating from Nachmanides and Maimonides, in which the ideal of mystical union is understood as a union with a higher rank in the godhead. The apotheosis becomes the merging into the godhead, a full embodiment as in the verse from Genesis 2:24, i.e. “one flesh”. The ideal of union is taken both from the union of husband and wife that leads to a union of “one flesh”, and from the ancient ideal of apotheosis in which a human transformed in to an archangel. Both tell us something about what the teacher is trying to say about eschatological union achievable only rarely while alive. It is important that this eschatological union, achievable while still alive in the body, is 14 Numbers 4:20. (The quote adduced by R. Isaac contains a pun in it, for the Hebrew root used here for “covering” is bla’, which also means “to swallow”. It is important to note that this verse also alludes to the story of Nadav and Avihu who were consumed by fire (Leviticus 10:1–7). Ruth Kara-Ivanov Kaniel, “Consumed by Love: The Death of Nadab and Abihu as a Ritual of Erotic-Mystical-Union,” in Myth, Ritual and Mysticism: Studies in Honor of Professor Ithamar Gruenwald, ed. Gideon Bohak et al., Teuda 26 (2014): 624–630 (Hebrew). 15 See: BT Pesahim, fol. 112a. 16 Isaac of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, fol. 111a; I have consulted translations and analysis in Fishbane, As Light, 281 and Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 67; Idel, “On the Language,” 59.

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

179

extremely dangerous and therefore extremely rare—yet it seems to represent the most advanced of all mystical ideals. This unique ideal of union is depicted through several images and formulas: like the transformation of a human into an angel, understood as a form of being swallowed; as a “union of the flesh” of husband and wife as in Genesis 2:24; as fire which consumes fire; as a form of eating and consuming divine light; as the pitcher of water poured into a flowing spring; and as a noetic union with the divine intellect. Isaac of Acre correlates the biblical verse from Genesis 2:24 that refers to the “cleaving” of husband and wife with union with the Divine, thus depicting the craving for unity of flesh as a paradigm of “positive” mystical union. Just as both wife and husband benefit and enjoy the union without losing their mutual identity, so does the “positive” union with God sustain a moment of intimacy between the divine and man. In addition, we learn that the human type of union leads to the union of one flesh, and thus the same may be deduced about union with God—i.e. it may lead to a form of mystical embodiment. Given, however, the imbalance of power and being between the two, the mystic must be wary not to lose himself, overwhelmed by the infinity of the divine. The image of swallowing serves as a metaphor for the union of substance, as does the image of fire consuming fire. In rabbinic sources, God is described as fire, which consumes the soul; we may recall that this was precisely the reason that several rabbis denied the human possibility of “cleaving” to God. However, here God is symbolized as fire, not literally as in ancient sources, but metaphorically as a spiritual substance, as light—the same substance that the soul is made out of, such as the luminous substance or a “candle”; this indicates the substantive yet spiritual nature of union. Union is possible because the soul and God share the same substance—light, with fire as a metaphor for light. Just as man is not actually water, so is God not actually fire—both are images of a far more abstract phenomenon. Here the use of the image of fire may be a direct reference and response to the ancient rabbis, who viewed it as the numinous barrier between man and God. Here the fire serves as a common element allowing the union, as in many Neoplatonic inspired sources light can unite with light, and water can absorb water—in that way the human and the divine can become one.17 These images are used on one hand to stress the possibility of real substantive union, and inevitably, on the other, the potential dangers of such union. 17 I am not convinced by Kara’s argument for the existence of a model of “unio mystica of fire” in ancient and rabbinical sources, neither am I convinced that it had developed in medieval kabbalah and in particular in this source of R. Isaac.

180

Chapter 9

All locutions emphasized by Gottlieb—“a fire, which consumes fire”, a drop merging with water, and the Aristotelian formula of noetic union “She and the Intellect become one entity”18 (the latter analyzed by Moshe Idel19 and discussed above)—are correlated with the ancient ideal of apotheosis and the medieval ideals of eschatological union. All are used to explain how man may unite with the divine light, i.e. God’s Wisdom, and become that divine being. Even though there is no reference to a specific rank in the godhead, R. Isaac most likely refers to the noetic light of the divine Wisdom. In those rare cases, the human reaches the more advanced stage of full mystical union and embodiment at the same time.20 The two different images of full union—that of the consuming fire and that of the drop and the ocean—most likely originated in Sufi sources;21 they have their parallels and even perhaps some sources in ancient traditions, but the traditions of this use and meaning are not Jewish. We should therefore view R. Isaac’s discussion as a milestone in the history of Jewish mysticism, sewing together ample images, symbols, and phrases of mystical union from a variety of sources and traditions into one discussion. We might say that applying the “consuming fire” metaphor in a completely different manner from its original use in rabbinic sources is analogous to the unity of male and female in their consummation of love. The key for the proper understanding of this discussion is the assumption that physical substances serve as metaphors for noetic union with the divine wisdom. Yet playing with fire is dangerous—one can be burnt and consumed—and the same is true for the drop and the ocean; union is portrayed as potentially annihilating for the human agent. As we have observed before, R. Isaac warns against the human tendency to sink into the ocean of light. Ruth Kara claims R. Isaac is indeed articulating a model of “union with fire”, and that he has two different perceptions of unity expressed in this one discussion. She distinguishes between the experience described by R. Isaac through the metaphor of a “fire which consumes fire”, and that which is described through the metaphor of the “drop merging with the flowing stream”. In the fire metaphor, union is portrayed as mutual and fecund; as with male and 18 On the philosophical origins of this phrase, see Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 19–23. 19 Idel’s chapter on unio mystica in his Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 62–73, provides an analysis of the different images of union used by R. Isaac in this discussion. 20 Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 237; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 67. 21 See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 105–108; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 306, notes 64 and 68: “the motif of the sinking recurs in writings written by Jewish oriental authors or persons who arrived there. I suppose it to be of Sufi origin.”

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

181

female, God wishes for the union as much as the mystic does. In contrast, the water metaphor union is portrayed as destructive and deadly; God’s disposition to the mystic is parallel to the unbalanced disposition of the cow to the calf—the first wants to give milk more than the latter wants to drink it. The model of a “unio mystica of fire” is claimed by Kara to bring both the ecstatic and theurgic schools together, as the ascent of the “ladder of fire” is understood as both a means for the tikkun—or restoration—of “God reaching ecstasy”(!) as end to itself.22 The main problem with this analysis is the tendency to separate two images (out of several), assuming they refer to different forms of union, and at the same time ignoring the weight of other images and phrases, such as the philosophical phrase of noetic union of two intellects, the eschatological context and their background in the tradition transmitted in Nachmanides’ school. Thus, at least in this source introduced by R. Isaac, the analysis is somewhat out of context, a context now presented below in detail. There is not much support for the distinction between a theurgic union and a mystical one in this specific source, and no reason to think R. Isaac did not use fire as a metaphor for light. Instead of isolating and then analyzing each metaphor separately, let us look at the entire context of this source and the line of images all together: First, it describes the noetic union with the divine intellect and the apotheosis in terms of a full union, using four different images and formulas, all of which indicate the desirable “positive” union that leads neither to the sinking in the ocean nor to the full consumption in fire. The idea expressed by the image of fire and that of the ocean is identical; the only fundamental distinction is between the “negative” and “positive” unions, the latter resembling the union of flesh, in which the two become one but remain a couple. This is the core idea of the eschatological mystical union presented here: becoming one with the godhead while avoiding mystical death, an ideal exemplified in the images of both the fire and the ocean. The substantive quality that man and God both share—i.e. the noetic light substance (and not “fire”)—enables them to unite. However, the mystic must realize two truths: first, God is much more powerful than he is, therefore the union with Him is dangerous; second, the desired “positive” union is a union of love and intimacy (despite its preliminary stages of fear and “death experience”), a mutual union of intimacy that benefits not only the human partner. R. Isaac articulates several more states of mystical union, and Gottlieb shows that there are places in Ozar Hayyim in which the union clearly occurs with the 22 Kara-Ivanov Kaniel, “Consumed by Love,” 624–630.

182

Chapter 9

highest element or layer of the godhead—Ein Sof; in these occurrences, one may discern an experience of annihilation of the individuality of the soul: And his soul shall cleave to Ein Sof and will return to the complete universal (klali gamur) after being particular when she was imprisoned in her vessel; she will return to become universal in her true secret source.23 Here we find expression of the process of integration through universalization, which leads to mystical union.24 Boas Huss has shown correctly that the term “klali gamur” (total universal) alludes here to the mystical union that is reached through the practice of modes of exegesis, where the soul loses its individuality and becomes totally universal, infuses and thus reaches union with the absolute. Moshe Idel notes that for R. Isaac, “the way of cleaving is a combination of medieval Aristotelian elements, such as the emphasis upon the intellect as the organ of cleaving, and the Neoplatonic trend, represented by the mentioning of the universalization of the particular soul and her ability to perform miraculous changes in the natural course of events.”25 R. Isaac’s discussion with its different Sufi metaphors of mystical union served, it seemed to Idel, as a basic model of Jewish unio mystica and as a reference point by which to compare Jewish unitive mysticism and general mysticism. In the classic study of unio mystica in his Kabbalah: New Perspectives,26 Idel claims further: “Far from being absent, unitive descriptions recur in Kabbalistic literature no less frequently than in non-Jewish mystical writings, and the images used by the Kabbalist do not fall short of the most extreme forms of other types of mysticism.”27 Idel aims to show that in Jewish mystical texts, unio-mystica images prevail as intensely as in mystical texts of other religions, including a variety of “negative” unions (as named herein) or warning against such unions. He first adduces texts of Hindu, Christian28 or Muslim mystics, which are well known for their unio-mystic tendencies, and then 23 Isaac of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, fol. 112a. 24 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 62 and 294 Note 74; Idel, “Universalization,” 32; Boaz Huss, “NiSAN—the Wife of the Infinite: the Mystical Hermeneutics of Rabbi Isaac of Acre,” Kabbalah 5 (2000): 168–169. 25 Idel, “Universalization,” 32. 26 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 59–73. 27 Idem, 60. 28 See also Bernard McGinn, “Ocean and Desert as Symbols of Mystical Absorption in the Christian Tradition,” The Journal of Religion 74 (1994): 155–181.

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

183

shows that parallel images and expressions are prevalent in R. Isaac’s works. Thus, for example, after showing that the Katha Upanishad contains the image of the drop merging with the ocean, Idel cites the passage quoted above in which “[the soul] and the Intellect become one entity, as one who pours a pitcher of water into a flowing spring”.29 Likewise, annihilation as a result of union with God or the awareness of such danger is a recurring theme in many mystical works. For this reason, Idel adduces the passage in which R. Isaac warns the reader about going too far on the path leading to union with the divine. In line with his general argument that unio mystica is prevalent in Jewish as in other sources, Idel analyzes the “swallowing metaphor” as a well-known example of extreme union in various religious traditions that can also be found in R. Isaac’s Ozar Hayyim.30 Being an eclectic Kabbalist, R. Isaac of Acre applies a mix of all the discursive fields and vocabularies of union deriving from philosophical sources, mainly Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian, but also from Kabbalistic and Sufi sources. R. Isaac’s acquaintance with Sufi mystical elements is of major importance to the understanding of the many shades in his Kabbalah (philosophical and mystical alike); the symbolic images he applied for union and its dangers are of definite Sufi origin. Thus, in both cases (of the fire and the drop) we find both the philosophical formula and the Sufi image, together creating a rich and complex depiction of the dynamics of union and its boundaries. In those texts abundant with unitive language, Isaac most often employs the Neoplatonic discourse, while uniquely (among Kabbalists) merging it with an ascetic ethos influenced by Sufism. However, being an itinerant Kabbalist, it is not surprising that Isaac utilizes a number of other discourses to discuss and explain union with the divine. The unique blend of these elements into different mystical paths is characteristic of R. Isaac’s Kabbalah and is exemplified in the following rather lengthy discussion: When the priest [enacts] the sacrifice, he attaches his soul [nafsho] to the altar, and the soul [neshamah] ascends high above on the path of ascent. He [the priest] is called an angel [mal’akh] [. . .] He is called an angel in the lower realm. And when he attaches his soul and raises it on the path of ascent, the Holy One blessed be He raises [the people] as if they themselves had [performed] the sacrifice. And they attach themselves to their Maker [yozram], for the souls of human beings come to the Supernal Altar. They descend from above to the Throne, which is the Throne of 29 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 67. 30 Ibid., 70.

184

Chapter 9

the Holy One blessed be He. And from the head they descend by way of the Spinal Column to the [mark of] the covenant [berit], and from the berit they are included within the Altar, and from there they go out, come forth, and become clothed in the form of an earthly [lit., lower] body. [. . .] Thus, when the soul [nefesh] attaches above, the spirit [ruho] of the human being ascends first, which is to say that she leaves the land of the living and returns to the root from which she was taken when she went out to [become clothed] in a body. And after this she ascends above, all the way to the place of her root, from ascension to ascension, like the waters that rise up to the level from which they come forth. This is [the meaning of] the priestly benediction, [that which takes place] when [the priests] extend their hands to the height of the heavens, bless Israel, attach their souls above, and bless the people [. . .] For the sacrifice ascends first through the Wisdom of Solomon, and [then] ascends through its path up to the Wisdom of ’Elohim. This is also the case with the prophets, for they all attach themselves through their concentration and their wisdom to the Wisdom of Solomon, and from there onward according to their comprehension. Likewise, when the soul [neshamah] separates from the physical body, and she returns to her foundation [yesodah], at first she grasps on to the horns of the altar, and from there she ascends in accordance with their actions. This is the prayer of the pious ones [ha-hasidim] who pray that [God] save them from the judgment of Heaven, that they not be burned in the flame of the Supernal Altar.31 Here R. Isaac applies a clearly Neoplatonic scheme, similar to discussions analyzed above, from Azriel of Gerona’s Kabbalah. Human souls are in fact an extension of the godhead, through which some elements of the godhead correspond with the Universal Soul in the Neoplatonic thought. The souls descends through the different levels of divinity, until the lowest sefirah which R. Isaac calls berit [phallus], where they become “clothed in the form of an earthly [lit., lower] body”. If we are to follow the Neoplatonic theory closely (although it is questionable how closely R. Isaac does actually follow it), it seems that the differentiation into individual souls occurs exactly at this moment of “clothing” in a corporal garment. According to this psychogeny, the ascent of the soul is understood in the context of sacred theurgy: the rise “up” to the godhead, the union therein, and finally the “blessing” drawing down or alternatively the dwelling of the holy spirit in the moment of prophecy, is a classic example of “theurgical union”. Eitan Fishbane correctly identifies the culmination of the 31 Goldreich, Me’irat Eynaim, 140. Translated and analyzed by Fishbane, As Light, 273–275.

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

185

spiritual path (which is unitive by nature) with the culmination of the ascension, where the soul returns to its origin and reaches full mystical union.32 Here the process of mystical union actively follows the process of inner unification of the godhead. The Kabbalist both participates in and even initiates the inner process of unification by means of sacred theurgy, bringing unity and union to the godhead, and then participates in and unites with the spirit that emanates from the “place” of unity. Consequently, the mystic takes part in the secret inner unity of God, and shares His blessing drawn down to earth. This stance is complemented in R. Isaac’s thought with certain Sufi influences: The meaning of “you shall prophesy” is that the mitbodedim made the following condition: They would try to nullify the physical senses, to negate from the thought of the soul every physical sensation, and to garb it in the spirituality of the intellect. And all is dependent upon the thought. If the thought is attached to any created being [. . .] then the individual is considered to be like an idolater. [. . .] Indeed, the pure thought of the soul of Elijah, of blessed memory, was attached to YHYH, the God of Israel, alone.33 Here we see an ascetic aspiration of the mitbodedim, the recluses. They are requested to “nullify the physical senses, to negate from the thought of the soul every physical sensation, and to garb it in the spirituality of the intellect”, which leads to union with the Tetragrammaton. Another discussion introduces a different form of unitive language: You should know that when the Divine Intellect [ha-sekhel ha-’elohi] descends and arrives at the Active Intellect [ha-sekhel ha-po‘el], it is then called the Active Intellect, and when the Active Intellect descends to the Acquired Intellect [ha-sekhel ha-niqneh], it is then called the Acquired Intellect. And when the Acquired Intellect descends to the Agent Intellect [ha-sekhel ha-mitpa‘el], it is then called the Agent Intellect. And when the Agent Intellect reaches the soul within the human being, it is then called “soul” [nefesh]. It follows that the Divine Intellect which is within the human soul is called “soul.” This is from above to below. And when you contemplate this issue from below to above you will see that when the human being separates himself from the vanities of this world, and attaches his mind and his soul to the Supernal realms with an 32 See Fishbane, As Light, 272. 33 Isaac of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, fol. 7a. Translated by Fishbane, As Light, 262.

186

Chapter 9

o­ ngoing constancy, his soul will be called by the name of the rung from among the Supernal rungs which it has reached and become attached to. How so? If the soul of the Contemplator [ha-mitboded] has merited to reach and attach to the Agent Intellect, then it is called the Agent Intellect as though it itself [the soul] was the Agent Intellect. And similarly, when it ascends further, and reaches and attaches to the Acquired Intellect, it becomes [na‘aset] the Acquired Intellect. And if [the soul] merits to reach and to attach to the Active Intellect, it itself becomes in fact the Active Intellect. And if it merits to reach and to attach to the Divine Intellect [ha-sekhel ha-’elohi], how fortunate it is! For it returns to its foundation and its root, and it is actually [mamash] called the Divine Intellect—and that person is called “a divine man” [’ish ’elohim], meaning a divine man who creates worlds.34 In this passage, R. Isaac merges the languages of Neo-Aristotelian philosophy and Neoplatonism into one mystical path. This path leads to a union with the divine that transforms the devotee into a divine man, who can perform miracles.35 The “active intellect” is connected to the human soul by way of emanation; hence, the human soul is an integral link in the chain of divine emanation. This allows for the opposite process of the mystical path of return leading to mystical union. Another fusion of these two discourses occurs when R. Isaac writes that “if the soul of the contemplator [ha-mitboded] has merited to perceive and attach to the Agent Intellect, then it is called the Agent Intellect as though it itself [the soul] was the Agent Intellect”. Here the attachment of the soul is clearly noetic and thus the two become identical, according to Neo-Aristotelian epistemology. Since in R. Isaac’s scheme, the Intellects descend in emanatory fashion, the noetic event is a step in a process of ascension, leading to union not only with the mediating intellect but also with the supreme Wisdom of God. The Neoplatonic ascent of the soul is explained in Neo-Aristotelian language as a series of steps up the path of return in which the human component becomes one and identified with the higher element, thus the soul merges with ever-higher intellects and eventually with the divine. Fishbane has shown convincingly36 that according to R. Isaac, in the hierarchy of being, the divine intellect and the human soul effectively become 34 Goldreich, Mei’rat Eynaim, 222–223. Translated by Fishbane, As Light, 278, with my modifications; see a very similar discussion by Abraham Abulafia quoted and analyzed by Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 6. 35 See Fishbane, As light, 279–280. 36 Idem, 222–223.

Mystical Union in the Kabbalah of R. Isaac of Acre

187

identical; for at the end of the spiritual theurgic process, the soul becomes a continuation of the divine intellect on a lower level in the hierarchy of being. It is possible for the human soul to regain its divine nature and ultimately reach union with the godhead. Fishbane argues correctly that: [w]e have here one of the strongest and boldest formulations of unio mystica available in kabalistic literature [. . .] the logical result is an all-encompassing Oneness, a complete identity of all the component elements of cosmic Being. It is in this respect that the human soul “is actually called the Divine Intellect”, and that the human being is called “a divine man”. All is one, human and Divine, and all this occurs through the human act of devequt.37 Fishbane argues further that in many cases in R. Isaac writings, the vocabulary of devequt refers explicitly to unitive experiences or unitive theosophical states: [The] culmination of the spiritual path is represented frequently as unitive in nature—as a dissolution of the distance between deity and devotee. Within that image matrix, the rhetoric of devequt converges with the discourse of mystical union, and the boundaries between personal identity and the flux of divine Being are erased.38 We have seen therefore that R. Isaac’s language of union appears not only in philosophical discourses, but also in powerful images and in different phrases, and as part of the language of devequt. Fishbane emphasizes another dimension that can attest to unio mystica in his thought—the theosophical language of union and the analysis of mystical technique as a manifestation of unitive languages outside the philosophical context. This occurs when R. Isaac utilizes what appears to be a rather powerful visualization technique: I, [. . .] Isaac [. . .] of Akko, was contemplating that which I received from the great one of his generation in humility and in the wisdom of Kabbalah and philosophy—and he was also very strong in the wisdom of letter combination [permutation]. [I received the instruction] to constantly place the ten sefirot before my face, as it is written [Ps 16:8]: “I have placed YHVH before me always—He is at my right hand, I shall never be shaken.” 37 Ibid., 279–280. 38 Ibid., As Light, 272.

188

Chapter 9

And I saw them this day—on my head, above it like a pillar. Their feet were upon my head, and their top (their head) was above [all of the four worlds—] ’Azilut, Beri’ah, Yezirah, ‘Asiyah [ABYA]. The foot of the ladder [regel ha-sulam] was upon my head, and the top [the head] [of the ladder] was above [the four worlds of] ABYA. And all the while that I gaze upon [or contemplate] this ladder—which is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He—I see my soul cleaved to ’Ein-Sof.39 The visualization of the Tetragrammaton, based on the verse from the Psalms, is used here as a technique for achieving mystical union.40 The elevation of the soul through techniques of letter permutation41 and visualization of divine names leads to the ultimate union with the divine, as he reports from the union with Ein Sof. The ascent through different worlds and divine grades leads ultimately to union with the divine most hidden self.42 This is one of many instances in which R. Isaac employs the language of union without necessarily using a complex platform of philosophical discourses or even Sufi imagery, but rather strong depictions of techniques. In this passage, R. Isaac does not require a philosophical edifice in order to explain the cleaving of his soul to ‘Ein Sof. The union occurs at what seems to be the experiential and technical level; the visualization itself leads to the attachment that is union to ‘Ein Sof. However, even in this instance one may discern a Neoplatonic hint: The Tetragrammaton, which is visualized by R. Isaac, is compared to a ladder—a very important symbol in ecstatic Kabbalah and Sufi sources,43 which obviously echoes the emanatory structure of divinity in Neoplatonism, as well as the possibility of ascending to its final ranks leading eventually to mystical union with God.

39 Isaac of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, fol. 100a. Translated by Fishbane, As Light, 245. 40 See Idel, The Mystical Experience, 33–34; Huss, “NiSAN,” 166–167. 41 See Afterman, “Letter Permutation.” 42 See Huss, “NiSAN,” 168. 43 Alexander Altmann, “The Ladder of Ascension”, in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1969), 41–72.

Chapter 10

“Single Unification, Single Bond”: The Language of Union and Unity in the Zohar The language of mystical union and mystical embodiment in the Zohar, the most important body of literature created by the Spanish Kabbalists, in the last quarter of the 13th century, has been at the focus of recent scholarly ­investigations.1 Generally speaking, the observation can be made that several key elements we have seen until now in Jewish mystical and philosophical writings are lacking in the Zoharic homilies: the detailed mystical techniques leading to unitive mystical states as in Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah; explicit and detailed descriptions of mystical experiences of union as found in earlier sources analyzed above; epistemological or philosophical phrases or formulas of union (knowledge as union), as found in earlier Kabbalistic sources; and Sufi images of mystical union, as found in R. Isaac from Acre.2 This suggests that the mystical character of the Zoharic homilies, and specifically the Zohar’s approach to mystical union, is somewhat milder or contained in comparison to other bodies of literature discussed above.3 On the other hand, the Zohar perhaps more than any other Kabbalistic source is focused on theosophical dynamics of unity and union—that is, within the godhead—and man’s access to or participation in that unity. The Zohar is fascinated and drawn to the mystery of the “One”, the mystery of God’s inner unity and union, and it seems that in certain circumstances it is possible for the Jewish people or its elite to participate and even experience this mystery. The strong dynamics of “theosophical union” suggest possibly that in some cases the lower sub-divine realms may participate, join, experience, and even initiate those higher dynamics of union. A fundamental idea recurring in the Zohar is that the human and divine realms are interconnected, and intimately 1 For a more detailed analysis of all recent scholarship on the topic, see Afterman, “Languages of Union in the Zoharic Literature” (Forthcoming in Hebrew). 2 Although the Zohar might be drawing on Sufi images for example the image of the “Lily” and “Rose”. See Avi Elqayam, “‘As a Lily among Thrones’: The Secret of the Rose as the Image of All Images in the Zohar”, in Kabbalah, Mysticism and Poetry: The Journey to the End of Vision, eds. Avi Elqayam and Shlomy Mualem (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015), 129–130, 231–234 (Hebrew); Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 224–233. 3 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 61; Idel, ‘On the Language’, 72.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_011

190

Chapter 10

connected and affected by each other, and therefore while the divine realm is undergoing such powerful dynamics of inner union and unity, it is not surprising that humanity participates in some way in this process of union and unity, especially given the fact that often in the Zohar the distinction between the divine and the human realms is not that clear cut.4 The fact that the Zohar seems to be missing the elements enumerated above suggests that we need to look carefully at the dynamics of theosophical union described in the different homilies in the Zohar, and at the same time at its use of the set of key symbols that were used by the Kabbalists to designate unitive processes and states. The Zohar, framed as a kind of mystical midrash, clearly finds these key symbols attractive, given their ancient biblical and rabbinic origins, and uses them without necessarily accepting or adopting the entire package of philosophical and unitive meanings associated with them in order to function in the mythical theosophical language of the Zohar. Nevertheless, those symbols are already “loaded” with some unitive content or overtone, and as such invest the specific contexts in which they’re being planted within the Zohar with a certain connection to that unity. This opens the path to two distinct but related aspects of investigation into the language of mystical union in the Zohar: the first, into the dynamics of union and unity and other “hidden” dynamics within the godhead; and the second, into specific Zoharic symbols that are used to overcome the distance between the human and the godhead exactly in the context of those dynamics of union in the godhead. The most important of these symbols are the mystical “kiss”, the mystical “coronation” and “crowning” and the symbol of the “rose”.5 These symbols function with a wide spectrum of meanings in the Zohar, and in specific contexts are charged with unitive meaning, functioning as mediators between the unified godhead and the human agent. As in earlier forms of Kabbalah, in the Zohar the dynamics of union and unity are naturally characteristic of the divine more than the human realm and existence. However, one of the fundamental ideas in the Zohar’s view 4 See: Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution, 114, who on this latter point goes so far as to claim that in 13th-century Kabbalah and in particular in the Zohar, the experience of mystical union is: “ . . . beyond the reach of critical inquiry [ . . .] I would argue that it is not at all possible to identify any clear demarcation within this discourse between God, the world, and the Jewish individual. All three are loci on the same web, relating to one another in a dialectical tension of identity and difference. The claim of mystical union is therefore neither fully present neither fully absent in this texts, since the individual is construed as simultaneously one with and other than God”. 5 See: Elqayam, ‘As a Lily’, 199–201.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

191

of union is that human beings, both on a collective basis as the “assembly of Israel” and on a personal basis, can integrate on different levels into the godhead, without losing their human character and while still alive in the body, and participate in its divine dynamics. Thus, in that sense, some of the divine dynamics of unity and union apply also to the human component integrated at that stage into the godhead. In the complex and dynamic godhead, higher levels of union may be embodied or reflected through lower manifestations of that same union, so the human agent may participate in different ways in the dynamics of divine union once he is integrated at least partially into the divine realm. In order for the human to participate in the dynamics of union, he must first undergo some sort of initial integration into the godhead, to be part of the godhead and by that way to be subject to the divine dynamics of union. Once part of the godhead, either on a collective basis as during those special times the “assembly of Israel” is integrated in to the godhead, or personally as part of a mystical perfection of the enlightened, then the dynamics of union may apply to him in different ways. Only then do the unitive symbols of union such as the “crown” and the “kiss” apply to the human agent, marking that he is participating both in the inner divine union and reflecting the higher union of the crown of God, the singular point transcending the godhead itself. After the initial integration into the godhead, the human agent may participate in sexual intercourse with the female potency of the godhead and also unite with the higher aspects and lights of the godhead, and even with the highest of all lights (emanating from the crown). The Zohar articulates what Liebes considers a “symbolic” union with the feminine divine, undertaken by the enlightened one who “unites” with the Shekhinah through and by his sexual union with his mundane wife. The Kabbalist who is not integrated in to the godhead cannot “really” or “actually” unite with the feminine divine, and such union occurs “only” on a symbolic level.6 In order for the tsaddik to “actually” (or according to Liebes, “mythically”) unite with the Shekhinah, he needs first to be elevated and be associated with the masculine potency of yesod— the divine phallus. Then, integrated into the divine, he takes part in divine intercourse. This is a very rare state associated only with the most advanced men of God who reach the highest level of association with the divine. On the collective level, the initial integration into the godhead happens when the­

6 See: Tishby, The Wisdom of The Zohar, Volume III, 992–993; Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol”, 212–242.

192

Chapter 10

community of Israel (“Assembly of Israel”) as a metaphysical entity integrates into the godhead during the Shabbat and other holy days. Before I present my extended analysis of the dynamics of union and its key symbols of union, very much following earlier analysis by Elliot Wolfson and others, we shall now explore the scholarly dispute on union and unity in the field of Zohar studies and its specific characterizations, focusing both on scholarly accounts predating Scholem’s study of the Zohar and on the writings of generations of scholars following him and building upon his work. Joshua Abelson, the first scholar to touch upon the question of union, though not dedicating any specific study to it, comments in 1913 on the homilies in Zohar II:20a (“He made the world below to correspond to the world above. Everything which is above has its pattern here below and all constitutes a unity”) that “[t]he Zohar aims at teaching us [. . .] that man, having the privilege to behold everywhere the Divine image—the world being and embodiment of God—can, if he will, make his way to the Invisible Author of all; can have union with the Unseen.”7 Abelson ties together in his early study World, Man, and the Divine, and presents their essential unity, that is acknowledged by man’s intention to become a mystical medium for such unity. Moreover, as emphasized by Hartley Lachter, one of Abelson’s translation of a passage from the Zohar (II:216b) suggests a relationship between the root d.v.q and an experience of unity, rendering the Aramaic itdabaq ‫אתדבק‬ as the English phrase “comes into union”. That being said, Abelson does not characterize or come to any conclusion with respect to the specificities of union in the Zohar. The first one to tackle specifically and to elaborate on the question of union in the Zohar was Isaiah Tishby, whose account of this question is fraught with tensions. In his early “Fear, Love, and Devekut in the Teaching of the Zohar,”8 Tishby argues that the issue of devequt, with its implications for the issue of union, “is difficult for analysis and systematic investigation”. Due to the abundance of usages of the verb ‫ אדבק‬or ‫ אתדבק‬and the noun ‫דביקותא‬,9 “[i]t is hard to define their specific sense”, even if limiting the scope and accounting only for the derashot that explicitly touch upon the subject of communion between man and the divine.10 7 Joshua Abelson, Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction to the Kabbalah, (New York: SepherHermon, 1981), 123, quoted and commented upon in Lachter, “Paradox”, 142. 8 Isaiah Tishby, “Fear, Love, and Devekut in the Teaching of the Zohar,” Molad 19, 151–152 (Jan.–Feb. 1961): 50–55 (Hebrew). 9 All verbs deriving from the root DVQ and are part of the language of devequt. 10 Tishby, ‘Fear’, 60.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

193

On one hand, Tishby joins Scholem and reinforces his claim by arguing that “[t]he author of the Zohar has used the variations of the concept of Devequt in order to refer to an intimate relation, without any essential commingling”,11 while on the other hand, he notes that the use of devequt for describing “a direct and daring contact between one’s soul or its powers and the divine to such an extent as to unite with it and efface itself in it”, not only finds its place in the Zohar, but does so “very frequently”. In addition to these remarks, we find in a later essay, his “Wisdom of the Zohar”, a careful note, according to which some of the devequt descriptions in the Jewish mystical tradition (and specifically in the Zohar) “[have] a nuance of unio mystica, contrary to G. Scholem’s strict distinction between the two terms”, adding that “in other trends of Kabbalah and Kabbalistic ethical writing [. . .] there are unio mystical tendencies, more frequent and more explicit than is claimed in the scholarly writings of Gershom Scholem”.12 Both Idel and Gottlieb have remarked that in fact Tishby identifies only very few Zoharic sources in this vein, and that he analyzes them insufficiently, if at all.13 In his dissertation, Hartley Lachter has vastly augmented Abelson’s scant remarks, focusing on the nature of Zoharic mystical union. Lachter argues that the nouns ‫( אתדבקותא‬itdabkuta) and ‫( אתאחדותא‬itahduta) condense a complicated mystical approach whose apex is mystical union. This unity is not only an objective aimed at, and eventually attained, but is part and parcel of the most primordial stratum of Being, where unity between Soul, World and the Divine prevails.14 This approach sees a great affinity between the Zohar and other texts from the Jewish mystical traditions, which do not constrain union with the divine, but provide instead a model of ecstatic annihilation. According to Lachter, the depiction of the divine in the Zohar is characterized by indecisiveness between a transcendent conception of the divine and an immanent integration of elements of the deity within the sefirotic structure. These two tendencies are sustained in a constant dialectical tension and are only momentarily brought into relief. Moreover, mystical 11 Ibid. 12 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, Volume III, 1010 Note 354. 13 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 301, n.8, 304 n.44, 305 n.52; Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature, 41, 537. 14 Formulated clearly in the following passage, Lachter argues: “It is my contention that the term itdabkuta in the Zohar is essentially synonymous with unification or itahduta. Both are terms are used [the error is in the original] to express the annihilation of the self in God that results in the assimilation of the world and self into ein sof, and both devequt and ahdut are made possible by, and serve to sustain, the panentheistic nature of the universe.” Lachter, “Paradox,” 146–147.

194

Chapter 10

union, according to Lachter, is not an end in itself, but derives its significance from being a part of a larger process of the renewal of the world and the regeneration of man, which comes into being through the medium of the human soul. Lachter bases his argument primarily on the foundational paradox of Ein Sof, which is both other-than and one-with beings. Although not often explicit in the vast Zoharic literature, Lachter seeks to explore the occasional surfacing of what he terms a fundamental “paradox” that is embedded in both Zoharic anthropology and cosmology. That paradox stems from the way Ein Sof relates to the world and to the other sefirotic structures in these two opposing senses: In one sense, Ein Sof is the radical other—that is, non-being relating (or better, not relating) to Being. In the other sense, which forms a complicated tension with the aforementioned non-relation, Being is rooted in Ein Sof. In this second sense, the movement of beings towards Ein Sof not only encounters no barrier in its going but is radicalized by this very ­movement—that is, moving toward its unitary root or ground. Not only that, but this movement both uproots the division between the triad of world, soul and the divine, and undermines the distinctiveness of any being whatsoever. These two senses, though principally excluding each other, are both reflected in Zoharic homilies according to Lachter, thus describing a universe that manifests a unitary ground that is alternatively revealed and concealed. That ground, through the mystical unitary experience, enables the momentary disintegration of the soul in the divine and its regeneration. This conceptual structure, with a slight shift of emphasis towards the notions of completion and perfection, is evident in Lachter’s most recent Kabbalistic Revolution,15 which concludes with a study of prayer as a conduit of self-completion that “causes the perfection of the sefirot and reinforces the unity above and below.”16 Lachter’s studies, and particularly the emphasis on the soul as the primary locus of the aforementioned paradox, is conceptually related to Wolfson’s exploration of the role of imagination in uniting the divine and human realms. Moreover, Wolfson’s claim that the theosophical myth of the Zohar both sets the stage for and shapes the specific form of the corpus’ embedded mysticism and mystical experience, is significantly embedded in Lachter’s work. As part of her investigation into the formation and formulations of the concept of Ein Sof in theosophical Kabbalah, Sandra Valabregue-Perry has

15 See Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution, esp. chap. 3. 16 Ibid., 139.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

195

dedicated attention to the manifestation of the idea of Ein Sof in the Zohar.17 She emphasizes two models for understanding the concept in the Zoharic literature: one that seeks to provide an alternative—Ein Sof as a theurgic focal point—to the more metaphysically rendered discussions in the scholarly literature, and a second that views the centrality of Ein Sof in relation to issues of the concealment of the divine and its innermost secrets.18 As part of her discussion of the theurgic model, she discusses the possibility of uniting with “the axis of Eyn-Sof”, which she sees as presented in the “body of the Zoharic literature”. According to her description, unification takes place as part of a twofold process, “bridging two different senses, one which is vertical and the other which is unificatory, between a chain of degrees that are interwoven and an annihilation of differences within a unifying unity.”19 Valabregue-Perry identifies the discursive inter-relations between the processes of unification and coronation, and also remarks on its eudemonic affects.20 Haviva Pedaya offers a comprehensive typology of the mystical experience spanning from ancient Jewish visionary mysticism through medieval Kabbalah, the Zohar and finally Hasidism.21 She does not seem to view the medieval phase of Jewish mysticism as an essentially new phase as a result of a synthesis with philosophy, but rather views the different phases of Jewish mysticism as developing in a phenomenological line she analyses in her study. One essential line Pedaya identifies is the dynamic between the mystic and the godhead in terms of unitive-integration or yichud (‫)יחוד‬, as opposed to a preliminary phase of “ihud” (‫—)איחוד‬the total union.22 In this context, it is worth mentioning the typology used by Pedaya in her analysis of the history of Jewish mysticism, which includes a pattern of vision-fall-speech. In particular, she focuses on the non-unitive or extrovertist Kabbalistic type, whose intense experience of communion with God (and not union in its absolute sense) is expressed through vision and picture, achieved in the state of contact between the human consciousness and the divine spirit (which is, in her perception, a

17 Sandra Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed: Ein Sof in Theosophic Kabbalah, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010), 83–94, 161–166, 191–207 (Hebrew); Sandra ValabreguePerry, “The Concept of Infinity (Eyn-sof ) and the Rise of Theosophical Kabbalah”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 102,3 (2012): 405–430. 18 Valabregue-Perry, Concealed, 86. 19 Idem, 164. 20 Ibid. 21 Pedaya, Vision and Speech. 22 Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 27, 71–72, 91, 97–99, 135–136.

196

Chapter 10

non-unitive ecstatic state).23 In contrast, the unitive or introvertist type assimilates into God completely in a way that leaves no room for impressions or pictorial experiences, as the mind is absorbed through the form of vision or voice, and may articulate this experience through metaphors in order to express the unspeakable and ineffable state. In the extrovertist type of mystical experience, the mystical experience is mediated through certain elements that serve as a mediator of God. While the “descender to the chariot” experiences the divine realm through his astral body, the extrovertist Kabbalist observes light or a divine name (or a name made of light) which holds something from his own identity, and through which his own experience is somehow projected onto or between the divine lights.24 This process that focuses first on the mediator object or element that then is later absorbed into a higher state of union into the godhead is similar to what I will later refer to here as “initial integration” in the Zohar. Pedaya’s phenomenology of the extrovertist type of mystical experience is relevant to the question of mystical union in the Zohar. The pattern of visionfall-speech is to be found, she argues, in different sections of the Zohar.25 In some instances, the mystic’s observations of nature bring him spontaneously to a symbolic revelation of the divine realm, leading to a human crisis or “exile” which is followed by a human speech relating the vision content. At some other times, this pattern repeats itself using rather the mystical discourse of scripture, leading to a shocking sight followed by “speech”.26 Moreover, Pedaya points to the similarity between the content and pattern of the mystical vision in some sections in the matnitin in the Zohar and the merkavah visions in ancient Jewish mysticism;27 the mystical experience in the Zohar is taken by Pedaya as a throbbing one, in which sight is followed by singing and praise which are reflected in the Zoharic text itself. Yehuda Liebes, though not per se dedicating a study to the question of unio mystica in the Zohar, has contributed to this field of inquiry in his elucidation of the symbolic tiqqun in The Messiah of the Zohar. Considering this tiqqun— that is, the restoration of Atiqqa in the Zoharic Idra rabba—Liebes argues that the companion discourse of devarim (words, but also things) relates both to an ascent of words of Torah, and to the restoration of an “ontological reality

23 ‘Unitive’ here stands for complete union. 24 Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 99 and in detail idem, 106–113, 135–136. 25 Idem, 117–136. 26 Idem, 117–120. 27 Idem, 120–124, 128–129.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

197

to which these discourses give rise.”28 These two types of tiqqun are inseparably interrelated and await enactment. In Liebes’ stark formulation, the tiqqun “brings all the worlds to perfection and turns them into one body [. . .] Duality disappears from the world, and the entire cosmos becomes a pantheistic unity.”29 In a different key, and without its eschatological overtones, this approach will be enhanced in Wolfson’s major studies on the Zohar. Ronit Meroz, as part of her case against the theory of single authorship of the Zohar, or even an authorship of a single circle,30 has contributed significant evidence for (and cleared the path for) a more variegated view of union in the Zohar. As in other Zoharic foci, we should not look for a single, all-­embracing model for understanding union and unification in this vast literature, but for a spectrum of phenomena that is characterized by tension and even verges on contradiction. In “The Path of Silence”, Meroz traces one such Zoharic contradiction with respect to the notion of devequt. According to her nuanced analysis of a Zoharic story found in a single manuscript, two contending views on the issue of “cleaving” to the divine are brought into explicit disagreement, and are narrated as a dispute between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Abba. In Rabbi Abba’s view, the mystical process, which is much closer to the notion of unio mystica, and is indeed formulated in the manuscript as the possibility “to cleave together as one”,31 involves primarily one’s will and “his heart”. In contradistinction to this approach, Rabbi Yose focuses his attention on the work of one’s lips and voice, that is, one’s employment of the homiletical discourse, as the path towards cleaving. This path, though not formulated explicitly either by Rabbi 28 Yehuda Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, trans. Arnold Aschwartz, Stephanie Nakache and Penina Peli (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 62. 29 Idem, 64. 30 See Liebes, Studies, 85–138 where Yehuda Liebes, in disagreement with Gershom Scholem’s early argument, introduced the theory of a collective authorship of the writings of the Zohar. Ronit Meroz, in her numerous articles on this subject, has highly elaborated this thesis, gathered further evidence and enhanced its outlook. See Ronit Meroz, “Zoharic Narratives and their Adaptations,” Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 (2001): 3–63; Ronit Meroz, “The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah,” The Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry (2007): 39–56; Ronit Meroz, “The Weaving of a Myth: An Analysis of Two Stories in the Zohar,” in Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, ed. Howard Kreisel (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006) vol. 2, 167–205 (Hebrew). 31 Meroz’s translation in “The Path of Silence: An Unknown Story from a Zohar Manuscript,” The European Journal of Jewish Studies, 1, 2 (2008): 340. See also on the language of union and communion in: Ronit Meroz, Headwaters of the Zohar—Research and Editions of Zohar, Exodus, (Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press), sections 24, 44 (Forthcoming in Hebrew).

198

Chapter 10

Yose or in Meroz’s analysis, fits a more restrained approach towards union, and stresses an ongoing dialogical activity. In recent years, both Melila Hellner-Eshed and Ruth Kaniel Kara-Ivanov have remarked upon the phenomenon of unio mystica in the Zoharic literature, emphasizing two clusters of metaphors and symbols, that of fire and that of water. These clusters serve as points of orientation and act as “regulative ideas” of sorts—that is, providing a framework through which Zoharic mysticism can be analyzed or expressed. In both frameworks, the tendency towards unification must stop short and be restricted, either due to the risk of transgression and death, in the case of fire, or in order to sustain the reality by filling it with divine plenty, in the water motif. Consider a Zoharic passage quoted in the name of Rabbi Hiyya that concludes with a midrash on a verse from Song of Songs 2:6: “His left hand beneath my head, his right hand embracing me”; the verse is elaborated with the following words: “Single unification, single bond, whereupon that rung of his is filled and blessed. When it is filled, all those channels are filled in four directions of the world; all those flocks are watered, each in its own direction.”32 In HellnerEshed’s analysis of this passage, the notion of devequt stands for the “reciprocal holding between the human being and God.”33 Its implication for the investigation of union in the Zohar is made clear in the thesis proffered by HellnerEshed that cleaving to the divine does not entail a “complete merging with the divinity through ecstatic death”, but rather “the enhancement of the sense of life without leaving the body.”34 The Zoharic mystical experience, according to Hellner-Eshed, is essentially “an experience of participation rather than unification.”35 In a recent study, Kara-Ivanov has traced a strand of unio mystica she terms “unio-mysticism of fire”, originating, she argues, in rabbinic literature and Philo’s allegoric interpretation, and finding one of its manifestation in the Zoharic depiction of the figures of Nadav and Avihu (III:56a–57b), and also resonating in R. Shimon bar Yochai’s (Rashbi) fiery ecstatic ascent in Zohar (III:218b–219a). According to her account, this type of unio mystica entails an ascent to heavenly realms via the medium of fire, dramatizing the tension between desire and transgression in an effort to sustain an ecstatic desire without its possible destructive consequences. According to Kara-Ivanov, 32 Zohar 1:163b, Pritzker Edition, Volume 2, 412–413. 33 Melila Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden: the Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, trans. Nathan Wolski, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 295. 34 Ibid. 35 Idem, 312.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

199

The description of the sins of Aharon’s sons, which is interlaced with a discussion of their greatness, allows for a consideration of the Zoharic art of homily and its identification with their mystical ekstasis, which is higher in significance when compared to the normative discussion of their death.36 Kara-Ivanov’s detailed analysis and attunement to the specifics of Zoharic language reveal that a careful, nuanced understanding of the language she brings forward shows in fact that it is missing the unitive vocabulary. in other words, the Zohar, it seems, does not consider this form of transformation or integration into the godhead as specifically unitive at all. The fact that other sources following the Zohar might do so does not mean that this form of absorption into the godhead qualifies, in the Zoharic literature, as a form of unio mystica. Moreover, it is not clear that the use of metaphor is or should be taken as the bedrock of the Zoharic expression of unio mystica, and a careful reading of the vast variety of metaphors in the Zohar warrants a cautious approach that would not delimit its representation of unification to any one set of metaphors, let alone to metaphor as a whole. As will be discussed shortly, my own approach shifts the ground of analysis, and views the question of unity chiefly as it is molded in Zoharic theosophical language and its dynamics, and a set of symbols that are an integral part of the Zoharic language of union. This scholarly path is both suggested and elucidated in Wolfson’s scholarly writings on the Zohar, which I will next explore.

Wolfson’s Analysis of the Zoharic Dynamics of Union

First, let us closely examine Wolfson’s own analysis of the unitive dynamics in the Zohar and their relevance for the topic of mystical union. He has consistently argued that the Zohar aims for and describes a variety of unitive dynamics emphasizing and facilitating ecstatic mystical union.37 In view of both 36 Kara-Ivanov, “Consumed by love,” 632. See further my comments in chapter 9. 37 See for example Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 330, 357, 361, 364–367, 376, 386. We will not address here the question of ecstasy distinct from the matter of unio mystica, although several scholars such as Charles Mopsik have focused on the matter of ecstasy in the Zohar separate from the language of mystical union; see Charles Mopsik, Moshe de Leon, Sheqel Ha-Qodesh, Critical Edition, Introduction and notes, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996), 6–8; Yehuda Liebes, “Review Essay: Charles Mopsik, Moses de leon Sefer Sheqel Ha-Qodesh,” Kabbalah 2 (1997), 284–285 (Hebrew).

200

Chapter 10

Scholem’s and Idel’s scholarly considerations of (and sharp disagreements about) the question of union, Wolfson came forth with a complex intermediate perspective, opening a middle ground between those polar orientations that allows for a sustainment of both sides of the argument, discharging a significant tension in this scholarly debate.38 Instead of rejecting Scholem’s argument altogether or de-emphasizing its heuristic importance, Wolfson suggests analyzing the Zoharic homilies in a morphological fashion—that is, by renouncing the typological approach he ascribes to both Scholem and Idel. In a programmatic statement, Wolfson declared that: My aim is [. . .] to provide a morphology of [. . .] texts39 and thereby allow the deep structures of thought to appear from within the philological concealedness. The task of scholarship, as I conceive it, is to provide an opening through which those structures become manifest as markers of the path of inquiry.40 What does it mean for a source to be morphologically analyzed? Wolfson characterizes the typological classification method as aspiring to create a determined formation of categories, distinctly differentiated, that are derived from what one scholar or another identifies as essential and necessary characteristics of a true appreciation of a phenomenon. Thus, typology is always at risk of inadequately accounting for the congruence of elements, the intermediate zone, and the overlap between different categories. The morphological method, in contrast, seeks to characterize phenomena that have been formerly neatly divided by the scholarly enterprise as forming a spectrum of “family resemblances” that is to be investigated. Its first effort is to identify such clusters of phenomena, and then provide an analysis that takes into account both overlaps and differences and clarifies their implications. Moreover, as emphasized by Yechiel Goldberg, following Wolfson, “Typologies tend to focus on mystical experience without adequate regard for the literary nature of the sources 38 If framed as a dispute between the absence and presence of forms of unitive mysticism in Jewish Kabbalah, Wolfson is clearly one of the latter. See Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 160–210; Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 111–143; Wolfson, “Forms of Visionary”; Wolfson, “Coronation”. 39 As clarified by Wolfson in another context, “By ‘texts’ I have in mind manifold cultural markings, ranging from literary artifacts to bodily gestures, but something still distinctively human in the domain of sentient animal beings.” (Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 2). 40 Elliot R. Wolfson, Along the Path, Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism and Hermeneutics, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), XII.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

201

that form the immediate evidentiary basis for such studies”.41 In turning from typology to morphology, Wolfson seeks to switch scholarly lenses, and focus his inquiry not only on phenomena that are embedded in a textual corpus, but also on the interrelations and interactions that are formed between a phenomenon and other structural qualities of that very corpus.42 In that way, for example, it is possible and even necessary to take into account the theosophical language of union while attempting to analyze the language of human experience. The focus only on technique or on explicit language of experience provides a limited understanding of the phenomena described in the Zohar. Goldberg himself, in his doctoral dissertation “Mystical Union, Individuality and Individuation in Provençal and Catalonian Kabbalah”, implemented (following Wolfson) the morphological method with respect to the phenomenon of mystical union. Instead of typologically differentiating between clear-cut sets of possibilities, Goldberg in his inquiry sought to morphologically characterize the varieties of unitive experience in its instability, and depict its implications for the overall conception of God and man in these texts. As he remarked: [An] advantage of a morphological approach to classifying unitive phenomena is that it provides room for a broader contextualization of these phenomena. Typological studies, due to their focus on an allegedly essential and defining feature of a specific type of experience, have a tendency to draw lines between unitive phenomena that may, in fact, be related to each other.43 According to Goldberg, the morpheme of the mystical experience may integrate unitive attributes even if it does not properly fit into the category of mystical union par excellence. Furthermore, even in cases where unification does not involve an ontological effacement of borderlines, or clear expressions of experience or technique, it still is beneficial to analyze the specific traits of communion between man and the divine that may differ in character in the very same textual corpus.44 Both the framework and the method (termed 41  Joel Goldberg, “Mystical Union, Individuality, and Individuation in Provençal and Catalonian Kabbalah”. (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2008), 33. 42 See: Elliot R. Wolfson, Poetic Thinking, eds. Hava Tirosh-Samelson and Aaron W. Hughes (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 21–22. 43 Ibid. 44 In this respect, Idel’s methodological remark from his Enchanted Chains, 37–38 is very much on point: “The specific forms of interplay between concepts that are considered to

202

Chapter 10

“­ morphodynamics” by Ioan Couliano) that Wolfson uses, clarify his conception of “morphology”45—namely, “a description that considers both the morphology of ideal objects, or system of ideas, and their complex patters of interaction in time as they cross the surface of history in an apparently unpredictable way.”46 Daniel Abrams, in his “Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms on Kabbalah”47— written in the condensed and aphoristic style of Gershom Scholem’s “Ten Unhistorical Aphorisms on Kabbalah”, emphasized the centrality of the notion of union (especially in the context of erotic coupling) in the overall conception of the relation between the human and the divine in the Zoharic corpus. Union that results from such coupling, according to this view, is not one aspect or strand in a nexus of conceptual, symbolical and practical principals, but serves more as an arche, organizing and arranging an entire mystical corpus, and assigning to the human realm its ideal end.48 In Abrams’ words: In Kabbalah, coupling serves as the central and organizing principle which unites the various aspects of existence. Moreover, coupling is the secret and foundation of all existence, and thus in Kabbalah, union and unity converge into one.49 With respect to the aforementioned centrality of the idea of erotic union to the field of Kabbalah, the Zohar contains as mentioned above many exploration of the erotic conjunction of the tzaddik and the Shekhinah.50 Since the union define mysticism in a certain religion determine the nature of a mystical literature in general, or a specific phase of it, as much as the presence or absence of a particular concept or experience. In our case, the centrality of the notion of devequt in Jewish mysticism is more important than attempts to define it in a certain way, i.e., as standing for union or communion. Rather, the type of interactions between devequt, theosophy and theurgy define the essence of kabbalistic mysticism better than an in-abstracto analysis of devequt. One scholar may develop an interesting typology of the meanings of devequt but ignore the radiations of this notion within the major developments of a certain system.” 45 See Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 272. 46 Ibid. See also, Ioan Couliano, Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism, (San Francisco: Harper, 1992), 1–22. 47 Daniel Abrams, Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms on Kabbalah, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011). 48 See also Mopsik, Sex of the Soul, 128–149. 49 Abrams, Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms, 23. 50 See Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 386–387; Elliot Wolfson, “Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah,” in Rending the Veil; Concealment and Secrecy in the History of Religions, ed. Elliot Wolfson, (New York: Seven Bridges Press,

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

203

with the feminine dimension of the godhead has clear sexual overtones, it is described also as a sexual union between the male Kabbalist and the feminine Shekhinah.51 This erotic union has important theurgic effects, as it arouses the jealousy of the masculine godhead, who as a result unites with his “wife”. Through union with the Shekhinah, the Kabbalist facilitates the union between the divine male and divine female and at the same time is described as taking part in the inner unity of the godhead. (The vocabulary of erotic union with the Shekhinah will be explored further below.) Exploring the radical notion of unity—that is, its being at the root of a mystical approach—does not mean discovering its rock bottom, but rather exploring, in the language of Elliot Wolfson, a “ground that sways”. This entails investigating the language of union and unification not in a unitary fashion, but as an axis or principle around which revolves a diversity of discursive, mytho-poetic, symbolic, and practical contexts. In psychoanalytic language that befits Abrams’ aphorisms, the language of unity is always overdetermined, irreducible to a single context, metaphor, or praxis. In his Luminal Darkness and Venturing Beyond, Wolfson continues his investigation, begun in the concluding chapter of Through a Speculum, into the multiple forms and constellations of union and unity and the various processes of unification present in the Zohar. But in spite of the continuity in his research, there are novel concerns in the two later works, and a shift of emphasis to a more theosophical understanding of the Zoharic corpus. In his earlier work, Wolfson had already accentuated the importance of taking into account the theosophical stratum underlying the experiential nature of the text. In his words, Any attempt to understand the Zohar must take into account the fact that the theosophical ruminations contained in this anthology are not merely speculative devices for expressing the knowable aspect of God, but are practical means for achieving a state of ecstasy, that is, an experience of immediacy with God that may eventuate in union or communion.52 According to Wolfson, a triadic structure of an ontological/theosophical infrastructure, ecstatic experience, and hermeneutical “posture”—form the core of 1999), 113–154. For discussions on unification in the divine spheres, See Liebes, Studies, 52–76, 240; Arthur Green, A Guide to the Zohar, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 69–70; Hecker, Mystical Bodies, 54. 51 See Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 112–114; Hellner Eshed, A River, 131–133. 52 Wolfson, “Forms of Visionary,” 210.

204

Chapter 10

the Zoharic homiletical discourse. “One cannot”, he says, “especially from the standpoint of the Zohar, separate theory and praxis, gnosis and ecstasy, contemplation and imaginative representation.”53 The nature of Zoharic ekstasis involves not only an ontic assimilation of the Kabbalist into the Divine, but a convergence of both the ontological pole, in which feminine aspects are reintegrated into the masculine, and the experiential pole. If this is so, and if an ontological structure underlies the various praxes, including Torah study, the unification of the divine name by the priest, and the erotic coupling, how can this ontological structure or scheme be depicted, and how does it differ from the ontic outlook of the world and the divine by the one who is yet to be mystically enlightened? Wolfson understands the basic orientation propounded in the Zoharic corpus as predicated on the assumption “that the Kabbalist’s ability to relate to God is through imitating divine attributes valorized in terms of the rudimentary division of being into the polarities of good and evil, light and dark, right and left, Israel and the nations”. This idea is reflected in an exegetical elaboration on the verse zeh le‘ummat zeh asah ha-elohim, “God made one corresponding to the other” (Eccles 7:14).54 This state of polarity, which seemingly can only be altered by restoring balance without altering its fundamental polar structure, is based on the fissure of divine energy into opposites. Beyond this division, however, Wolfson duly identifies a point of unity “wherein the thing becomes its opposite since opposites originate in the same source.”55 Only a Kabbalist who holds the key to divine secrets, and knows that the polarity of opposites cannot be maintained and that their original wholeness can be restored, can unify God. “By uniting the left with the right,” Wolfson claims in an essay on the ideal of human perfection in the Zohar, “one regains an original wholeness or unity of opposites that is present in the godhead before the process of differentiation unfolds”.56 At the ontic level, the distinction and discrimination between polar opposites is operative, but “in the end, when one is enlightened, there is neither light nor dark [. . .] as opposites disintegrate into the non-differentiated unity of their origin.”57 Put differently, from one perspective the dichotomy between oppositions is pertinent, not only due to an epistemic error but because of an ontologically inferior stage of Being, for “the divine itself is dichotomized into polar opposites”—but from 53 Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 331. 54 Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 192. 55 Idem, 199. 56 Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 38. 57 Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 8.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

205

another (higher) perspective, after the mystic has succeeded in overcoming this scheme, “he is integrated into the unity of the Godhead that transcends the division”.58 This analysis has enormous implications for the relationship between the nomian framework, which is predicated on clear distinctions; the mystical experience, which is conceptually depicted by Wolfson as featuring a “hypernomian transmorality” (or in a more Nietzschian tone, goes “beyond good and evil”); and the large Jewish community, which is still to be regulated axiologically by the division into what is permissible and what is forbidden. My focus here is necessarily narrower, concerned exclusively with the process of unification and its language. From this perspective, Wolfson’s main contribution lies in the depiction of the mystical peak as the “recognition of the collusion of opposites in the undifferentiated oneness of the Godhead.”59 In order to reach this peak, as will be explored shortly in a number of Zoharic passages, one has to overcome the principal polar scheme that has erupted into being with creation, which though preserving this unity in its folds, also undermines and conceals it. In a recent study, Wolfson offered a systematized summary of his view of unio mystica in the Zohar: The experience of union, which is so often designated as the distinctive mark of mystical experience, is affirmed in the relevant kabbalistic sources only to the extent that one cleaves to the form of God that one has visualized in one’s imagination. In this state of consciousness, the phenomenal boundaries of inside and outside dissolve, for only by means of the internal image does one experience the divine as external. Through the proper visual comprehension the mind or heart of the devotee becomes the throne upon which God dwells at the same time that God is transformed into the throne upon which the devotee dwells. The meeting point of the two, the holy of holies, is the nakedly garbed Torah. Through the garments of the Torah, the letters that constitute the limbs of the textual body, the enlightened exegete sees the hidden light of God . . . The critical aspect of contemplation in Zoharic literature, therefore, is not union with God per se, but the anthropomorphic representation and visual apprehension of God that ensues from the state of mystical conjunction, devequt. I am not suggesting that the idea of devequt in Zoharic symbolism does not relate at all to unitive experiences that could be explained both on the basis of Aristotelian 58 Ibid., 262. 59 Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 210.

206

Chapter 10

epistemology and Neoplatonic ontology. My point is rather that the experience of union serves the ultimate goal of inducing mystical consciousness, which involves the visual comprehension of the immediate and direct presence of God as the imaginal body, a body composed of the four letters of the name, which splinter into the twenty-two letterers of Torah”.60

Harmonization of Dissonance

My reading of the Zoharic sources themselves compels me to emphasize that in the Zohar, we are faced with more than one overarching version of unification. The variations on the motif of unification include a series of possibilities, each with its own features and varying perspectives on the dissolution of boundaries. The first model of “theosophical union” introduces a milder interpretation of unification, and stresses two salient elements. In this model, unification does not entail dissolution or annihilation of the boundaries that form the core of both the worldly and the sefirotic ontological scheme. In lieu of this, it is concerned more with a harmonization of the dissonances that have taken place in this very scheme, or with a thrusting-aside of the elements that interrupt the general stability of the scheme. The possibility of unification is thus, as is described in numerous places in the Zohar, a state in which all is united in a fitting way—that is, a state in which every part within the scheme finds itself properly installed. Here is one well-known example from the Zohar expounding on a verse from Job 36:7: Rabbi Yeisa opened, saying, “He does not withdraw His eye from the right­ eous; with kings upon the throne He seats them forever, and they are exalted (Job 36:7), Come and see: When the wicked no longer rule the world and are eliminated, Righteous One rules the world, as is written: He does not let the wicked live, but grants justice to the poor (Ibid., 6). Next, what is written? He does not withdraw His eye from the righteous. What is His eye? As is written: The eyes of YHVH are upon the righteous (Psalm 34:16). With kings on the throne—reigning kings linked to the throne. He seats them forever, exalting them. He seats them—enduring to the throne abidingly. Exalting them. What does this mean? To rule the world, so that the throne 60 Elliot R. Wolfson, “Iconicity of the Text: Reification of Torah and the Idolatrous Impulse of Zoharic Kabbalah”, in Poetic Thinking, 78.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

207

is established upon its supports. Alternatively, exalting them, for they carry the throne and raise it above, to unite with its site fittingly; then all becomes a single unity.61 The harmonization, here depicted as the unification of the throne with its site, does not involve a transgression of boundaries, but a stabilization, or at least a coordination of them. This form of milder unification usually understood as the union of the masculine and feminine (God and the “assembly of Israel”) allows for the process of “initial integration” to take place. The initial integration serves as the pre-condition for human participation in the unitive dynamics within the godhead, while staying alive in the human body. We have already seen in the analysis of R. Jacob Bar Sheshet how his system allows the human thought and soul to identify with some specific vessels in the construction of the godhead, a move that may be seen as an initial integration that enables the divine essence to dwell within the human vessel. That dynamic is similar but not identical to some of the dynamics described in the Zohar. The image of the throne appears in both Bar-Sheshet and the Zohar, but in the Zohar, the symbol is that of the shattered throne (identified with the Shekhinah and the assembly of Israel) returning to its original function as the throne of God, signifying the process of the Shekhinah cutting loose from evil forces and integrating back into the masculine godhead, now “sitting” on the throne. This process is at the same time a process in which the Jewish people are integrated partially into the godhead and enjoy the lights and inner harmony and union of that state. This process of human integration into the divine realm, followed by the progressive unitive state, allows the human to not only be aware and participate in the mystery of the One, but to become one with the divine and to receive the divine qualities such as His name, lights, and holy spirit.62 In the main body of the Zohar, the sefirot are not considered as vessels but rather as the essence of the godhead. This fact has an important effect on the process of initial integration: The Holy Congregation (a term used for the Jewish people and the Shekhinah) associated with the lowest sefirah (malchut) is considered to be an organ of the godhead itself. The fact that the Zohar investigates the idea that the mystical body of Israel as a collective undergoes a process of integration into the godhead, allows, in some circumstances, for 61 Zohar Va-Yetse, 1:164a, Pritzker Edition, Vol. II, 416. 62 On R. Jacob Bar sheshet see the discussion above in Chapter 7. The receiving of the quality and the name of God through union will be discussed below through the analysis of Zohar Terumah, 2:135b.

208

Chapter 10

the assembly of Israel to participate in the inner life and dynamics of erotic union of the unified godhead. This fundamental Zoharic idea—that humans may integrate in different ways and on different levels into the godhead while still alive—allows the human to participate at particular special moments such as Shabbat in the divine’s own dynamics of union. Certain times are considered times of integration for the congregation and individual to become an object of the (usually) theosophical unitive process. We should notice the function of the throne as an image of union and unity and especially in the context of Shabbat. The unification described along these lines (Zohar Va-Yetse, 1:164a) consists of the elimination of the wicked or evil, but does not entail a move beyond the structure of polarity towards the “crown” or the transcendent or any challenge to polar demarcations. Unification may involve a drawing-near or ­coming-towards of several of the hypostatic components, but does not necessarily include an overcoming of distinctions. The godhead’s availability for human integration becomes actual during special times such as Shabbat and certain holidays. The holiness of Shabbat and the holidays is understood in terms of sacred time, as the opening of time to a higher level or quality of time, the time above time in which different grades or qualities of divine time are associated with different aspects of the godhead itself. As I have shown elsewhere, the concept of “holy time” became the focus of certain Kabbalists’ mystical experience, especially in the Zohar, though its conceptual basis is found in some later Neoplatonist’s discussions of time.63 The philosophic writings of a Neoplatonist such as Proclus—which the Kabbalists knew—include a unique theory of “divine time” as a mediator substance between our corporeal earthly experience of time and the entirely “out of time” eternity. The Kabbalists synthesized such theories with other traditions related to time such as the days of creation, Shabbat ,and the holidays— a move that gave birth to new interpretations of the rich religious forms and rituals concerning time.64 By identifying the Neoplatonic conception of holy 63 See in detail: Afterman, “Time, Eternity and Mystical Experience”, 162–175. 64 See for example the discussion in Zohar, 2:88a, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 4, 498, where the three meals of Shabbat becomes a meeting time between man and the divine Shabbat embodied in it: “Rabbi Yehudah said, “One should delight on this day, eating three meals on Sabbath, so that satisfaction and delight may prevail this day in the world.” Rabbi Abba said, “To couple with those days above, blessed by this day. On this day the head of the Short-Tempered One is filled with dew descending from the Holy Ancient One, concealed of all, and He casts it into the Holy Apple Orchard three times once Sabbath enters, so that all are blessed as one. A person should delight on these three occasions,

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

209

time with the dynamic powers or substances constructing the godhead, holy time becomes both the substance from which the godhead is made from and the focus of human mystical experience. In this way, the six days of creation were interpreted as names of the six lower sefirot, as part of a wider, esoteric reading of the Scripture’s “account of creation” as referring to the unfolding of the godhead itself. The “day” of Shabbat refers to a higher power or fountain of light, feeding the lower “days” identified as sefirot with light and existence. In this context, our earthly time is taken as “cloudy” reflection of the higher levels of time, or as second-rate radiation of light in relation to its holy source. The separation between weekdays and the Sabbath is rooted in higher dynamics within the godhead, so the weekday’s lights reflect on some dissonances within the sefirotic system while the entrance of the Sabbath means both the fall of any elements preventing that system stability’s and the more inner harmonization of it within itself. The holy congregation of Israel, that is also associated with the Shekhinah and the last sefirah, prepares itself for the appearance of the higher light of keter, the eschatological light, usually experienced as an “additional soul” or holy spirit, that is sometimes also called Shabbat.65 While divine time is eschatological to the ordinary human eye, Shabbat is a time in which the eschatological light enters into history and into the hearts and bodies of those receptive to it, forming what one may call a semi-­eschatological state. Indeed, the mediator function of holy time is parallel to what we have earlier seen as a milder version of unification: It allows the congregation to share the inner dynamic life of the godhead, its mystery of the “One”, through unification with that state and the holy spirit, a state which in certain occasions within the day of Shabbat may lead to the more complete unification which takes place beyond any distinctions. In terms of time, we may think of the initial integration as a path of holy time that, being absorbed into it, one may eventually experience the eternal light of the One that exists beyond time.

Overcoming Metaphysical Boundaries

It is with respect to the issue of overcoming metaphysical boundaries that a second model of unification becomes illuminating, a model that goes beyond the initial integration in the first model. At stake is a specific form of breakthrough for ­supernal faith depends upon the Holy Ancient One, the Short-Tempered One, and the Apple Orchard, and one should delight in them and rejoice in them.” 65 See for example Zohar, 2:88b.

210

Chapter 10

that is offered by the process of unification and hints at the overcoming of the boundaries. Unification, in this vein, is not a culmination and perfection of the polar framework that is operative through the Zohar, in which every component stands where it belongs, but is a revelatory experience of transcending the very division of being into polarities. In order to probe the implications of this possibility, let me return briefly to Wolfson’s account of the fundamental framework that is operative in the Zoharic literature, according to which being is dichotomized into polar distinctions. The creation of the world and its aftermath is characterized by the establishing of ontic polarity that though channeling and making accessible the undifferentiated oneness of the godhead, also undermines this unity, by opening a space wherein the polar phenomenality of every particular aspect of Being is constituted. Unification effects an overcoming of this dissemination of being into polar opposites. In what sense does unification overcome the fundamental structure of oppositions or opposites? Overcoming this matrix does not, in fact, entail rejecting it completely. As we have demonstrated, and will further elaborate upon, the scheme of opposition is actually integral to the process of unification, as the vehicle by which the mystic then transcends the boundaries of the metaphysical scheme. That being said, it is crucial to emphasize that the step by which these oppositions are transcended is not in itself part and parcel of the metaphysical scheme, since it does not simply lead to a reconceptualization of difference on a higher level. Thus, the process of unification amounts to a “working through” of the hypostatization of being into polarity, a reversal of the manifold ways that Being is divided. The possibility of going beyond the structure of opposition towards a higher source of being/light/crown arises from the ontological power of the One itself, not from some human faculty alone. By placing the One beyond categories and by denying any substantiality or concrete agency to it, yet ascribing the unification of beings to it, one can say that the One or the Crown, through the technologies and dynamics represented and described in the Zohar, enables the overcoming of metaphysical categories. Unification takes place at the outer limit of the most basic polar categories that structure the Zohar, through the One’s existence beyond these categories. The One, as we shall see in the following Zoharic derashot, does not yield to any thought and evades comprehension. It allows itself to be experienced, but not to be possessed or assigned a place within the metaphysical framework of opposites. The process of unification thus deserves to be uniquely singled out as the sole process that allows for the overcoming of the basic Zoharic framework of polarities. Though manifesting itself in a variety of ritual practices,

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

211

in a manifold of registers and dimensions and in relation to several prevalent symbols, unification is not just one process among many of drawing close to the divine. It is the sole process of dissolving any given configuration and schematized order, which is fundamental to the Zoharic mystical experience. Two of the central, though not sole, dimensions of the twofold process (of first working via the perfected polar scheme towards the initial integration, and then dissolving its boundaries in order to experientially participate in the one Source, in Atika Kadisha or the highest “crown”) will now be analyzed: the temporal dimension, articulated by the “mystery of the Sabbath”, and the linguistic dimension, exemplified by the unification of the divine name.

Mystery of the Sabbath

There are many homilies embedded within the rich and multilayered fabric of the Zohar, in which it is clear that either one Kabbalist or a collective are participating in some form of a theosophical union, many times through an ontological extension or expansion of the divine in the form of a crown of light or the holy spirit. This participation is ontological, although the Kabbalists are not necessarily experiencing or expressing themselves to be taking part in a theosophical union per se. The fact that the Zohar does not always specifically elaborate upon the structure of the mystical experience of union does not necessarily mean that individuals are not taking part, both actively and passively, in moments of inner union in the godhead. In other words, unification can be achieved and depicted either in evocative, experiential terms or rendered in nuanced ontological and philosophical terms—that is, described with the “objective” language of the created world and philosophical thinking, which inevitably depends on categorization and distinctions—without losing its quality as a process of unification. It can still achieve the desired consequences with respect to the divine realm, as well as concerning the rejuvenation of the human realm and soul. The fact that many passages involve a depiction of unification that is not focused on the achievement of a specific mystic allows not only a shift from an experiential language to an ontological one, but also an interesting turn of focus from individualistic terms to unification that is concerned more with collective forms of participation. The Zohar more than hints at the possibility of a union that overcomes the polarities constituting the very basis of such a collective and mythical being of the “Assembly of Israel”. In this way, the ­common language of theosophical union calls attention to a more hidden language of

212

Chapter 10

participation in an ontological unity of the godhead, without emphasizing the mystical experience involved in such ontological states. Another feature of Zoharic unification that is in fact related to the more experiential instances is an affirmation of and particular emphasis on embodiment, and the relative absence of articulations of unification in terms of ecstatic experience. The union that is depicted is one that is taking place through participation, not only while still in one’s body, but via the body. The following Zoharic derashot (homilies) on the uniqueness of the Sabbath are very representative both of the participatory modus and of the embodied manner in which unification is taking place: Mystery of Sabbath: She is Sabbath—united in mystery, of one, so that mystery of one may settle upon Her. Prayer for the entrance of Sabbath, for the Holy Throne is united in mystery of one, arrayed for the supernal Holy King to rest upon Her. When Sabbath enters She unites and separates from the Other Side, all judgments removed from Her. She remains unified in holy radiance, adorned with many crowns for the Holy King. All powers of wrath and masters of judgment all flee; no other power reigns in all the worlds. Her face shines with supernal radiance, and She is adorned below by the Holy People, all of whom are adorned with new souls.66 When explicating the secret and mystery of the Sabbath, the Zoharic author presents a model of unification in a mythical and dramatic account that is taking place concurrently in the divine and human realm. The time of the arrival of Sabbath is depicted first not as an event of unification but as a process of separation, an overcoming of a state of being grasped by “the Other Side”, a process that is concomitant with the prayer for the entrance of the Sabbath. Only once this movement of separation is completed can the mystery of the One “settle upon her”—that is, upon the Shekhinah, who is identified with the Sabbath—and allow for a rejuvenation that is taking place by the adorning with new souls of the congregation of the Holy People and a descent of an effluence from the supernal source. The initial integration of the collective of the “assembly of Israel” into the godhead that takes part every Shabbat allows for the collective to participate in the mystery of the One. This is symbolized by the “crown” and holy spirit that adorn each of the individuals, which function now on a higher level of unity and integration with the godhead than throughout the six days of the week. The “crown” and the holy spirit, or the additional 66 Zohar Terumah, 2:135b, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 5, 251.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

213

soul received on Shabbat, is an ontological extension of the mystery of the One bestowed by the higher elements of the godhead on to the feminine Shekhinah, which is identified with the community of Israel. In that way, all of Israel on a collective basis participates in the inner union and unity of the godhead. The Zohar goes on to explain that the holy spirit is the extension of the point of union and unification, the mystery of the One that is the Shabbat: All six days this spirit derives pleasure from the supernal spirit of Ancient of all Ancients. On Sabbath, once it descends and baths toward evening in the Garden of Eden, it partakes in delight of the body through meals of faith, and this spirit is crowned above and below, appearing on all sides in upper and lower crowns. Since it abides with a person, he must guard it. This spirit is an extension of that point. When holiness and blessing are added to that point from above, this extension is entirely illuminated and becomes a spirit shining in all directions, diffusing above and diffusing below. This is what is written: Between Me and the Children of Israel (Exodus 31:17)—we share an inheritance as one. The upper portion is crowned on this day with sublime holy delight, enjoying supernal splendor. The lower portion is crowned on this day with delight below, enjoying these meals. Therefore one should delight it with food and drink, with total joy, with splendid cloths. When this portion below is crowned and kept fittingly, it ascends and unites with that other portion, and this point receives all, from above and from below, enveloped on all sides. Since she is adorned on Sabbath from above and below, She gives power to all other days and is given dominion from above and below. This is found in the mysteries of the Book of Solomon and has been established by the Holy Lamp. Happy is the share of Israel!67 As already noted by Wolfson, with reference to theosophic Kabbalah, “the six days of the week represent the exile in which male and female are separated and the demonic has dominion over the world”.68 It is with respect to this aspect that the coming of Sabbath must demand an overcoming and a soteriological dimension. It is also important to stress, that, at this stage, the separation that imbues the six days does not entail a complete subsuming under the rule of the 67 Zohar, 2:204b, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 6, 165–166. 68 Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 147.

214

Chapter 10

Other Side, but fills the divine, human, and cosmic planes with polarity and a distance that results, as we have already noted, from the very creation of the world. The revelation of the secret of the Sabbath and the secret of the “One” discloses to the adepts that polarity and difference are not an original state and are not “real”, but are created. The ontic differences presuppose, according to this secret, a primordial unity. The nature of distinction changes in the process of the entrance of Sabbath into its contrary—that is, into unity—and the polarity of sides is changed not through a shift from a negative side to the positive polar, but through unification, abolition of distance, and a recovery of the primordiality of being. The process of the removal [‫ ]אתפרשת‬is at once a movement of separation and disjunction, and a subduing of separation, in which the souls of the holy congregation return towards their undifferentiated origin. Sabbath thus entails a twofold achievement: It leads the congregation, that is, the multiple, back to unity; The unification of the multiple in the One and the culmination of the temporal circle in the coming of Sabbath assures the universal cohesion of the polar structure around a subsistent unity. The Sabbath does not mingle with the six days, but it reveals a primordial oneness, and serves as the keystone that keeps the various planes from being dissolved in disorder.

Sabbath and Crowning

One of the salient symbols utilized in the Zoharic discourse of unification is that of crowning.69 This symbol, whose trajectory we shall briefly survey in the following pages, is related in its Zoharic usages to the aforementioned overlap between the model of theosophical union and the language of “participation” in the mystery of unification in the divine realm.70 From the nascent stages of Kabbalah and the rise of Jewish medieval philosophy, the figure of crowning was closely tied to eschatological union.71 As I

69 Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 254; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 357–363 and his refrences in note 107; Wolfson, “Coronation,” 335–344; Adena Tenenbaum, “The Adornment of the Soul: A Philosophical Motif in Andalusian Piyyut,” Hebrew Union College Annual 66 (1995), 236–238. 70 Green, Keter, 157–162 analyzes the symbol as a theosophical one but does not touch upon it as a symbol for mystical union, see also: Elliot Ginsburg, The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 102–118, 137–138, 236–237. 71 See Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 360–362 and note 123.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

215

have elucidated in a previous chapter, it was Maimonides in his Commentary to the Mishnah who not only tied the midrashic theme of eschatological crowning in the light of the Shekhinah to the motif of noetic union, but also elevated this correlation to a position of supreme importance. For him, to be crowned meant to be united by the light. With this interpretation, Maimonides set the stage for the later adherence of the Kabbalists to the utilization of the symbol of crowning as signifying union with eschatological light. In order to interpret in this vein, Maimonides had recourse to the symbol of coronation in rabbinic literature, and specifically to BT Megillah 15b, in which it is stated that God will become the “diadem” or “crown” on the head of each and every righteous person. As we have seen, Maimonides both interpreted the symbol of the crowning to be a figuration of an absolute union with the light, and synthesized this element with the notion of a Neo-Aristotelian noetic union. This synthesis of the rabbinic symbol with the philosophical articulation of unification gave birth to a key mystical symbol that has spanned a wide historical range. In its long trajectory, the motif of crowning has been interpreted to be pertaining not only to an after-death reward for the righteous, but also to the possibility of being crowned in one’s own lifetime, as the culmination of a mystic experience and as a foretaste of an eschatological state. A strong connection was forged between the crowning in the light of the Shekhinah and unification that had to do with an infusion of the light. The Maimonidean interpretation of the notion of coronation, along with the early Kabbalistic usages of the symbol, together constituted the earlier stratum of the utilization of this rabbinic motif, and provide the context for its later meaning and usage. The Geronise Kabbalist Ezra Ben Shlomo, who was well acquainted with Maimonides, brought the following representation of the motif to Kabbalistic discourse: “You must know the matter of the diadem is a symbol for the soul that enters and cleaves and is crowned by the resplendent light.”72 The same state of union with eschatological mystical light symbolized here by the figure of crowning was put by Azriel of Gerona in the following terms: “. . . and his soul conjoined with the noetic light and cleaved to it without any barrier or stop.”73 Azriel not only ties coronation to the phenomenon of uniting with the 72  Ezra Ben Solomon of Gerona, Perush ha-Aggadot, quoted by Azriel of Gertona’s Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot, Tishby edition, 12 [= 74 in the second edition]. Translated and quoted by Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 361; Afterman, Devequt, 264–265, 268–270. 73 Azriel of Gerona, Tishby Edition, Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot, 34 [=96 in the second edition], Tishby notes there how Azriel is also drawing on Kuzari, I:109; and see Afterman, Devequt, 269–270.

216

Chapter 10

noetic light, but forges a connection that is highly relevant to our discussion of the Zoharic mystery of the Sabbath, according to which coronation takes place in one’s lifetime and while still occupying one’s body.74 This connection, in its Zoharic usages, does not neutralize the eschatological resonances of the symbol, but subtly interweaves the embodied experience of coronation with the eschatological overtones of the figure, and patterns the time of the Sabbath after the “world-to-come”. Sabbath becomes the time in which the holy congregation unites with the eschatological light while still retaining their bodily existence.75 The embodied nature of the experience of unification as it relates specifically to Sabbath is expressed in the Zohar through the portrayal of the specific physical delights of eating and sexual relations. Sabbath is characterized in these passages as a time in which a twofold process takes place as a consequence of the unification between the divine and the congregation. This process entails the participation of the congregation in the light that emanates from high, and divine participation in the delights of the flesh of the congregation. The integration of the divine into the somatic existence of the holy congregation is traced by another key figure that is of high relevance to the Zoharic conception of unity, that of the Holy Spirit and its dwelling within and upon Israel in the privileged time of the Sabbath.

Unification and the Holy Spirit

The motif of the dwelling of the holy spirit, which is derived from rabbinic sources, is preserved and elaborated upon in the Zoharic literature in a variety of instances. Though at times related to individuals and as part of a specific effort (such as the case in the statement “when you cleave to the sefirot, the divine holy spirit enters into you, into every sensation and every moment”), the dominant case is the dwelling that spreads among a circle, most especially the circle of disciples of Rashbi,76 or on the congregation during special and cyclically recurring moments in time—namely Sabbath and other festivals. As is well attested, rabbinic sources treated the Sabbath and its experience largely as a mystery to the outside observer (that is, non-Jews), who can only disturb the intimate and exclusive relationship between Israel and the divine. While nonJews may be acquainted with the prohibitions that are related to the Sabbath, and may even know the rewards for its observance, they are not familiar with 74 Azriel of Gerona, Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot, Tishby Edition, 111. 75 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, III, 1220–1221 and 1262 note 66. 76 See Hellner-Eshed, A River, 62–63.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

217

(not do they have any access to or experience of) the “supplementary soul” with which each and every Jew is endowed on that day.77 The Zoharic discussion, when utilizing the figure of the supplementary soul of Sabbath, both internalizes that mystery and integrates it with two other motifs—namely the dwelling of the holy spirit and the process of unification with the divine. In Zohar VaYakhel, Sabbath is described as follows: The Sabbath day is joy for all, and all is crowned, above and below. The lower point shines, ascending in beauty of crowns, increased seventy fold, and eldest of Elder is aroused. Then, as light ascends, the holy people hasten to synagogue joyously, adorned with the holy crown from above, in splendid garments, offering praise in songs and hymns with that spirit abiding below. The praises ascend and those above and below are all in joy, all crowned as one [!] The upper beings open and say: “Happy are you, O Holy people on earth, whose Lord is crowned over you and for whose sake all the holy forces are crowned”. This day is a day of souls, not a day of the body, for it is dominion of the bundle of souls, and all those above and below abide in complete union in additional sublime holy spirit.78 The holy spirit, here identified with the supplementary soul of Sabbath, is drawn down by the congregation’s bodily preparations. These preparations, surprisingly, do not take the form of the congregation divesting themselves of the “garments of their corporeality”, but instead are characterized by their clothing themselves with Sabbath garments. Bodily preparation is deemed essential for the possibility of endowment with the supplementary soul. The cyclical, ritualistic time of the Sabbath, along with the bodily efforts of the congregation, serve as the conditions for the drawing down of the Holy

77 See BT, Betzah, 16a. See discussion in Sacha Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 208. 78 Zohar 2:205a–b, Pritzker edition, Volume VI, 167–172 and the Zohar explains further that the additional soul is the Holy Spirit, and the crown which is the light that unites with the soul during Shabbat: “In human beings is a soul that draws and receives this spirit on Sabbath eve, and that spirit settles within the soul, dwelling there throughout the Shabbat day. So that soul is greatly enhanced. Thus we have learned: All souls of Israel are crowned on the Sabbath day, and their crown consists of this spirit that dwells within them. As soon as Shabbat departs, Vai nefesh, Woe for the soul, that has lost that crown, that holy energy within it.” And see the text about the additional soul of the Shabbat that is “[a] holy spirit that hovers over a person and adorns him with a holy crown, the crown of angels!” (ZH 29a (MN), quoted by Ginsberg, The Sabbath, 129–128).

218

Chapter 10

Spirit. Again, this process does not culminate in disembodiment, but in the participation of the body in the process of unification. Put differently, the dominion of the soul is both achieved here through the participation of the body and described as having an effect upon the body. The holy spirit is depicted in this discussion not as a celestial transcendental entity, but as being incorporated into the corporeal world. Furthermore, not detaching from the divine sphere nor from the corporeal world, the holy “supplementary” spirit does not seem to serve here in an intermediary role between immanence and transcendence, but as a medium of unification. The higher unity does not entail a unification of one’s soul with the sefirotic realm, but of an extension of the body of each member of the congregation of Israel. This is a key description of the moment of mystical union in the body. The holy spirit here is also uniting the highest lights of the “Ancient One” with the delights of the Sabbath meal. In this way, the human participants are one with the divine in its highest manifestation, and the divine participates with the human in its somatic existence. Thus, unification with the Holy Spirit can be seen as closely related to the models of becoming, through one’s body, a “chariot” or a “chair” to the divine, a process that affects both parties of the union: The human shares with the divine its incarnated existence, and the divine shares with the human the higher divine reality and lights. The embodiment of the Sabbath-soul that is the holy spirit is described as having an experiential effect on the subject it envelops.79

Uniting the Divine Name

We have seen that unification embraces several practices and motifs in the Zoharic corpus, and is articulated in a variety of registers. Another dimension of high importance is unification in the linguistic realm, and more specifically, unification of the Tetragrammaton with other divine names. This seems, at least at first sight, to be paradoxical. As is well observed, the Zohar puts a tremendous effort into offering specific interpretations of the letters, words, and names that appear in the Hebrew Bible in light of the sefirotic realm—that is, in mapping the correspondences between the differential matrix of the sefirot, the differential linguistic texture of Scripture, and the different aspects of human experience that partake in language (for example, thinking, speaking

79 See in detail the analysis by Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, Vol. III, 1230–1237; Ginsburg, The Sabbath, 133–136.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

219

articulately, and voicing).80 However, this effort does not exhaust the Zoharic treatment of the divine names, and most specifically y-h-w-h.81 As we shall demonstrate shortly, some of the Zoharic discussions can be characterized by a sustained effort to articulate the process of unification as it is reflected in the linguistic sphere—not only differentiation and its intricate relationships of correspondence, but also an overcoming of differentiation and the regaining of undifferentiation that takes place in language itself, through the restoration of the manifold names of the divine to the undifferentiated oneness of the name y-h-w-h. Let us look at a relevant passage reflecting this highly interesting process that integrates differentiation and unification. What is of particular interest in this discussion is the coexistence of the linguistic and the cosmological realms that both partake in the same process, though in opposite directions: The fourth commandment: to realize that ‫ יהוה‬is ‫האלהים‬, God, as is said: Know today and take to heart that ‫ יהוה‬is ‫האלהים‬, God (Deut 4:39). To include the name ‫ אלהים‬in the name ‫יהוה‬, realizing they are one, indivisible. This is the mystery written: Let there be ‫מארת‬, lights, in the expanse of heaven to shine upon earth (Gen 1:14–15), that the two names be one, with absolutely no division—that ‫מארת‬, lights, spelled deficiently, merge in the name of heaven: one together and indivisible, black light with white light, indivisible, and all is one. This is the white cloud of day and the cloud of fire in the night, as they have said: “Quality of day and quality of night”—to be arrayed by each other to shine, as is said: to shine upon earth.82 In order to elucidate the unification process as it is articulated in this text, we should recall Wolfson’s sharp observation, according to which “the creation of the world [. . .] is an eruption that results in the setting of an ontic polarity.” This polarization is described in the passage above as taking place in the very nascent stages of creation—the creation of the lights in the firmament that differentiate night from day—and in the ontological source of language, the divine name, in which there occurs a division of the indivisible holy name, 80 See: Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 91–92; Charles Mopsik, “Pensée, Voix et Parole dans le Zohar,” Revue de l’histoire des Religions 213 (1996): 385–414. 81 For discussion on the Zoharic conceptions of the Tetragrammaton, See Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, 27, 114, 166n23; Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 90–91, 278–279; Wolfson, Through a Speculum, 382–383 Hellner-Eshed, A River, 289–292. 82 Zohar, Introduction, 1:12a–1:12b, Pritzker Edition, vol. 1, 82–84.

220

Chapter 10

y-h-w-h, into a differential matrix of divine names. Translated into sefirotic vocabulary, this Zoharic discussion correlates the sun and the moon, designating Tiferet and Shekhinah, with the divine names that represent the same sefirot, y-h-w-h and Elohim. But when referring to creation, this text seems to be hinting at another layer of meaning, which is related to the ontological division that takes place in ­creation, the becoming different of the non-differentiated. In the process of creation, the non-differentiated is bifurcated into day and night, a binary couple. The Zoharic author of this passage articulates this idea in a subtle exegetical reading of Genesis 1:14, “Let there be lights in the expanse of heaven to shine upon earth”.83 The very creation of lights differentiates day from night, which is deemed defective from the perspective of the original unity. This is anchored exegetically by the deficient spelling of the word lights, ‫מאורות‬, in the Masoretic orthography. According to the Masoretic text, the letter vav is missing, which allows for a reading of the word as “me’arot”, that is, curses. The Masoretic “defective” spelling is read as disclosing an ontologically defective and problematic state, which may be related to the verb that is introduced in the part of the verse that is not cited, le-havdil, to distinguish or differentiate. Moreover, the Zohar here continues a Kabbalistic tradition that itself dovetails with more ancient mystical traditions, interpreting the story of creation in light of the various divine names, especially the ineffable y-h-w-h, and correlates the creation of the cosmos with an unfolding from the innermost divine name. Here, however, it is Elohim, God, that appears as distinct from its source, which is the ineffable y-h-w-h. While one usually speaks of God in opposition or in relation to His creation, either world or man, here the division that mirrors the bifurcation of creation is occurring in the divine realm itself. This division not only differentiates divine names, but undoes the relationship between one of these names, namely Elohim, and the name that is far closer to the pre-originary state of undifferentiation, y-h-w-h. The esoteric knowledge that is alluded to in another verse, Deuteronomy 4:39—“Know today and take to heart that ‫ יהוה‬is ‫—”האלהים‬not only allows but commands this schism to be overcome.84 Two accounts of this commandment that culminate in the unification of the divine name can be provided here. According to the first, the commandment that concerns the observance of the Sabbath is related to the repairing of the divided divine potencies into a coincidence that suppresses, though preserves, the fundamental differences. 83 For a discussion of this verse in another Zoharic passage, see Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 210–211. 84 See Wolfson, Luminal Darkness, 39–40.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

221

According to the second and more radical account of this interpretation of the verse, the ineffable name, with which the name Elohim is to be united into “one and indivisible” unity, indicates the approach by which the Zoharic author of this passage thinks out the abolition of dichotomies. In the ineffable name, opposition is effaced, binaries are transcended, and an original wholeness is regained. The name y-h-w-h, according to this interpretation, designates the exclusion from all relationships, be it cosmological relationships or the linguistic differential matrix. Through the divine name, ontological fragmentation is restored to its tacit, prior unity, undifferentiating the disparate singulars.

Prayer and Unification, Voice and Silence

The Zoharic conception of unification discussed thus far can be described as the interaction between two registers, which are themselves characterized by a composition of elements from different earlier strata of Jewish mystical and philosophical writings, as well as from midrashic literature. The first may be referred to as the philosophical register represented by the problematics of unity and differentiation, and is based upon the assumption that differences may be effaced. The other register is the mythical framework that supplies the discussion with a lush vocabulary and an inner logic that is concerned less with the problem of overcoming and abolishing difference, and represents unity while still upholding difference. The secret of unification associated with the schema both in the Zohar and in various Castilian sources suggests that through the unification it is possible perhaps also to unite with the united name. One of the important Kabbalists associated with the possible authors of the Zohar, R. Joseph Gikatilla, wrote the following in his early Ginat Egoz: “We must be mindful every place that we mention His great name . . . Then we will be able to unify Him and grant Him kingship with a full heart . . . And then we will be united to the unique One who unites with us and He will cleave to our love.”85 In this section, we will discuss prayer, another type of praxis that is tied in a variety of Zoharic sources on the possibility of unification.86 This source is of 85 Gikatilla, Ginat Egoz, 375 translated and analyzed by Lachter, “Kabbalah, Philosophy, and the Jewish-Christian Debate”, 33. 86 For several insightful discussions of the prayer in the Zoharic context, see Charles Mopsik, Les Grands Textes de la Cabale: Les Rites qui font Dieu: Pratiques Religieuses et Efficacité Théurgique dans la Cabale, des Origines au Milieu du XVIIIe Siècle (Paris: Verdier, 1993), 157– 160; Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, 52–53; Hellner-Eshed, A River, 66–67; Wolfson, Luminal

222

Chapter 10

special interest in our discussion, as it presents us with a tension between two possible articulations of the way in which the words that are to be uttered in prayer achieve unification. Let us examine the Zoharic text itself: (Ve-ha-qol), And the voice, was heard in the house of Pharoah (Genesis 45:16). (Ve-ha-qol), And the voice—without a (vav). Why?” Rabbi Abba opened, “My soul yearns, even pines for the courts of Y-H-W-H; my heart and my flesh shout for joy to the living God (Psalm 84:3)” [. . .] We have established: Whoever offers a prayer before his Lord should not let his voice be heard while praying. Whoever lets his voice be heard while praying—that prayer is not heard. Why? Because prayer is not an audible voice; that audible voice is not prayer. What is prayer? Another voice, dependent on the audible voice. Who is the audible voice? ‫קול‬, Voice, with a ‫ו‬. The voice dependent on it is ‫קל‬, voice, without a ‫ו‬, dependent on it. Therefore, a person should not let his voice be heard while praying, but rather pray in a whisper—with that inaudible voice. This is the prayer that is always accepted. [. . .] this is a silent prayer, accepted by the blessed Holy One when it is fashioned fittingly with passion, intention, and harmony—actualizing every day the unity of one’s Lord.” Rabbi El’azar said, “A silent voice is the sublime voice, from which all voices issue. But ‫( קל‬qol), voice, without a ‫( ו‬vav)—is prayer below, verging on ascending to vav, uniting with it.”87 This Zoharic source presents a conundrum. What is the relation between voiced language and silence? Is silence a defective state that one ought to aspire to redeem by uniting it with a source that will ultimately break and overcome it, or is silence a superior state that may provide the only means by which to suspend the differential structure that is so intrinsic to the phenomenon of language? The former alternative is introduced by the text’s opening sentences, and is rooted exegetically in the letter vav which is absent from the middle of the word ve-haqol in the masoretic text of Genesis 45:16. According to Rabbi Abba, this missing letter intimates the why and wherefore of the human voice, which essentially owes its being to the higher sefirotic realm. When reciting prayer Darkness, 118–126; Tishby, Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 3, 867–940; Jonatan Benarroch, “The Mystery of Unity: Poetic and Mystical Aspects of a Unique Zoharic Shema Mystery”, AJS Review, 37 (2013): 231–256; Lachter, Paradox, 211–269. 87 Zohar 1:210a, Pritzker Edition, Vol. 3, 288–289.

“ Single Unification, Single Bond ”

223

in a whisper, almost inaudibly, the words are uniting Shekhinah with Tiferet in a twofold process. The first stage consists of hushing the human voice, so that the muted voice will be in a position to encounter, that is, to open itself and be attuned to the sonority of the higher sefirah. The second stage is concerned with the achievement of the theurgic effect by uniting the lower with the upper voice, regenerating the lower sefirah through its unification with the higher one on which it is dependent. While Rabbi El’azar agrees with Rabbi Abba that a secret lore is hinted at by the missing vav, he offers an interpretation that diverges from that of his colleague. In the words of Rabbi El’azar, “A silent voice is the sublime voice”. According to these words, in the origin from which everything unfolds, not voice but only silence maintains itself. In order to unite the dispersed, one has to draw as close as possible to silence. In order to understand Rabbi El’azar’s enigmatic sentence, one has to break away from one of the traditional conceptions of silence, which understands it as the limiting of speech—that is, when language, due to some circumstances that the speaker encounters, must be limited. Instead, it seems that silence here describes the overcoming of a problem that is inherent in the structure of language in its various manifestations. Here it is well to recall that the differential matrix of language is constitutive of prayer as a practice. For the Zoharic author of Rabbi El’azar’s sentence, unification is a project that must be undertaken not with the aid of resorting to the divine source of language, but in light of the defective state of differentiation that is manifested in language itself. Precisely because language is not uniform but manifold and heterogeneous, the problem of its unification becomes so acute in this Zoharic passage. In other words, what gives rise to the discussion’s preoccupation with the problem of realizing and uniting God in language, and what makes this possibility rife with contradictions, is the recognition that the intelligibility of language necessarily stems from its differentiation. The task of prayer is to restore language, through language inaudibly spoken, to its ontological origin, elevating the words asymptotically to their silent source. In this context, it will also be appropriate to recall Wolfson’s observations with respect to the motif of the transmission of esoteric lore in a whisper. According to Wolfson, “even if the specific idea can be deduced,” that is, exegetically derived, “from an explicit scriptural passage, still it must be revealed ‘in a whisper’, i.e., not in a public manner”.88 The whispered prayer thus attests 88 Elliot Wolfson, “Beyond the Spoken Word: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” in Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality and Cultural Diffusion, eds. Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni, (New Haven: Yale University

224

Chapter 10

both to the esoteric lore of the secret of unification and to the dimension of the divine that the differential matrix of language (carried by the timbers of voice) cannot embrace. It seems that the Zohar developed the most paradoxical tension between a mythical and erotic theosophical language and a very strong language of theosophical union. The same is true in regard to its brilliant mythology of all that is particular in the exilic Jewish identity and existence, including exile itself, the collective of the Jewish people, the Torah and Hebrew language, the land of Israel, halakha, and Shabbat. All that is particular and stands as part of the intimate and exclusive covenant of God and Israel is elevated and projected onto and into the godhead. On the other hand, the Zohar writes about yet another dynamic of going beyond all that is particular and diverse in the godhead, to the point of unity and oneness of God, and accordingly beyond all that is particular in Him and consequently in Jewish existence. In other words, this is a dynamic of going beyond the gap that exists between God and all that is particular, to that “place” of mystical union with the God that is beyond His and His people’s own particular existence, the one “place”, perhaps the only place, that seems to be shared by all.89 Press, 2000), 174, 182–183. For bibliographic references on the transmission in whisper, see Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 521 n.135; Moshe Idel, “In a Whisper: On Transmission of Shi’ur Qomah and Kabbalistic Secrets in Jewish Mysticism,” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 47, no. 3 (2011): 443–488. 89 See Dupré, “Unio Mystica: The State and the Experience”, 3–4 who is willing to consider the moment of mystical union the only true shared idea and experience of the three monotheistic religions.

Chapter 11

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism: A Brief Overview The language of mystical union continued to develop during the 14th and 15th centuries, mainly in the writing of Italian Jewish thinkers. An important mediator of Kabbalistic thought from Spain to Italy was Menachem Recanati (1250–1310), an Italian Kabbalist who incorporated different sources from 13th-century Spanish Kabbalah. Recanati wrote extensively on the topics of devequt and mystical union, and is famous for his interpretation of the mystical kiss as an act of rapture and unio mystica.1 Another important interpretation of the divine kiss as mystical union was introduced by the Jewish philosopher Levi ben Gershon (1288–1344). Gersonides takes after Maimonides, explaining that Moses, Aaron, and Miriam died by the kiss of God, or by the “conjunction with God himself”.2 The various Jewish teachings about the kiss of God—i.e. “death by the kiss”—as a form of unio mystica—had likely reached Pico Della Mirandola and influenced his ideas of rapture and mystical kiss.3 The Kabbalistic trend that developed in Italy was especially based upon ecstatic Kabbalah, articulating a powerful mystical path leading to unio mystica (an articulation that was highly influential later in the Renaissance).4 The matrix of sources available in the 14th and 15th centuries in Italy all shared a fundamental standpoint, claiming that metaphysical “knowledge as union” is

1 See Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 106–153; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati, 125–160; Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 94–97; Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 14–50; for more on the Zoharic interpretations of the mystical kiss that are at the background of some of Recanati’s discussions, see: Joel Hecker, “Kissing Kabbalists: Hierarchy, Reciprocity, and Equality,” Studies in Jewish Civilization 18 (2008): 171–208. 2 See Menachem Kellner (edit.), Levi ben Gershon Commentary on the Song of Songs, (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001), XXI. 3 See Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 141; Crofton Black, Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics, (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 210. 4 Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 141–146.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_012

226

Chapter 11

possible, and that uniting with the intellect and even with God is a possible and realistic goal.5 Moshe Idel and Fabrizio Lelli have shown how in the second half of the 15th century, Christian humanists were eager to read Jewish Kabbalah as a doctrine allegedly attributed to the ancient Hebrew prophets, in order to incorporate it into the “Prisca philosophia” tradition. To this end, both Jewish and Christian mystics outlined a common intellectual task: to overcome the boundaries of human reason, cross the fundamental gap that exists between the material human and the noetic metaphysical realm and God, and finally attain a mystical union.6 This aim was established both by Yohanan ben Isaac Alemanno (1435– 1504), an Italian Jewish philosopher and Kabbalist, and Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola (1463–1494), a Christian humanist with whom he established a long lasting relationship. Both articulated a path for overcoming the fundamental gap between human and angelic existence, leading at last to mystical union with God, and were inspired by a variety of Jewish sources (many of which discussed above), philosophical and Kabbalistic alike. Jewish Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian vocabularies of union provided them with ladders and bridges to overcome the “chasm” or “gulf” between man and God. These Jewish sources provided the framework to overcome the material existence of man, allowing him the transformative possibility to unite with the angelic metaphysical realm and ultimately with God. Outstanding in the field of Jewish philosophy was the famous 14th-century philosopher, Moses Narboni, who wrote a commentary on the Hebrew anonymous translation of Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqzan known as Iggeret Hayawan ben Yaqzan.7 Narboni’s commentary, Epistle of Conjunction (Iggeret ha-Devequt) demonstrates a possible context for Ibn Tufayl to be read by Jews, supporting the notion of union with the active intellect and God.8 Narboni’s interpretation of Ibn Tufayl’s work influenced a number of 15th-century Jewish philosophers,

5  Fabrizio Lelli, “‘Prisca Philosophia’ and ‘Docta Religio’: The Boundaries of Rational Knowledge in Jewish and Christian Humanist Thought,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 91 (2000): 53–99. 6 See Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 114–116; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati, 125–160. 7  See Larry Miller, “Philosophical Autobiography: Moshe Narboni’s Introduction to His Commentary on Hayy ibn Yaqzan,” in The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Hayy Ibn Yaqzan’ (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 229–239; Maurice R. Hayoun, Moshe Narboni (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986). 8 See Holzman, “Seclusion, Knowledge and Conjunction,” 130–150.

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism

227

in Spain and Italy alike, including Yohanan Alemanno.9 Narboni synthesizes Ibn Tufayl with Averroes, while characterizing a dynamic and gradual state of union with the active intellect, and rarely also with God Himself.10 Yohanan Alemanno owned his own copy of Narboni’s commentary on Ibn Tufayl, and taught Pico Della Mirandola this source. Both Alemanno and Pico developed a two-phase mystical path leading to mystical union: first with an angel, then with God. The philosophical and Kabbalistic sources mentioned above were most likely used for the purpose of articulating the path to mystical union. Lelli has demonstrated how both Alemanno and Pico use similar sources in order to first establish the possibility of uniting with the active intellect as an angelic grade (and the entire project of ‘knowledge as union’), and then introducing a second level in which the divine power or holy spirit leads the human to mystical union with God.11 For Pico and Alemanno alike, ecstatic union with God is the final human perfection. Similar to Ibn Tufayl and Abulafia, for them union with the “active intellect” was just the starting point towards the final union with God.12 This movement of Arab-Jewish sources fluctuating between different versions of philosophy and its developments in Judaism (both in Kabbalah and in later philosophy) is part of a wider phenomenon Moshe Idel describes as Muslim philosophical spiritualism, in a Jewish garb, absorbed into Florentine renaissance.13 The combination of ecstatic Kabbalah with more philosophical concepts of unitive knowledge streaming from parts of the Neo-Aristotelian

9 See: Alexander Altamnn, “Moses Narboni’s Epistle on Shiur Qoma,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 242–253; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 63–71. 10  See Holzman, ‘’Seclusion, Knowledge and Conjunction,” 164–170; Holzman, “Truth, Tradition and Religion”; Miller, “Philosophical Autobiography,” 234–237. 11 Lelli, “Prisca Philosophia,” 67–68; Vajda, L’Amour, 280–285; Idel, “The Sources of the Circle Images in Dialoghi d’Amore,” Iyyun 28 (1978): 162–165 (Hebrew); Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 205, 340–343. 12 Lelli, “Prisca Philosophia,” 67–68. Alemanno quotes several sources of Neoplatonic union, including the famous paraphrase of Plotinus’ experience of union, both from the Theology of Aristotle as translated by Shem Tov ibn Falaquera (analyzed above) and Sefer Arugat Habosem, see Almenno, Einie Haeda, MS Jerusalem 598, 98a as well as the unitive language of the Pseudo Empedocles reflecting the Neoplatonism of Proclus. Alemanno served as a direct channel for this source that impacted Pico as shown by David Kaufmann, Studies in Medieval Hebrew Literature, 87, 112–118. 13 Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 204–207; and Brian Ogren, Renaissance and Rebirth: Reincarnation in Early Modern Italian Kabbalah (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009).

228

Chapter 11

tradition led to the synthesis of philosophy and unitive mysticism that characterizes the Florentine Renaissance.14 As noted by both Idel and Brian Copenhaver, this absorption of ideas that developed in Judaism had a major impact on the reintroduction of unitive mysticism at the heart of the Renaissance spiritual revival,15 including the impact of ecstatic Kabbalah on Pico Della Mirandola’s famous Oratio de Dignitate Hominis.16 We have seen various examples of how different Jewish sources, philosophical and mystical alike, developed the interpretation of apotheosis in terms of mystical and eschatological union. It seems that these different ideas reached Pico through several channels, including Alemanno. For Alemanno, man may become an angel by uniting with the angelic grade and ultimately may reach a full union with God;17 he believes that “the soul may become one essence with God, in order to complete the circle of his knowledge and speculation, as Shlomo has said: ‘and the Soul [and not intellect] has returned to God.’ ”18 Idel noted that “like Pico, Alemanno believes in a circle stemming from God and ending with Him, which can be completed by man”.19 In 1486, Flavius Mithridates was invited by count Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola to translate a vast amount of Kabbalistic literature from Hebrew into Latin. The centrality of ecstasy, mystical rapture, and unio mystica is evident in many of these Renaissance classics.20 Idel and others have shown that 14 See Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 294–296. 15  Idem, 141–146; Brian Copenhaver, “The Secret of Pico’s Oration: Cabala and Renaissance Philosophy,” Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 26 (2002): 56–81; Brian Copenhaver, “Who Wrote Pico’s Oration?,” lecture delivered at UCLA February 2004 [http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu/brian/research/finished_research/finished_articles/i25_a_pico_ cabala_eng.pdf ]. The “order of study” or the ladder of study articulated by Alemanno was inspired by Ibn Tufayl’s order of transformation as acknowledged by Alemanno himself. In the advanced stages of his study, Alemanno recommends studying the books that discuss the possibility of conjunction with God and the active intellect. Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 143, 205 342, 461 note 20; Moshe Idel, “The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno,” Tarbiz 48 (1979): 316–318 (Hebrew). 16 See Idel, Ben, 507–530. 17 See: Moshe Idel, “The Anthropology of Yohanan Alemanno: Sources and Influences,” ASE 7 (1990): 102–103. 18 Quoted by Idel, “The Anthropology,” 107. 19 Ibid. 20 See Michael A. Screech, Erasmus: Ecstasy and the Praise of the Folly (London and New York: Penguin, 1988) and the discussion in Pico’s Oratio on the Dignity of Man, Trans. R. Caponigri (Chicago: Hanry Regnery Company, 1967) 8–10, 14.

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism

229

Jewish sources served as key foundation for the development of unitive mysticism in the Renaissance.21 Interestingly enough, one might also consider Philo’s discourse of union and his unique ideas of henōsis as a direct influence on the Renaissance developments. For example, Pico’s most important discussion on mystical union bears witness to the possible direct impact of Philo’s notion of mystical henōsis.22 One of the fundamental themes underlining Pico’s thought and Renaissance thought in general is the idea that man is a “possible” entity23—i.e. man can transform and elevate himself in the hierarchy of being, metamorphosing into an angel and even uniting with God, but on the other hand can also dehumanize completely.24 The mystical ideal of apotheosis—transforming into an archangel and becoming the Son of God—was understood by Pico as well in terms of unio mystica. After having examined thoroughly in his writings the ideal of mystical union as union with an “archangel” or a divine grade, specifically Metatron, we can be sure that Pico was acquainted with both Abulafia and Isaac of Acre, perhaps the most important writers on mystical union in 13th-century Kabbalah. In this regard, Idel quotes25 the classic discussion of Isaac of Acre in which the transformation of Enoch into Metatron is analyzed in terms of mystical union.26 This is a key example and perhaps even a source for Pico’s idea of unio mystica in terms of becoming the archangel. Idel concludes: Here [in Isaac of Acre] the union with the divine intellect is a case of unio mystica, paralleling the seventh stage of Giovanni Pico’s elevation of man to god, which has been described later on in the Heptaplus, by resorting exactly to the same imagery of the drop falling into the ocean.27

21 See the detailed discussion by Chaim Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalistic Background of the ‘Son of God’ in Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola’s Thought,” in Giovanni Pico e la Cabbalà, ed. Fabrizio Lelli (Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2014), 19–45; Black, Pico’s Heptaplus, 204. 22 On Philo’s language of ecstasy in the renaissance see: Screech, Erasmus, 55. 23 See : Moshe Idel, “Man as the ‘Possible’ Entity in Some Jewish and Renaissance Sources,” in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, eds. Allison P. Coudert and Jeffery S. Shoulson (Philadelphia: University of Penn Press, 2004), 33–48. 24 See: Idel, “The Anthropology,” 93–112. 25 Idel, “The Kabbalistic Backgrounds of the ‘Son of God’,” 33–34 and note 71. 26 See Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 67–68; Idel, The Mystical Experience, 171 and note 268. 27 Idel, “The Kabbalistic Backgrounds of the ‘Son of God’,” 34.

230

Chapter 11

The discussion from Heptaplus that Idel refers to is the following: Just as it is the felicitas of drops of water that they arrive at the ocean, where there is a plenitude of water, so, it is our felicitas that, whatever portion of intellectual light is in us, should one day be joined to the very first of all intellectual things and first mind, where there is a plenitude and totality of all knowledge.28 The opening sections of the Oration present a mystical path of transformation, through which man reaches mystical union with the absolute principle of reality.29 This mystical union is understood in light of the apotheosis of Enoch into the archangel Metatron:30 The Father imparted to man at the moment of his birth seeds of all sorts and the buds of all kinds of life. The ones he cultivates will grow and bear their fruits in him. If [he cultivates] vegetable seeds, he will become a plant; if sensual ones, he will become brutish. If [he cultivates] ration­al ones, he will turn into a heavenly animal. If he cultivates intellectual ones, he will be an angel and a Son of God. If, not content with the lot of any creature, he withdraws into the center of his unity, having become one spirit with God, he will stand before all things, in the solitary darkness of the Father who is above all things.31 Here we find a remarkable return to Philo, with the allusion to “standing” before all things—a form of spiritual union with God, and a central theme in Philo and later in the Neoplatonic tradition.32 It is well understood that Pico drew directly from Philo, and we may strongly consider the possibility that Philo’s discussion was one of the sources of Pico’s ideal of theistic union with God.33 In the Heptaplus, union is possible only by means of the Son,34 and as a result of God’s grace: 28 H. 6.6; Garin, 322; Black, Pico’s Heptaplus, 199. 29 See: Pico Della Mirandola: Oration on the Dignity of Man: A New Translation, eds. Francesco Borghesi et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 70, 103. 30 See my discussion above and Idel, The Angelic World, 210 note 66. 31 Oration, Garin, 106. 32 See chapter 2. 33 Black, Pico’s Heptaplus, 204. 34 Jessie Brewer McGaw, Heptaplus or the Discourse on the Seven Days of Creation, (New York: Philosophical Library, 1977), 87; Idel, “The Anthropology,” 105.

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism

231

The true and perfect felicity, however, carries us back to the contemplation of the face of God, which is the whole of the good, as He himself said, and leads us to perfect union with the beginning from which we sprang. [. . .] To this level man cannot go, but can be drawn. [. . .] These rays, this divine power, this influence, we call grace, since it makes man and angels pleasing to God.35 In the Oration, Pico depicts a path leading to the divine hierarchy: “The way to this fifth level is inward as well as upward: if he draws himself into the center of his unity, becoming a spirit and one with God.”36 Pico also elaborates the idea of dying in a mystical kiss as an ideal of mystical union.37 Pico’s study of Judaism as including a variety of forms of unitive mysticism was significant for his project of articulating ancient religion as a religion of union with God. The fact that he identified the centrality of mystical union in Judaism supported his own spiritual ideology.38 By the end of the 15th century, Judaism had incorporated a remarkable variety of languages of union and embodiment; this tendency would reach an even higher peak in the latest phase of Jewish mysticism—Hasidism—starting in the middle of the 18th century.39 Yet 20th-century Jewish scholarship, led by Gershom Scholem and drawing on Hermann Cohen’s theological views, for the most part failed to give serious attention to representations of union, favoring a neo-Kantian ethical view of Judaism, one that could not be imbued with significant ideas of unio mystica and mystical embodiment. Regarding this evolution, Moshe Idel has commented: The notions of prisca theologia and philosophia perennis were given a special emphasis with the emergence of the Christian Kabbalah. The search for the antique as a source of inspiration and authority was part and parcel of the Renaissance spirit. A distinction between the ancients and the moderns will assume the superiority of the former over the l­atter. In the twentieth century however, despite the tremendous achievements in exposing Kabbalah to wider audiences in Gershom 35 Black, Pico’s Heptaplus, 324–334; Lelli, “Prisca Philosophia,” 63–64. 36 Quoted by Copenhaver, “The Secret,” 59; Brian Copenhaver, “Who Wrote,” 2. 37 Idem, 15, 25. 38 See: Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola’s, 133–160. 39 See Alan Brill, Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin, (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2002) who analyzes the unitive mysticism in 17th century Judaism; Margolin, Inner Religion.

232

Chapter 11

Scholem’s magisterial writings, a rather opposite view as to the mystical nature of Judaism, and even of Kabbalah, may be seen as more dominant among some scholars of mysticism. What happened between the rather admiratory, and exaggerated, attitude of some of the Christian intellectuals in the 15th and 16th century to Kabbalah as a superior form of mysticism, and the quite reserved attitude of some of the 20th century supposedly objective academicians?40 But back in the 16th century, the language of mystical union continued to develop, especially in the writings of those Kabbalists influenced by ecstatic Kabbalah.41 An important example for this development can be found in the key Kabbalistic ethical manual42 written by Rabbi Elijah De Vidas, Reshit Hokhmah, in which a powerful language of mystical union is developed.43 De Vidas’ language of mystical union had a direct impact on early Hasidism.44 By the 18th century, all the basic images, phrases, and expressions of mystical union and mystical embodiment originating from those earlier centuries were further applied and developed by the Hasidic masters into strong and powerful mystical systems, centered on unitive vocabulary and imagery.45 For example, the language of “embodied union” flourished into what some perceived as a religion of mystical embodiment46 or even incarnation.47 It is remarkable how some of the most important phrases and images of union appear later on in the more developed mystical systems of the Hasidic masters. The language of mystical union became no less than the fundamental and basic language of Hasidic mysticism.48

40 Idel, “Unio Mystica,” 19–20. 41 See: Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 131–140; Garb, Shamanic Trance, 51–78; Idel, Hasidism, 53–65; Mordechai Pachter, Roots of Faith and Devequt: Studies in the History of Kabbalistic Ideas, (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004), 235–316. 42 See: Patrick B. Koch, Human Self-Perfection: A Re-Assessment of Kabbalistic MusarLiterature of Sixteenth Century Safed (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2015). 43 See Pachter, Roots of Faith, 288–316; Tishby, The Wisdom, 1010–1011 and note 354; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 64–65; Adam Afterman, “The Language of Mystical Union in ‘Reshit Hokhmah’,” (Forthcoming in Hebrew). 44 See: Pachter, Roots of Faith, 315–316; Margolin, Inner Religion, 347–349, 407–411. 45 See Idel, Hasidism, 223–225. 46 See the detailed study by Margolin, The Human Temple. 47 See the recent study by Magid, Hasidism Incarnate, 15–112. 48 See: Idel, Hasidism, 103–170.

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism

233

The subject of unio mystica in Hasidism deserves a lengthy and detailed analysis far beyond the scope of this study,49 but a few brief points concerning this matter are in order in a work that seeks to trace the history of the idea in Jewish mysticism throughout the ages. In early Hasidism, it was Dov Ber of Mezeritch (the Maggid of Mezeritch, 1704–1772) who appeared to be the most radical student of Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov (died 1760), the founder of the Hasidic movement. In Scholem’s study of the mystical elements in early Hasidism, the Maggid is perceived as a “radical mystic”, who developed a form of mystical union that according to Scholem was on the verge of negative apophatic mystical union.50 In his famous interpretation of the verse “make thee two trumpets of silver” (Numbers 10:2), the Maggid writes about how: [t]he Holy One of Blessing contracted the divine Self through a series of worlds, in order to unite with humans, who otherwise could not withstand the divine light. And humans must separate themselves from all corporeality until they ascend through all the worlds and unite with the Holy One of Blessing until their very existence has become nullified, and then they can be called Adam, a human being. This is the meaning of “upon the semblance of a throne,” for God is seated there, within the “huge cloud and flashing fire.” The meaning is this: first, darkness dwells in a person and he cannot pray with fervor—this is the cloud; and then fervor comes—this is the flashing fire. And God, enthroned above,51 is like “the semblance of a human form”—whatever is awakened in the human is awakened in God. If love is awakened in the righteous person, then love is awakened above, and so with every attribute. So when a person brings himself in great purity to the place above all worlds then he will unite with God, for God thinks of nothing but doing good to humanity, for “all the world was created only to serve me”, and all the worlds and all the angels are under his power, and he is like a king commanding his army [. . .] as the righteous person wills, the Holy One of Blessing wills. 49 See Margolin, Inner Religion and Margolin, The Human Temple. 50 See Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 226–227; Cf. Idel, Kababalh: New Perspectives, 65–66; Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 76; Idel, Ascensions on High, 46; Margolin, The Human Temple, 329–332; Menachem Lorberbaum, “Attaining the Attribute of Ayyin: The Mystical Religiosity of Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov,” Kabbalah 31 (2014): 169–235 (Hebrew); Tsippi Kauffman, In All Your Ways Know Him: The Concept of God and Avodah Be-Gashmiyut in the Early Stages of Hasidism (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2009), 139–140 (Hebrew). 51 As we recall “enthronement” is a classic symbol for mystical union steaming from early Kabbalah and Maimonides.

234

Chapter 11

Even the sexual union of our holy patriarchs is a complete Torah, and if “Jacob came unto Rachel, and he loved Rachel” is missing from a Torah scroll, then it is no longer fit for holy use, for the Holy One of Blessing has embodied [literally: entered] into them, for they did everything while cleaving to God, and the Holy One of Blessing took great joy in them. For “Torah and the Holy One of Blessing are one,” and even though their mystical union was an act of tremendous corporeality, the Holy One of Blessing delighted in them. This is the meaning of two trumpets of silver. For a person of dam, blood, is only half a form, and Alef by itself is not a complete form. But when they join together they become one complete form. And kesef, “silver,” also means “desire,” and so you should desire only the Holy One of Blessing, and the Holy One of Blessing will love you, as a parent and a child love one another, for they are one body and they each long for the other, for each alone is incomplete and only half a form, yet together they are one complete form. This is clear!52 Here we find a strong and radical text, describing at least two dynamics of mystical union.53 The first depicts the human uniting with God in His place, while the other presents God as uniting and dwelling in man’s place, in his body. Together, God and man in their union form one complete unit, “one body”. God as well as the human agent are incomplete without the union, “only half a form”. Through embodiment in the bodies of the Patriarchs, God joyfully participated in their sexual lives, and for that reason the record of their sexual intimacy manifests in the Torah. Due to the strong association between God, the Torah and the righteous, the union between the godhead and the righteous is reflected at the same time in the Torah. Scholem, however, described these words of the Maggid this way: “[T]his union is in fact not at all pantheistic obliteration of the self within the divine mind . . . He finds himself because he has found God . . . after having gone through devequt and union, man is still man”,54 and “Man finds himself by losing himself in God, and by giving up his identity, he discovers it on a higher plane”.55

52 Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov, ed. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1976; 2nd extended edition Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), 38–39. 53 Cf. Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 226–227; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 65–66; Lorberbaum, “Attaining the Attribute of Ayyin”, 225–227; Margolin, The Human Temple, 181–184, 294–298. 54 Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 227. 55 Ibid.; Ben-Shlomo, “Gershom Scholem on Pantheism”, 68–69.

From Kabbalah to the Renaissance and Hasidism

235

It is accurate to say that during and after this state “man is still man”;56 he does not obliterate himself in God—quite the opposite. God is embodied not only in man’s subjective selfhood but in the flesh of his body, thus man’s full individual existence is secured—on the mental and spiritual plane, and even more so on the material and somatic aspect. Yet this example is astonishing, since while the Maggid depicts a very radical idea of mystical embodiment, Scholem only cares to differentiate his experience from the apophatic type of union that it is obviously not, without acknowledging the kind of union that it is. This is no less than a radical form of mystical embodiment, a continuation of the line of Kabbalistic use of key symbols of “enthronement”, the “merkavah”, and the embodiment of the Patriarchs, which (as seen above) all functioned as symbols of mystical embodiment. One of the Maggid’s closest disciples, Shneur Zalman of Liady (the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch) attests the following: When man “cleaves” to God, it is very delightful for Him, and very savorous for Him, so much so that He will swallow it into His heart, etc. as the corporeal throat swallows. And this is the true cleaving, as he becomes one substance with God in whom he was swallowed, without being separate so as to be a distinct entity at all. That is the meaning [of the verse] “and you shall cleave to Him”—[to cleave], literarily.57 Here we find an extreme image of union as being swallowed or eaten alive by God. The Alter Rebbe is not afraid to express even the most radical images of mystical union following and elaborating the images we found at the end of the 13th century in the writings of Isaac of Acre. Moshe Idel’s recent analysis of writings of several of the Besht’s students strengthens this assumption, demonstrating how we may identify traditions (in the name of the founder of Hasidism) that indicate not only an elaborate vocabulary of mystical union of all kinds, but also what Scholem and his followers would call “radical pantheism”. One particularly example may be found in R. Aharon of Apta, who quotes several discussions in the name of the Baal Shem Tov on the topic

56 Scholem, The Messianic Idea, 227. 57 R. Shneor Zalman, Commentary on the Siddur, 51. Translated by Idel, “Universalization,” 43; Leah Ornet, “Mystical Union in the Writings of the Hasidic Master, R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady,” Studies in Spirituality 18 (2008), 61–92; Elchanan Shilo, “The Substance of Man and the World in the Unio-Mystic Experience of Rabbi Kook” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel, 25, (2015), 37–64 (Hebrew).

236

Chapter 11

of ­mystical union, articulating one of the most powerful depictions of unio ­mystica in evidence: The mystics like the patriarchs are named after the divine dwelling in them and serve as a chariot for the godhead.58 The level of embodiment of the divine in the mystic is the extent to which they are described as like fish that are covered in and disappear in the waters of the ocean. Such is the intensity of the union of the mystic with the divine light, as the mystic is absorbed and hidden in the divine light, in the ocean of light . . .59 Here we find two interesting themes that are central to the Jewish tradition of union: the embodiment of the divine in the body of the Patriarchs, and the tzaddik’s willingness to “drown” into the light. Drowning in God does not worry the Hasidic master at all; rather, it is an ideal state to unite with the divine light, and to swim like a fish in the ocean of that light. 58 This idea is well developed in Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism as we have seen above in detail, in particular see the discussion by R. Isaac of Acre and Afterman, Devequt, 237–238, 275–278, 341; Eitan Fishbane, “A Chariot for the Shekhinah: Identity and the Ideal Life in Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah,” Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2009): 385–418; Micheline Chaze, “De l’identification des Patriarches au Char Divin: Recherche du Sens D’un Enseignement Rabbinique dans le Midrash et dans la Kabbale Prézoharique et ses Sources,” Revue des Etudes Juives 149 (1990): 5–75. 59 My translation. See the original source and analysis by Moshe Idel in his supplementary notes to: Gershom Scholem, The Latest Phase: Essays on Hasidism by Gershom Scholem, ed. David Asaf and Esther Liebes (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008), 264 (Hebrew).

Chapter 12

Concluding Remarks In rather sharp contrast to Hermann Cohen’s and subsequently Gershom Scholem’s views of Jewish mysticism, a closer (and more open) examination reveals that Judaism was in many periods a religion in which significant figures and schools promoted mystical union of all kinds with God. This Jewish trajectory of union spans from the most apophatic and “negative” form of Neoplatonic unio mystica to the most embodied form of union of the divine within the human body. This study has closely examined two specific trends that developed the vocabulary of union: mystical henōsis and its origins in Philo and development in medieval Judaism, and mystical embodiment from 12th-century Jewish theology through early Kabbalah and the Zohar and some later developments. The fact that some Jewish thinkers articulated a vocabulary of union (while discussing different forms of integration of the human and the divine) is by no means trivial; much of the Jewish language of integration is not at all unitive, and often associated with dynamics of partial cleaving and communion principally associated with the language of devequt. This highlights the importance of those times that Jewish authors did deliberately chose to characterize the integration of the human and the divine as unitive. Those cases were at the focus of my investigation, which assumed that the use of all other criteria besides the actual employment of such language—be it theological or psychological—fails to account for the rich and complex ways that Jewish thinkers did write about union per se. Instead of using theological criteria to argue against the existence of Jewish unio mystica or mystical embodiment, it is much more interesting and productive to analyze the actual discourse, symbols, and themes that were, in fact, developed and used in different ways by Jewish authors to describe the idea and possible experience of unitive integration with God. My investigation into the language of union began with the birth of unio mystica in Philo’s synthesis between Judaism and Platonism, and we followed this synthesis into Neoplatonism and medieval Jewish theology and Kabbalah (as well as the creative absorption of the language of union into later medieval and early modern aspects of rabbinic Judaism). The other unitive trend, mystical embodiment, was examined in light of the medieval theology of Judah Halevi and Spanish Kabbalah, up through its fuller and richer ­manifestations in

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004328730_013

238

Chapter 12

the Zohar, and later developments in Jewish mysticism during the Renaissance and in Hasidism. Medieval Jewish thought, like many other religious traditions that developed in its time and place, articulated these two parallel dynamics that were not marginal but among the foundations of its religious path: the first, that of human integration into the metaphysical and the divine; and the second, the opposite dynamic of divine integration into the human realm in the body and even the flesh. In medieval Kabbalah, both dynamics are highly developed and are characterized as leading, in certain circumstances, to the union and total fusion of the human and divine. In both dynamics, the elaborate language of union was employed in order to describe stages or levels of these dynamics of integration. Both dynamics are fluid and could lead to lower levels of association, but at the extremes, both lead to mystical union—that of the human in God and that of God in man. Both dynamics—that of the divine emanating something of its essence to the lower realms (which includes an understanding of the human soul as existing both above and below), and the opposite, that of the return of the human soul or Nous to the higher realms—were absorbed into rabbinic Judaism, and projected back onto the biblical and rabbinic vocabulary and symbolism that were perceived (and experienced) as at the heart of Jewish practice and religiosity. Jewish medieval theology and Kabbalah developed, at the same time, an innovative understanding of the path to spiritual perfection—a path leading to union with the transcendent One and reaching unitive integration with key divine and sub-divine elements along that path—as well as the opposite dynamics of embodiment and union inside man, both expressions of the fundamental ideal of integration of the human and the divine. Perhaps due to the lack of any theological dogma to categorically oppose this development (notwithstanding the modern voices of Herman Cohen and Gershom Scholem who perceived such a theological obstacle), Judaism’s philosophical and mystical trends articulate a robust understanding of union between God and humanity. I view this as no less than a major revolution in rabbinic Judaism, and the fruit of moments of openness to other religions and to Hellenistic philosophy: first in the Hellenistic Judaism of Philo, and later in medieval Jewish theology with its striking openness to Christian and Muslim theology and philosophy. Thus fundamentally new religious ideas and vocabulary evolved, which were nevertheless carefully tied back into the fabric of scripture and the rabbinic matrix of thought.

Concluding Remarks

239

I have shown how a lineup of major biblical and rabbinic themes and symbols were charged with unitive meaning. The fact is that major themes such as the apotheosis of humans into angels, the Patriarchs serving as a “chariot” for the divine, coronation, enthronement, the “kiss”, and even spiritual eating were now transformed into major symbols of mystical union in medieval Kabbalah and key to its successful development of its unique spiritual path. The absorption of philosophical ideals and Sufi images of union, effectively tied into biblical and rabbinic concepts and images, created a rich matrix of ideas and symbols for the two basic forms of unitive integration. The same dynamics that led to the development of theological monotheism focused and based upon one transcendent God, under the influences we have noted above, ultimately led to the development of a religious path aimed at human integration into that One God (as well as the reverse). However, integration into the divine realm may precede actual integration into God’s self per se, as in many systems there are unified realms or entities mediating the divine. For that reason, most spiritual paths developed by medieval Jews were considered as leading eventually to God, but on the way encountering and becoming other entities that were also considered unified themselves, such as the noetic realm in the Neo-Aristotelian tradition or the Nous in the Neoplatonic tradition. The steps of union led eventually to the final union with the One God that exists beyond the material world. The development of the Jewish version of tawhid in the tenth century CE and onward ultimately gave birth to a religious path that aspires to cleave to and unite with God. The fact that God and much of what mediates Him was considered to be one or a unified substance meant that the religious path of perfection was to be a path of transformation and union with these mediating, unified realms leading to the union with the absolute transcendent One. The combination of the longstanding theological articulation of God as the One, together with the idea of religious perfection as coming “close” to God and cleaving or uniting with Him, led eventually under a number of philosophical and mystical influences to the idea of mystical union with God. The goal of religious perfection became not only becoming like God but transforming into God’s being and existence, with the path to perfection consisting of increasing participation in the mystery of the One. Both ideas—absolute divine unity, and the path to perfection—are the fruit of the synthesis of Judaism with Platonism and Aristotelianism. The development of the idea that God is the monad in philosophical terms is clearly a Platonic influence. The idea that religious perfection is a path leading to spiritual, noetic, or mystical integration into God is a major medieval­

240

Chapter 12

philosophical innovation. The combination of the two led to the development of a new religious ideal in the history of Jewish thought (with the critical previous exception of Philo)—that of becoming one with the Tetragrammaton. Part of the movement towards the divine oneness or the One was at the same time movement towards the “world to come”, considered by many medieval thinkers as existing “above” and “beyond” time and space in the metaphysical realms. Maimonides described the integration of the human soul into the realm of the “afterlife” as integration into a unified noetic realm. Thus an entire new understanding of religious perfection as reaching the afterlife or other spiritual realms—sometimes, paradoxically, in this lifetime—was now to be interpreted as part of the journey towards and into a unified realm or substance, “on the way” towards the ultimate and transcendent One. If for Maimonides reaching the afterlife is becoming one with the unified noetic realm, for the Neoplatonist’s the same is true for the union with the metaphysical Nous. In that way, several key symbols associated with those relatively rare states were now charged with unitive meaning and vocabulary. Reaching the afterlife or the “world to come” was understood as becoming one with that realm or state, and many other levels of integration into the godhead and the metaphysical realms mediating the godhead came to be considered as on the path to this understanding of unitive integration. For most medieval thinkers, philosophers and Kabbalists alike, union with the higher realm usually signified the transformation or the translation of the human agent from the human realm to some higher realm, i.e. the “world to come”, that at the same time is a realm or “place” in the godhead or in the metaphysical plane mediating the divine. It should be clear why such a process was associated with the ancient ideal of apotheosis of a human into an angel, while the dynamics of devequt were usually associated with the process of partial and dynamic integration while still in the body or still part of the social realm. The Kabbalists in general were more interested in the possibilities of reaching a unitive state while still part of human society and halachically active. What was considered a very rare achievement at the beginning of the 13th century by the early Kabbalists— reaching unified eschatological states while still in the body (referring to older articulations of apotheosis)—was gradually articulated in terms of mystical moments that were part of day-to-day life. This shift from rare and extreme moments of union to a mystical path in which union is a fundamental characteristic (as in the Zohar and later sources), marks an important shift. What contributed more than anything to this development was the gradual articulation of the axis of embodiment in which union was to be achieved in the body in this life and as part of social and mundane existence. This allowed for Jewish

Concluding Remarks

241

mystics to draw “down” into this life the dynamics of union that in earlier periods were characteristic of the afterlife and of divine life itself. The Kabbalists gradually adopted and adapted the previously rare and extreme language of union to refer to a variety of mystical states achievable not infrequently—indeed, regularly—for example, the experience of the mystery of the One on Shabbat. Since union was now also to be experienced through the dwelling of the divine in the human realm, the participation in the mystery of union became, at least for the Jewish elite, more available and accessible than before. Through an understanding of a partial or gradual integration of the human into the godhead initiated from “below”, the later dynamics of embodiment of union from “above” could take place in the form of the dwelling of the divine name or spirit in the human characterized as leading to a unified state, a union taking place in the human realm. These dynamics of mysticism of the divine indwelling spirit overcomes in a way the mysticism of contemplative devequt or union that takes place in the godhead itself. The gradual shift of focus from the godhead to the human body and psyche in premodern and modern Jewish mysticism is one of the results of this development in which the encounter, in fact—union, takes place in the human. This development, in a way the articulation of the axis of embodiment interplaying with the opposite axis of Philonic union, was well established by the 16th century Kabbalah and found its fullest development in the mysticism of embodiment and mystical union in Hasidism. It is clear, then, that the axis of embodied union in particular through the Holy Spirit was the more common and developed form of mystical union already in 16th century Kabbalah and in the Hasidic path. The language of embodiment and union would increasingly develop around the concept of the divine name and spirit dwelling within the human body, and in that way mediating the mystery of the One. Indeed, in 16th century Kabbalah and even more so in Hasidism, we find a tendency to use the language of union as a common ground, much like the language of devequt functioned in early Kabbalah, and the emphasis is clearly towards the axis of embodiment and the indwelling of the divine name, spirit or light interplaying with the opposite dynamics of ascent of the human into the divine realm. By interplaying with both dynamics of union discussed above, the Hasidic masters articulated a mystical path in which they were hardly concerned about drowning in the mystical light; in fact, swimming like fish in the ocean of light, they articulate the axis of mystical union and embodiment to its extreme.

242

Chapter 12

The theological logic that gave birth to the Philonic (and since then, all monotheistic religions’) ideal of unio mystica in the first century was gradually, in medieval Judaism, intertwined with the alternative logic of the Holy Spirit. If the first unitive dynamic is based upon the human spirit leaving the body and the general human setting, reaching the divine realms and even God and then undergoing a process of unification, the opposite dynamic focuses on God’s spirit or the Tetragrammaton descending and being embodied in humanity in moments of union. The latter dynamic of union—that is, of divine “descent” rather than human “ascent”—gradually became a dominant form of mystical union articulated in Jewish sources, due perhaps to Judaism’s generally embodied character and its emphasis on communal existence. This trend continued to develop into radical forms of mystical embodiment and union in Hasidism, co-existing with the opposite dynamic—or at least, with various forms of partial or initial integrations into the godhead that were in fact considered pre-conditions for the activation of the indwelling of the divine. Hasidism ultimately articulated different ways of integrating aspects of both these dynamics into daily human life and Jewish practice, especially for its mystical elite. I hope that this study has contributed to a deeper understanding of one aspect from the fascinating history of how Jewish thinkers have understood (many times influenced from sources outside of Judaism) their mystical relationship with God, and has amply demonstrated Judaism’s rich articulation of union with the divine.

Primary Sources Abulafia, Abraham. Hayyei Ha-Olam Ha Ba. Edited by Amnon Gros, Jerusalem: A. Gros, 1999. Abulafia, Abraham, Or ha-Sekhel. Edited by Amnon Gros. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2007. Abulafia, Abraham. Sefer Sitrei Torah. Edited by Amnon Gros, Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Asher ben David, R. Asher ben David His Complete Works and Studies in His Kabbalistic Thought. Edited by Daniel Abrams. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996 (Hebrew). Azriel of Gerona. Commentary on Talmudic Aggadoth. Edited by Isaiah Tishby. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1945 (Hebrew). Azriel of Gerona. “New Fragments in the writing of R. Azriel of Gerona.” In Sefer Zikkaron le-Asher Gulak we-li Shemu’el Klein, edited by Gershom Scholem, 201–222. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1942 (Hebrew). Bahya Ben Asher. Kitvei Rabbenu Bahya. Edited by Hayyim D. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1981. Bar Sheshet, Jacob. “Response of Correct Answers”, Chapter II. In The Early Kabbalah. Edited by Joseph Dan, texts translated by Ronald C. Kiener. New York: Paulist Press, 1986. Bar Sheshet, Jacob. Sefer ha- Emunah we-ha Bittahon. In Kitvei Ramban. 2 vols. Edited by Hayyim D. Chavel, vol. 2, 353–448. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964. Bar Sheshet, Jacob. Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim. Edited by Georges Vajda, introduction by Georges Vajda and Efraim Gottlieb. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1968. The Book Bahir: An Edition Based on the Earliest Manuscripts. Edited by Daniel Abrams with the introduction of Moshe Idel. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994 (Hebrew). The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. Ben Shemuel, Hillel of Verona, Book of Rewards of the Soul. Edited by Joseph B. Sermoneta. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1981 (Hebrew). Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona. Perush ha-Aggadot. MS Oxford, Bodleiam 1947. Partially printed in Liqqutei Shikhehah u- Fe’ah. Ferrara, 1556. Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona. Perush Shir ha-Shirim. In Kitvei Ramban, 2 vols., edited by Hayyim D. Chavel, 2:476–548. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964. Ibn Ezra, Abraham. Perushei ha- Torah le- Rabbenu Avraham Ibn Ezra. 3 vols. Edited by Asher Weiser. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1977. Ibn Ezra, Abraham. Yesod Mora. Prague, 1833. Ibn Gabirol, Shlomo. The fountain of life (Fons Vitae). Translated by Alfred B. Jacob. Chicago: The Aries Press, 1987. Ibn Tibon, Samuel. Maamamar Yikkawu ha-Mayyim. Presbourg 1837.

244

Primary Sources

Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, Ozar Hayyim, Ms Moscow-Gunzburg, 775. Isaac ben Samuel of Acre. Sefer Me’irat Einayim by R. Isaac of Acre: A Critical Edition. Edited by Amos Goldreich. Jerusalem: Akkadamon, 1981 (Hebrew). Isaac the Blind. Perush Sefer Yesirah. “Appendix” in Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah of Provence. Edited by Rivka Schatz. Jerusalem: Akkadamon, 1970 (Hebrew). The Jerusalem Bible. Koren Publishers, 1997. Judah Hallevi. Kuzari, Judah Hallevis Kitab Al Khazari, translated from the Arabic by Hartwig Hirschfeld. London: M. L. Cailingold, 1931. Levi ben Gershon. Commentary on the Song of Songs. Edited by Menachem Kellner, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001 (Hebrew). Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides). The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated with an introduction and notes by Shlomo Pines, with an introductory essay by Leo Strauss. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah. New York: Schlusinger, 1947. Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides). Kitvei Ramban. 2 vols. Edited by Chayyim D. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964. Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides). Perushei ha-Torah le-R. Mosheh ben Nahman. 2 vols. Edited by Chayyim D. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1959–1960. Moses de Leon. Sefer Mishkan ha-Edut. Edited by Avishai bar-Asher. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2013. Narboni, Moses. The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect by Ibn Rushd with the Commentary of Moses Narboni. Edited and translated by Kalman P. Bland. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982. Pico Della Mirandola. Oration on the Dignity of Man. Translated by A. Robert Caponigri. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1967. Sefer ha-Zohar. Edited by Reuven Margaliot. 6th ed., 3 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1984. Sefer Ha-Zohar, Pritzker Edition, Volume I–VIII, Translated by Daniel C. Matt, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014. Shem Tov Falaquera. Sefer ha-Ma’a lot. Edited by L. Venetianer, Berlin 1894. Sifre on Deuteronomy. Edited by Lawis Finkelstein, New York and Jerusalem 2001. Iggeret Hakodesh. In Kitvei Ramban. 2nd Vol. Edited by Hayyim D. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1964 (Hebrew).

Bibliography Abelson, Joshua. Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction to the Kabbalah. New York: SepherHermon, 1981. Abelson, Joshua. The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature. New York: Intellectbooks, 1969. Abrams, Daniel. “Orality in the Kabbalistic School of Nahmanides: Preserving and Interpreting Esoteric Traditions and Texts.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 85–102. Abrams, Daniel. Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms on the Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011. Abrams, Daniel. The Female Body of God in Kabbalistic Literature. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004 (Hebrew). Adamson, Peter. “Al-Kindi and the Reception of Greek Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy. Edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor: 32–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Afterman, Adam. Devequt: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011 (Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union.” The Journal of Religion 93 (2013): 177–196. Afterman, Adam. “Glorified with Embroideries of Songs: A Chapter in the History of Mystical Prayer in Judaism.” Da’at 81–82 (2016) (forthcoming in Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “Languages of Union in the Zoharic Literature” (forthcoming in Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “Letter Permutation Techniques, Kavannah and Prayer in Jewish Mysticism.” Journal of the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6, no. 18 (2007): 52–78. Afterman, Adam. “Ma’aseh Merkava in Rabbinic Literature: Prayer and Envisioning the Chariot”, Kabbalah 13 (2005): 249–269 (Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. The Intention of Prayers in Early Ecstatic Kabbalah: A Study and Critical Edition of an Anonymous Commentary to the Prayers. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004 (Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “The Phylactery Knot: The History of a Jewish Icon.” In Myth, Ritual and Mysticism, edited by Gideon Bohak, Ron Margolin and Ishay Rosen-Zvi, 441–480. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014 (Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “The Language of Mystical Union in Reshit Hokhmah” (forthcoming in Hebrew). Afterman, Adam. “Time, Eternity and Mystical Experience in Kabbalah’, In Time and Eternity in Jewish Mysticism, edited by Brian Ogren, 162–175. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2015.

246

Bibliography

Alekniene, Tatjana. “L’extase mystique” Dans la Tradition Platonicienne: Philon D’alexandre et Plotin” Studia Philonica 22 (2010): 53–82. Alexander, Philip. “Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature.” In Priere, Mystique et Judaisme, Colloque de Strasbourg (10–12 septembre 1984), 43–64. Paris: Presses Universitires de France 1987). Alexander, Philip. “Qumran and the Genealogy of Western Mysticism.” In New Perspectives on Old Texts; Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Betsy Halpern-Amaru in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements, 215–235. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Alexander, Philip. The Mystical Texts. London & New York: Continuum Press, 2006. Altmann, Alexander. “Ibn Bajja on Man’s Ultimate Felicity.” In Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, edited by Alexander Altmann, 73–107. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1969). Altmann, Alexander. “Isaac Israeli’s Chapter on the Elements (Ms. Mantua).” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956): 31–57. Altmann, Alexander. “Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy.” In Essays in Jewish Intellectual History, edited by Alexander Altmann, 77–96. New England: Brandeis, 1981. Altmann, Alexander. “Maimonides on the Intellect and the Scope of Metaphysics.” In Von der Mittelalterlichen zur Modernen Aufklarung: Studien zur Judischen Geistesgeschichte, von Alexander Altmann (Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism), 60–129. Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Altmann, Alexander. “Maimonides’ Attitude Toward Jewish Mysticism,” In Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, edited by Alfred Jospe, 200–219. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981. Altmann, Alexander. “Moses Narboni’s Epistle on Shiur Qoma.” In Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, edited by Alexander Altmann, 225–288. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Altmann, Alexander. Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books, 1969. Altmann, Alexander. “The Delphic Maxim in Medieval Islam and Judaism.” In Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism, edited by Alexander Altmann, 1–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969. Altmann, Alexander and Samuel M. Stern. Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century. His Works Translated with Comments and Outline of his Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958. Andia, Ysabel D. Henosis: L’union A Dieu Chez Denys L’areopagite. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Bibliography

247

Anidjar, Gil. “Our Place in al-Andalus”: Kabbalah, Philosophy, Literature in Arab Jewish Letters. California: Stanford University Press, 2002. Armstrong, Arthur H. “Platonic Mysticism.” Dublin Review 216 (1945): 130–143. Arp, Robert. “Plotinus, Mysticism, and Mediation.” Religious Studies 40 (2004): 145–148. Benaaroch, Jonatan M. “The Mystery of Unity: Poetic and Mystical Aspects of a Unique Zoharic Shema Mystery”, AJS Review, 37 (2013): 231–256. Ben-Shlomo, Joseph. “Gershom Scholem on Pantheism in the Kabbala.” In Gershom Scholem, the Man and His Work, edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr, 56–72. Albany, New York: University of New York Press, 1994. Ben-Shlomo, Joseph. The Challenge of Spinoza and Spinozism. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2012 (Hebrew). Berg, Rudolphus Maria. Proclus’ Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Birnbaum, Ellen. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996. Black, Crofton. Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Bland, Kalman. “Elijah del Medigo’s Averroist Response to the Kabbalah’s of FifteenthCentury Jewry and Pico Della Mirandola.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1991): 25–53. Bland, Kalman. “Elijah Del Medigo, Unicity of the Intellect and the Immortality of the Soul.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Vol. 61 (1995): 1–22. Bland, Kalman. The Epistle on the Possibility of Conjunction with the Active Intellect, by Ibn Rushd; With the Commentary of Moses Narboni; A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation by Kalman P. Bland. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1982. Blumenthal, David R. Philosophic Mysticism: Studies in Rational Religion. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2006. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria—An Exegete for His Time, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Book 86). Boston and Lieden: Brill, 1997. Borghesi, Francesco, Michael Papio and Massimo Riva. Pico Della Mirandola: Oration On the Dignity of Man: A New Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Boustan, Ra’anan S. From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysiticism. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press: 1993. Brill, Alan. Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2002.

248

Bibliography

Brisson, Luc and Pradeau, Jean F. “Plotinus.” In A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, edited by Mary Louise Gill and Pierre Pellegrin, 577–596. Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell, 2009. Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man. London: K. Paul, 1947. Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated and notes by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Scribner, 1970. Buber, Martin. The Origin and Meaning of Hasidism. Edited and translated by Maurice Friedman. New York: Horizon Press, 1960. Caird, Edward. The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers. The Gifford Lectures Vol. II, reprinted: South Carolina: BiblioBazaar, 2009. Campanini, Saverio. “Yehudah ben Nissim Ibn Malka: Perush Ha-Tefelot.” (Appendix) In: Giulio Busi, Catalogue of the Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Community of Mantua, 219–241. Firenze: Firenze Cadmo, 2001. Caponigri, Robert A. Pico’s Oratio on the Dignity of Man. Chicago: Hanry Regnery Company, 1967. Carabine, Deirdre. John Scottus Eriugena. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Certeau, Michel D. “ ‘Mystique’ au XVIIe Siècle: Le Problème du Language Mystique.” In L’Homme Devant Dieu: Mélanges Offerts au Pere Henri de Lubac, 3 vols., 2: 267–291. Paris: Aubier, 1964. Chadwick, Henry. “Philo and the Beginning of Christian Thought.” The Cambridge History of later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, edited by A. H. Armstrong: 137–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Chaze, Micheline. “De l’identification des Patriarches au Char Divin: Recherche du sens d’un Enseignement Rabbinique dans le Midrash et dans la Kabbale Prézoharique et ses Sources.” Revue des études Juives 149 (1990): 5–75. Cohen, Hermann. Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism. Translated by S. Kaplan, with an introduction by L. Strauss. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1995. Cohen, Hermann. Ethics of Maimonides (Modern Jewish Philosophy and Religion: Translation and Critical Studies). Translated with commentary by Almut Sh. Bruckstein. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Copenhaver, Brian. “The Secret of Pico’s Oration: Cabala and Renaissance Philosophy.” Midwest Studies In Philosophy, 26 (2002): 56–81. Copenhaver, Brian. “Who Wrote Pico’s Oration?” Lecture delivered at UCLA February 2004 [http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu/brian/research/finished_research/finished_articles/i25_a_pico_cabala_eng.pdf]. Couliano, Ioan. Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modem Nihilism. San Francisco: Harper, 1992. D’Ancona, Cristina. “Divine and Human Knowledge in Plotiniana Arabica.” In The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, edited by John J. Cleary: 419–441. Louvain: Catholic University of Louvain, 1997.

Bibliography

249

D’Ancona, Cristina. “Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation.” In The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, 10–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. D’Ancona, Cristina. “Man’s Conjunction with Intellect: A Neoplatonic Source of Western Muslim philosophy.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities VIII (2008): 57–89. D’Ancona, Cristina. “The Origins of Arabic Philosophy.” In The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, II, 869–893. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Dan, Joseph. “The Religious Experience of the Merkavah.” In Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur Green, 289–306. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Dauber, Jonathan. “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah.” In The Cultures of Maimonides: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought, edited by James T. Robinson, 9–57. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. Dauber, Jonathan. Knowledge of the God and the Development of Early Kabbalah. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. Davidson, Herbert. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Davidson, Herbert. “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge.” Maimonidean Studies 1 (1992–93): 49–103. Davidson, Herbert. “The Active Intellect in the Cuzari and Hallevi’s Theory of Causality.” Revue des études Juives 131 (1972): 351–396. Delling, Gerhard. “The ‘One who Sees God’ in Philo.” In Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack, 34–39. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. Dieterici, Friederich. (Editor). Theology of Aristotle. Leipzig, 1882. Dodds, Eric R. “Nemenius and Ammonius.” In Les Sources De Plotin, edited by Eric Dodds, 3–61. Geneve, 1957. Dodds, Eric R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experiences from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. New York: W. E. Norton & Company, 1965. Dodds, Eric R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California, 1951. Dodds, Eric R. “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One”. The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3/4 (1928): 129–142. Dogniez, Cécile and Marguerite Harl. La bible d‘Alexandrie: Le Deuteronome. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Dupré, Louis. “The Christian Experience of Mystical Union.” The Journal of Religion 69 (1989): 1–13.

250

Bibliography

Dupré, Louis. “Unio Mystica: The State and the Experience.” In Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: An Ecumenical Dialogue, edited by Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn, 3–23. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1989. Elior, Rachel. “Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literatutre.” Jewish Studies Quarterly, 1 (1993/94): 3–53. Elqayam, Avi. “‘As a Lily among Thrones’: The Secret of the Rose as the Image of All Images in the Zohar”, in Kabbalah, Mysticism and Poetry: The Journey to the End of Vision, ed. Avi Elqayam and Shlomy Mualem, 121–241. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2015. Fenton, Paul. “Abraham Maimonides (1186–1237): Founding a Mystical Dynasty.” In Jewish Mystical Leaders and Leadership in the 13th Century, edited by Moshe Idel and Mortimer Ostow, 127–154. Maryland: A Jason Aronson Book, 1998. Fenton, Paul. “Gleanings from Moseh Ibn Ezra’s ‘Maqalat al-Hadiqa’.” Sefarad 36 (1976): 285–298. Fenton, Paul. “Influences Soufies sur le Dévéloppement de la Qabbale à Safed : le cas de la Visitation des Tombes.” In Expérience et écriture mystiques dans les religions du livre, edited by Paul B. Fenton and Roland Goetschel, 163–190. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fenton, Paul. “Judaism and Sufism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, 201–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Fenton, Paul. “Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera and the Theology of Aristotle.” DAAT 29 (1992): 27–40 (Hebrew). Fenton, Paul. “The Arabic and Hebrew Versions of the Theology of Aristotle”. In PseudoAristotle in the Middle Ages, edited by Jill Kraye, W. F. Ryan and Charles B. Schmitt, 241–263. London: Warburg Institute, University of London Press, 1986. Fenton, Paul. The Treatise of the Pool. London: Ishk Book Service, 1981. Festugière, André J. Personal Religion Among the Greeks. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954. Finkel, Joshua. “The Alexandrian Tradition and the Midrash ha-Ne’elam.” In The Leo Jung Jubilee Volume; Essays in His Honor on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Menachem Kasher, Norman Lamm and Leonard Rozenfeld, 77–103. New York: Jewish Center, 1962. Fishbane, Eitan P. “A Chariot for the Shekhinah: Identity and the Ideal Life in SixteenthCentury Kabbalah.” Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (2009): 385–418. Fishbane, Eitan P. As Light before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009. Fishbane, Michael. The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994.

Bibliography

251

Freudenthal, Gad. “The Kabbalist R. Jacob ben Sheshet of Girona: The Ambivalences of a Moderate Critique of Science (ca. 1240).” In Temps I Espais De La Gerona Jueva: Actes del Simposi Internacional Celebrat a Gerona, Edited by Silvia Palanas i Marcé, 287–302. Gerona: Patronat del Call de Gerona, 2011. Freudenthal, Gideon. “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides.” DAAT 64–66, (2009): 77–97 (Hebrew). Freudenthal, Gideon. “The Philosophical Mysticism of Maimonides and Maimon.” In Maimonides and His Heritage, edited by Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Lenn E. Goodman and James Allen Grady, 113–152. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009. Frick, Peter. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Friedman, Maurice. Martin Buber’s Life and Work: the Early Years 1878–1923. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1981. Garb, Jonathan. “Kinds of Power: Rabbinic Texts and the Kabbalah.” Kabbalah 6 (2001): 45–71. Garb, Jonathan. Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Garb, Jonathan. The Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004 (Hebrew). Gatti, Maria L. “Plotinus: The Platonic Tradition and the Foundation of Neoplatonism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Genequand, Charles. Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics: a Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book Lam. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Gerson, Lloyd P. “The Unity of Intellect in Aristotle’s De Anima.” Phronesis 49 (4) (2004): 348–373. Ginsburg, Elliot. The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Goldberg, Joel (Yechiel Shalom). “Mystical Union, Individuality, and Individuation in Provençal and Catalonian Kabbalah”. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 2003. Goldreich, Amos. Isaac ben Samuel of Acre. Sefer Me’irat Einayim by R. Isaac of Acre: A Critical Edition. Jerusalem: Akkadamon, 1981 (Hebrew). Goldstein Cohen, Naomi. “Philo’s Cher. 40–52, Zohar III 31a, and BT Hag. 16a.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 191–209. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969. Gottlieb, Efraim. Studies in the Kabbala Literature. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv, 1976. (Hebrew) Green, Arthur. A Guide to the Zohar. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.

252

Bibliography

Green, Arthur. Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “Maimonides’s Quest Beyond Philosophy and Prophecy.” In Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies. Edited by Joel L. Kraemer, 141–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism.” In Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan, 25–48. Tuebingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993. Guberman, Karen. “The Language of Love in Spanish Kabbalah: An Examination of the ‘Iggeret ha-Kodesh’.” In Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times I, edited by David R. Blumenthal, 53–105. Chico: Scholar Press, 1984. Guttmann, Jakob. Die Philosophie des Solomon ibn Gabirol. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889. Hadot, Pierre. Plotinus: or the Simplicity of Vision. Translated by Michael Chase. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Halbertal, Moshe. By Way of Truth: Nahmanides and the Creation of Tradition. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2006 (Hebrew). Hames, Harvey. “A Seal within a Seal: The Imprint of Sufism on Abraham Abulafia.” Medieval Encounter 12 (2006): 153–172. Hammer, Reuven. Trans., Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, translated from the Hebrew with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Hankey, Wayne. “Re-Evaluating E. R. Dodds’ Platonism.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 103 (2007): 499–541. Haris, Monford. “Marriage as Metaphysics: A Study of the ‘Iggereth Hakodesh’.” Hebrew Union College Annual Vol. 33 (1962): 197–220. Harvey, Steven. “Arabic into Hebrew: the Hebrew Translation Movement and the Influence of Averroes upon Medieval Jewish Thought.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, 258–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Harvey, Steven. “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy.” In The Cambridge companion to Arabic Philosophy, edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, 349–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Harvey, Steven. “Maimonides in the Sultan’s Palace.” In Perspectives on Maimonides— Philosophical and Historical Studies, edited by Joel L. Kraemer, 47–75. London: Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization, 1996. Harvey, Steven. “The Meaning of Terms Designating Love in Judaeo-Arabic Thought and Some Remarks on the Judaeo-Arabic Interpretation of Maimonides.” In Judaeo-

Bibliography

253

Arabic Studies; Proceedings of the Founding Conference of the Society for JudaeoArabic Studies, edited by Norman Golb, 175–196. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997. Harvey, Warren Z. “Aspects of Jewish Philosophy in Medieval Catalonia.” In The Life and Times of Mosse ben Nahman: A Symposium to Commemorate the 800th Anniversary of his Birth, 1194–1994, 141–157. Girona: Ajuntament de Girona, 1994. Hawi, Sami S. Islamic Naturalism and Mysticism: A Philosophical Study of Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqzan. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Hayoun, Maurice R. La Philosophie et la Théologie de Moïse de Narbonne (1300–1362). Leiden: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hayoun, Maurice R. Moshe Narboni. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986. Hecker, Joel. “Kissing Kabbalists: Hierarchy, Reciprocity, and Equality.” Studies in Jewish Civilization 18 (2008): 171–208. Hecker, Joel. Mystical Bodies, Mystical Meals: Eating and Embodiment in Medieval Kabbalah. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2005. Hellner-Eshed, Melila. A River Flows from Eden: the Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, translated by Nathan Wolski. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009. Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans R. (Editors). Plotini Opera. Vol. 2., Burges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959. Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans R. (Editors). Plotini Opera, Plotiniana Arabica. 2 Vols. English translation by Geoffrey Lewis. Paris-Bruxelled: Museum Lessianum, 1959. Heschel, Abraham J. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations. New York: Continuum, 2006. Holzman, Gitit. “Seclusion, Knowledge and Conjunction of Thought of R. Moses Narboni.” Kabbalah 7 (2002): 111–174 (Hebrew). Holzman, Gitit. “Truth, Tradition and Religion. The Association between Judaism and Islam and the Relation between Religion and Philosophy in Medieval Jewish Thought.” Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean 18 (2006): 191–200. Horovitz, Saul and Louis Finkelstein (Editors). Sifre on Deuteronomy. New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. Hughes, Aaron. “Maimonides and the Pre Maimonidian Philosophical Tradition Psychology in the Monotheistic Religions, edited by Maha Elkaisy-Friemuth and John M. Dilon, 143–162. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hughes, Aaron. The Texture of the Divine: Imagination in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Thought. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004. Hughes, Aaron. “Two Approaches to the Love of God in Medieval Jewish Thought: the Concept of Devequt in the Works of Ibn Ezra and Judah Halevi.” Studies in Religion/ Sciences Religieuses, 28 (1999): 139–151.

254

Bibliography

Huss, Boaz. “Contemporary Kabbalah and the Challenge to the Academic Study of Jewish Mysticism.” In Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, edited by Boaz Huss, 357–373. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2011. Huss, Boaz. “NiSAN—the Wife of the Infinite: the Mystical Hermeneutics of Rabbi Isaac of Acre,” Kabbalah 5 (2000): 155–181. Huss, Boaz. “The Formation of Jewish Mysticism and its Impact on the Reception of Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah.” In Religion and Its Others, edited by Heicke Bock, Jörg Feuchter and Michi Knechts, 142–162. Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 2008. Huss, Boaz. “The Mystification of the Kabbalah and the Modern Construction of Jewish Mysticism.” BGU Review 2 (2008): 1–14. Huss, Boaz. “The Theologies of Kabbalah Research.” Modern Judaism (2014) 34(1): 3–26. Idel, Moshe. “Abraham Abulafia and Unio Mystica.” In Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, edited by Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris, 147–178. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Idel, Moshe. Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. Idel, Moshe. “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn.” In Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, edited by Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R.Wolfson and Alan Arkush, 289–329. Amsterdam: Routledge, 1998. Idel, Moshe. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. “Ashkenazi Esotericism and Kabbalah in Barcelona.” Hispania Judaica Bulletin 5 (2007): 69–113. Idel, Moshe. Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2007. Idel, Moshe. “Defining Kabbalah: the Kabbalah of the Divine Names.” In Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies, edited by Robert A. Herrera, 97–122. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Idel, Moshe. “Definitions of Prophecy: Maimonides and Abulafia.” In Maimonides and Mysticism, edited by Avraham Elqayam and Dov Schwartz, 1–36. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2009 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Did Rabbi Isaac Sagi Nahor Believe in Metempsychosis? Some Remarks on the Study of Provencal Kabbalah.” In Romania, Israel, France: Jewish Trails, Volume in Honor of Prof. Carol Inacu, edited by D. Delamaire, Lucian Zeev Herscovici, and Felicia Waldman, 51–60. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din București, 2013. Idel, Moshe. Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. “Enoch is Metatron.” Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 220–240.

Bibliography

255

Idel, Moshe. “From Italy to Ashkenaz and Back: On the Circulation of Jewish Mystical Traditions.” Kabbalah 14 (2006): 47–94. Idel, Moshe. Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995. Idel, Moshe. “Higher Than Time: Observations on Some Concepts of Time in Kabbalah and Hasidism.” In Time and Eternity in Jewish Mysticism, edited by Brian Ogren, 179–210. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Idel, Moshe. “In a Whisper: on Transmission of Shi’ur Qomah and Kabbalistic Secrets in Jewish Mysticism.” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 47, no. 3 (2011): 443–488. Idel, Moshe. “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.” In Neo-Platonism and Jewish Thought, edited by Lenn Goodman, 319–351. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah and Eros. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah in Italy 1280–1510: A Survey. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. New Haven: Yale, University Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. Le Porte Della Giustizia Saare Sedeq, A Cura di Moshe Idel. Milano: Adelphi, 2001. Idel, Moshe. “Maimonides and Kabbalah.” In Studies in Maimonides, edited by Isadore Twersky, 31–81. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Idel, Moshe. “Maimonides’ ‘Guide of the Perplexed’ and the Kabbalah.” Jewish history 18 (2004): 197–226. Idel, Moshe. “Man as the ‘Possible’ Entity in some Jewish and Renaissance Sources.” In Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, edited by Allison P. Coudert and Jeffery S. Shoulson, 33–48. Philadelphia: University of Penn Press, 2004. Idel, Moshe. Messianic Mystics. New Haven: Yael University Press, 1998. Idel, Moshe. “Nishmat ‘Eloha: On the Divinity of the Soul in Nahmanides and His Schools.” In: Life as a Midrash, Perspectives in Jewish Psychology. Edited by Shahar Arzy Mordechai Fachler and Batya Kahana, 338–380. Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronot: 2004, 338–380. Idel, Moshe. Old Worlds, New Mirrors: On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-Century Thought. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Idel, Moshe. “On Maimonides in Nahmanides and His School and Some Reflections”. In Between Rashi and Maimonides: Themes in Medieval Jewish Thought, Literature and Exegesis, edited by Ephraim Kanarfogel and Moshe Sokolow, 131–164. New York: Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press, 2010.

256

Bibliography

Idel, Moshe. “On Paradise in Jewish Mysticism.” In The Cradle of Creativity, edited by C. Ben Noon, 609- 644. Hod Hasharon, 2004. Idel, Moshe. “On R. Isaac Sagi Nahor’s Mystical Intention of the Eighteen Benedictions.” In Massu’ot, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, edited by Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich, 25–52. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “On the Language of Ecstatic Experiences in Jewish Mysticism.” In Religions: The Religious Experience, edited by Matthias Riedl and Tilo Schabert, 43–84. Würzburg: Koenigshausen and Neumann, 2008. Idel, Moshe. “On the Performing Body in Theosophical-Theurgical Kabbalah: Some Premilinary Remarks.” In The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity, in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, edited by Maria Diemling and Giuseppe Veltri, 251–271. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Idel, Moshe. “Performance, Intensification, and Experience in Jewish Mysticism.” Archaevs XIII (2009): 95–136. Idel, Moshe. “Prayer in Provence Kabbalah.” Likkutei Tarbiz 6 (2003): 421–442 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. R. Menachem Recanati the Kabbalist. Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House, 1998 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman: Kabbalah, Halachah and Spiritual Leadership.” Tarbiz 64, (1995): 535–580 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Reification of Language in Jewish Mysticism.” In Mysticism and Language, edited by Steven T. Katz, 42–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Idel, Moshe. “Sabbath: on Concepts of Time in Jewish Mysticism.” In Sabbath— Idea, History, Reality, edited by Gerald J. Blidstein, 57–93. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2004. Idel, Moshe. Secrets and Pearls: On Abraham Abulafia’s Esotericism (forthcoming). Idel, Moshe. “Sefer Yetzirah: Twelve Commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah and the Extant Remnants of R. Isaac of Bedresh’s Commentary,” Tarbitz 79 (2010): 471–556 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Sexual Metaphors and Praxis in the Kabbalah.” In The Jewish Family; Metaphor and Memory, edited by David Kraemer, 197–224. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Idel, Moshe. “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah.” In Jewish History and Jewish Memory; Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, edited by Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron and David N. Myers, 153–188. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998. Idel, Moshe. “Some Remarks on Ritual and Mysticism in Geronese Kabbalah.” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 111–130.

Bibliography

257

Idel, Moshe. Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah. New York: State University of New York Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. The Angelic World—Apotheosis and Theophany. Tel Aviv: Yediy’ot Ahronot, 2008 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Anthropology of Yohanan Alemanno: Sources and Influences.” Topoi 7 (3) (1988): 201–210. Idel, Moshe. “The Beginning of Kabbalah in North Africa?—A forgotten document by R. Yehuda ben Nissim ibn Malka.” Peamim 43 (1990): 4–15 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah to the Understanding of Jewish Mysticism.” In Gershom Scholem’s “Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism” 50 Years after; Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan, 117–143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Idel, Moshe. “The Identification of the Authors of Two Ashkenazi Commentaries to haaderet veha-’emunah and R. Elazar of Worms’ Theurgic Conceptions of the Divine Glory”, Kabbalah 29, (2013): 67–208 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Kabbalah of the Divine Names.” In Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics and Topologies, edited by Robert A. Herrera, 97–122. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 1993. Idel, Moshe. “The Kabbalistic Background of the ‘Son of God’ in Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola’s Thought.” In Giovanni Pico e la Cabbalà, edited by Fabrizio Lelli, 19–45. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2014. Idel, Moshe. “The Kabbalistic Interpretations of the Secret of Arayyot in Early Kabbalah.” Kabbalah 12 (2004): 89–199 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of Kabbalah in the Renaissance.” In Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, edited by Bernard D. Cooperman, 186–242. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish studi­es, 1983. Idel, Moshe. “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of Kabbalah in the Renaissance.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 4 (1982): 60–112 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia. New York: State University of New York Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. “The Pearl, the Son and the Servants, in Abraham Abulafia’s Parable.” Quaderni di Studi Indo-Mediterranei VI (2013): 103–135. Idel, Moshe. “The Sources of the Circle Images in Dialoghi d’Amore”. Iyyun 28 (1978): 156–166 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno.” Tarbiz 48 (1979): 303–331 (Hebrew).

258

Bibliography

Idel, Moshe. “The Vicissitudes of Kabbalah in Catalonia.” In The Jews of Spain and the Expulsion of 1492, edited by Moshe Lazar, 25–40. CA: Labyrinthos, 1997. Idel, Moshe. “ ‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Jewish Mysticism.” In Doors of Understanding; Conversations in Global Spirituality in Honor of Ewert Cousins, edited by Steven Chase, 303–333. Quincy: Franciscan Press, 1997. Idel, Moshe. “ ‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: Some Observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism”. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (2002): 19–41. Idel, Moshe. “Universalization and Integration: Two Conceptions of Mystical Union in Jewish Mysticism.” In Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: an Ecumenical Dialogue, edited by Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn, 27–57. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989. Idel, Moshe. “We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This”. In Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Exploration in his Religious and Literary Virtuosity, edited by Isadore Twersky, 51–73. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 1983. Idel, Moshe and Bernard McGinn. Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: An Ecumenical Dialogue. New York: Macmillan Pub Co, 1989. Ivry, Alfred. “Averroes on Intellection and Conjunction.” Journal of the American orient­al society 86 (1966): 76–85. Jebb, Richard C. Greek Literature. London: Macmillan and Co., 1878. Kalin, Ibrahim. Knowledge in Later Islamic Philosophy: Mulla Sadra on Existence, Intellect and Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kanagaraji, Jey J. Mysticism in the Gospel of John: an Inquiry into its Background. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Kaplan, Lawrence. “Faith, Rebellion, and Heresy in the Writings of Rabbi Azriel of Gerona.” In Faith: Jewish perspectives, edited by Avi Sagi and Dov Schwartz, 278–301. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013. Kara Ivanov-Kaniel, Ruth. “Consumed by Love: The Death of Nadav and Avihu as a Ritual of Erotic Mystical Union”. In Myth, Ritual and Mysticism, Itamar Gruenwald Festschrift, edited by Gideon Bohak, Ron Margolin, Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Teuda 26 (2014): 585–653. (Hebrew) Kauffman, Tsippi. In All Your Ways Know Him: The Concept of God and Avodah Be-Gashmiyut in the Early Stages of Hasidism. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2009 (Hebrew). Kaufmann, David. Studien uber Solomon ibn Gabirol von prof. David Kaufmann, Budapest, 1899. Kaufmann, David. Studies in Medieval Hebrew literature. Translated by Israel Eldad. Jerusalem: Mosad ha’Rav Kook, 1962.

Bibliography

259

Kellner, Menachem (Editor). Levi ben Gershon Commentary on the Song of Songs. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001. Kenney, John P. Mystical Monotheism: A Study in Ancient Platonic Theology. New York: Wipf & Stock Publication, 2010. Knohl, Israel. The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. Koren, Israel. The Mystery of the Earth: Mysticism and Hasidism in the Thought of Martin Buber. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Kreisel, Howard. “From Dialogue to Contemplation—The Transformation of the Meaning of Prayer in Medieval Jewish Philosophy.” In Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of Bracha Sack, edited by Zeev Gries, Howard Kreisel and Boaz Huss, 59–83. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2004. Kreisel, Howard. “On the Term ‘kol’ in Abraham Ibn Ezra: A Reappraisal.” Revue des études Juives 153 (1994): 29–66. Kreisel, Howard. Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001. Krinis, Ehud. God’s Chosen People: Judah Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shi’i Imam Doctrine. Turnhout: Brepolis Publishing, 2014. Krinis, Ehud. “The Arabic Background of the Kuzari.” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 21 (2013): 1–56. Lachter, Hartley. “Kabbalah, Philosophy, and the Jewish-Christian Debate.” Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy 16, 1 (2008): 1–58. Lachter, Hartley. Kabbalistic Revolution: Re-Imagining Judaism in Medieval Spain. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2014. Lachter, Hartley. “Paradox and Mystical Union in the Zohar.” PhD. diss., New York University, 2004. Lasker, Daniel. “Models of Spirituality in Medieval Jewish Philosophy.” In Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law from the Orthodox Forum publication series. Edited by Adam Mintz and Lawrence Schiffman, 163–185. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2004. Lease, Gary. “Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough.” ANRW 20 (1987): 858–880. Leisegang, Hans. Der Heilige Geist: das Wesen und werden der Mystisch-Intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen. band i, Teil 1: die Vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom Pneuma und der Mystisch-Intuitiven. Leipzig: 1919. Lelli, Fabrizio. “ ‘Prisca Philosophia’ and ‘Docta Religio’: The Boundaries of Rational Knowledge in Jewish and Christian Humanist Thought.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 91, No. 1/2 (2000): 53–99. Liebes, Yehudah. Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000 (Hebrew).

260

Bibliography

Liebes, Yehudah. “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah.” In Essentials Papers on Kabbalah. Edited by Lawrence Fine, 212–242. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Liebes, Yehuda. “Rabbi Solomon Ibn Gabirol’s Use of the Sefer Yetsira and a Commentary on the Poem ‘I Love Thee’,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought (6) 1987: 73–123 (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda. Studies in the Zohar. Translated by Arnold Aschwartz, Stephanie Nakache and Penina Peli. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Liebes, Yehuda. “The Work of the Chariot and the Work of Creation as Esoterical Teachings in Philo of Alexandria”. In Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination (Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane), edited by Deborah A. Green and Laura S. Lieber: 105–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Liebes, Yehuda. “Zohar and Iamblichus.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 18 (2007): 95–100. Lobel, Diana. “A Dwelling Place for the Shekhinah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 90 (1999): 103–125. Lobel, Diana. A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue: Philosophy and Mysticism in Bahya Ibn Paquda’s Duties of the Heart. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Lobel, Diana. Between Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari. New York: State University of New York Press, 2000. Lobel, Diana. “Ittisal and the Amr Ilahi: Divine Immanence and the World to Come in the Kuzari.” In Esoteric and Exoteric Aspects in Judeo-Arabic Culture, edited by Benjamin Hary and Haggai Ben-Shammai, 107–130. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Lorberbaum, Menachem. “Attaining the Attribute of Ayyin: The Mystical Religiosity of Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov.” Kabbalah 31 (2014): 169–235 (Hebrew). Lorberbaum, Menachem. Dazzled by Beauty: Theology as poetics in Hispanic Jewish Culture. Jerusalem: Yad Yizthak Ben-Zvi Institute, 2011 (Hebrew). Lorberbaum, Menachem. “Mythical Mysticism and Intellectual Mysticism.” In Myth, Ritual and Mysticism, edited by Gideon Bohak, Ron Margolin and Ishay Rosen-Zvi. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014 (Hebrew). Lorberbaum, Yair. In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Lorberbaum, Yair. “Nahmanides’s Kabbalah on the Creation of Man in the Image of God.” Kabbalah 5 (2000): 287–326 (Hebrew). Louth, Andrew. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Mackie, Scott D. “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: Means, Methods, and Mysticism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 43 (2012): 147–179.

Bibliography

261

Mackie, Scott D. “The Passion of Eve and the Ecstasy of Hannah: Sense Perception, Passion, Mysticism, and Misogyny in Philo of Alexandria, De ebrietate 143–52,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133.1 (2014): 141–163. Magid, Shaul. From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbalah. Indiana University Press: Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2008. Magid, Shaul. “Gershom Scholem’s Ambivalence towards Mystical Experience and his Critique of Martin Buber in Light of Hans Jonas and Martin Heidegger.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Vol. 4(2) (1995): 245–269. Magid, Shaul. Hasidism Incarnate: Hasidism, Christianity and the Construction of Modern Judaism. California: Stanford University Press, 2015. Manekin, Charles (Editor). Medieval Jewish Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Mansoor, Menahem. (Editor). The Book of Direction to the Duties of the Heart, from the Original Arabic Version of Bahya Ben Joseph Ibn Paquda’s al-Hidaya ila Fara’id al-Qulub. Introduction, translation and notes by Menahem Mansoor. London, Routledge & K. Paul, 1973. Margolin, Ron. Inner Religion: The Phenomenology of Inner Religious Life and Its Manifestation in Jewish Sources (From the Bible to Hasidic Texts). Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2011 (Hebrew). Margolin, Ron. “Martin Buber’s Concept of Responsibility its Philosophical and Jewish Sources and its Critics.” In Jewish and Polish Philosophy, edited by Jan Woleński, Yaron M. Senderowicz and Józef Bremer. Kraków, Budapeszt: Austeria Publishing House, 2013. Margolin, Ron. The Human Temple: Religious Interiorization and the Structuring of Inner Life in Early Hasidism. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005 (Hebrew). Martin, Raymond and John Barresi. The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Mathis, Carl K. “Parallel Structures in the Metaphysics of Iamblichus and Ibn Gabirol.” Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (1992): 61–76. McGaw, Jessie Brewer. Heptaplus or the Discourse on the Seven Days of Creation. New York: Philosophical Library, 1977. McGinn, Bernard. “Ibn Gabirol: The Sage among the Schoolmen.” In Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, edited by Lenn E. Goodman, 80–92. New York: State University of New York Press, 1992. McGinn, Bernard. “Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica in the Western Christian Tradition.” In Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith, edited by Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn, 59–86. New York: Macmillan Pub Co, 1989.

262

Bibliography

McGinn, Bernard. “Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries.” Church history: Studies in Christianity and Culture 56.1 (1987): 7–24. McGinn, Bernard. “Mystical Consciousness: A Modest Proposal.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 8 (2008): 44–63. McGinn, Bernard. “Ocean and Desert as Symbols of Mystical Absorption in the Christian Tradition.” The Journal of religion 74 (1994): 155–181. McGinn, Bernard. The Foundations of Mysticism, Vol. 1. New York: Rossroad, 1992. McGinn, Bernard. “The Language of Love in Christian and Jewish Mysticism.” Mysticism and Language (1992): 202–35. McGinn, Bernard. “Unio mystica/Mystical Union.” In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism, edited by Amy M. Hollywood and Patricia Z. Beckman, 200–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. Mendes-Flohr, Paul. From Mysticism to Dialogue: Martin Buber’s Transformation of the German Social Thought. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Merkur, Daniel. Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions. New York: State University of New York Press, 1993. Merkur, Daniel. Mystical Moments and Unitive Thinking. New York: State University of New York, 1999. Merkur, Daniel. “Unitive Experiences and the State of Trance.” In Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: an Ecumenical Dialogue, edited by Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn, 125–153, 175–183. London: Macmillan Pub Co, 1989. Merlan, Philip. Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness: Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963. Meroz, Ronit. Headwaters of the Zohar—Research and Editions of Zohar, Exodus. Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, (Fortcoming in Hebrew). Meroz, Ronit. “The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah.” The Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry (2007): 39–56. Meroz, Ronit. “The Path of Silence: An Unknown Story from a Zohar Manuscript.” The European Journal of Jewish Studies, 1, 2 (2008): 319–342. Meroz, Ronit. “The Weaving of a Myth: An Analysis of Two Stories in the Zohar.” In Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, edited by Howard Kreisel, vol. 2: 167–205. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006 (Hebrew). Meroz, Ronit. “Zoharic Narratives and their Adaptations.” Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 (2001): 3–63. Moffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Bibliography

263

Montada, Josef P. “Philosophy in Andalusia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, 155–179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Mopsik, Charles. Les Grands Textes de la Cabale :les Rites qui font Dieu: Pratiques Religieuses et Efficacité Théurgique dans la Cabale, des Origines au Milieu du XVIIIe Siècle. Paris: Verdier, 1993. Mopsik, Charles. Lettre sur La Saintete: Le Secret de la Relation entre L’homme et la Femme dans la Cabale. Lagrasse: Verdier, 1986. Mopsik, Charles. Moshe de Leon, Sheqel Ha-Qodesh. Critical edition, introduction and notes. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996. Mopsik, Charles. “Pensée, Voix et Parole dans le Zohar,” Revue de l’histoire des Religions 213 (1996): 385–414. Mopsik, Charles. Sex of the Soul: the Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005. Morlok, Elke. Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Miller, Larry B. “Philosophical Autobiography: Moshe Narboni’s Introduction to his Commentary on Hayy Ibn Yaqzan.” In The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Hayy Ibn Yaqzan’, edited by Lawrence I. Conrad, 229–237. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Niehoff, Maren R. “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008): 337–366. Nitzan, Bilha. “Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetic and Liturgical Writings from Qumran.” JQR 85, 1–2 (1994): 163–183. Nitzan, Bilha. “The Idea of Holiness in Qumran Poetry and Liturgy.” In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran; Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, edited by Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez and Eileen M. Schuller, 127–145. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Ogren, Brian. Renaissance and Rebirth: Reincarnation in Early Modern Italian Kaballah. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. O’Meara, Dominic J. Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ornet, Leah. “Mystical Union in the Writings of the Hasidic Master, R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady,” Studies in Spirituality 18 (2008): 61–92. Pachter, Mordechai. Roots of Faith and Devequt: Studies in the History of Kabbalistic Ideas. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004. Packwood, Joshua. Plotinus and the One: A Mystical Union. Leipzig: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011. Payne, Smith, J. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. (London: Oxford University Press, 1957).

264

Bibliography

Pedaya, Haviva. Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003 (Hebrew). Pedaya, Haviva. Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001 (Hebrew). Pedaya, Haviva. Vision and Speech: Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2002 (Hebrew). Pessin, Sarah. Ibn Gabirol’s Theology of Desire: Matter and Method in Jewish Medieval Neoplatonism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Pike, Nelson. Mystic Union: An Essay in the Phenomenology of Mysticism. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. Pines, Shlomo. “Shiite Terms and Conceptions in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 (1980): 165–251. Pines, Shlomo. “Shiite Terms and Conceptions in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari.” In Studies in the History of Jewish Thought, edited by Warren Z. Harvey and Moshe Idel, 219–305. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997. Pines, Shlomo. The Concept of Time in Late Neo-Platonism, Texts with Translation, Introduction and Notes by Samuel Sambursky and Shlomo Pines. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987. Pines, Shlomo. “The Limitations of Human Knowledge According to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides.” In Studies in the History of Jewish Thought, edited by Warren Z. Harvey and Moshe Idel, 404–431. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997. Pines, Shlomo. “Translator’s Introduction”. In The Guide of the Perplexed, translated by Shlomo Pines, vii–cxxxiv. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1963. Radtke, Bernd. “How Can Man Reach the Mystical Union? Ibn Tufayl and the Divine Spark.” In The World of Ibn Tufayl: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, edited by Lawrence I. Conrad, 165–194. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Ravitzky, Aviever. “The Secrets of the “Guide to the Perplexed”: Between the Thirteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” In Studies in Maimonides, edited by Isadore Twersky, 159–207. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Rist, John M. Eros and Psyche: Studies in Plato, Plotinus and Origen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Rist, John M. Plotinus: The Road to Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Rotenstreich, Nathan. “Symbolism and Transcendence: On Some Philosophical Aspects of Gershom Scholem’s Opus.” The Review of Metaphysics 31:4 (1978): 604–614. Roth, Norman. “Abraham Ibn Ezra—Mysticism.” Iberia Judaica IV (2012): 141–150. Royse, James R. “The Works of Philo.” In The Cambridge Companion to Philo, edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009: 38–45.

Bibliography

265

Rudavsky, Tamar. “Medieval Jewish Neoplatonism.” In History of Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, 149–187. London: Routledge, 1997. Runia, David T. Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria. Hampshire and Vermont: Variorum, 1990. Runia, David T. Philo and the Church Fathers: a Collection of Papers. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature. Assen & Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1993. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Sagerman, Robert. The Serpent Kills or the Serpent Gives Life: The Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia’s Response to Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schäfer, Peter. The Hidden and the Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism. Translated by Aubrey Pomerance. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Schäfer, Peter.  The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schatz-Uffenheimer, Rivka. Maggid Devarav Le-Yaakov. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1962. Schneider, Michael. “The Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology from Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism.” PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. Scholem, Gershom. Kabbalah. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1970. Scholem, Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken Books, 1965. Scholem, Gershom. “Mysticism and Society.” Diogenes LVIII (1967): 1–24. Scholem, Gershom. On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism. Translated by R. Manheim. New York: Schoken, 1969. Scholem, Gershom. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kaballah. New York: Schocken Books, 1991. Scholem, Gershom. On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in Our Time. Edited by Avraham Shapira, translated by Jonathan Chipman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997. Scholem, Gershom. Origins of the Kaballah. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and translated by Allan Arkush. Philadephia and Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Scholem, Gershom. “The Concept of Kavvanah in the Early Kabbalah.” In Studies in Jewish thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, edited by Alfred Jospe, 162–180. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981. Scholem, Gershom. The Latest Phase: Essays on Hasidism by Gershom Scholem. Edited by David Asaf and Esther Liebes. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008 (Hebrew). Scholem, Gershom. The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

266

Bibliography

Schwartz, Dov. “Avicenna and Maimonides on Immortality: A comparative Study.” In Medieval and Modern Perspectives on Muslim-Jewish Relations. Edited by Ronald L. Nettler, 185–197. New York: Routledge, 1995. Schwartz, Yossef. “Magic, Philosophy and Kabbalah: The Mystical and Magical Interpretation of Maimonides in the Later Middle Ages”, DAAT: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 64–66 (2009), 99–132 (Hebrew). Screech, Michael A. Erasmus: Ecstasy and the Praise of the Folly. London and New York: Penguin, 1988. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle. “L’influence de Jean Scot Sur la Doctrine Du Kabbaliste Azriel De Gerona.” Colloques Internationaux De CNRS 561 (1977): 453–463. Segal, Alan F. “Transcribing Experience.” In With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior, edited by Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov, 365–382. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Shaked, Idit. A Dialogue with God: Unio Mystica in the Philosophy of Solomon Ibn Gabirol and Johannes Scottus Eriugena. Tel Aviv: Resling, 2013 (Hebrew). Shaw, Gregory. Theurgy and the Soul—The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 1995. Shilo, Elchanan. “The Substance of Man and the World in the Unio-Mystic Experience of Rabbi Kook.” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel, 25, (2015), 37–64 (Hebrew). Smith, Morton. “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QM.” In Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman: 181–188. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Stace, Walter T. Mysticism and Philosophy. London: Macmillan, 1961. Stamatellos, Giannis. Plotinus and the Presocratics: A Philosophical Study of Pre-Socratic Influences in Plotinus’ Enneads. New York: State University of New York Press, 2007. Stang, Charles M. Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite: ‘no longer I’. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Stern, Josef. The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Stern, Samuel. “Ibn Hasday’s Neoplatonist: A Neoplatonic Treatise and its Influence on Isaac Israeli and the Longer Version of the Theology of Aristotle.” Oriens 13–14 (1961): 58–120. Stroumsa, Guy. Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, Second Revised and Enlarged edition. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stroumsa, Sarah. “Habitudes Religieuses et Liberté Intellectuelle dans la Pensée Arabe Medieval.” Monothéisme et Tolérance (1998): 57–73.

Bibliography

267

Stroumsa, Sarah. “ ‘True felicity’: Paradise in the Thought of Avicenna and Maimonides.” Medieval Encounters 4,1 (1998): 51–77. Sviri, Sara. “Spiritual Trends in Pre-Kabbalistic Judeo-Spanish Literature: The Cases of Bahya ibn Paquda and Judah Halevi.” Donaire 6 (1996): 78–84. Swartz, Michael D. Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. Tanenbaum, Adena. The Contemplative Soul: Hebrew Poetry and Philosophical Theory in Medieval Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Termini, Cristina. “Philo Thought within the Context of Middle Judaism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Philo, edited by Adam Kamesar, 95–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava. “Philosophy and Kabbalah, 1200–1600.” In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, 218–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Tishby, Isaiah. Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983. Tishby, Isaiah. “Fear, Love, and Devekut in the Teaching of the Zohar”. Molad 19, 151–152 (Jan.–Feb. 1961): 50–55 (Hebrew). Tishby, Isaiah. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts. Translated by David Goldstein, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, 3 vols. Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism. New York: Meridian, 1955. Vadja, Georges. “Bahya Ben Joseph ibn Paquda.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol 4. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1973. Vajda, Georges. “Comment le Philosophe juif Moïse de Narbonne Comprenait-il les Paroles Ecstatiques des Soufies?.” In Actas del Primer Congreso de Estudios Arabes Islámicos, 129–135. Madrid: Comite Permanente del Congreso de Arabes e Islamicos, 1964. Vajda, Georges. L’amour de Dieu dans la Theologie Juive de Moyen Age. Paris: Vrin— Études de Philosophie Medieval, 1957. Vajda, Georges. Le Commentaire sur Le Livre de la Creation de Dunas ben Tamim de Kairouan. Nouvelle edition Revue et Augmentee par Paul B. Fenton. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Vajda, Georges. Nouveaux Fragments Arabes du Commentaire de Dunash b. Tamim sur le Livre de la Creation’. Revue des études Juives 113 (1954): 37–61. Vajda, Georges. Recherches sur la Philosophie et la Kabbale dans la Pensee Juive du Moyen Age. Paris: Mouton, 1962. Valabregue-Perry, Sandra. Concealed and Revealed: Ein Sof in Theosophic Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010 (Hebrew). Valabregue-Perry, Sandra. “The Concept of Infinity (Eyn-sof) and the Rise of Theosophical Kabbalah.” Jewish Quarterly Review, 102, 3 (2012): 405–430.

268

Bibliography

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronmic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Anchor Bible: Deuteronomy 1-11-A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, 1991. Weiss, Joseph. Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Weiss, Tzahi. “The Reception of Sefer Yetsirah and Jewish Mysticism in the Early Middle Ages.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 103–1 (2013): 26–46. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi. “Philo and the Zohar.” Journal of Jewish Studies X, XI (1959–1960): 113–135. Wevers, John W. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. Winston, David. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, the Giants, and Selections. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1981. Winston, David. “Philo’s Conception of the Divine Nature.” In Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, edited by Lenn E. Goodman, 21–42. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Winston, David. “Philo’s Mysticism.” Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 74–82. Winston, David. “The Philonic Sage”. DAAT 11 (1983): 15–17 (Hebrew). Winston, David. “Was Philo a Mystic?’.” In Studies in Jewish Mysticism, edited by Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage, 15–40. Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982. Winston, David. “Was Philo a Mystic?” The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second temple Judaism. Edited by Gregory E. Sterling, 151–170. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001. Wirszubski, Chaim. Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Mysticism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Wolfson, Elliot. A Dream Interpreted within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011. Wolfson, Elliot. Abraham Abulafia—Kabbalist and Prophet Hermeneutics, Theosophy and Theurgy. Los-Angeles: Cherub Press, 2000. Wolfson, Elliot. “Abraham Ben Samuel Abulafia and the Prophetic Kabbalah.” In Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn, 68–90. New York: NYU Press, 2011. Wolfson, Elliot. Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Wolfson, Elliot. Along the Path, Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism and Hermeneutics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.

Bibliography

269

Wolfson, Elliot. “Beneath the Wings of the Great Eagle: Maimonides and ThirteenthCentury Kabbalah.” In Moses Maimonides: His Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Wirkungsgeschichte in Different Cultural Contexts, edited by Görge K. Hasselhoff and Otfried Fraisse, 209–237. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2004. Wolfson, Elliot. “Beyond the Spoken Word: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Medieval Jewish Mysticism.” In Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality and Cultural Diffusion, edited by Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni, 166–224. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Wolfson, Elliot. “Bifurcating the Androgyne and Engendering Sin: a Zoharic Reading of Gen 1–3.” In Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3, edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Susanne Scholz, 87–119. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Wolfson, Elliot. “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic Hermeneutic.” AJS Review 14 (1989): 103–178. Wolfson, Elliot. Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Wolfson, Elliot. “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and the Ritual of Androgynisation”. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 301–344. Wolfson, Elliot. “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience in the Zoharic Literature.” In Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After, edited by Joseph Dan and Peter Schäfer, 209–235. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1993. Wolfson, Elliot. “From Sealed Book to Open Text: Time, Memory, and Narrativity in Kabbalistic Hermeneutics.” In Interpreting Judaism in a Postmodern Age, edited by Steven Kepnes, 145–178. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Wolfson, Elliot. Giving Beyond the Gift: Apophasis and Overcoming Theomania. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014. Wolfson, Elliot. “God, the Demiurge and the Intellect: On the Usage of the Word ‘kol’ in Abraham Ibn Ezra.” Revue des études Juives 149 (1990): 77–111. Wolfson, Elliot. “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” In Christianity in Jewish Terms, edited by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel and Michael A. Signer, 239–254. Colorado: Westview Press, 2000. Wolfson, Elliot. “Kenotic Overflow and Temporal Transcendence, Angelic Embodiment and the Alterity of Time in Abraham Abulafia.” Kabbalah 18 (2008): 133–190. Wolfson, Elliot. Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination. New York: Fordham University Press, 2005. Wolfson, Elliot. Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007. Wolfson, Elliot. “Merkavah Traditions in Philosophical Garb: Judah Halevi Reconsidered.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 57 (1991): 179–242. Wolfson, Elliot. “Mysticism and the Poetic-Liturgical Composition from Qumran: A Response to Bilhah Nitzan.” JQR 85 (1994): 185–202.

270

Bibliography

Wolfson, Elliot. “Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah.” In Rending the Veil; Concealment and Secrecy in the History of Religions, edited by Elliot Wolfson, 113–154. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 1999. Wolfson, Elliot. Poetic Thinking. Edited by Hava Tirosh-Samelson and Aaron W. Hughes. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Wolfson, Elliot. “Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered.” In The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, 177–214. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2004. Wolfson, Elliot. “The Body in the Text: A Kabbalistic Theory of Embodiment.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 479–500. Wolfson, Elliot. “The Cut that Binds: Time, Memory, and the Ascetic Impulse. In God’s Voice from the Void; Old and New Studies in Bratslav Hasidism, edited by Shaul Magid, 103–154. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Wolfson, Elliot. “The Problem of Unity in the Thought of Martin Buber.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 27(3) (1989): 423–444. Wolfson, Elliot. “The Secret of the Garment in Nahmanides.” DAAT 24 (1990): xxv–xlix. Wolfson, Elliot. Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Wolfson, Elliot. “Traces of Philonic Doctrine in Medieval Jewish Mysticism: A Preliminary Note.” Studia Philonica, 8 (1996): 99–106. Wolfson, Elliot. “Undoing Time and Syntax of the Dream Interlude: a Phenomenological Reading of ‘Zohar’ 1:199a–200a.” Kabbalah, 22 (2010): 33–57. Wolfson, Elliot. Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Wolfson, Elliot. “Via Negativa in Maimonides and its Impact on Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah.” Maimonidean Studies 5 (2008): 393–442. Wolfson, Elliot. “ ‘ Yeridah la-merkavah’: Typology of Ecstasy and Enthronement in Ancient Jewish Mysticism.” In Mystics of the Book; Themes, Topics, and Typologies, edited by Robert A. Herrera, 13–44. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Wolfson, Harry. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948. Yisraeli, Oded. Temple Portals: Studies in Aggadah and Midrash in the Zohar. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2013 (Hebrew).

Index of Names and Subjects Abraham Abulafia 109–110, 151–170 Abraham ibn Ezra 88–90, 95–96, 116, 128, 138 Abraham ibn Hasday 82–83 Abraham Maimoni 168–169 Afterlife 21, 104–105, 112–115, 122–126, 128, 147, 152–153, 165, 240–241 See also Eschatology Aharon of Apta 235–236 Alexander of Aphrodisias 62–63, 76–77 Al-Farabi 105–107, 152–153 See also Neo-Aristotelian Al-Ghazali 107, 169 Al-Kindi 81–85, 107 Altmann, Alexander 74, 79–86 Ammonius (Saccas) 63–64 Angel 2, 20–22, 49–51, 53–58, 77–78, 88–89, 92–99, 104–108, 112–122, 125–129, 145–147, 161–162, 167, 172–179, 183–184, 227–231, 239–240 Angelic being 56, 76, 95, 126 Angelic realm 99, 111–116, 121, 125 Angelification 52–54, 162 Angelikos bios 54–55 Archangel 56–58, 125–128, 147, 175, 178, 229 Apotheosis 21–22, 49–59, 126–128, 156–157, 162, 172–181, 228–230, 239–240 See also Enoch; Metatron; Patriarchs as the chariot Aristotelianism 1–2, 61–63, 65–66, 76–78, 102, 171, 173, 180, 182, 205–206, 239 Aristotle 61–62, 70, 76–77, 96, 104, 117 Averroistic interpretation of 102–103, 108 Ascension 2, 26n6, 31n21, 36–37, 45, 46n81, 53–56, 62, 65, 70, 78–79, 82, 86–87, 126, 138n21, 150, 157, 177, 183–188, 213, 217, 222, 233 See also Elevation; Ladder Assembly of Israel 49, 191–192, 207–208, 211–212 See also Community Attachment 38, 44, 72n30, 83, 87, 90, 93, 100, 103–104, 107–108, 111, 119, 146, 183–188 see also Devequt Augustine 36, 58, 59, 59n26 Autoscopia 162

Averroes 75, 102–108, 117, 120n60, 120n63, 152, 164, 227 Azriel of Gerona 75, 83, 136, 140–141, 184, 215–216 Bachya Bar Asher 127 Bahya ibn Paquda 99–101 Baruch Tugarmi 166 Body 3, 20–22, 41, 43–44, 71–73, 77–78, 83–84, 92, 96, 99, 104, 107, 109, 118, 122–125, 135, 139, 142–143, 146–150, 157–158, 160, 175, 177–178, 184, 191, 198, 207, 212–213, 216–218, 234–238, 240–242 Angelic body 22, 55 Astral body 196 Divine body (under ‘Divine’) Imaginal body 22, 206 Spiritualized body 122–124, 144, 147 Textual body 124, 135, 205 Cause of causes 96 Chariot 99, 138–140, 144–147, 172–173, 196, 218, 236, 239 See also Chair; Merkavah; Patriarchs as the chariot; Vessel Christianity 7–10, 12, 20–29, 46–47, 58–59, 75, 81–82, 90–92, 103, 105, 168, 226–232, 238 Christian Kabbalah 89, 226–232 Cleaving 17–19, 26–33, 37–47, 54, 64, 70, 76, 80–81, 85, 88–93, 96, 99, 102, 108–109, 117–119, 123–126, 130–139, 144, 146, 152, 156, 162–165, 177–179, 182, 187–188, 197–198, 233–235, 237, 239 see also Devequt Clinging 29, 31n21, 38n55, 39, 82, 100, 103 see also Devequt Commandments 18–19, 29–32, 37–42, 45–46, 80–81, 88, 99, 123–124, 130–131, 135, 138–139, 143, 149, 156, 165, 219–220 See also Halakha; Ritual Communion 1–18, 32, 46–47, 54–55, 57–59, 66, 83, 93–94, 100–101, 104–105, 109, 111, 116–119, 124n74, 130, 134, 159, 192, 195–196, 197n31, 201–203, 237 see also Devequt

272 Community 90–91, 94, 143, 205 In Alexandria 2, 42n69 In Qumran 49, 54 Of Israel 192, 213 See also Assembly of Israel; Shekhinah Concealment 5n11, 194–195, 208n64 Concentration of thought 130, 184 Conjunction 18, 66–69, 77–78, 83–85, 101–108, 111–113, 118, 120n63, 156, 202–203, 205, 225–226, 228n15 see also Devequt Consciousness 12–13, 70, 157, 195, 205–206 Coronation 57–58, 147, 190, 195, 214–216, 239 See also Crown; Crowning Corporal 36, 40, 44, 78, 84, 86–88, 92–96, 122–125, 127, 138–139, 143, 157, 160–161, 184, 208, 217–218, 233–234 See also Corporal union (under Union) Coupling 202–204 Crown 51, 56, 85–86, 112–115, 123, 147, 173, 190–191, 208, 210–218 Danger 7–8, 15, 128, 172, 175–183 David Maimonides 168–170 Death 29, 78, 89, 98, 103–112, 117–119, 121–124, 128, 172, 175–181, 198–199, 215, 225, 231 After death 103–105, 110, 123, 128, 176, 215 See also Postmortem Demiurge 82 Descending 2, 71, 99, 121–122, 156n25, 158, 166, 183–186, 208n64, 213, 242 Devequt 4–12, 18–19, 60, 67, 73, 79–83, 88, 90, 100–101, 104, 110–111, 119–120, 130–131, 135–137, 145, 173–175, 178, 187, 192–93, 197–198, 201n44, 205–206, 234, 237, 240–241 itdabaq ‫ אתדבק‬192 itdabkuta ‫ אתדבקותא‬193 See also Attachment; Cleaving; Cling; Communion; Conjunction; Ittisal Dhikr 170 Divine Divine body 122, 146, 149 Divine grace 37, 68 See also Grace Divine grade 21–22, 126, 176, 229 Divine hierarchy 56–58, 231 Divine name/s 55, 92–96, 99, 130–131, 133–134, 144–148, 153–157, 160, 165–166, 187–188, 196, 218–221, 241

Index Of Names And Subjects Divine presence 30–31, 92, 95–96, 147 Divine thought 2, 61–63, 70, 77, 104, 134–137, 144–150 See also Wisdom Divine unmovable substance 61, 65, 77 Divine Will 140–142 See also Half-divine; Semi-divine; Sub-divine Division 194, 204–205, 209–211, 219–221 See also Opposites; Polarity Dov Ber of Mezeritch (Magid of Mezeritch) 233–235 Drowning 14, 175–181, 236, 241 See also Ocean; Sinking Dunash ibn Tamim 84 Dwelling 3, 22–23, 91–99, 118, 121, 127, 131, 135, 139–140, 142–148, 161, 172, 184, 216–218, 234–236, 241–242 See also Indwelling Dying 121, 128, 175–179, 231 Eating 114, 122–123, 143–144, 147, 165–167, 208n64, 216, 235, 239 Ecstasy 10n25, 50–52, 55, 67, 71–75, 84–85, 152, 175, 177, 181, 199n37, 203–204, 228–229 Ecstatic Kabbalists 90, 154–155, 166–167, 172–173 See also Ecstatic Kabbalah Efflux 155–159 See also Shefa Ein Sof 5n11, 182, 188, 193n14, 194–195 Elevation 1, 3, 26, 28, 42, 46–47, 72, 122, 123–125, 130, 149, 188, 191, 224, 229 See also Ascension; Ladder Elijah 92, 94–95, 110, 124–126, 185 Elijah Delmedigo 78 Elijah De Vidas 232 Elite 55, 65–67, 118, 189, 242 Emanation 80, 87, 89, 118, 132, 140, 185–186, 216 Embodiment 3, 18–20, 22–23, 90–99, 118, 121–122, 124–126, 134–135, 138–140, 142–144–150, 156–159, 172–180, 192, 211–218, 231–238, 240–242 Encounter 6–7, 13–14, 19, 24, 36–37, 40, 134, 158, 178, 223, 241 Energy 118, 140, 149–150, 157–159, 204, 217n78 Engagement 36, 49, 104, 126, 131, 172

Index Of Names And Subjects Enoch 92, 95, 110, 121, 124–126 Enoch into Metatron 21–22, 52, 56–57, 127–128, 173, 178–179, 229–230 See also Apotheosis Enthronement 49–53, 56–58, 145–147, 172–173, 233n51, 235, 239 See also Crowning; Throne Epistemology 56, 62, 171, 186, 206 Epistemic 204 See also Epistemic union; Noetic union (under ‘Union’) Eros 87, 111 Erotic 14, 117, 119, 160, 202–204, 208, 224 See also Erotic union (under ‘Union’) Eschatology 21–22, 74, 76, 85–86, 89–92, 99, 103–104, 107, 109–110, 112–128, 14–147, 152–153, 164–165, 172–173, 175–181, 209, 214–216, 240 Esoteric 58, 99, 109, 121, 154, 155, 175, 209, 220, 223–224 Eternity 58, 83, 89, 112, 120, 163–167 Exchanging names 95–97, 144–147, 161–162, 207, 222, 236 See also Patriarchs as the chariot/ Merkavah Exile 92, 95, 153, 213, 224 Extension 57–58, 99, 118, 122, 132, 139, 144–145, 173, 184, 211–213, 218 Ezra Ben Shlomo 132, 136–140, 150n54, 215 Falsafa 60–61, 66, 105–107, 116–117, 152 See also Neo-Aristotelian Fana 169 Father 34, 43, 82, 230, 234 Fear 32n26, 41, 176, 181 Feast 68, 177 Feelings 95, 97–98 Feminine 132, 142, 149, 191, 202–204, 207, 213 Fire 30, 31n21, 175–181, 183, 198, 219, 233 First cause 35, 37, 86, 105, 165 Flavius Mithridates 228 Flesh 18–19, 22, 31, 41, 43–44, 90, 127, 142–143, 149, 177–179, 181, 216, 222, 235, 238 Florentine 227–228 Flowing spring 178, 179, 183 Garment 40, 184, 205, 217 Gerona 75–76, 142, 148, 169 See also Azriel of Gerona; Ezra ben Shlomo; Jacob bar Sheshet

273 Glory 55, 177 Songs of 55 Throne of 123 Gnosis 36n45, 55, 204 God’s Will 140 See also Divine Will (under ‘Divine’) Gottlieb, Ephraim 174–175, 177, 180–181, 193 Grace 34, 38, 68, 230–231 Halakha 112, 129, 135, 140, 143, 224, 240–242 Half-divine 91–96 Harmony 41n66–67, 132–133, 139, 145, 207, 222 Hasid 92–98, 130, 132, 142, 177 Hasidism 8, 11–12, 22–23, 140, 167–168, 174, 225–236, 241–242 Heart 41–42, 95, 97, 158n33, 177, 197, 205, 219–222, 235 Glass-polished heart 92, 96, 106 Hebrew 18, 37n52, 43n74, 54, 66, 67, 71, 73–75, 80–82, 87–88, 89, 101, 113, 120, 122, 156, 158, 165, 178n14, 218, 224, 226, 228 Heikhalot 49, 50, 53–54, 162 He is He 120n63, 152, 159, 161 See also Union Hellenism 1–3, 27, 47, 49, 58, 65, 238 Henōsis 24n63, 26–27, 29, 37, 39, 45–47, 49, 52–53, 57, 59n26, 63–65, 79–82, 98, 125, 143, 148, 229, 237 Here and now 78, 109, 112, 115, 128, 153, 165–166 Hermann Cohen 6, 10, 14–16, 8n18, 20, 231, 237–238 Hillel Ben Shemuel of Verona 120n63, 153 Holy days 192 Holy Land 44, 170 Holy Spirit 16, 92, 98–99, 121, 132, 134–135, 139–140, 142, 145, 149, 162, 184, 207, 209, 211–213, 216–218, 227, 241–242 Hulul 91–92 See also Mahall Hymns 55–56, 217 Hypostatic 56, 58, 128, 139, 155, 208 Iamblichus 81 Ibn Bajja 106–108, 117 Ibn Rushed 107, 120 Ibn Sina 106–107, 116, 169 Ibn Tufayl 77, 105–107, 117, 153, 169, 226–227 Ideal 1–4, 6, 8, 15, 18–19, 39, 47, 49, 53–55, 57–58, 60–62, 66, 74, 76, 78, 83, 86, 90,

274 Ideal (cont.) 92–93, 95, 108, 110, 115, 121, 126–128, 130, 133, 135, 150, 153–154, 162, 164–165, 172–173, 176–181, 202, 204, 229–231, 236, 238–240, 242 Identification 16, 61, 95–96, 127–128, 135, 141, 186, 212 Of concepts 20, 34, 62, 65, 77, 82, 84, 113, 125–126, 128, 131, 135, 137–138, 162, 164, 207, 209, 212–213, 217 Illumination 26, 34, 47, 60, 79–83, 88, 130, 149, 158, 213 Imagery 24, 69, 106, 132–133, 145–147, 160n43, 167, 169–183, 188, 189n2, 229, 232, 235, 239 See also Symbol Imagination 11, 144, 157–158, 194, 205 See also Visualization Imitation 69 Immaterial 62n6, 78 See also Non-material Incarnation 9, 17, 22–23, 91–92, 124, 218, 232, 235, 237 Incorporated 122, 127, 138, 172, 218 Individual 9, 11–13, 37, 49, 93, 103–104, 114, 128, 132, 143, 172, 176–177, 184, 190n4, 208, 235 Individuality 10, 12, 23, 50, 104, 114, 172, 177, 182, 184, 190n4, 235 Indwelling 3, 91–94, 139, 145, 147, 241–242 See also Dwelling Infused 95, 113, 123 Initial integration 22, 133, 145–148, 191–192, 196, 207–212 See also Initial union; Integration; Momentary union; Semieschatological; Quasi-eschatological Inner life 207–208, 241 Inner dynamics 131–132, 137, 148, 207–208, 241 Inspiration 44n77, 50, 63, 84–85, 231 Intellect 66, 68–69, 71–72, 76–77, 78, 83–85, 89, 103, 105, 109, 117, 120, 153, 178, 182, 226 Active 61–63, 66, 75–78, 93, 102, 105, 107–111, 116–120, 125–126, 128, 152–153, 156, 158–162, 164–165, 185–186, 226–227, 228n15 Acquired/ ha-niqneh 105, 185–186 Divine/God’s 2, 21, 62, 65, 69, 71–72, 83–85, 93, 103–105, 117, 120–121, 178–183, 185–187, 229

Index Of Names And Subjects Human 21, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 72, 77–78, 86–87, 103–105, 107, 112–113, 115–117, 119–123, 138, 157, 159–160, 165, 185–186, 228 Light of 83, 85, Material/Potential 76, 105, 107–108 Separated 76, 105, 120 Sub-divine 101, 103, 105, 112–113, 122, 186 Intelligible 44n75, 68, 69n25, 71, 72n30, 86–87 Intention 114, 130, 141–142, 222 Intimacy 1, 6–10, 14, 19, 32–33, 35–37, 39–40, 44–47, 92, 95–96, 117, 176, 179, 181, 193, 216, 224, 234 Isaac Israeli 60, 74, 77, 79–86, 98 Isaac of Acre 121, 128, 140, 167–188, 229–230, 235–236 Isaac the Blind 130–133, 137, 142 Isaiah Tishby 112, 136–137, 192–193 Ismaili 91–93 Israel (the land) 95, 224 Italy 55, 225–227 Ittihad 27n9, 66, 79–81, 84, 106, 108–109, 111, 117–119, 169 Ittisal 18, 66, 80–81, 88, 92–101, 104, 106, 108–109, 111, 119 Jacob bar Sheshet 96, 99, 140, 142, 144–148, 172, 207 Jerusalem 146, 170 John Scottus Eriugena 75 Joseph Gikatilla 221 Julius Guttmann 100 Kabbalah Ecstatic Kabbalah 51, 103, 151, 153–155, 158, 165, 167, 169–170, 174, 188, 189, 225, 227–228, 232, 241 See also Ecstasy; Ecstatic Kabbalists Christian Kabbalah 89, 23 Theosophical Kabbalah 89n47, 90, 194 See also Theosophy Kalam 60, 92, 102 Kavannah 130 See also Intention Kiss 89–90, 117–118, 132, 176, 190–191, 225, 231, 239 Knowledge as union 61–63, 102, 109, 113, 116–117, 134, 143, 147, 189, 225–227 See also Epistemic union; Noetic union (both under ‘Union’)

Index Of Names And Subjects Ladder 2, 20, 62, 65, 79, 87, 103, 116, 176, 181, 188, 228n15 See also Ascension; Elevation Latin 47, 76, 90, 103, 228 See also Latin Neoplatonism (under ‘Neoplatonism’) Letter permutations 151, 155–158, 166, 187 Letters 132, 155–159, 165, 170, 205–206, 218, 220–222 Levi ben Gershon 225 Liberation 8, 157–158 Light 21, 34, 46n81, 68–70, 72n30, 82–85, 92–101, 106–108, 113–115, 123, 135, 137, 139–140, 143–144, 147, 149–150, 157–159, 176–177, 179–181, 196, 205, 209–211, 215–220, 230, 233, 236, 241 Linguistic 22, 153–160, 167, 211, 218–221 Liturgy 49, 53–55, 57 Logos 28, 33–37, 42  Love 2, 7–8, 29–31, 39–45, 60, 88, 92, 95–101, 111, 117–119, 130, 132, 160, 176, 180–181, 221, 233–234 Mahall 91–94 Maimonides 14–16, 74, 77, 102–130, 136, 152–156, 158, 162, 168–169, 178, 215, 225, 240 Male 149–150, 180, 203, 213 Manna 123, 144, 166 Masculine 132, 149, 191, 203, 204, 207 Material 21–22, 38, 43–44, 66, 75–76, 103–104–105, 114–115, 118–119, 124–125, 157, 164, 167, 226, 235, 239 Matter 62, 78, 96, 104–105, 107, 120, 155, 157, 161 Meals 143, 165–167, 208n64, 213, 218 Meditation 110, 132n4, 141, 151, 160, 166, 170 Menachem Recanati 89, 225 Mental 1, 33–34, 60, 78–79, 115, 121–122, 131, 139, 149, 156–157, 159, 172, 176, 235 Merkavah 138–139, 144–147, 172–173, 233–235 See also Chariot; Patriarchs as the chariot/ Merkavah Messiah 94, 98, 146 Messianism 13, 153, 156–157, 164 Metatron 52, 56–57, 126–128, 161–162, 175–178, 229–230 Middle Platonism 2, 49, 64 Midrash 172, 190, 198, 215, 221 Miracle 90, 186

275 Monotheism 1, 26, 27n10, 39, 49, 57, 65–66, 133, 224n89, 239, 242 Morphology 200–202 Mosaic 30, 32, 36–37, 39, 42 Moses 35–36, 38–39, 41, 44, 84, 94, 117–118, 124n74, 144, 176–177, 225 Moses ben Maimonides See Maimonides Moses ben Nachmanides See Nachmanides Moses Narboni 78, 120n63, 171n2, 226–227 Moshe de Leon 73–74 Movement 2, 5n11, 38, 69, 87, 96, 115, 149, 157, 163, 194, 207–208, 212, 214, 227, 240 Multiplicity 2, 9, 11, 134, 163 Muslim 2–3, 29, 47, 60, 66n16, 91, 100, 106, 130, 162, 167–170, 182, 227, 238 Mysterious 65, 90, 132 Mystery 22, 189, 207, 209, 211–214, 216–217, 219, 239, 241 Mystical experience 6–7, 10, 12, 17, 52–53, 58–59, 130–132, 166, 169, 194, 195–196, 198, 200–201, 205, 208–209, 211–212 See also Techniques Mythology 52, 56, 224 Mythical 19, 49, 56–57, 133, 190–191, 211–212, 221, 224 Nadav and Avihu 178n14, 198 Nachmanides 89, 95n72, 98–99, 109–110, 112–115, 120–129, 135, 142, 148, 175, 178, 181 Name/s See Divine name/s (under ‘Divine’) R. Nathan (Ben Sa’adyah Harar) 90, 166–172 Neo-Aristotelian 51, 60–63, 75–78, 102–120, 125, 128, 146–147, 152–157, 163, 171–172, 186, 215, 226–228, 239 See also Falsafa Neoplatonism 2–3, 46–47, 53, 60–61, 65–77, 79–89, 102, 120, 186, 188, 227n12, 237 Latin 46, 75, 120 Noetic 58, 62–63, 65–66, 68–71, 76–77, 82, 87, 89, 101, 103–105, 109, 111–119, 121, 123, 126, 140, 149, 152, 154–160, 162, 164, 167, 180–181, 186, 215, 226, 239–240 See also Noetic union (under ‘Union’) Nomian 128–129, 205 Non-material 22, 61, 105, 115, 118 Nothingness 70

276 Nous 21, 26n6, 28, 61, 63, 65, 67–70, 72, 76–77, 79, 82–84, 86–88, 126, 131, 238–240 Numenius 36, 46, 63–65 Object of thought 62, 68 See also Knowledge as union Ocean 176–177, 180–183, 229–230, 236, 241 See also Drowning; Sinking One flesh 18–19, 29, 31, 43, 143, 149, 177–179, 187–188, 233–234 See Also Undifferentiating Ontology 56, 78, 87, 127, 155, 158, 206 Opposites 204–205, 210 See also Division; Polarity Organic 122–123, 133 Origin 25, 43, 66, 79, 87, 124n74, 185, 204, 214, 223 Pantheism 5, 7–10, 12, 15–17, 154–155, 157, 160n45, 197, 234–235 Paradise 84–86, 164–167 Paradox 194, 218, 224, 240 Participation 22, 53–55, 58, 116, 132–134, 189, 198, 207, 211–212, 214, 216, 218, 239, 241 Patriarchs as the chariot/Merkavah 99, 138–140, 144–147, 172–173, 233–236, 239 Passion 14, 34, 43, 44n77, 50, 100–101, 222, 233–234 Path of return 21, 47, 65, 67, 80–81, 86, 130, 186 Penetrating 22, 92, 96–98, 124n74, 156, 158 Perfection 56, 85, 92, 94–99, 107, 117, 119, 121, 125, 145, 147, 172, 211 Performance 19, 30, 130–131, 138–140, 143, 149 Peripatetic 50, 61 Philip Merlan 66n16, 103 Philo 2–3, 8, 25–49, 51, 59, 64–65, 69, 72–73, 79–81, 85, 98, 143, 230, 237–238 Physical 31, 43–44, 118, 124, 135, 138–139, 143, 146, 149, 180, 184–185, 216 (Giovanni) Pico Della Mirandola 75, 90, 126, 225–232 Place 5n11, 22, 28–29, 36, 38, 40, 42, 71, 92, 94, 96, 105, 107, 113, 121, 150, 166, 170, 184–185, 210, 212, 219, 221, 224, 233–234, 240–241 Plato 26n6, 63, 68, 108 Platonism 1, 26–27, 46–47, 49, 79–80, 171, 237, 239 See also Middle Platonism; Neo-Platonism

Index Of Names And Subjects Pleroma 57, 116 Plotinus 25–27, 34n37, 36, 46–47, 58, 59n26, 63–75, 79–81, 83–85, 227n12 Polarity 204–205, 208, 210–211, 214, 219–221 See also Division; Opposites Postmortem 21, 104, 107, 109, 111, 113, 116, 153 See also After death (under ‘Death’) Potentiality 58, 62, 70, 76, 104–105, 108, 117n38, 145, 147, 155, 157, 160 Power 58, 63, 86, 98, 130, 134, 138, 140, 149, 176, 179, 209, 210, 212–213, 227, 231 Praxis 5, 51, 150, 203–204, 221, 242, See also Halakha; Techniques; Ritual Prayer 132–133, 137, 141, 184, 194, 212, 221–224, 233 Pre-medieval 49, 50, 53, 126 Priest 55, 98, 140–141, 183, 204 Prisca philosophia 226 Proclus 36, 65, 67, 79–85, 208, 227n12 Prophecy 33, 81, 84–85, 94–95, 97–98, 118–119, 137–138, 153–159, 184 See also Sub-prophetic Prophets 33n33, 44n75, 83, 95, 97, 99, 138n21, 144, 184, 226 Provence 130 Pseudo-Dionysius 75, 81 Psychology 11, 152, 155, 172, 237 Quasi-eschatological 84 See also Initial integration; Semi-eschatological Qumran 26n5, 49, 52–56 Rabbinic 1–3, 18–19, 29–32, 47, 49, 58–59, 64–65, 79–80, 90–91, 113–115, 147, 164, 166, 172–173, 179–180, 190, 198, 215–216, 237–239 Realization 1, 13, 20, 61, 69–70, 77–78, 104, 109, 117, 122, 141, 133, 153, 165 Reintegration 124, 161, 204 Renaissance 55, 66, 75, 90, 168, 225–232, 238 Revolution 1–2, 52, 58, 237 Richard Clarerhouse Jebb 63–64 Righteous 83, 85, 114–116, 138, 146–147, 206, 215, 233–234 Ritual 54–55, 112, 130–132, 135, 138–140, 143, 167, 170, 210, 217 See also Halakha; Praxis; Techniques Rose 189n2, 190

Index Of Names And Subjects Saadia Gaon 60 Sacrifice 140, 183–184 Safed 137, 170 Samuel ibn Tibon 120 Scholem, Gershom 3–20, 50–52, 73–75, 124n74, 130n1, 137, 141, 174, 192–193, 197n30, 200, 202, 231–235, 237–238 Scripture 3, 30–31, 124, 196, 218, 238 Secret 1, 5n11, 19, 55, 58, 97, 114, 140, 143, 154, 159, 166, 177–178, 182, 185, 195, 202, 204, 212, 214, 221, 223–224 Sefirot 21, 99, 126–127, 130–134, 138–139, 144–145, 147–148, 155, 184, 187, 193–194, 206–207, 209, 216, 218, 220, 222–223 Semantic 157–158 Semi-eschatological 112, 176, 209 See also Initial integration; Quasi-eschatological Semi-divine 125–126 Shabbat 165–167, 192, 208–209, 211–218, 224, 241 Shefa 118, 155–156 See also Efflux Shekhinah 19, 94, 113–114, 135, 143, 173, 191, 202–203, 207, 209, 212–213, 215, 220, 223 Shem Tov ibn Falaquera 67, 73–74 R. Shimom bar Yochai (Rashbi) 198, 216 Shlomo ibn Gabirol 67n20, 73–74, 86–88, 120, 128 Shlomo Maimon 110–111 Shlomo Pines 91 Shneur Zalman of Liady (Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch) 235 Silence 9, 70, 197, 221–224 Sinking 175–181 See also Drowning; Ocean Sitting 56, 114, 145–147, 172, 207 Society 6, 9, 12, 41n66, 143, 168, 240 Somatic 40, 142–143, 216, 218, 235 Son 149 of God 58, 105, 155, 229–230, 234 Soul 11, 21, 34–40, 44, 50, 53, 61, 63, 66, 68–73, 79–89, 100, 103, 107–108, 114, 116n43, 120, 122–123, 127, 130, 137–140, 141n28, 142, 144–145, 147–148, 160–161, 165, 177–179, 182–188, 193–194, 207, 211, 215, 218, 222, 228, 238, 240 Additional/Supplementary 209, 216–218 Universal 138, 184

277 Splendor 72, 83, 85, 114, 213 Standing 14, 29, 32–38, 40, 42, 46, 53, 72–73, 116, 230 Static 122, 124, 155, 163 Stern, Samuel 74, 79–86 Sub-divine 2, 24, 63, 77, 101–102, 111–113, 122, 159, 189, 238 Sub-prophetic 94–95 Sufism 91–93, 96, 98–101, 106, 167–171, 173, 175, 180, 182–183, 185, 188, 189n2, 239 Swallowed 177–179, 235 Symbol 5, 7, 56–58, 113–115, 123, 145, 147, 171–174, 177, 183, 188, 190–191, 196, 207, 214–216, 233n51 Tawhid 60, 100, 133, 239 Teacher 73, 84–85, 120n63, 132, 136, 157, 166, 178 Techniques 135, 151–158, 160–161, 165–167, 170, 176, 187–188, 189, 201 See also Mystical experience Temple 54, 92, 94–95 Human temple 93, 95, 140 Tetragrammaton 91, 96–99, 140, 142, 144–145, 147–148, 154–167, 172, 185, 187–188, 218, 219n81, 240, 242 See also Divine name/s; YHVH Theological criteria 20n55, 90, 143, 237 Theosis 52–53, 56–57 Theosophy 19, 22, 126–127, 130–133, 139–140, 145, 148, 187, 189–190, 194, 201n44, 203, 208, 214n70 Theosophical language 130, 132–133, 187, 190, 199, 201, 224 See also Theosophical union (under ‘Union’) Theurgy 19, 22, 93, 128, 130–142, 148, 184–185, 201n44 Throne 51, 55–56, 123, 145–147, 173, 183, 205–208, 212, 233 Time 162–167, 208–209, 211–217, 240 Tiqqun 196–197 Torah 26, 31n21, 37, 46–47, 49, 90, 99–100, 117, 124, 132, 135, 138–140, 143, 146, 153–155, 159–160, 164–165, 196–197, 204–206, 224, 234 Transcendent 2, 5, 11, 13, 21, 28, 33, 35–40, 45, 63, 65, 69, 72, 76, 99, 117, 142, 193, 208, 238–240 Transformation 1–2, 21, 33, 44, 52, 55–58, 61–64, 68, 74, 76, 78–80, 85–86, 88–89,

278 Transformation (cont.) 97–99, 104–106, 113, 118, 121–127, 147, 153–160, 163, 175–176, 179, 199, 228n15, 229–230, 239–240 See also Apotheosis; Enoch into Metatron (under ‘Enoch’) Tsaddik 99, 191 Typologies 6, 10, 17, 42, 53, 141, 195, 200–201 Undifferentiating 219–220 Undifferentiated Oneness 205, 210, 219 Unification 13–14, 22, 61–62, 82, 89, 122, 130–134, 137, 141, 185, 193n14, 195–224, 242 Unified godhead 130, 190, 208 Union ‫( אתאחדותא‬itahduta) 123 Apophatic 7, 20n55, 21, 23, 25, 56, 65, 68–69, 143, 175, 233–235, 237 Corporal 142, 146 Embodied 22–23, 91, 94, 131, 134, 140, 142–144, 149–150, 232, 241 Epistemic 61–62, 87, 104, 172 Erotic 202–203, 208 Eschatological 21–22, 74, 99, 110, 112–118, 121–128, 144, 172–173, 175–180, 214–216, 228 Formulas of 19, 37, 62, 67, 87, 104–105, 114, 116, 122–127, 136, 151–153, 159, 171–172, 179, 180–181, 183, 189 Full 4, 6, 8, 39, 69, 72, 96, 104, 110, 123, 153, 160, 180–181, 228 Initial 105, 134, 140, 145, 148 Integrative 103 Metaphorical 49 Momentary 99, 144 Mutual 145, 147, 181 Negative 6–7, 20–21, 23, 63, 143, 172 Noetic 65–66, 76–78, 102–103, 107, 112–129, 136, 152–153, 159–160, 179–181, 215

Index Of Names And Subjects Positive 21, 62–63, 65, 68–69, 103, 140, 172, 176, 179, 181 Sexual 18, 132, 143, 149, 191, 202–203, 234 Theistic 26, 29, 40, 49, 230 Theosophical 22, 132–133, 148, 189–190, 206, 211, 214, 224 See also Exchanging names; He is He; Ittihad; Knowledge as union Universalization 61, 88, 103, 112, 138, 159–160, 182 Vessel 55, 92, 94–96, 99, 118, 121, 135, 138–140, 143–147, 182, 207 Vision 26n6, 32–37, 46, 68–69, 71, 74, 159, 195–196 Visualization 170, 187–188 See also Imagery; Imagination Voice 7, 9, 31, 159, 196–197, 221–224 Water 139, 166, 175–183, 198, 230 Wisdom 2, 21, 43, 55, 58, 83–85, 88, 93, 116, 127, 131–132, 134–137, 139–140, 149–150, 175, 180, 184–187 World to come 21, 73, 89, 105, 114, 124, 161, 164, 166, 216, 240 Worship 29, 54, 97–98, 119, 131–132 Yahad (‫ )יחד‬54–55 Yehuda Halevi 90–99, 106–108, 110, 124–125, 128, 142, 168–169, 237 YHVH 154, 187–188, 218–221 See also Tetragrammaton Yichud (‫ )יחוד‬54, 140, 195 Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov (Baal Shem Tov) 233, 235–236 Yohanan (ben Isaac) Alemanno 74–75, 108, 226–228 Zoharic corpus 202–204, 218

Index of Primary Sources Book of creation See Sefer Yetzirah Book of Five Substances 74 Chapter on Kavvanah by the Early Kabbalists See Sha‘ar ha-Kavvanah le-Mekubalim ha-Rishonim Commentary on the Mishnah (Maimonides), 112–114, 116, 136 De Anima 62, 76–77, 104, 108 Deuteronomy 4:4 (“‫ )”הדבקים‬29–32, 40–41, 165 6:4 (“‫ ”שמע ישראל‬/ “Hear, O Israel”) 19 10:20 (“‫ )”ובו תדבק‬29, 32n26, 37–38, 41, 45 11:22 (“‫ )”ולדבקה בו‬29, 31n21–22, 32n26, 123 13:5 (“‫ )”ובו תדבקון‬29, 32n26, 132 30:20 (“‫ )”ולדבקה בו‬29, 31, 32n26, 37–42, 45–46, 165 The Duties of the Heart See Hovot Ha-Levavot Elements of Theology 67 Emunot ve-Deot 60 Enneads 46n81, 67–68, 69n25, 71–73, 80n5 Epistle of Conjunction See Iggeret ha-Devequt Fons Vitae See Meqor Haim The Fountain of Life See Meqor Haim Genesis 2:24 (“‫“\”והיו לבשר אחד‬one flesh”)  18–19, 29, 31, 37, 42–45, 142–143, 149, 177–179, 187–188 Ginat Egoz 221 Guide for the Perplexed 67n20, 102, 109, 115n38, 117–120, 128, 155, 159, 168 Hayyei Ha Olam Haba 159n36, 161, 165–166 Hayy ibn Yaqzan 105–107, 226 Heptaplus 229–231 Hovot Ha-Levavot 60, 99–101, 168

Idra rabba 196 Iggeret ha-Devequt 226–227 Iggeret Hayawan ben Yaqzan 226 See also Hayy ibn Yaqzan; Iggeret ha-Devequt Iggeret HaKodesh 148–150 Ikhwan al-safa 81–82, 85 Kuzari 90–99, 107–108, 125, 168, 215n73 Liber de Causis 67 Me’irat ‘Einayim 174, 183–184 Metaphysics (Aristotle’s) 61–63, 76–77, 117n48 Meqor Hayim 74, 86–88 Oration 230–231 Or HaSekhel 160 Otzar Eden Ganuz 164 Ozar Hayyim 174, 177–178, 181–183, 185, 187–188 Prakim Behatzlacha 169 Psalms 89, 188 Pseudo Empedocles 74, 87, 227n12 Reshit Hokhmah 232 Secret of the Tree of Knowledge 138–140 Sefer HaMa’alot 73–74 Sefer ha-Tzeruf 90 Sefer Sha’arei Tzedeq 90, 166n68 Sefer Yetzirah 84, 154–155, 157 Sha‘ar ha-Gemul 113, 122n65, 123n67 Sha‘ar ha-Kavvanah le-Mekubalim ha-Rishonim 141–142 Sitrei Torah 159–160 Tale of the Prince and the Ascetic 82 Timaeus 68 Theology of Aristotle 69n25, 72–74, 80n5, 82, 227n12 Zohar 17, 57, 74, 86, 90, 96, 115, 133, 137, 143, 144–148, 161, 189–224, 225n1, 237–238, 240